- Status
you don't have to disable discreet video card if you're using lucidlogix virtu
(afaik motherboard manufacturers include virtu support). you can also use two displays connected to igp and discreet cards to get quick sync to work.
sb-igp has a problem displaying 23.976 fps video. it supports 24 fps and 23.97 fps with software support. it's a design oversight by intel. hopefully ivy bridgewill fix that but we'll have to wait for benchmarks and reviews of ivy bridge.
the aero issue seems to be graphics driver related.
amd's gfx cards usually score higher than others in hqv menchmark meaning they're capable of better quality video. llano doesn't seem to have the 23.976 fps issue.
"Intel looks to be taking a page from AMD on making the Ivy Bridge CPU scompatible with current gen Sandy Bridge platforms"
Mr Crowthers please read this page and please mind that LGA1366 and LGA1156 were not two "tocks" but socket differentiation based on targeted market segment inside of single "tock". Intel is still on track with changing socket every 2 year.
Mr Crowthers please read this page and please mind that LGA1366 and LGA1156 were not two "tocks" but socket differentiation based on targeted market segment inside of single "tock". Intel is still on track with changing socket every 2 year.
"There is one big reason why some applications can make advantage of many cores and other cannot. This is because most tasks are serial by nature. You can split such a task into small jobs and run each job in a single thread, but still one thread will work and the others will wait for data. You cannot take nine women and get a baby in a month."
Actually, you can. There's a nine-month latency, sure, but set up the pipeline properly and you can get one a month thereafter.
Actually, you can. There's a nine-month latency, sure, but set up the pipeline properly and you can get one a month thereafter.
[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]Should also mention, AMD is innovating on one front - they are pushing the core envelope in a way Intel isn't. It seems Ivy Bridge will still be a line of quad cores. If AMD gets a 16 core high end CPU that clocks as high as Bulldozer they would beat any quad core offering Intel could put out. So hopefully that gets Intel shoving more cores on the die.[/citation]
The argument for number of cores is invalid, the only thing that maters is price/performance/power consumption. Intel can do everything that AMD can with 4 cores, way less power, at a price that for the moment isn't completely unreasonable.
If I had to make an uneducated guess I'd say Intel is going to take ipc improvements and die shrinks as absolutely far as they can, until they hit a brick wall and physics doesn't agree anymore. That is the moment they're gonna decide to push for more cores. At least my guess anyways...
The argument for number of cores is invalid, the only thing that maters is price/performance/power consumption. Intel can do everything that AMD can with 4 cores, way less power, at a price that for the moment isn't completely unreasonable.
If I had to make an uneducated guess I'd say Intel is going to take ipc improvements and die shrinks as absolutely far as they can, until they hit a brick wall and physics doesn't agree anymore. That is the moment they're gonna decide to push for more cores. At least my guess anyways...
[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]AMD better working smart on their APU line, if not we are going back to the 1.5K US$ per celeron PC era soon[/citation]
You honestly believe that Intel is stupid enough to charge $1,500 for a low end processor during a time when a good percentage of the public can't afford to keep gas in their car? As I've said before. AMD no longer factors into the value equation on the high end of things or even really the middle ground due to the 2500k i5 being such a good value. Intel could get away with charging what they want, but only would serve to destroy their market by flooding it with chips most people won't buy due to cost?
[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]Should also mention, AMD is innovating on one front - they are pushing the core envelope in a way Intel isn't. It seems Ivy Bridge will still be a line of quad cores. If AMD gets a 16 core high end CPU that clocks as high as Bulldozer they would beat any quad core offering Intel could put out. So hopefully that gets Intel shoving more cores on the die.[/citation]
Uh. Yeah. You're completely right, given how well we've seen their eight core CPU works compared to a quad core or even their own previous generation six core. Sticking another eight cores to a chip will obviously fix AMD's issues since adding cores worked so well back when Intel had the Pentium D. That's why Core 2 flopped so bad, since a higher core count is more important than actually improving the design
Sorry. Got a head cold that makes my tongue a little sharper than normal.
In all seriousness, though, there's more to it than just a solution via cores.
AMD could bend over and crap out a 32 core chip for $100 that wouldn't really matter or perform for end users, if only because the overall returns and efficiencies would drop as core counts rise, if overall the design isn't improved. AMD's weakness at this moment is unfortunately EXACTLY in that area, where they are having trouble improving on their design efficiency. They don't need more cores. They need fewer cores that perform as good, or better than SB.
