Intel: You can play Brood War with our new IGP's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

let's compare the scores when it comes out with the other IGP :yepp:
(And let's ignore if both IGP run under 15FPS, since it is not playable for sure, playable starts at 30FPS (Personal opinion))
That's enough to make a point.

---

I just hope that Intel has improved compatability/bug fixes alongside performance. ;)

There's AION and Maplestory on the same list... Enough said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

let's compare the scores when it comes out with the other IGP :yepp:
(And let's ignore if both IGP run under 15FPS, since it is not playable for sure, playable starts at 30FPS (Personal opinion))
That's enough to make a point.

---

Sure, but let's do it without the need for conditions that favour intel.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

Wait and see ... not too long before you see the result.

I think you will have a pleasant surprise :yepp: :cool:

Francois

---

Welcome to 1998. Intel's IGP would be considered a triumph when placed against Rendition Verite 2 and 3DFX 6000.

Getting the picture?
Intel, when it comes to graphics chips, is Gilligan's Island when compared to ATI and NVIDIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesker

Well they needed to, considering how much of a failure the original Phenom was. The way I see it, currently AMD is merely doing what's required of them [for survival]. Nothing more nothing less. Yes Phenom II looks good--but that's because we tend to compare it to Phenom 1 and Core 2 (a terribly underwhelming architecture and an architecture that has just been retired, respectively). Instead, we should be comparing Phenom II to Nehalem and perhaps Westmere (because it looks like Bulldozer isn't arriving fast enough). When you look at it in that light, Phenom II (and AMD's execution of its roadmaps) just doesn't look that impressive anymore.

Also, aside from Larrabee (the first gen consumer card), I don't see any major slips from Intel. Nvidia on the other hand...

---

What..?

AMD's AM3 Phenom II X4 955 @ $165 is hard to beat... How can you say AMD is only surviving, when it is Intel that seems to be loosing the consumer's confidence and over-pricing their products?

Beside the freaks here, what % of the population needs more than a 3.2Ghz, $165 quad-core..?


So, please compare the PII to Nehalem, what you get is a bunch of people laughing @ Intel. The LGA1156 is flawed... with an anemic PCI bus. So why spend $280 on a CPU, that sits on an inferior platform..?

It's called a computer SYSTEM for a reason.

I don't suppose there's any chance to merge this thread with Nvidia ION sux's - Intel "For Netbooks" that I may savor some delicious irony? and witness true spin doctor madness.

I think Intel should pay AMD another 1,5 billion.. this time buying all their graphic technologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

What..?

AMD's AM3 Phenom II X4 955 @ $165 is hard to beat... How can you say AMD is only surviving, when it is Intel that seems to be loosing the consumer's confidence and over-pricing their products?

Beside the freaks here, what % of the population needs more than a 3.2Ghz, $165 quad-core..?


So, please compare the PII to Nehalem, what you get is a bunch of people laughing @ Intel. The LGA1156 is flawed... with an anemic PCI bus. So why spend $280 on a CPU, that sits on an inferior platform..?

It's called a computer SYSTEM for a reason.

---

...and what do you think selling the top of the line CPU for under $200 is doing to AMD's profitability and growth?

Also, take a step back and look at the markets segments together. Core 2 has always dominated AMD in the laptop market (and it seems Nehalem will continue with Arrandale), while the QPI in Nehalem (as well as an increase in IPC) has removed AMD's advantage in the server/workstation sector.

What part of LGA1156 is flawed? Are you referring to the PCIE controller on LGA1156 processors? If people don't need anything more than 3.20GHz quad cores, then what makes you think 32 PCI-E lanes are necessary?

I really don't get how see people laughing at Intel when you compare Phenom II to Nehalem... :confused:

What AMD needs is an answer to Nehalem and Westmere. Phenom II was a [very late] answer to Core 2.

If you had $150 or less to spend, AMD has that market pretty much locked up if you are interested in raw performance. How is that bad?

and Intel dare to label their graphics as HD :rofl::rofl::ROTF::ROTF: