|
According to Steam, AMD has a hair over 25% of the 'gamer' CPU market: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey It also shows Firefox as being installed on 60% of computers, compared to Chrome's 11%. Interesting because I just read an article that claims Chrome is closing in on FireFox's marketshare http://www.businessinsider.com/google-chrome-market-share-2011-9
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Bob Morales posted:According to Steam, AMD has a hair over 25% of the 'gamer' CPU market: I use Chrome, but have FF installed for things that don't support Chrome (or IE tab). Steam would pick up on the FF installation, while a web based test wouldn't. I imagine the people who use FF for everyday browsing probably don't have chrome installed. Edit: Also, everyone and their grandma loves Google, but FF is pretty much  , which probably coincides with the TF2 population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:If it's fast enough for you, then that is good enough. But if you compare it to other CPU's it's obvious how weak it is. Did WinZip ever actually get around to having multithreading or is it still just singlethreaded?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
I was looking around newegg and comparing some prices and performance on the Anandtech bench, and it seems to me that Intel/AMD are pretty competitive below 200 dollars. If you want to spend less than 150 though, AMD seems like a no brainer. Lots of 3+ core options whereas Intel has nothing at that level. No one is really OK with a dual core anymore, right? Are you guys all only interested in chips that cost more than 200 dollars? Aren't AMD motherboards a bit cheaper as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Jago posted:I was looking around newegg and comparing some prices and performance on the Anandtech bench, and it seems to me that Intel/AMD are pretty competitive below 200 dollars. If you want to spend less than 150 though, AMD seems like a no brainer. Lots of 3+ core options whereas Intel has nothing at that level. No one is really OK with a dual core anymore, right? With current processors, there's a very small price gap from about $500 to $650 where you can build a system based on AMD and it'll be competitive with Core 2 Quads for per-thread performance. Below that, you can't beat pre-built for performance/$ (that segment's Sandy Bridge i3 processors with their high clocks are a very solid performer for lower end systems even though they're dual core with hyperthreading). Above that, you ought to be building an Intel based system unless you just like being several years behind for performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
In a number of tasks a dual core i3-2100 is going to outperform a comparable quad-core Phenom in the same price range, particularly if you're a gamer on a budget. You'd have to drop down to the Pentium-branded Intels (or have some very highly parallel workloads) to see AMD comfortably beating on price/performance. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Here's the 105 price point. The Intel dual core beats the Athon II at games and the sysmark stuff, but it seems that anything multithreaded at all the Athlon meets or beats it. I'd call this one a toss up. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=143 This is the 129 price point. The Phenom X4 965 reigns supreme. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=118 At 189 Intel takes a decisive lead except for heavily threaded apps. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=363 I guess I'm coming from a home-build perspective myself, so I might be biased. Also, I guess I am building computers that are right around that 500-700 dollar range. On a practical side, do you really need more than 60fps in a game? AMD's generally larger number of cores blasts out video encoding much faster... ah, well Intel is going to be using it's onboard video to do that soon anyway. I guess I'll just say that if you are assembling a "bad-rear end" system and trying to max out the price performance curve, AMD wins hands down. If you are trying to make a super bad rear end system... well.... Intel, no arguments. AMD is hosed and only exists because of ATI and Intel not being allowed to crush them because of regulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
If ARM ever gets a significant foothold in the mainstream desktop or mobile PC market, I wonder if that will change the whole regulatory/monopoly argument for AMD
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Jago posted:Here's the 105 price point. The Intel dual core beats the Athon II at games and the sysmark stuff, but it seems that anything multithreaded at all the Athlon meets or beats it. I'd call this one a toss up. Hardly anyone is going to buy a single CPU alone. Add in a $120 mobo and AMD already loses hands down in price/performance/power draw even if the 2500K was priced $100 higher. That is how far behind AMD is now. Put overclocking into the mix and AMD loses even more; it's difficult for a 965BE to hit 4GHz and it still won't touch a stock 2500K while turning into a small oven. Whereas 2500K is 4GHz guaranteed on the stock cooler. With regards to "60 fps in games":  (Side note: see how a 4 year old Q6600 beats a 3GHz Phenom II with a 600MHz deficit!)  