New AMD CEO: We Need to Become Predators

[doron]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]lets go with the monitor thinga 1600p (2560x1600)the gpu matters FAR more than the cpu, as even in games where the cpu bottle necks it, at that resolution, the gpu is almost ALWAYS the bottle neck.[/citation]

I completely agree. However keep in mind that gpus are getting massively improved every year or so while cpus see less of that improvement, and when you play a cpu-intensive game (usually a pc-only title such as Starcraft II, The Witcher 2) every cpu-upgrade improves on your maximum AND the ever-important minimum frame rates across the board while sometimes a gpu upgrade will only add so much to the eye candy or might offer a theoretical only improvement of fps since most monitors today are 60hz.

 

[NotANerd]

Opie, the shark! dunndunn. . dunndunnn

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]doron[/nom]I completely agree. However keep in mind that gpus are getting massively improved every year or so while cpus see less of that improvement, and when you play a cpu-intensive game (usually a pc-only title such as Starcraft II, The Witcher 2) every cpu-upgrade improves on your maximum AND the ever-important minimum frame rates across the board while sometimes a gpu upgrade will only add so much to the eye candy or might offer a theoretical only improvement of fps since most monitors today are 60hz.[/citation]

the witcher 2 is cpu intensive? i didn't read benchmarks for it, but from what i have been told, its a gpu intensive rather than cpu.

and while i agree on starcraft 2, i also can counter with that is an anomaly and restrained to only 1 genre, the strategy game. i have to ask because i really do not know, benchmarks are all made single player, correct? is the same frame rate issues present online? and if so, i have to ask, why? i dont want to say bad programming, because single player, it the cpu would be ai taking up allot, but online? without the need for complex ai that runs an enemy...

but look at all we can do with the cpu right now... do we need photo realstic physics that we wont notice half the time, or can we make due with believable predetermined?

personally i believe in fame it till you make it, but we really are NEVER going to have a need for a glass of wine, half full, to get nicked by a bullet and crack, than get hit directly by a bullet and full on break, spilling the wine in a realistic fashion with the bullet tragectory being slightly altered by the impact with the glass. i mean at some point full world physics will be possible... i'm imagining something like tessellation but for physics, but we have no real need to push it to the max all the time.

much like with graphics, i don't care for dx10 and 11, as they are really just small upgrades. look at a well made dx9 game, and than a dx10 game, think crysis demo that got hacked and played the highest setting in dx9 but were locked away for dx10, there was next to no graphical difference. with 11, the coding makes games run a bit faster, but i don't care for taking advantage of things, like tessellation, because its barely implemented, and only in superficial ways. i mean give me full world tessellation or don't use it, don't slightly improve an area, make it night and day or noting at all.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Bad luck the AMD CEO ain't a good enough predator like his counterpart in Intel.

 

[abduktedtemplar]

I really don't get all the amd cpu bashing, saying it's only good for this or that. Playing new games with the setting on ultra at 1920x1200 and everything is gravy. I know my 5870 does much of the work but gimme a break. This whole amd cpu is worthless crap is just pure fiction. AMD cpus are perfectly capable for the mass majority of users, even users that want the most demanding graphics.

That new CEO was not inspiring at all.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I really don't get all the amd cpu bashing, saying it's only good for this or that. Playing new games with the setting on ultra at 1920x1200 and everything is gravy. I know my 5870 does much of the work but gimme a break. This whole amd cpu is worthless crap is just pure fiction. AMD cpus are perfectly capable for the mass majority of users, even users that want the most demanding graphics.

That new CEO was not inspiring at all.

Nobody said that AMD CPUs are worthless crap. If someone did, they need to open their eyes and look at the prices. You get what you paid for. 2500K is $220 and Phenoms are less (don't remember how much exactly), and the performance delivered is proportional to price you pay - except for the 6-core Phenoms and the top quad-core Phenoms which cost almost as much as the 2500K or 2400, which kick their a$$es for the price.