AMD: Done for?

[Scotteq]

...so long as the context is clear. Amen

/hugs

 

[earl45]

I'm sorry Jenny, I encode and render on a daily bases about 3-4 hours a day
while multitasking at the same time. I don't play any games at all on my machines
there for work and making money. So i understand the gaming aspect that you and
JDJ keep put forth, but you two are not telling the other side of the story and that side is where Intel shines with no competion at all from AMD.

Now before you tell me that there's more gamers here then anyother group i would like to remind you that there are more non- gaming computer owners then
there are gaming computer owners.

 

[jeffk464]

True and most of them need hardly any computing power at all. They for sure don't need the latest and greatest chip from intel that costs more then $500. You sound like you have a use for it, but most people like myself don't. I'm actually happy that the atom based platform has forced microsoft to quit making massively bloated hardware. I kind of think this was traditionally done in the past to force people to buy new hardware if they wanted the new OS. Basically if you need the cpu power and can afford it, by all means get it.

 

[earl45]

True and most of them need hardly any computing power at all. They for sure don't need the latest and greatest chip from intel that costs more then $500. You sound like you have a use for it, but most people like myself don't. I'm actually happy that the atom based platform has forced microsoft to quit making massively bloated hardware. I kind of think this was traditionally done in the past to force people to buy new hardware if they wanted the new OS. Basically if you need the cpu power and can afford it, by all means get it.

Now that's one of my point's there's many offerings from AMD & Intel that is priced a lot lower then $500.
that can get the job done.
My other point is there's a lot more to a cpu then just gaming, encoding or multitasking its all of
them together which will give you the over all performance of a cpu.

 

[dragonsprayer]

AMD is in similar position as it was in 2003, the new quads really do work, finally!

The amd ati merger will bear fruit when Nvidia's 300 is released a super heater and the 5800 becomes the dominate card - 6 months to ramp up fab.

my name amti! i alway like better damit or amat

new ati rebirth will lead to cpu sales and amd will be back!

should have bought it at $2 but even at $5-$6 you may get a profit say by? 2015?

i am not a stock advisor, this is just chat form, i am not selling stock! nor do I!

IFB#1

 

[notty22]

*sarcasm*
Its criminal that a company would sell a 300/500 dollar cpu to power a desktop computer that can do countless tasks giving productivity to entertainment. But laud a company that markets a 600 video card that can do only ONE THING. Allow a tiny segment to play 3d games. LOL
Why do users need to justify a 280 cpu to a AMD fanboy that they themselves will spend 500 dollars on a video card so they can have a egasm over frame rates in a video game ?

 

[dragonsprayer]

good point notty!

look at intels profits, it is no where that of google - amd has lost money for 3 years or so.

good point!

 

[jeffk464]

*sarcasm*
Its criminal that a company would sell a 300/500 dollar cpu to power a desktop computer that can do countless tasks giving productivity to entertainment. But laud a company that markets a 600 video card that can do only ONE THING. Allow a tiny segment to play 3d games. LOL
Why do users need to justify a 280 cpu to a AMD fanboy that they themselves will spend 500 dollars on a video card so they can have a egasm over frame rates in a video game ?

I never spend more then $200 on either the graphics card or the cpu. It really doesnt buy you any more time on when your computer becomes outdated. Plus software companies can't make games or software that only works on the top 10% or so of the computers in people's homes.

 

[earl45]

Never thought of it that way, but very true

 

[dragonsprayer]

I never spend more then $200 on either the graphics card or the cpu. It really doesnt buy you any more time on when your computer becomes outdated. Plus software companies can't make games or software that only works on the top 10% or so of the computers in people's homes.

a $200 cpu works for systems up to $2000 a $200 gpu is good for systems below $1500

below $2000 i5 clocked to 3.8ghz air cooled plus the GTX 285, GTX 295 or 4890 or 4870x2

difference is the hdd or ssd and gpu


$2000-$2500 = raid standard ssd optional, i7 920 @4.1ghz plus gtx 295 or 4870x2 (soon to be a 5800)

$2500 to $3000 = ssd boot drive and raid5 or raid0/10 i7 920 @ 4.1ghz 2x 4890 or gtx 285

$3000 and up = i 920 @4.2-4.4ghz water cooled plus dual gtx 295

my point is the $300 cpu work for $2000 to $4000 systems

after $5000 peeps want the 975


typical pc set ups

 

[Raidur]

I'd call i7 good for 'future-proofing' as well, not so much just for professionals. Phenom II is good enough for now, i7 will be good enough further down the road. Low resolution or high GPU benchmarks show us that.

Although the new price tag of $165 for the Phenom II makes the i7 nearly not worth it for gamers unless they have the need for highest-end GPUs and a lot of bucks to spend.

 

[jennyh]

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amd

$8

 

[jimmysmitty]

Lol. This thread went to hell.

That link you posted JDJ, the FPS difference is near negligable or so would have been said so if the Core i7 was winning by that little. Hell they used Beta drivers which may possibly cause that.

I wouldn't mind them doing a cross of them scaling with the highest end nV GPU too since its still there.

Gaming is great but it doesn't determine everything for a CPU. There is a world outside of it, thats larger than gaming.

I would still recommend a Core i5/i7 over a Phenom II on the right budget. Not a Phenom II X6 or Core i9 though. Not worth it yet.

 

[someguy7]

Lol. This thread went to hell.

That link you posted JDJ, the FPS difference is near negligable or so would have been said so if the Core i7 was winning by that little. Hell they used Beta drivers which may possibly cause that.

I wouldn't mind them doing a cross of them scaling with the highest end nV GPU too since its still there.

Gaming is great but it doesn't determine everything for a CPU. There is a world outside of it, thats larger than gaming.

I would still recommend a Core i5/i7 over a Phenom II on the right budget. Not a Phenom II X6 or Core i9 though. Not worth it yet.

And since they are not out yet................

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Depends on the price.
From what Ive read, having more than 8 threads may really benefit thenewer OS, Vista al lil and W7 alot.
Itll be interesting as we head into +8 cores to see whether 8 true cores vs HT or AMDs solution benefits the newer OS'
Right now, XP currently operates a lil faster under 8 cores, but after that, since theres better usage of MT at 8 and over cores with Vista, and even moreso with W7 due to their respective superior handling globally on MT, we may finally see some nice returns across the board have more cores, and then IPC may take a back seat to many cores

 

[one-shot]

Another one of these "AMD is dead" posts. AMD is fine. AMD is not going anywhere. AMD is here to stay. AMD won't die anytime soon. AMD will not die tomorrow.

 

[yomamafor1]

<Captain Obvious to the rescue>

Yes! Once again, we find that in GPU Limited Benchmarks the speed and processing power of the CPU doesn't make much difference!!!

Impressive!! (well.. not really, but whatever...)

</Captain Obvious>

Apparently this simple, irrefutable logic is almost always ignored by the AMDiot lot.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Like HKMG needed at 45nm, so too is i7 superior in multi card setups, a few "claims" Ive heard over the years.
It has its place, gaming does, as does HKMG, and when to apply it as well.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Like HKMG needed at 45nm, so too is i7 superior in multi card setups, a few "claims" Ive heard over the years.
It has its place, gaming does, as does HKMG, and when to apply it as well.

So you are sayng that HKMG is never a needed part even though AMD, IBM and countless other chip makers plan to utilize it because they know that their normal process will hit a breaking point that HKMG will solve means that people saying HKMG was needed is not right? HKMG will be needed by everyone. And there will be a point something better will be needed, probably sooner than HKMG.

BTW a 5970 is technically not a multi GPU setup. The way that CF works on a dual GPU card is different and normally better but since its two GPUs using the same PCIe lane it could downplay the performance and present a GPU bottleneck sooner than two individual GPUs in SLI/CF.

TBH its hard to say since there hasn't been any like the one THG did a while back to reconfirm it. I would prefer to see a few different setups such as a single GPU, DUal GPU single card, Dual GPUs, 3 GPUs and then 4 GPUs and not only from one GPU brand but like THG did, from nV and ATI thus giving us a more well rounded perspective on it compared to just on HD5970.

Then again what do I know.... it proves your point so its obviously 100% right, right?