AMD is far from 60 fps. You really want to save $100 now over that? And how many games are going to become even more CPU-limited in the future? No one is disputing AMD is cheaper but they are a far cry from the price/performance champions in the Athlon XP/64 days. They can't even hold on to that at the $100 mark....And that is how deep into poo poo they are. freeforumuser fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Jago posted:This is the 129 price point. The Phenom X4 965 reigns supreme. No, you're comparing the 965 to the old i3-530 rather than the Sandy Bridge-based i3-2100, which as of writing, is $5 cheaper than the 965. Comparable boards are about the same price, +/- $10. Lets call it even. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289 In many real world apps and most games (particularly some not listed such as Starcraft 2) -- the dual core Intel equals or handily beats the 965. And draws a lot less power doing so. AMD does provide good value, but you've got to go lower than the i3. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Jago posted:Here's the 105 price point. The Intel dual core beats the Athon II at games and the sysmark stuff, but it seems that anything multithreaded at all the Athlon meets or beats it. I'd call this one a toss up. How about the $89 price point, which is how much I just picked up a Phenom II 925 for. :p
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:No, you're comparing the 965 to the old i3-530 rather than the Sandy Bridge-based i3-2100, which as of writing, is $5 cheaper than the 965. Comparable boards are about the same price, +/- $10. Lets call it even. joe944 posted:How about the $89 price point, which is how much I just picked up a Phenom II 925 for. :p To someone who isn't brand loyal and thinks Intel has hosed AMD over with effectively-forced bundling and other really underhanded market tactics, it is not even remotely comforting to see that AMD provides a means to put together a computer that is performance competitive with an Intel computer from late 2007, for a price that's about $200 away from dramatically better performance (you know, 2011 performance). And the current indications about Bulldozer seem to be that by the time they DO get it out, they'll be an even narrower price gap away from providing performance that's competitive with Intel chips from two generations ago. It's an ugly picture. It seems unrecoverable for AMD right now. Every bit of news that comes out is bad news. Intel cedes markets where they don't mind doing so because they don't have to worry about getting busted up as a monopoly. If AMD is betting the farm on ARM platform computing, maybe things will change, but right now I don't see how anyone can be anything but pessimistic. What keeps AMD going? The fact that computers don't have to be blazing fast for most things and there's this narrow region where they are price competitive. But that's becoming tenuous as hell, the price gap has narrowed substantially. How are they going to hit that same price point with yield difficulties that are clearly more than just an annoyance, while Intel is just quietly continuing to push toward superior manufacturing processes, performance increases, architectural improvements (as opposed to AMD's architectural gambles), and power efficiency? The one advantage AMD enjoys could be taken away from them if Intel were stupid enough to do it. If Bulldozer had come out when it was supposed to, that would have been a foothold because there are some people who would probably buy on principle, and the server architecture might have actually been pretty cool/useful, but Intel has had a year to keep pushing the envelope. I am glad I don't have AMD stock. Intel stock doesn't seem to enjoy performance relative to their market position, but AMD stock sure does take a hit comparable to their processors' dwindling penetration into key sectors. gently caress, man. This blows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
Hog Butcher posted:Did WinZip ever actually get around to having multithreading or is it still just singlethreaded?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 10:06
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:AMD does provide good value, but you've got to go lower than the i3. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=406 *takes a look at the chart* Nope. A G620 is almost neck to neck to a 565 BE while being $32 cheaper, having a 800MHz deficit and consuming a good 50W less power, and the HD2000 IGP is a good deal better than the crappy AMD mobo IGPs. Needless to say the Athlon II X2 line gets entirely slaughtered if the 565 BE is that bad. Both of those CPUs aren't even of good value for money in the grand scheme of things, but it does demonstrate that AMD doesn't even have a low end to speak of. More like "how cheap can one get while building a PC and doesn't care about performance or power consumption" end. freeforumuser fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 12:18
|
|
|
