According to recent reports, Intel has had discussions with the intent of possibly purchasing large chip maker Nvidia. The reports claim Jen-Hsun Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, would become the head of the new merged company. This is not the first time the companies have talked, with Intel opening discussions back in 2006 when rival AMD made their play to purchase ATI technologies. Nvidia ...
Read full articleOriginally posted by ivymike:AMD has ATI for video...Intel has S**t for video...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
Did somebody say "Monopoly"???
Originally posted by KillerBug:I have always had a tit for tat, pseudo 'real world' usage argument over this statement for eons... not exactly worth getting into again seeing as there are so many fences to hang a hypothesis on...
...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
Originally posted by LordRuss:My sentiments exactly!
Originally posted by KillerBug:I have always had a tit for tat, pseudo 'real world' usage argument over this statement for eons... not exactly worth getting into again seeing as there are so many fences to hang a hypothesis on...
...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
But play it safe to say that Nvidia is such a graphics force unto itself that there is no doubt they needn't pair with anyone.
Intel (like AMD) has hit the operating threshold. So making a processor more 'capable' is what's going to bring your customers running. Hyperthreading just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather have real cores. However, onboard video assist seems silly, other than the laptop/netbook market. That just sounds like we're getting back to making the RISC processor.
I'm just still wondering how Intel can release a flagship processor for a G note with a straight face that Tom's Hardware is showing it to only marginally perform around the newest AMD Bulldozer at less that a third the cost.
Tweak the software so my AMD system will perform to the Intel specs, conspiracy be damned. I'll wait the 1.5 more minutes for the movie to compress rather than spend 1K more on an Intel computer.
Originally posted by LordRuss:100% Agree. When it comes to real world performance AMD performs very well with most benchmarks skewing performance in one way or another. Sure Intel will win a few seconds here and a minute there on some benchmarks but I find if you compare processors at their price point between Intel and AMD you will usually find similar performance. You also have to consider more than the processor because often comparable quality and featured motherboards that take Intel chips are more expensive by as much as 50% which factors into the cost of the system. If you are building for the average user that only needs something with integrated graphics and not playing games I find that AMD APUs offer great value and very good performance.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I have always had a tit for tat, pseudo 'real world' usage argument over this statement for eons... not exactly worth getting into again seeing as there are so many fences to hang a hypothesis on...
...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
But play it safe to say that Nvidia is such a graphics force unto itself that there is no doubt they needn't pair with anyone.
Intel (like AMD) has hit the operating threshold. So making a processor more 'capable' is what's going to bring your customers running. Hyperthreading just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather have real cores. However, onboard video assist seems silly, other than the laptop/netbook market. That just sounds like we're getting back to making the RISC processor.
I'm just still wondering how Intel can release a flagship processor for a G note with a straight face that Tom's Hardware is showing it to only marginally perform around the newest AMD Bulldozer at less that a third the cost.
Tweak the software so my AMD system will perform to the Intel specs, conspiracy be damned. I'll wait the 1.5 more minutes for the movie to compress rather than spend 1K more on an Intel computer.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Making a processor more capable is about a lot more than just cores and clock. Hardware functions make things go much, much faster...even when the software is very well designed to work without them. Saying, "tweak the software" doesn't make the existing software better, nor does it cause developers to optimize their next gen software that is already in Alpha tests, nor does it allow heavily optimized software to run better without hardware functions.
Intel (like AMD) has hit the operating threshold. So making a processor more 'capable' is what's going to bring your customers running. Hyperthreading just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather have real cores. However, onboard video assist seems silly, other than the laptop/netbook market. That just sounds like we're getting back to making the RISC processor.
....
Tweak the software so my AMD system will perform to the Intel specs, conspiracy be damned. I'll wait the 1.5 more minutes for the movie to compress rather than spend 1K more on an Intel computer.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I hear you... playing the cheap seats is just a fact of life & sometimes we're all along for the ride. I'm just one of those guys that would happen to like a bluray in his laptop. Seeing as I am still one of the crowd that gets the use out of a large screen/format.
Oh, as for your comment about on-processor graphics being pointless except on laptops, that is a huge part of the market now. I really hate to say it, but gaming PCs are not a big part of the market. Most people just want a laptop that does basic things; screen size and price are the main things people look at (as well as color shells and Apple logos). If they really want to go big they might opt for the one with a bluray drive and a 18" screen...but video compression probably isn't even something they know about. To tell you the truth, that's all I want in a laptop (not the color shells and apple logos of course). I'm not about to spend two grand on a laptop that can't compete with a $800 desktop, so my laptop is just for basic things...I don't even need a bluray drive.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Yeah...we old goats do love to be able to replace just what needs to be replaced...but there is the performance/price issue as well. The average income is shrinking fast and the value of the same income is going down even faster. Many people (even myself) would love to have a $4000 gaming laptop that is slightly faster than a year-old $1000 desktop...but it just isn't an option for a lot of people. Heck, a lot of people can't even afford the $1000 desktop every other year.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I hear you... playing the cheap seats is just a fact of life & sometimes we're all along for the ride. I'm just one of those guys that would happen to like a bluray in his laptop. Seeing as I am still one of the crowd that gets the use out of a large screen/format.
Oh, as for your comment about on-processor graphics being pointless except on laptops, that is a huge part of the market now. I really hate to say it, but gaming PCs are not a big part of the market. Most people just want a laptop that does basic things; screen size and price are the main things people look at (as well as color shells and Apple logos). If they really want to go big they might opt for the one with a bluray drive and a 18" screen...but video compression probably isn't even something they know about. To tell you the truth, that's all I want in a laptop (not the color shells and apple logos of course). I'm not about to spend two grand on a laptop that can't compete with a $800 desktop, so my laptop is just for basic things...I don't even need a bluray drive.
But now that everyone wants to go to using their laptop as a gaming system as well (which might put a small kink in your PC gaming theory), all the more reason for the move to a CPU/GPU hybrid.
Us old goats still tend to like a machine that you can replace only the parts that are broken at any given moment as to replacing the entire machine is my complaint.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I just had a way off topic thought on your comment. Concerning market saturation and how it ultimately affects the economy as well. How the everyday person or noob that will not spend the time/money to have someone format/reinstall but purchase a cheap new one to play with. When those cheap new ones come with the architecture to support better graphics and applications. It will ultimately "trickle up" the higher end/desktops. Which is also a much better economic model than the current one we have.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Yeah...we old goats do love to be able to replace just what needs to be replaced...but there is the performance/price issue as well. The average income is shrinking fast and the value of the same income is going down even faster. Many people (even myself) would love to have a $4000 gaming laptop that is slightly faster than a year-old $1000 desktop...but it just isn't an option for a lot of people. Heck, a lot of people can't even afford the $1000 desktop every other year.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I hear you... playing the cheap seats is just a fact of life & sometimes we're all along for the ride. I'm just one of those guys that would happen to like a bluray in his laptop. Seeing as I am still one of the crowd that gets the use out of a large screen/format.
Oh, as for your comment about on-processor graphics being pointless except on laptops, that is a huge part of the market now. I really hate to say it, but gaming PCs are not a big part of the market. Most people just want a laptop that does basic things; screen size and price are the main things people look at (as well as color shells and Apple logos). If they really want to go big they might opt for the one with a bluray drive and a 18" screen...but video compression probably isn't even something they know about. To tell you the truth, that's all I want in a laptop (not the color shells and apple logos of course). I'm not about to spend two grand on a laptop that can't compete with a $800 desktop, so my laptop is just for basic things...I don't even need a bluray drive.
But now that everyone wants to go to using their laptop as a gaming system as well (which might put a small kink in your PC gaming theory), all the more reason for the move to a CPU/GPU hybrid.
Us old goats still tend to like a machine that you can replace only the parts that are broken at any given moment as to replacing the entire machine is my complaint.
...But that really isn't the point...because there really are a lot of people who don't game, don't do CAD, and don't even mind a 15" screen. They just want a basic system, and the only reason they upgrade their 3-year-old single-core laptop is because it needs a format/reinstall and paying someone to do it would cost almost as much as the $250 replacement they are going to buy. When these people start buying the next Celeron with on-chip nVidia Cuda, we get to see Cuda in tons of apps, and then those apps are blistering fast on our desktops that have high-end nVidia cards.