You honestly believe that Intel is stupid enough to charge $1,500 for a low end processor during a time when a good percentage of the public can't afford to keep gas in their car? As I've said before. AMD no longer factors into the value equation on the high end of things or even really the middle ground due to the 2500k i5 being such a good value. Intel could get away with charging what they want, but only would serve to destroy their market by flooding it with chips most people won't buy due to cost?
[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]Should also mention, AMD is innovating on one front - they are pushing the core envelope in a way Intel isn't. It seems Ivy Bridge will still be a line of quad cores. If AMD gets a 16 core high end CPU that clocks as high as Bulldozer they would beat any quad core offering Intel could put out. So hopefully that gets Intel shoving more cores on the die.[/citation]
Uh. Yeah. You're completely right, given how well we've seen their eight core CPU works compared to a quad core or even their own previous generation six core. Sticking another eight cores to a chip will obviously fix AMD's issues since adding cores worked so well back when Intel had the Pentium D. That's why Core 2 flopped so bad, since a higher core count is more important than actually improving the design
Sorry. Got a head cold that makes my tongue a little sharper than normal.
In all seriousness, though, there's more to it than just a solution via cores.AMD could bend over and crap out a 32 core chip for $100 that wouldn't really matter or perform for end users, if only because the overall returns and efficiencies would drop as core counts rise, if overall the design isn't improved. AMD's weakness at this moment is unfortunately EXACTLY in that area, where they are having trouble improving on their design efficiency. They don't need more cores. They need fewer cores that perform as good, or better than SB.
josejones
Distinguished
- Oct 27, 2010
- 901
- 0
- 18,990
What is the best CPU brand for the Windows 7 operating system - Intel or AMD? Does Micro$oft lean towards one over the other in any way? Or does that really even matter?
I ask because it's time for me to do a new build - my business PC was built in 2004!!! We have a small business and we use Adobe CS4, Word, Office 2010 pretty much everyday. Now, we have to start making our own videos too. I've been waiting for the new, next generation platform to come out with USB 3 and PCIe 3 etc. etc. before I buy anything.
P.S. I'd like to see Tom's Hardware do a thoughtful article on what we can expect from PCIe 3 ... hint, hint. Other than a doubling of the bandwidth I really know very little about it - since I'm not a PC guy with A++ certification. I need it for my work we do - not for gaming. Although, don't tell the wife, I sneak in some online Halo, Medal of Honor and Castle Wolf when she's not around. Shhh.
I ask because it's time for me to do a new build - my business PC was built in 2004!!! We have a small business and we use Adobe CS4, Word, Office 2010 pretty much everyday. Now, we have to start making our own videos too. I've been waiting for the new, next generation platform to come out with USB 3 and PCIe 3 etc. etc. before I buy anything.
P.S. I'd like to see Tom's Hardware do a thoughtful article on what we can expect from PCIe 3 ... hint, hint. Other than a doubling of the bandwidth I really know very little about it - since I'm not a PC guy with A++ certification. I need it for my work we do - not for gaming. Although, don't tell the wife, I sneak in some online Halo, Medal of Honor and Castle Wolf when she's not around. Shhh.
"The Z68, P67, H67 and H61 chipsets look to all be compatible with a required UEFI update" Where's the catch?
UEFI *is* the catch. Pile of Horse Pucky! Microshaft trying to rule the world.
UEFI *is* the catch. Pile of Horse Pucky! Microshaft trying to rule the world.
amk-aka-Phantom
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2011
- 3,004
- 0
- 20,860
Get your head straight. Why do you care if Microsoft locks your boot down to their OS? You want to use something different than Windows? Linux? Then you don't need to upgrade! What for? :lol:
Besides, the secure UEFI boot will be possible to switch off, IIRC.
Seriously, sometimes people's paranoia and MS hate (for no reason) reaches beyond stupid.
goatsetung
Distinguished
- Jan 28, 2010
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]jaliska[/nom]Meanwhile... Bulldozer is still a colossal failure[/citation]
The bull what now?
The bull what now?
I just want more cores! Where's my 16 core cpu already? I don't even care if it's slower as long as it's diagonally inverse compatible with a Socket 2012 Sugar Britches platform after an Illudium Q-36-IGSM Eastbridge BIOS flash and a C3P0 firmware micro-code update!
josejones
Distinguished
- Oct 27, 2010
- 901
- 0
- 18,990
i5-3550 Ivy Bridge review:
i5-3570K Ivy Bridge review:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%20600315409&IsNodeId=1&name=Ivy%20Bridge
i5-3570K Ivy Bridge review:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%20600315409&IsNodeId=1&name=Ivy%20Bridge
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram