Oh snap :O

[evilbutterfly]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

I don't know what most of that means...




...IT MUST BE GOOD!

[Anticrombie0909]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

That will change very soon with multicore processors.

Well, except not really. See, multicore processors are going to bring Intel to the same level as AMD as far as efficiency. Only problem is that since they've been ramping the hell out of their clock speed and nothing else for the past couple years, AMD still has a lot of leg room to pump out faster processors. Meanwhile, Intel's multicore and Cell processors are going to solve the issue of clock speed, but with it's horrible memory bandwidth problems they're not going to be getting significantly faster anytime soon either. So while AMD is taking their time and whoring profits and Intel scrambles for a cure, ATI and nVIdia will quietly continue to make their boards better and faster. Finally, games aren't even utilizing the full GPU capacity of cards nowadays. I mean, look at SLI. Some of the benchmarks on an SLI'd game vs a single card are astounding, and show up to a 30-40 frame increase. However, others show minimal increases, or none at all. And even the ones that improved only show gains worth the second card when run at superhigh resolutions with everything maxed out. Most games just aren't that scalable, sadly, so they have to make it run for the middleman- even more specifically, the low end user, which is the majority of the market.

[Rairaku]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

I think my head just imploded from the complexity of what Anti just said.

Can I have a translation of that for nooblets like me?

[tnyhwk900]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

No. Even if it was translated, you still wouldn't get what we were talking about.

So while AMD is taking their time and whoring profits and Intel scrambles for a cure, ATI and nVIdia will quietly continue to make their boards better and faster.

You are awesome.

[deposition]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

If by more efficient you mean that they are 64 bit while Pentium still isnt, they are going to go 64 aswell, while multicore and cell processors will surely bring them ahead unless AMD does the same. I've not heard of Pentium's memory bandwith problems, whats this?

I don't think video cards are going to giantly leap ahead of CPUs. PCI Express recently rolled around and with a top of the line duel GPU Radeon run on this huge new bus had a variety of games fps preformance increase =<10fps while costing an insane amount more.

I think cell processors are going to leap CPUs ahead, expecially as the PS3 is going to have this next year and the entire console is shooting for a price range around 400 dollars while the performance increases of the CPU is very significant.

[tnyhwk900]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

If by more efficient you mean that they are 64 bit while Pentium still isnt, they are going to go 64 aswell

No, I think he means that Intel needs the multicores so they can bring down their clock speeds. AMDs run on lower speeds and match the performance, but Intel has nowhere to go because their chips will get insanely hot if they just keep raising the clock speed. AMDs still have a long way to go, though; what's the highest clock of any of their chips? 2.6? Compared with Intel's 3.8-4...

[Rairaku]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

No. Even if it was translated, you still wouldn't get what we were talking about.

Damn.

[Anticrombie0909]

RE: Re: RE: Oh snap :O

No, I think he means that Intel needs the multicores so they can bring down their clock speeds. AMDs run on lower speeds and match the performance, but Intel has nowhere to go because their chips will get insanely hot if they just keep raising the clock speed. AMDs still have a long way to go, though; what's the highest clock of any of their chips? 2.6? Compared with Intel's 3.8-4...

Basically what I was trying to say.