AMD says “PC ports of next-generation console titles are likely to struggle” on Intel

Meh, I'll believe it when I see it. I doubt it though. The FX 8350's multithreaded capabilities are only on par with that of Intel's 3770k, so it'll struggle as well. The only way I can see that happening is that if PC ports take heavy advantage of HSA for AMD's APUs.
 
Tsumi said:
Meh, I'll believe it when I see it. I doubt it though. The FX 8350's multithreaded capabilities are only on par with that of Intel's 3770k, so it'll struggle as well. The only way I can see that happening is that if PC ports take heavy advantage of HSA for AMD's APUs.
Click to expand...

They are talking about on-die graphics.

The title is a bit misleading.

AMD is only talking about Intel's GPU abilities, or lack thereof.
 
Lol... talk about a misleading title and a misleading post by the OP. And my bad for not clicking on the article.

Yeah, Intel is going to continue to be behind, it'll take them a few years to catch up in terms of on-die graphics.
 
True when you are talking about CPUs, 8x 2GHz behave differently than 4x 3.3 GHz. But GTX 660 and similar have so much GPU power in comparison to on board chips they will not even care.
 
Next gen titles ported to Windows will also struggle on AMD PC APUs too. Kind of a stupid point to bring up if you ask me.
 
Tsumi said:
Lol... talk about a misleading title and a misleading post by the OP. And my bad for not clicking on the article.

Yeah, Intel is going to continue to be behind, it'll take them a few years to catch up in terms of on-die graphics.
Click to expand...

Not on notebooks, where on-die graphics are the most important. And no, I'm not referring to the new GT3e parts! See the HD 4600 notebook review here, where it matches AMD's best:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.93188.0.html

This is GT2, their mainstream part. Everything Core i3 and higher will feature this part or better. It beats AMD on the notebook because Intel has TDP budget to spare, and they don't need 4 cores. Richland is a bit faster, but will you notice a 15% difference?.

AMD can only overwhelm HD 4600 when they have 65+ watts to work with. This gives them the SFF/AIO desktop market, but laptops outnumber that by a massive amount.

This article is just bullshit posturing in response to Intel's bullshit posturing. They will constantly trade places in the battle of the onboard GPU because there's only so much die space you can dedicate to it. Both companies have EXCELLENT embedded GPUs, so we the consumers win :D
 
Last edited:
Ricky-Gervais.gif

Seriously... the reason x86 will still be relevant in the future is cuz of Intel. Not 2000w AMD.
 
Misleading title and op post. If you actually read the article, they are talking about the igpu.
 
Well, of course AMD APU's kick the crap out of Intel in the iGPU market. AMD will be able to continue to kick them in the teeth for a long while given their strong GPU arm the company has at their disposal with decades of experience. Intel has always sucked with anything graphics related. For those of us using discrete GPU's it's just wasted die space that we loyally thank Intel for doing [/sarcasm]. I have faith my 660 will for the most part kick both consoles simultaneously in the ass. If that's an overstatement, thankfully I bought two.
 
I'm proud of you guys! Finally everyone came together in total agreement in a thread!

Intel sux and will suck for the foreseeable future :eek:


iGPU department at least! ;)
 
defaultluser said:
Not on notebooks, where on-die graphics are the most important. And no, I'm not referring to the new GT3e parts! See the HD 4600 notebook review here, where it matches AMD's best:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.93188.0.html

This is GT2, their mainstream part. Everything Core i3 and higher will feature this part or better. It beats AMD on the notebook because Intel has TDP budget to spare, and they don't need 4 cores. Richland is a bit faster, but will you notice a 15% difference?.
Click to expand...

Now, to give some context, that's a several hundred dollar i7 versus a <$200 A10-4600m... Which isn't Richland either, correct?
 
sushiwarrior said:
Now, to give some context, that's a several hundred dollar i7 versus a <$200 A10-4600m... Which isn't Richland either, correct?
Click to expand...

Just because the lower-priced chips won't be released for a few months does not mean we can't anticipate the configurations and clock speeds. They have yet to fill-out the mid-range parts in the 35/37w sector yet. In the past Intel has been able to maintain GT2 across a wide range of processor configurations and TDP levels, so we have every indication that this will continue with Haswell.

And I saw over the course of the Ivy Bridge lifetime in the 35w segment, Core i3 notebooks were cost-competitive with top-end AMD Trinity. Most OEMs were charging in the $550-700 range for higher-end Trinity, and you could get Core i3 for the same price. With HD 4600 this brings Intel a lot closer in iGPU performance than last time (Intel got more performance bump than Richland).

Maybe I'll be wrong about the Haswell generation pricing, but I don't expect to be so.
 
Last edited:
I would think the issue is AMD GPUs( both consoles) and Nvidia GPUs PC..Games will be optimized for AMD GPUs and Nv could have issues.So yeah, this should be in the video card section. ;)
 
We have to factor in the rumor true or not that the PS 4 will use system ram of 8Gb GDDR5 as the cpu/gpu is already stearmlined as to cut pathways down between cpu/gpu but run on DDR3 in today standard so how much effect that would have is still unclear but as we know GDDR5 runs at 6-7Ghz.
 
If that quote is from the computex 2013 press conference it is wrong.

The quote is made by the graphics guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ueHW0bJuZPQ around half way just after Lisa Su went from stage.

And what was said it would run better on AMD hardware and he was talking graphics..Intel won't struggle on the same code due to it being 8 threads as well. Would native code run faster on AMD sure, cripple Intel no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top