- Status
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]no it isnt... look at gameing, on a AAA game, it costs 10 million per platform to develop for them, more platforms equal bigger costs equal higher priced games, or less ambitious games. now thats just gameing. but lets go with a cpu market or a gpu... if there were more than 2 companies and more than 2 graphics companies, do you really thing that it would be for the better...there is a minimum cost for parts on these gpus and cpus, and that's generally 50000$ per waffer, and about 1 billion minimum for a architecture design. if we had lets say 5 viable solutions all with the same market share, would we still get better products? im betting the products would ultimately be cheaper but there is no way all 5 would pull anywhere near the profit they currently do...its hard to explain this in a way that people will understand because most people cant think of how more choices will bite them.[/citation]
Way to sound like an elitist. Competition doesn't mean many companies duking it out. Sure we can have a market like NASCAR with 43 different competitors but that is ridiculous. BUT, you can still have healthy competition between two companies (like it is currently) as demonstrated in almost every other sport. But I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your superior knowledge. Do carry on.
Way to sound like an elitist. Competition doesn't mean many companies duking it out. Sure we can have a market like NASCAR with 43 different competitors but that is ridiculous. BUT, you can still have healthy competition between two companies (like it is currently) as demonstrated in almost every other sport. But I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your superior knowledge. Do carry on.
[citation][nom]aidynphoenix[/nom]what you are saying is that if there was more company's each company would have less money to spend on research and graphics card improvements, which would hinder advances in technology and graphics card improvements.[/citation]
correct, if there are allot of companies all going for 1 area, that kind of business only works in certain markets, such as tshirt making. i have to imagine that because everyone uses them, and every one buys em, competition can bring the price down without hurting the companies themselves.
but lets look at tvs for a minute... there is a base cost, and that cost isnt going to go down any further, so when i read price fixing was happening, all i could imagine was a bunch of companies agreeing not to go into a price war that would leave tvs cheaper over all, but leave next to noting in the lines of profit margins.
[citation][nom]jezus53[/nom]Way to sound like an elitist. Competition doesn't mean many companies duking it out. Sure we can have a market like NASCAR with 43 different competitors but that is ridiculous. BUT, you can still have healthy competition between two companies (like it is currently) as demonstrated in almost every other sport. But I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your superior knowledge. Do carry on.[/citation]
your going with sports as an annology... those people (football specifically) work their butts off for multi million dollars, if they dont try harder they will be let go, or when renegotiating the contract, will take a pay cut... its not so much healthy competition, as it is greed. and dont certain sports have rules about how much you can pay for a team...
like i said above, competition will can really hurt you in the long run. again lets look at games, they take so much money to make that most AAA games aren't original... its to the point that indi games offer more different game play, while the AAA are really almost clones of each other.
if we bring that to hardware, to much competition would mean that everything would stagnant. to many sales would be taken from companies, and in the end, it would lead to smaller developments smaller leaps and so forth...
right now people are looking at the 7000 line and wondering why they cost so much... well here is the thing... to was probably a 500 million + in r&d and initial yields are most likely low, they always are in the first few. but do the math, and realize that the best comes at a premium, you also have to look at dual gpu and realize that its a specialty item.
the reason i want the number on how many mm and how big an ssd are is because i want to know what a projected base cost of the item is. i want to know how much they are screwing us or if they are at all.
correct, if there are allot of companies all going for 1 area, that kind of business only works in certain markets, such as tshirt making. i have to imagine that because everyone uses them, and every one buys em, competition can bring the price down without hurting the companies themselves.
but lets look at tvs for a minute... there is a base cost, and that cost isnt going to go down any further, so when i read price fixing was happening, all i could imagine was a bunch of companies agreeing not to go into a price war that would leave tvs cheaper over all, but leave next to noting in the lines of profit margins.
