If Nvidia hate Intel, why not go with AMD?
Printable View
If Nvidia hate Intel, why not go with AMD?
Cause AMD already puts out GPU's...?
Why I am up grading to Core i7 is. I like doing SLI or CF and the X58 lets me do this. I like to change gfx's cards the x58 lets me do this on the same board if so whoever I choose.
If I like ATI cards on their next release I'll get CrossfireX if I like Nvidia's next offer of cards I can do SLI. All the time on the same board.
I know the performance is not really greater then the X48 or the 790i but tell me besides a custom bios or Hacked something can you get Crossfire on a 790i rig or Sli on a x48?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
That's a every good point & i fully agree. But i think the problem is the way NV is going about it.
agreed...can't tell when exactly, but not so long ago, I read an interview from John Carmack (ID Software) saying it was just "too difficult" to make use of all cores & multithreading in gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by GAR
just found (back in 2007): http://www.dailytech.com/John+Carmac...rticle5665.htm
(but there's been a longer speech about it; can't find it)
Quote:
Then on to the topic of multi-core gaming systems. Carmack has expressed his dislike for multi-cores, but with the two high-powered new generation consoles both making use of multiple cores, it may be something he just has to deal with. He says of the Xbox 360: “Microsoft has made some pretty nice tools that show you what you can make on the Xbox 360 [with the multi-cores] … but the fundamental problem is that it’s still hard to do. If you want to utilize all of that unused performance, it’s going to become more of a risk to you and bring pain and suffering to the programming side,” he laments. “So we’re dealing with it, but it’s an aspect of the landscape that obviously would have been better if we would have been able to get more gigahertz in a processor core. But life didn’t turn out like that, and we have to just take the best advantage with it.”
because they'd rather go with the currently better technology :D (they first went AMD btw, when they launched SLI)Quote:
Originally Posted by lkiller123
Think a little bit harder about that. If you have a fixed amount of money to spend on a PC, let's call it the average "PC budget", that means there is only so much to go around on all components. If more of that amount goes to the GPU and less to the CPU, it's good for them. That combined with the fact that for gaming it's absolutely a valid criticism makes it a strong marketing point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX
Let's be realistic here. It's not about GPU sales volume, becuase that doesn't come from SLI on X58 lol. Of the few nehalems that are sold right now, only a fraction of those get multi-gpu.. according to steam survey it's about 2% of gamers using SLI/CF. Do you really think they'd give up so much for a fraction of a fraction's worth of sales? 2% of some small percentage?Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG
No. They did it for stature, to keep ATI from being seen as superior on the Intel platform. Think mindshare/halo effect. Here in enthusiast forums SLI/CF are far overrepresented, so much so that many here seem to think this is really a significant part of AMD and NVIDIAs business lol.
Because so many every day applications grandma uses see massive speedups with 8 threads on 4 cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
This. Seriously. Deadly accurate as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
nvidia is all about making the masses feel better about their older hardware... first with the 8800GT->9800GT->GTS250. Now C2Q > i7? well... I feel better about my hardware decisions :lol:
well lets see my buddy upgraded his old 939 4000+ x2 / 7800gt rig with a 4870, in it, that upgrade allowed him to pay most newer games. Upgrading to i7 with a 7800gt wouldn't have had the same effect. Okay that was a silly argument, but it leads to the next points:
Lets say i have a nice 45nm 775 quadcore, and a gtx285, what would upgrading to i7 get me?! Just a large hole in my wallet and maybe a few fps here and there, but nothing major. Upgrading to a gtx295 will get me more a performance boost at less cost.
How many gamers run multi-gpu setups? probably around 1~3%, the majority of gamers are running games @ 1280 / 1680 resolutions. Having intel running around telling people to upgrade their 775 systems to i7 for this major boost in performance is BS. In the majority of cases a better video card will be the wiser choice. Not to mention game performance from c2q to i7 was relatively unchanged (in some cases worse). They are way too many of you complaining about CPU bottlenecks and TRI-SLI and blah blah blah, so what game REQUIRES an i7 and a tri-sli setup to be playable? Anyone?
Given the choice between an e8400 with a gtx285 or an i7 920 with a gtx260 (similarly priced systems) -> which would you take?
What nvidia is trying to same is rather than upgrade to an i7 and keep your 9800gtx and then :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about bad performance, rather get a gtx280 for less money, and get a real performance boost, obviously consider you're not running a prescott or amd64...
My next upgrade is a 45nm quad, I'm not going to even bother with i7, there is absolutely no benefit in me spending that insane amount of money (especially at the prices here - around $600 for 6gb of ddr3 ram ). There isn't a single game my "mid-range" rig cant handle at the moment, and if there was a CPU upgrade wouldn't fix it.
Also for everyone saying how developers must learn to use all the cores, i think those people should learn to program first, then read up concurrency then open their big dumb mouths. Not every algorithm can be parallelized, most cant, and even then separating physics/other subsystems to run on different cores brings in a ton of synchronization problems. If one core lags behind all the cores have to halt to catch up, otherwise, you're gonna have very weird behavior, imagine if your physics lags behind and you don't wait for it, it'll be busy processing the physics for the room you just came from/battle you just fought while you're in a new physics-less room/battle.
Most of the time you'll see multiple cores in use when a game runs, don't assume that the game is multithreaded, it might be the OS is doing a bit of intelligent scheduling, across the cores to balance the system load.
