Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nvidia Threatens to Become A Monopoly
#41
Do you have any idea how often I've heard the "x86 is just not as efficient, the intel engineers can only do so much with it" sung by intels competitors over the decades?

All of them found out the hard way just how efficient x86 can be.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#42
(03-12-2015, 10:09 PM)gstanford Wrote: Do you have any idea how often I've heard the "x86 is just not as efficient, the intel engineers can only do so much with it" sung by intels competitors over the decades?

All of them found out the hard way just how efficient x86 can be.
No. They all went down because x86 was basically a monopoly with everyone using Windows PCs back in those days. Now that Android and iOS have broken that up, the sky is the limit for ARM. Intel and Microsoft should be very worried.
Reply
#43
Picao:

It's hard for me to reply to you because a lot of what you post seems contradictory.

E.G.

Quote:Because there is no competition on the CPU space, AT ALL? Intel has the x86 market monopoly for itself. You do not need to have a company holding 100% of the market to call it a monopoly.

So intel is "no competition" for AMD? I'd say intel is winning the competition with AMD rather handily, and as such, they define "competition". By what you have said, intel producing superior products "should" be driving AMD to produce better products, but it doesn't.

On the other hand, AMD presence as a competitor who has "won" at points in the past should theoretically make intel not sit on their laurels 100%.

You have competition, it's just not very potent competition on AMDs side.

Nonetheless, look at what you said:

intel has a monopoly.

OK if that's true, I'm all for monopolies. Love my Devils Canyon, it's the best cpu I ever purchased and it cost $300! My last CPU in that box, 990X, cost $1050.. Why isn't intel price gouging me with their monopoly?

As far as improvements by generation, guys like you crack me up. You just assume intel could and would come out with better parts "if only someone made them.". We have no idea what they are holding back. May be cpus that have 50X the power of current, may be 10% faster CPUs.

I do not believe invention can be forced. I work in the software industry and can tell you someone telling me they need the answer to a problem by day X does not mean much. If I don't think of it until day Y, or at all, no competition or request from my boss will change what happens. (and the things I work on are caveman primitive compared to intel engineers)

If you think these companies are "holding back to screw us" you should bring your better products to market. For the size of the market, I'm guessing you could find investors.
Reply
#44
Well, i7-990X isn't the equivalent of a 4790K, but that's beside the point, as Intel has made the $1,000 price point a tradition, not a price gouging.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#45
(03-12-2015, 11:26 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Picao:

It's hard for me to reply to you because a lot of what you post seems contradictory.

E.G.


Quote:Because there is no competition on the CPU space, AT ALL? Intel has the x86 market monopoly for itself. You do not need to have a company holding 100% of the market to call it a monopoly.

So intel is "no competition" for AMD? I'd say intel is winning the competition with AMD rather handily, and as such, they define "competition". By what you have said, intel producing superior products "should" be driving AMD to produce better products, but it doesn't.

On the other hand, AMD presence as a competitor who has "won" at points in the past should theoretically make intel not sit on their laurels 100%.

You have competition, it's just not very potent competition on AMDs side.

Nonetheless, look at what you said:

intel has a monopoly.

OK if that's true, I'm all for monopolies. Love my Devils Canyon, it's the best cpu I ever purchased and it cost $300! My last CPU in that box, 990X, cost $1050.. Why isn't intel price gouging me with their monopoly?

As far as improvements by generation, guys like you crack me up. You just assume intel could and would come out with better parts "if only someone made them.". We have no idea what they are holding back. May be cpus that have 50X the power of current, may be 10% faster CPUs.

I do not believe invention can be forced. I work in the software industry and can tell you someone telling me they need the answer to a problem by day X does not mean much. If I don't think of it until day Y, or at all, no competition or request from my boss will change what happens. (and the things I work on are caveman primitive compared to intel engineers)

If you think these companies are "holding back to screw us" you should bring your better products to market. For the size of the market, I'm guessing you could find investors.
Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion. It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s. Why don't they do it? Because they are competing with themselves at this point. If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.
Reply
#46
(03-13-2015, 01:35 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion.  It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s.  Why don't they do it?  Because they are competing with themselves at this point.  If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.