The way I see it is that AMD used to provide a good value but without a hell of a chip to counter Sandy Bridge there is just less and less of a reason to bother. Today you can put together a Pentium or Celeron class CPU with a low end board and it'll cost you just over a hundred bucks, with one hell of an upgrade path in the future. I love AMD -- haven't built an intel system since the Celeron 300A -- but if I build a new box I will have to look at at the 1155 socket. Even if the 2500Ks are $200+ and are unlikely to have a big drop in price, the platform can accommodate inexpensive, decent processors up to monstrous computing behemoths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Looks like I'd have to value video encoding and not worry about those extra game FPS to consider AMD a good value at this point. Except for the fact that I don't think that dual core is good enough even if games performance suffers on AMD. Here is a notable exception http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,3.html Found more! http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/09/choosing-dual-or-quad-core.html Am I cherry picking? Kind of. I would assume that it scales down to the i3's pretty similarly. I think multi-core gaming is going to be the trend. I would argue that at the price points where you are choosing between a dual core Intel solution vs a 4 core AMD solution AMD is still the good choice. Still, it's a small slice, p sad. In the end though I guess it's time to learn the Intel lines. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
Jago posted:I would argue that at the price points where you are choosing between a dual core Intel solution vs a 4 core AMD solution AMD is still the good choice. Still, it's a small slice, p sad. You're acting like a core is a core is a core and more cores=better always. Not at -all- true. Single-threaded performance has to do with the efficiency of the architecture itself. AMD's clock-for-clock performance is poo poo compared to Intel, hence having to add extra cores to even have a horse in the race with usage scenarios that can make use of additional cores. Intel is kicking AMD's rear end all over town at inter-process communication. There is a reason the articles you've found are from 2010 and 2007, man. Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
All this time I've taken IPC to refer to Instructions Per Clock (which Intel is also kicking AMD's butt with). The More You Know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:All this time I've taken IPC to refer to Instructions Per Clock (which Intel is also kicking AMD's butt with). The More You Know. I would bet that is a more common usage, a search on enthusiast forums seems to turn up that more often than the other. No happy face to put on it, really, there isn't anything AMD is better at right now except price (not price:performance, not price:power:performance, just "yeah, you can make a cheap computer if you want to with their stuff") - that narrow price category for building a complete system, or a narrow price category where I'm taking Alereon's word as reliable that AMD is the processor of choice for off the shelf sourced highly parallel supercomputers (which apparently make the decline from 75%/25% server market share Intel vs AMD to 95%/5% somehow less completely devastating as a statistic). 5% in servers, 25% on Steam (where you'd expect to see representation of the enthusiast market I'd think, that's not -too- bad I suppose, shows people are building with them at least), the Llanos are doing okay as a processor for low end laptops but anyone have numbers there? The last news regarding the relatively shining star of the company's departure was that it was, paraphrasing, ohhh god whyyy; did that get any better since then? I'll pretty much take any good news at this point. No benches this close to launch, maaajor downward expectations management for yields and profit,  all over. I want to see this as something other than a disaster, so if anyone with their finger seriously on the pulse of the market can see a way that their situation isn't basically "Intel's required competition under law" right now I'd be pleased as punch, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Agreed posted:You're acting like a core is a core is a core and more cores=better always. You're putting words into my mouth. Some games, and more by the day run a lot better on more than two cores even with fairly significant per core advantages. Same with video encoding. Deus Ex: HR, Space Marine, and Battlefield 3's system requirements all require "any" dual core chip and recommend "any" quad core chip. They are multi-threaded and suffer on two cores. If you want me to try to simplify what I'm saying, I guess I would say that I think that 2 cores are not enough. The dates of the articles I found are irrelevent, multithreading is becoming more common as time goes on which increases the utility of these extra cores. To reiterate one more thing for you, I believe AMD has a price/performance advantage in a small slice of the consumer market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Look, your basic assumptions about how processors work are wrong. I was trying to say that less directly, I shouldn't have. Until you understand more about what makes a given processor faster than another you're missing the requisite groundwork to know what you're talking about. The statement "in games that can make use of more cores, turning off some cores on the same processor results in performance drops compared to not turning them off" is so obvious it's practically tautological. In one of the articles you linked, there was one comparison that showed just how much of a per-core, per-clock advantage the previous generation of Intel processors enjoyed over the AMD processor under comparison. Specifically, when they limited the AMD processor to 2 cores out of 4 and performance nosedived; when they did the same to the last-gen i7 Intel processor, it barely dropped. That's because the i7 processor's per-core performance outpaces AMD's by enough that it didn't need all of its available processing power to not be CPU limited. Extrapolate that to games which are now advertising compatibility with 4-core processors. If a 2-core processor with hyperthreading exceeds the performance of a different 4-core processor, and both versions of IPC are strongly in favor of the 2-core processor with hyperthreading, what you have is a dual core processor meeting or exceeding a slower and less advanced 4-core processor. Because it's not really how many cores there are, it's how efficiently they operate. Systems are a fair point. You can build an AMD system, complete, that has about as good a chance of overclocking as any other, for that little niche between $500 and $650. Okay, got yourself a computer, and Steam's got enough of a view of things to make some sense out of it, apparently you would not be alone. A quarter or a bit better of the market are running AMD too. How many of them built it, god knows; AMD does still ship in pre-built computers, it's just not a very good option for desktops, though Llano is pretty cool and maybe some casual Steam gamers are doing the whole integrated GPU thing. AMD does have something vaguely sexy going on there but if it carries them I will be very surprised, as Ivy Bridge is bringing Intel much closer, fast, with better power management. Llano will never be and was never intended to be a desktop replacement; anyone think AMD would be in a good position if they lost inexpensive, low performance laptop buyers? I digress. Back to systems and the DIY thing. Raise the budget for building that system by a couple hundred bucks and it becomes completely no contest because there are architectural flaws in AMD's current-gen desktop CPUs (pre-Bulldozer) which prevent them from exceeding 4GHz in a 64-bit operating environment, while any 2500K made will not only dramatically outperform them in pretty much anything at stock settings, but also overclock trivially to between 4GHz and 4.3GHz, with most of them able to hit 4.4GHz or 4.5GHz before there's any kind of a voltage wall. That clock disparity, which is, again, an architectural ceiling on AMD's 64-bit processors at least until Bulldozer hits, is a total slaughter. Intel doesn't just beat AMD clock for clock this generation, it beats modern AMD processors clock for clock with its Core 2 processors. Substantially. To demonstrate further that just more cores doesn't mean much, look at what happens when an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE 3.3GHz goes up against a 2500K 3.3GHz. The 2500K has 4 cores, no hyperthreading, the AMD has 6 cores. Same clock speed, just dramatically better efficiency on the part of the 2500K. It's hard to see, because that's 6 of AMD's best pre-Bulldozer cores up against 4 of Intel's second best pre-Ivy Bridge cores and it is not at all flattering to AMD in terms of price:performance or price:performance:power. Add overclocking to the mix and it's a total wash. What AMD has right now is not a price:performance advantage, just "for $150-$200 less than a system that performs dramatically better, you can build a computer that won't bottleneck you for now provided that you overclock it." In business terms, there's a niche there where they can do it cheaper. Gotta be better, cheaper, or both, right? Intel wins the lower end market in desktops delivering both, and the higher end market in desktops and servers by delivering drastically better performance at a price that is still affordable. For DIYers I feel it's worth the extra $150-$200 to get such a huge performance leap, personally, but if all you care about is "will it play a game that can use 4 cores" then I'll bunt and acknowledge, for whatever it's worth, that yes, for now it will. But so will the Core 2 Q6600, and the Q6600 is from 2007, clocked at 2.6GHz to the Athlon II X4 645's 3.1GHz. I hope it's clear that it isn't about just having cores, it's about how the processor and chipset as a whole integrates the processing horsepower, the multiple core architecture, and the system functions like the path from RAM to the processor and many other factors into a package which can efficiently perform calculations to do whatever. If the only advantage AMD has in the consumer market is in DIYers who are 100% stuck with a budget, that's a really meager niche. And those guys could be in for some real disappointment in a year or two when their computer sporting the 4-core processor that started off with four year old performance the day it was built stops running games so well, and it's not necessarily so easy to get them near or to that 4.0GHz maximum clock to try to buy some more time. Meanwhile Sandy Bridge is still humming along just fine (and Intel's made better, faster, less power hungry processors with better integration of everything, including the damned GPU where AMD has put so much of its weight). Bulldozer was supposed to fix the situation and it was supposed to do so back when the situation wasn't quite as hosed as it is now. Obviously it hasn't worked out that way for what are, it is becoming clearer, a lot of reasons. So the current generation of AMD processors are a swiftly eroding stopgap, and Bulldozer is a day late and a dollar short unless every bit of information we've got so far is wrong (and some of it definitely isn't which suggests the rest of it very well isn't either - there's no upside to the well-respected honcho heading for the hills, or admitted yield issues and sharp revenue adjustments on their old AND new production processes, and daily stock dives taking the company's value into the toilet). Agreed fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Oct 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
If BD stinks at launch, we could see another Phenom -> Phenom II type transition where engineers save the day by fine tuning the design and dramatically increasing performance. We're talking about an extremely complex design being implemented by an equally complex fabrication process. Months of delay shouldn't be surprising to anyone. How anyone could feel strongly about the long term status of either company evades me. Each successive generation introduces new engineering challenges, and having a larger R&D budget doesn't guarantee success by any means. Nature has a way of eventually introducing parity wherever competition exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Let's not forget Sandy Bridge wasn't the smoothest launch either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Bloody Antlers posted:If BD stinks at launch, we could see another Phenom -> Phenom II type transition where engineers save the day by fine tuning the design and dramatically increasing performance. Yeah, but only if you define "eventually" as "so far in the future that both companies no longer exist". There's no guarantee of parity in the short or medium term, here
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Bloody Antlers posted:If BD stinks at launch, we could see another Phenom -> Phenom II type transition where engineers save the day by fine tuning the design and dramatically increasing performance. There was no fine-tuning from Phenom I to II; all AMD simply did was slapped an extra 4MB L3 cache and clocked it higher on a 45nm process. The thing if BD fails, it cannot be saved in the easy manner like in Phenon II, as it's already has a ton of cache, very highly clocked and 32nm like SB. If you are talking about an "extremely complex design", the same also apply for Intel. How was Intel able to stick to its roadmap like clockwork with three entire architectures (Conroe, Nehalem, SB) and 2 die-shrinks (Penryn, Westmere), while AMD can't even get BD out of the door after 4 years since Phenom I? There is no "introducing parity" here, more like chasing a airplane with a bicycle. Mind you this was the same AMD that went from the original K7 to A64 winning streak from 99-03. freeforumuser fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
It's starting to sound like bulldozer might be a gamble in the same way that netburst and itanium were a gamble for intel. Netburst and itanium were all designed with the assumption that the "performance deficiencies" would be overcome by some sort of scaling, clockspeed for netburst and crazy compiliers for itanium. Bulldozer looks like it's betting not on clockspeed but concurrency and eventually offloading more and more work onto the GPU. Even if BD flops I wouldn't be surprised if intel lifted some ideas off of it like they have been so good at doing in the past. VVV Thats the goals for the followups to bulldozer in the same family. The whole fusion thing. Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Bloody Antlers posted:If BD stinks at launch, we could see another Phenom -> Phenom II type transition where engineers save the day by fine tuning the design and dramatically increasing performance. Yea been wondering the same thing. AMD has been very quiet on BD but they're already starting to pimp Vishera aka Piledriver. Smacks of the whole Phenom launch all over again, but then that has probably been obvious for at least a month or 2. Longinus00 posted:Bulldozer looks like it's betting not on clockspeed but concurrency and eventually offloading more and more work onto the GPU.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Huge Effort Post Good lord. Thanks for taking the time to type all that. Having just bought a $200 990fx motherboard, I feel pretty silly at this point. I'll have to stick to AMD for the time being because my investment has already been made. I'm hoping that the architecture changes in bulldozer going forward will provide better real-world performance in a way that's not immediately measurable with the benchmarks we currently use. It's a longshot and a pipedream, I'm probably just trying to justify the money I spent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
AMDs stock keeps getting rocked, there seems to be very little confidence in them anymore. Its a drat shame what a few years of playing catchup does to your brand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Rumors have it the first bulldozers will be coming out on the 12th
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:Rumors have it the first bulldozers will be coming out on the 12th Rumors have had release dates for years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Bloody Antlers posted:Nature has a way of eventually introducing parity wherever competition exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
Caseman posted:Good lord. Thanks for taking the time to type all that. Having just bought a $200 990fx motherboard, I feel pretty silly at this point. I'll have to stick to AMD for the time being because my investment has already been made. I'm hoping that the architecture changes in bulldozer going forward will provide better real-world performance in a way that's not immediately measurable with the benchmarks we currently use. It's a longshot and a pipedream, I'm probably just trying to justify the money I spent. I know I paint a really bleak picture there, and there are lots of reasons to try to maintain realistic expectations even though that means seeing a brand we all need to perform strongly instead get mired in all kinds of poo poo... But nonetheless, there is still some hope, we don't completely know what Bulldozer performance will be like. It's an architectural gamble in a lot of ways, and them leaving Bapco was justified, even though it stings the image of the company (take their toys and go home because the benchmark software makes them look bad - justified or not, doesn't go over well for consumer confidence). Sysmark is Intelmark now. Once it launches and Anandtech gets their hands on it to really put it through the paces we'll know what we're dealing with. AMD's stock is suffering, I've presented a lot of reasons I think that has been the case, but it still remains to be seen what we can really expect from the new architecture. All it has to do is be close enough, within a certain price range, for AMD to hold on. And I do think Llano is still viable if they can maintain performance on it going forward, though Ivy Bridge will probably provide a substantial challenge to them because of the dramatic efficiency improvement Intel has managed there. AMD calling its CPUs with an integrated GPU "APUs" (which should be reserved for the special class it denotes, accelerated processing units) is kind of bullshit and they know it, but nonetheless if more things are coded to take advantage of the sort of fast processing that can be done on GPUs, AMD might get some unexpected advantages in the future based on heavy investment on the die. But so might Intel. Someone said recently that Intel is very good at seeing AMD's good ideas and capitalizing on them, and that is supremely true. Nobody knows what ARMs are going to do. That could be a game changer, but AMD has totally different competition there. I tried to start this post not sounding like I'm  at AMD's chances, I hope I haven't failed to hold onto that over the course of it. There's something really dreary about having to qualify every potentially positive thing with how it could actually not work out so well, when the same is not true of Intel's stuff and hasn't been for a few years. AMD can't afford a Netburst gently caress-up, Intel could. So let's hope it's not like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Rumors have had release dates for years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:It's weird to think about how long we've been reading about Bulldozer. I think it first started getting thrown around in summer 2007, but maybe even earlier than that. Bulldozer: the
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:Bulldozer: the Nah, that award has to go to HOLOGRAPHIC DISCS. Yeah, loving industry. We were supposed to have 3TB discs that were as cheap and as throwaway as CDs by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Jago posted:Deus Ex: HR, Space Marine, and Battlefield 3's system requirements all require "any" dual core chip and recommend "any" quad core chip. They are multi-threaded and suffer on two cores. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:Not on Intel's two cores. That is loving brutal. Jesus. Bulldozer, please be at least as good as Lynnfield, because that hurts to look at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:It's weird to think about how long we've been reading about Bulldozer. I think it first started getting thrown around in summer 2007, but maybe even earlier than that. The whole BD debacle is looking eerily reminiscent to the Phenom I launch. Lots of official slides on how BD is better than Intel blah blah blah but no mention of any actual performance or power consumption, a useless 2560x1440 gaming comparison vs a 990X and the 8GHz LN2 OC, and leaked underwhelming benchmarks that which was exactly what happened to Phenom I. In fact, I would take AMD's silence over BD performance as evidence of BD being nowhere as good as AMD's hyping up it is. You just simply don't keep mum if you have a killer product after losing consistently for 5.5 years, and you can't hide it from your 100+ billion competitor that knows everything through good ol' corporate espionage. One can argue AMD was pretty quiet before the HD 5000 series launch, but that was more on how underwhelming the lineup was compared to cheap HD 4000s than actual failure itself, and the GPU sector was and still is a market that are very competitive in. freeforumuser fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
freeforumuser posted:The whole BD debacle is looking eerily reminiscent to the Phenom I launch. Lots of official slides on how BD is better than Intel blah blah blah but no mention of any actual performance or power consumption, a useless 2560x1440 gaming comparison vs a 990X and the 8GHz LN2 OC, and leaked underwhelming benchmarks that which was exactly what happened to Phenom I. I wonder, how does it get worse than 60% clock for clock, this thing is gonna kill!... no, 50% clock for clock, that's still good!... okay 35% clock for clock, look, it is really hard to make a processor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 16:40
|
|