Having 8/16 cores isnt going to do anything for you except add a few inches to your e-penis, what the point of having 8 cores, when 6 of them will be idling most of the time. Now if you're not gaming, and are doing CAD/3D rendering/Database/AV work on your machine then i7 is a really good choice, a choice I'll recommend enthusiastically, but if you're just a gamer, don't waste your money. If you feel the upgrade itch, just get a beefier vid card / 775 quad (if you're already on 775) or go the PII route since game wise its on par with i7 in most cases.
Nvidia and Intel don't like each other. Too bad for Nvidia that they can't tell Intel to f**k off, but Intel can.
I love my i7 rigs but definitely not worth the upgrade costs over s775 for gaming or general use, especially for single gpu gaming. Personally I gained nothing performance wise that made my game time any better.
However outside of gaming i7 is an absolute animal with any crunching tasks.
i love my i7, speed up for CFD simulations was form 3,8x times to nearly 7 times faster then singel thread. :eek:
Then you need to find another place to shop. I got 6GB of 1600 for 105 and even ordered some one else a 3 X 2Gb of 1333 for $87.98, they had it for $79.99 and 6.99 shipping IIRC. I didn't go with the i7 either but RAM wasn't the reason except that I already had plenty DDR2 1066 laying around:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Damn right, It worked for me, I picked up my Q6600 for £100 after realising that my E4500 @ 3.4GHz was bottle necking my 4870x2.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
6MB of triple-channel DDR3 is so damn cheap now. The prices have dropped like a brick in the past few months!!! OCZ has a 1600MHz CAS8 kit for only $73 after $20 rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227388 damn cheap, huh? An amazingly fast CAS7 kit is only $89 AR!
Well, I guess that the best deal is still Core2 with DDR3 instead of Corei7, but if you have an SLI setup, the i7 brings noticeably better results when using SLI. Nvidia should be using the i7 as a reference for SLI performance because it's a lot faster than on their own Core2 chipsets.
Try running Quad gpus on a C2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
How many folks running Quad GPU is only 2% of gamers are running 2? How many using more than 2, .001%? Most of us do more than play games with our Tools, erum rigs! :up: nVidia is without shame;)Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
I have to agree with nvidia :P, in gaming performance i7 isn't amazing, Phenom II X4 940 performs about the same if not better on high res benchmarks.. the only time u see i7 outperform Phenom II is on low res benchmarks/gaming, but realisticly nobody is gonna run a game at 800X600, these days its 1680X1050 or higher.. anyway, not saying i7 sucks, but if your going to game, better off with AMD right now, if your going to encode or do renders then i7 Ftw i guess ;p
But yeah Im not an nvidia fan either, just because they are pretty expensive, ATI/AMD FTW! I bought my AMD Dragon PC a couple months ago, very happy with it, upgraded from Core 2 Duo ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
3 words: Triple channel memory
The Core i7 brings with it new technology and if you are building a new system today, using the LGA775 platform would be stupid, because you are building on obsolete hardware.
Not just for gaming, but for upgradability in the future, etc. We are already seeing 33mb/s throughput with i7 on memory bandwidth. Windows 7 is coming and handles multi-threading a little more efficiently than Vista and we know DirectX 11.0 is coming as well.
Part of owning a fast gaming rig, is having a smooth running SYSTEM. When alt-tabbing out of a game, is near instantaneous with a Core i7, under a Core 2 Duo/Quad... it's slower.
What you get with the Intel Core i7 is an excellent BASE for building a rig that will last years... 3~4, while just dropping in a better GPU every 14 months.
While everyone is trying to dismiss parallel coding and put barriers in the way of multi-threaded gaming, it is coming regardless. MHz isn't the only thing that drives video games, specially if you have many apps running in the background (IE: virus, iPhone software, keyboard software, joystick software, OS, etc..)
Intel has more power savings features within their Core i7 and watt for watt, it has better performance for gaming than the Core 2 Quad.
The only reason to build anything other than an Intel Core i7 system, would be due to available money. A Core i7 costs less, but the price is more! Simply because building a LGA775 rig means in 3 years, it's basically throw away as a gaming rig, while a LGA1366 has just begun it's life cycle.
Faster memory and CPU in three years time, puts your rig right at the top tier again, with minimal cost. So, jumping on a new platform is an intelligent choice to protect your gaming rig from becoming obsolete...
Did I mention 33MB per second of memory bandwidth..? :shocked:
Doesn't VW own Porsche?Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
i7 isn't assured anything BTW! Socket 1366 doesn't have a solid granite life span either. NOTHING in THIS market is meant for long term and many folks waste money thinking they can cheat or change that fact:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
There's too much in the pipe to even consider long term viability. Products soon to come; USB 3.0, PCI-E 3, SATA 3, New HDMI replacement cable, Robson Cache Technology, smaller cooler chips on the mobo and yada yada!
nV constantly craps where they eat. People who would have never otherwise bought three of nV's most expensive cards wouldn't have if it wasn't for the X58 so nV should shut their mouths and be grateful Intel made that possible. I know I would have never ran Sli if it wasn't for the x58 due to the fact that nV chipsets, like the 790, 780 and 680i's blew.
Core i7 a waste of money for gamers
Actually, 100% true. I agree with that.
Other way around, Porsche owns VW.Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am