Again, you're thinking like a hobbyist who wants toys, not a business.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Between 6 and 8 core cpus you're talking about less than 2% of the market. Know why intel isn't selling 8 core cpus? Nobody buys more than 4 cores. 8 core CPUs probably have higher bad chip rates, and perhaps lower profit margins.

You're lucky I don't run intel, personally I think they're too generous selling unlocked CPUs. I'd lock them all build in overvolt reporting for returns.

For my part, I will NEVER get suckered into AMD advice like "The future is moar corez!" again. Threw away $1000 on that hex core chip and a $200 2500K is just as fast at anything I do.

(03-13-2015, 12:14 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Well, i7-990X isn't the equivalent of a 4790K, but that's beside the point, as Intel has made the $1,000 price point a tradition, not a price gouging.


I guess my point was the Devils Canyon totally walks all over the 990X for $300, four years later. There has been a good performance gain over those 4 years, uses a ton less power, the price is only $300. What's not to love?

I think people got spoiled in the early days of pc gaming by frequent large gains, and now chip engineers are running into limits of current technology.
Reply
#47
(03-13-2015, 05:14 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(03-13-2015, 01:35 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion.  It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s.  Why don't they do it?  Because they are competing with themselves at this point.  If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.

Again, you're thinking like a hobbyist who wants toys, not a business.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Between 6 and 8 core cpus you're talking about less than 2% of the market. Know why intel isn't selling 8 core cpus? Nobody buys more than 4 cores. 8 core CPUs probably have higher bad chip rates, and perhaps lower profit margins.

You're lucky I don't run intel, personally I think they're too generous selling unlocked CPUs. I'd lock them all build in overvolt reporting for returns.

For my part, I will NEVER get suckered into AMD advice like "The future is moar corez!" again. Threw away $1000 on that hex core chip and a $200 2500K is just as fast at anything I do.

My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point. They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine. If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores. Their monopoly status is the problem. You just don't get it. You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense. I think you're probably only here to piss people off. You seem to enjoy it.
Reply
#48
(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote: My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point.  They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine.
Yet every couple years they give us higher performance, lower power, and have not raised (if anything lowered) prices in the face of very weak competition. Is your statement supposed to prove my point?

(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote:  If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores.
You mean they would in essence become AMD?

(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote:  Their monopoly status is the problem.  You just don't get it.  You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense.  I think you're probably only here to piss people off.  You seem to enjoy it.

Sorry, I just like talking about PC hardware, and you might just be wrong? Angel
Reply
#49
(03-13-2015, 05:46 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote: My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point.  They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine.
Yet every couple years they give us higher performance, lower power, and have not raised (if anything lowered) prices in the face of very weak competition. Is your statement supposed to prove my point?


(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote:  If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores.
You mean they would in essence become AMD?


(03-13-2015, 05:21 AM)SickBeast Wrote:  Their monopoly status is the problem.  You just don't get it.  You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense.  I think you're probably only here to piss people off.  You seem to enjoy it.

Sorry, I just like talking about PC hardware, and you might just be wrong?  Angel

How would an octa core intel chip be anything like AMD? It would be 4 times more powerful than anything AMD makes. You're really dense. You still don't get it.

If you call what we have from intel today "progress" then you are blind. The 2500k came out over 4 years ago now. Haswell quad cores are barely any faster. Yes, they are lower power, but most enthusiasts don't care much about that. 10% performance gains each generation are not progress IMO.
Reply
#50
(03-13-2015, 05:56 AM)SickBeast Wrote: How would an octa core intel chip be anything like AMD?  It would be 4 times more powerful than anything AMD makes.  You're really dense.  You still don't get it.