Originally posted by defgod:We have already seen it to a certain extent, we now see everyday apps using things that were once just for gamers, things like MMX instructions that are one every Intel and AMD chip regardless of price. Heck, we have 64 bit apps that don't come close to needing 4GB under normal uses just because you can't find a new x86 laptop anymore. Even when the laptop comes with 2GB memory and a x86 OS, it has an x64 chip.
I just had a way off topic thought on your comment. Concerning market saturation and how it ultimately affects the economy as well. How the everyday person or noob that will not spend the time/money to have someone format/reinstall but purchase a cheap new one to play with. When those cheap new ones come with the architecture to support better graphics and applications. It will ultimately "trickle up" the higher end/desktops. Which is also a much better economic model than the current one we have.
Originally posted by LordRuss:I agree to with exception to compressed video, I think AMD does a better job in that market because you have more cores and even at 70% the clock cycle the more cores performs better/faster for me then on an Intel based system which has less cores.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I have always had a tit for tat, pseudo 'real world' usage argument over this statement for eons... not exactly worth getting into again seeing as there are so many fences to hang a hypothesis on...
...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
But play it safe to say that Nvidia is such a graphics force unto itself that there is no doubt they needn't pair with anyone.
Intel (like AMD) has hit the operating threshold. So making a processor more 'capable' is what's going to bring your customers running. Hyperthreading just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather have real cores. However, onboard video assist seems silly, other than the laptop/netbook market. That just sounds like we're getting back to making the RISC processor.
I'm just still wondering how Intel can release a flagship processor for a G note with a straight face that Tom's Hardware is showing it to only marginally perform around the newest AMD Bulldozer at less that a third the cost.
Tweak the software so my AMD system will perform to the Intel specs, conspiracy be damned. I'll wait the 1.5 more minutes for the movie to compress rather than spend 1K more on an Intel computer.
Originally posted by Rack17:@Rack17...I'm guessing you are referring to this excerpt from an article I found on Google:
Interesting Microsoft Owns any sale rights of Nvidia.
Originally posted by bobiroc:I was an avid Intel user until I decided to try the new AMD 8-core processors; have no regrets. I can transcode blurays in 4-5hrs and dvds in 25 minutes. I can play Witcher 2 with the highest settings without a stutter. All of this for 2/3rds the cost of a comparable sysem using an I7 proceesor:
Originally posted by LordRuss:100% Agree. When it comes to real world performance AMD performs very well with most benchmarks skewing performance in one way or another. Sure Intel will win a few seconds here and a minute there on some benchmarks but I find if you compare processors at their price point between Intel and AMD you will usually find similar performance. You also have to consider more than the processor because often comparable quality and featured motherboards that take Intel chips are more expensive by as much as 50% which factors into the cost of the system. If you are building for the average user that only needs something with integrated graphics and not playing games I find that AMD APUs offer great value and very good performance.
Originally posted by KillerBug:I have always had a tit for tat, pseudo 'real world' usage argument over this statement for eons... not exactly worth getting into again seeing as there are so many fences to hang a hypothesis on...
...if Intel chips were not so much better than AMD chips, I'd say this was leveling the playing field.
But play it safe to say that Nvidia is such a graphics force unto itself that there is no doubt they needn't pair with anyone.
Intel (like AMD) has hit the operating threshold. So making a processor more 'capable' is what's going to bring your customers running. Hyperthreading just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather have real cores. However, onboard video assist seems silly, other than the laptop/netbook market. That just sounds like we're getting back to making the RISC processor.
I'm just still wondering how Intel can release a flagship processor for a G note with a straight face that Tom's Hardware is showing it to only marginally perform around the newest AMD Bulldozer at less that a third the cost.
Tweak the software so my AMD system will perform to the Intel specs, conspiracy be damned. I'll wait the 1.5 more minutes for the movie to compress rather than spend 1K more on an Intel computer.
Subscribe to AfterDawn's weekly newsletter.
