Go Go Visual Computing

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,687
While it is not popular to be an AMD fan now days, we do think that AMD has a tremendous chance of “rising again” here in the very near future. Seems as though the guys over at PCPer think so as well. That said, my Intel Q6600 and 8800 GTX are right at home under my desk.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this piece, NVIDIA and Intel seem content to fight tooth and nail with each other while leaving AMD on the sidelines to watch. If that is the case I would imagine AMD will be looking on with a big grin. Why? Because much of what NVIDIA and Intel are fighting over is what AMD has already discovered and implemented. Let me explain.
Click to expand...
 
tfa said:
n nearly back to back swings, both Intel and NVIDIA executives landed metaphorical punches to the gut of one another in attempt to show analysts, stock holders and, we assume they still matter, PC users, why their companies are going to be the technology leaders for the future computing.
Click to expand...

good friggin quote
 
I'm still AMD, thats mainly because when I originally built my computer the Core 2 Duo was just starting to be released and wasn't looking all that hot. But if I was to build a new computer or suggest something now I'd go with intel.

My HTPC is also AMD but that was because I wanted to upgrade my 5200+ to a 6400+ in my desktop, so the HTPC got the 5200+.
 
i'm still using my opty 165 and its still plenty fast for me.i really hope amd can rise again. give intel some stiff competition
 
Deviationer said:
I'm still AMD, thats mainly because when I originally built my computer the Core 2 Duo was just starting to be released and wasn't looking all that hot. But if I was to build a new computer or suggest something now I'd go with intel.

My HTPC is also AMD but that was because I wanted to upgrade my 5200+ to a 6400+ in my desktop, so the HTPC got the 5200+.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?
Where on earth did you get that idea from? :confused:
 
I think that there may be some merit to those claims. It seems also that the multicore war is afoot...

Link.
 
If I don't have a 16-core processor with graphics processing on chip that uses 35W within 2 years, I'm going to be very upset. Also, I want a flying car. Weren't we supposed to have those too?

In all seriousness, this is a step in the right direction, but it's only one side of the coin. There's a lot more here than meets the eye. Like transformers. Alright, "all seriousness" can only last so long.
 
Deviationer said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

intel parts weren't worth the couple hundred dollar premium over the athlon x2 and most of the time they matched the performance of the top athlon cpus. That started to change after I build my computer in jan 07 when the core 2 cpus started to get refined more and come down in cost.
Click to expand...

Games are GPU limited...this is here you should have been looking:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMCwzLCxobmV3cw==
 
Many games are CPU limited still, and at that, GPU's, esp those in SLI, are CPU limited as well...
 
Why can't we stack the chips into a nice 3d cube, like rubik's cube...

would be so cool....
 
That's a 2006 article, on Anandtech website they tend to agree more on the theory that modern games are CPU limited, not by design of the CPU itself but by software design and architecture of both.

Forcing VSYNC off in the driver can decrease performance by 25% under the DX10 applications we tested. We see a heavier impact in CPU limited situations. Interestingly enough, as we discussed last week, with our high end hardware, Crysis and World in Conflict were heavily CPU and system limited. Take a look for yourself at the type of performance gains we saw from disabling VSYNC. These tests were run on Crysis using the GeForce 9800 GX2 in Quad SLI.
Click to expand...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3275&p=4

And that's a situation we're going to see more and more often in the future, take crysis or CoD4 for example, build a 3-way SLi rig and clock your CPU -20% then benchmark as you turn it up, frame rate will go up as your cpu crunch more.It's not linear, your mainboard is factoring, but it gives you the general idea.

Operating system and system architecture design are just not right at this point in time, no matter how many cores we will add, no matter how fast CPU are, we are getting better performance due to raw power, not design and in gaming we are CPU limited, hardware and software wise.

Yes CPU can do much more, but this is not the point, as long as we keep using the same OS architecture we will not leap forward, and Intel-AMD-Nvidia trying to force API and technologies into current system form is just not right, we are not seeing the performance we should see from any of those technologies, and are using those result as base to judge them.

The computing industry really need to break legacy support, draw a line, and build a new OS and hardware from ground up using new technologies available.

It doesn't matter if your CPU as a million cores if your main application is using a single thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top