No, you didn't get it.

"If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores."
You stipulated AMD is making faster chips than intel, forcing them to offer cheap hex/octa core CPUs. Just like AMD does now, and in second place just like AMD is now. See what I did there now?

(03-13-2015, 05:56 AM)SickBeast Wrote: If you call what we have from intel today "progress" then you are blind.  The 2500k came out over 4 years ago now.  Haswell quad cores are barely any faster.  Yes, they are lower power, but most enthusiasts don't care much about that.  10% performance gains each generation are not progress IMO.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devil...i5-4690k/4

Looks to me like the 4790K totally annihilates the 2500K on graphics, maybe intel has been focusing on power and their IGPs because they realize their CPU cores needed less work?

And 20% over 4 years isn't a very big gain compared to what? Other x86 cpu manufacturers?

And again, you shouldn't post conjecture as fact. You, or I, have no idea what intel "could" do. Might be if Beefdozer III stomps intel, they get stomped, caught with their pants down and they are behind for years until they can come up with something better.

Back in Athlon 64 days intel didn't just "pull out the better cpus they were holding back" when AMD made them look sad.

Your position is indefensible because all you have are guesses.
Reply
#51
You know what Rollo, I am done interacting with you until you can learn how to have a proper discourse with people. You're not even making any sense. I don't know if you're trying to or not but I can feel my blood pressure rising just after a few interactions with you.

I think that you are actually a nice person, you just have some issues.
Reply
#52
SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.
Reply
#53
(03-13-2015, 07:03 AM)BjorgenFjords Wrote: SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.

You know what, I'm tired and I'm having a bad week and I don't exactly have much patience for Rollo.

I feel that my argument has made sense all along and he's just arguing again and again just to be "right", like he always does. He has admitted that he does this. It's like a game for him. He always wants to "win", even when he's wrong. It's really frustrating for everyone else.
Reply
#54
What a load of crap! If that were true chromebooks would be thousands of times more popular than they are now (and the best chromebooks have intel processors in them, not ARM processors......)

ARM is (currently) strong in phones and tablets, they have yet to threaten laptops or desktops.

(03-12-2015, 10:49 PM)SickBeast Wrote:
(03-12-2015, 10:09 PM)gstanford Wrote: Do you have any idea how often I've heard the "x86 is just not as efficient, the intel engineers can only do so much with it" sung by intels competitors over the decades?

All of them found out the hard way just how efficient x86 can be.
No.  They all went down because x86 was basically a monopoly with everyone using Windows PCs back in those days.  Now that Android and iOS have broken that up, the sky is the limit for ARM.  Intel and Microsoft should be very worried.

(03-13-2015, 12:14 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Well, i7-990X isn't the equivalent of a 4790K, but that's beside the point, as Intel has made the $1,000 price point a tradition, not a price gouging.

So has nvidia with Titan. That doesn't mean that every consumer that wants an intel or nvidia chip pays $1000 or anything remotely close to it and yet they still get unbeatable performance. There is nothing on the market from intel/nvidia's competitors capable of touching 970 or i5 let alone anything higher.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#55
The iPad Air 2 does threaten laptops. My parents just bought one instead of a laptop. For $500 it's hard to beat, and it does pretty much everything a laptop can do. It's really simple to use for my parents who are older. Good luck getting a retina display on a laptop for $500. Same goes for something as portable. People don't buy laptops or computers any more. Everyone I know is into phones and tablets.
Reply
#56
Perhaps you know the wrong people then?

People still buy laptops. Laptops can do work that phones and tablets cannot.

We often get people coming into the access centre with all 3 - phone, tablet, laptop.

None of them replace the others.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#57
(03-13-2015, 08:03 AM)gstanford Wrote: So has nvidia with Titan.  That doesn't mean that every consumer that wants an intel or nvidia chip pays $1000 or anything remotely close to it and yet they still get unbeatable performance.  There is nothing on the market from intel/nvidia's competitors capable of touching 970 or i5 let alone anything higher.

GStanford, how can this be with the terrible monopolies going on?! Those parts you mention cost $200-$300. and yet are better than all of the competing parts?

Maybe some of teh intarwebz finance gurus need to explain to NVIDIA and intel how this monopoly stuff works?

This is another thing people forget:

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/

Which part of the curve are personal computers on? Maturity at best, decline at worst. They've gone through their boom period where everyone was eagerly buying them and the ads were all over tv.

The company with the monopoly on VCR production can't sell them for the $500 they used to, and PC parts are somewhat the same. While we all still need X86 pc as work devices, the market has been eroded by installed user base and incursions by other types of devices for those who mainly want web, lite gaming, and non office apps.
Reply
#58
(03-13-2015, 07:03 AM)BjorgenFjords Wrote: SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.

Lalalala. Keysplayr, are you here to discuss the issue at hand or to play Rollo's bodyguard? Because so far that is 90% of what you did on this thread. Is this now the nVIDIA version of Anandtech Forums?

Anyone that knows Economy 101 knows that a monopoly is bad for consumers. Rollo is arguing otherwise just for the sake of arguing. He is not even making sense himself, since he accused Sickbeast of "Your position is indefensible because all you have are guesses.". What he himself is doing is also guesses. He is GUESSING that nVIDIA having a monopoly will not change the status quo and accusing anyone else that has a different opinion of not knowing what they are speaking about! Even when he is presented with a FACT: nVIDIA launched the GTX280 at $650, thinking that AMD would not have nothing to counter. That was already Monopoly mentality at work. We have seen it! Its not a guess! He knowingly ignores that just to make his oppinion the last!

And still, Keyplayr, you see me and SickBeast as going personal and Rollo not? Stop the hypocrisy. You are just destroying ABT.. again.

Plus Rollo, while the CPU market might as well reached a point of "good enough", the GPU market is a totally different story. So you putting Intel and nVIDIA in the same basket does not make any sense. You like to think you are the eloquent here but sorry, you are just the clown. Some people wanted you back here because "eh he is fun", not because "eh, he is an interesting guy with good views". But you already know that, don't you? You just enjoy it. Congratulations in ruining yet another forum. How is the count going? 25? 50? Have fun.
Reply
#59
Pwn3d
Reply
#60
So, nobody has any answer to apparent contradiction of the OP:

People used to say the same thing about intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. (We must support AMD or intel will rob us)

Yet prices of CPUs have only dropped, and CPUs have only gotten better, since intel re-established dominance in 2006. intel have raised their market share from 74% to 90%+ in that time, and no sane person has any reason to buy a current AMD CPU.

Yet intel offers a wide range of products from $100-$300 that offer better performance than anything else on the planet, during times when a tank of gas or a decent dinner for two has often cost $100..

Even Nvidia, the subject of the thread, released their GTX970 at $329 when they knew it was better than every AMD GPU on the planet. (some of which cost much more- so Nvidia did not price based on performance/value- they priced where they thought they would sell product fast)

The only conclusion I can draw is some people want to encourage people to buy inferior AMD parts. Given what happened when intel established virtual monopoly in the CPU market, and my knowledge of business/economics (hold BS-Business), I'm personally not very worried about what happens to AMD in the GPU market.
Reply
#61
(03-13-2015, 05:41 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: So, nobody has any answer to apparent contradiction of the OP:

People used to say the same thing about intel CPUs and AMD CPUs. (We must support AMD or intel will rob us)

Yet prices of CPUs have only dropped, and CPUs have only gotten better, since intel re-established dominance in 2006. intel have raised their market share from 74% to 90%+ in that time, and no sane person has any reason to buy a current AMD CPU.

Yet intel offers a wide range of products from $100-$300 that offer better performance than anything else on the planet, during times when a tank of gas or a decent dinner for two has often cost $100..

Even Nvidia, the subject of the thread, released their GTX970 at $329 when they knew it was better than every AMD GPU on the planet. (some of which cost much more- so Nvidia did not price based on performance/value- they priced where they thought they would sell product fast)

The only conclusion I can draw is some people want to encourage people to buy inferior AMD parts. Given what happened when intel established virtual monopoly in the CPU market, and my knowledge of business/economics (hold BS-Business), I'm personally not very worried about what happens to AMD in the GPU market.

Last things I say on this thread:
1) You keep trying to compare what is not comparable (Intel is facing indirect competition from ARM because of the trends changing from PC/Laptops to Tablets/Phones; none of that is happening with nVIDIA.. mobile gaming is casual at best). For someone who hold a BS-Business, your so-called analyses are pretty poor, since you try to mix companies, from different sectors, in different contexts, in the same bag. Plus you keep ignoring facts that do not agree with your theory.
2) For someone who holds a BS-Business its very strange for me to have to explain what a "spinoff" is, since you read it as what ATI did, selling its mobile unit to Qualcomm (on the thread about Tegra)
3) Good try to turn this thread into nVIDIA vs AMD bullshit. My Core i5 4590 + my GTX750Ti sitting here next to me do not agree. Again, if you hold a BS-Business, you should know there are other ways to deal with a monopoly, which do not involve helping the underdog. The underdog is the underdog for a reason: it could not compete and throwing money at it would not help either.
4) Lets see in two years, when AMD is probably no more, how will nVIDIA act, if not "threatened" by any other company, shall we?
Reply
#62
Monopolies can be bad, not will. Nice try.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#63
Picao84 has made up his mind that all monopolies are evil and hurt consumers, who are we to argue with him?

Intel and nvidia are defacto monopolies right now and I'm certainly not hurting.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#64
(03-13-2015, 09:52 PM)gstanford Wrote: Picao84 has made up his mind that all monopolies are evil and hurt consumers, who are we to argue with him?

Intel and nvidia are defacto monopolies right now and I'm certainly not hurting.

There doesn't seem much point in noting otherwise, to be sure.
Reply
#65
Please don't note otherwise. Please.
Reply
#66
(03-14-2015, 12:37 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Please don't note otherwise. Please.

(sound of breathing in tin can)
Reply
#67
Just out of curiousity, do you and Keysplayr ever disagree? You were clearly wrong in this thread and yet he backed you up and trolled me.
Reply
#68
(03-14-2015, 05:22 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Just out of curiousity, do you and Keysplayr ever disagree?  You were clearly wrong in this thread and yet he backed you up and trolled me.

You mean you were clearly right in your guesses about the future?

Did I pull a Rip Van Winkle and it's a few years later, your guesses and speculation were right?

I'm with Gstanford, if we're living in the post AMD monopoly days:



Reply
#69
All I will give you is that things are not absolutely terrible. Things could be much worse. You guys are correct in stating that Intel has not really raised prices and performance has generally gone up. I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic. I just think that if AMD were able to offer better high performance parts it would force Intel to give us more for less. I don't see why you are arguing that point. Monopolies are bad for consumers. Why are you getting in a festive mood about it? It really makes me wonder about you, Rollo.
Reply
#70
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better. Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#71
(03-14-2015, 06:30 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Ok, then how about making their low end CPUs unlocked quad cores...

Again, with proper competition, that is what we would have by now.
Reply
#72
(03-14-2015, 06:30 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Reposted for obvious truth.

AMD was horribly, tragically wrong about "moar corez" being the path forward. For most things computer gaming related, IPC >>> cores in a big way.

Observe the beat down a 3GHz 4 core 2500K gives AMDs 8 core, 5GHz, 8b Watt monstrosity:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...-5ghz.html
Reply
#73
(03-14-2015, 06:38 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(03-14-2015, 06:30 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Ok, then how about making their low end CPUs unlocked quad cores...

Again, with proper competition, that is what we would have by now.
Budget products are always stripped back no matter what industry you are in or there would be no reason for consumers to consider purchasing the middle and highend products.

KIA should start rebadging Mercedes Benz vehicles and sell them at current KIA price points too...... Rolleyes
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#74
(03-14-2015, 06:44 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(03-14-2015, 06:30 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Reposted for obvious truth.

AMD was horribly, tragically wrong about "moar corez" being the path forward. For most things computer gaming related, IPC >>> cores in a big way.

Observe the beat down a 3GHz 4 core 2500K gives AMDs 8 core, 5GHz, 8b Watt monstrosity:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...-5ghz.html
I'm not saying more cores just for the sake of it. Of course more IPC would be better, it just seems as though they have really hit the wall. If they get 10% more each year they are doing well.

I just think that it would be great for us to have affordable 6 and 8 core Intel CPUs. With proper competition from AMD we would have this. It would instantly double how much computing power we have in our rigs.

Do you not agree that quad core entry level processors would be amazing?

(03-14-2015, 06:47 AM)gstanford Wrote:
(03-14-2015, 06:38 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(03-14-2015, 06:30 AM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I just find the 10% gains each year quite pathetic.
Feel free to design and manufacture your own CPU that does better.  Hint - ripping out the iGPU and replacing it with 4 more cores software will barely use won't get you there - it will worsen performance for some cases like video encoding that can utilize QuickSync.

Ok, then how about making their low end CPUs unlocked quad cores...

Again, with proper competition, that is what we would have by now.
Budget products are always stripped back no matter what industry you are in or there would be no reason for consumers to consider purchasing the middle and highend products.

KIA should start rebadging Mercedes Benz vehicles and sell them at current KIA price points too......   Rolleyes
Yes, well, we have been stuck with crappy dual core entry level CPUs for years and years now. IMO it's about time that we had quad cores at the entry level with the enthusiast parts having 8 cores or maybe even more.
Reply
#75
Those crappy dual core entry level CPU's have no trouble making mincemeat out of AMD's quad cores and are quite suitable for their target markets (office, casual home use).
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#76
Well, the good news is that nVidia is soon going to challenge Intel in terms of CPU performance. At least one monopoly has a chance of shaking up another one. What would be really interesting is if Intel creates a high end GPU. Then both problems would be solved. Both scenarios are quite possible as well.
Reply
#77
Speaking as someone who spent several years with a high end unlocked intel hex core, I can tell you 6/8 cores is pretty meaningless in gaming.
Reply
#78
I doubt Denver is going to have much impact on the desktop unless nvidia uses it the way they originally intended to - as an x86 emulator.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#79
(03-14-2015, 07:14 AM)gstanford Wrote: I doubt Denver is going to have much impact on the desktop unless nvidia uses it the way they originally intended to - as an x86 emulator.
Well it seems as though nVidia is starting to port many PC games over to Android. Once their CPU is good enough they will be able to use their discreet GPUs to create an Android gaming platform that can compete with PCs. Denver is already pretty close to Intel in terms of IPC. They just need to improve it more, add more cores, and ramp up the clockspeed. I say in 2 years they are going to put up a really good fight.

(03-14-2015, 07:14 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Speaking as someone who spent several years with a high end unlocked intel hex core, I can tell you 6/8 cores is pretty meaningless in gaming.

Fair enough. 4 unlocked cores sure would be nice in the low end setups, though.
Reply
#80
(03-14-2015, 07:19 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Fair enough.  4 unlocked cores sure would be nice in the low end setups, though.

$200 is pretty reasonable for unlocked quad, IMHO.

NVIDIA competing with intel is a long way off. Enterprise will never embrace Android, and intel chips are cheap enough they don't need to ditch Windows.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)