[citation][nom]jezus53[/nom]Way to sound like an elitist. Competition doesn't mean many companies duking it out. Sure we can have a market like NASCAR with 43 different competitors but that is ridiculous. BUT, you can still have healthy competition between two companies (like it is currently) as demonstrated in almost every other sport. But I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your superior knowledge. Do carry on.[/citation]
your going with sports as an annology... those people (football specifically) work their butts off for multi million dollars, if they dont try harder they will be let go, or when renegotiating the contract, will take a pay cut... its not so much healthy competition, as it is greed. and dont certain sports have rules about how much you can pay for a team...
like i said above, competition will can really hurt you in the long run. again lets look at games, they take so much money to make that most AAA games aren't original... its to the point that indi games offer more different game play, while the AAA are really almost clones of each other.
if we bring that to hardware, to much competition would mean that everything would stagnant. to many sales would be taken from companies, and in the end, it would lead to smaller developments smaller leaps and so forth...
right now people are looking at the 7000 line and wondering why they cost so much... well here is the thing... to was probably a 500 million + in r&d and initial yields are most likely low, they always are in the first few. but do the math, and realize that the best comes at a premium, you also have to look at dual gpu and realize that its a specialty item.
the reason i want the number on how many mm and how big an ssd are is because i want to know what a projected base cost of the item is. i want to know how much they are screwing us or if they are at all.
jkflipflop98
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2006
- 1,991
- 448
- 20,170
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom] as somebody before me said the ARMy of ants will grow in size so much, it will be able to threat the desktop, even the server. That's why NVIDIA jumped into that wagon too and that's why the new AMD CEO speaks about not limiting themselves to x86 too.[/citation]
Yeah, you only need about 25 of them to equal the processing power of an i3.
Yeah, you only need about 25 of them to equal the processing power of an i3.
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Dudes, there are several more companies that are making GPU designs: Imagination Technologies, ARM and Qualcommm come to my mind. And Qualcomm uses ex-ATI technology... Dumbass ATI to sell their mobile division. They might not be making desktop shit but who cares about desktop anyway besides a few kiddie gamers. Desktop gaming is a small market compared to what is out there. And soon... as somebody before me said the ARMy of ants will grow in size so much, it will be able to threat the desktop, even the server. That's why NVIDIA jumped into that wagon too and that's why the new AMD CEO speaks about not limiting themselves to x86 too.[/citation]
the desktop gpu has far more applications than just gaming, cuda and opencl are really just emurgaeing, and when opencl takes off, i can see the need for gpu in tasks you never thought needed them... only reason it hasnt gone further yet is cuda being only nvidia.
[citation][nom]doive1231[/nom]Look at it another way. Nvidia's CPUs are rubbish. AMD are a great bet for the future with a strong CPU and GPU outlook.[/citation]
he said outlook, in multicore amd was equaling a 40$ more expensive cpu in performance, if they can fix the single core on their architecture, they will be well on their way to rivaling intel again... if they cant, they still have more than enough processing power for 90% of the people out there, they could hold out till multicore becomes the norm (should already be)
the desktop gpu has far more applications than just gaming, cuda and opencl are really just emurgaeing, and when opencl takes off, i can see the need for gpu in tasks you never thought needed them... only reason it hasnt gone further yet is cuda being only nvidia.
[citation][nom]doive1231[/nom]Look at it another way. Nvidia's CPUs are rubbish. AMD are a great bet for the future with a strong CPU and GPU outlook.[/citation]
he said outlook, in multicore amd was equaling a 40$ more expensive cpu in performance, if they can fix the single core on their architecture, they will be well on their way to rivaling intel again... if they cant, they still have more than enough processing power for 90% of the people out there, they could hold out till multicore becomes the norm (should already be)
upgrade_1977
Distinguished
- May 5, 2011
- 665
- 0
- 18,990
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
NVidia would've been a much, much better choice for AMD considering NVidia is a much stronger company. Of course, I'm glad history didn't go down this way. NVidia is too good to be lost in a merger.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Dudes, there are several more companies that are making GPU designs: Imagination Technologies, ARM and Qualcommm come to my mind. And Qualcomm uses ex-ATI technology... Dumbass ATI to sell their mobile division. They might not be making desktop shit but who cares about desktop anyway besides a few kiddie gamers. Desktop gaming is a small market compared to what is out there. And soon... as somebody before me said the ARMy of ants will grow in size so much, it will be able to threat the desktop, even the server. That's why NVIDIA jumped into that wagon too and that's why the new AMD CEO speaks about not limiting themselves to x86 too.[/citation]
Desktop gaming is undoubtedly more common than mobile gaming with similar quality and desktops can offer far better quality than any other platform. Desktops are also much more versatile in that thay can do many more things than just games. Desktop video cards are all capable of some sort of GPGPU work and acceleration of things besides gaming. Desktop gaming is not a small market compared to any mobile gaming.
You know that graphics from the companies you mentioned? I'm willing to be that a $25 desktop video card will be exponentially faster, let alone the high end models. You will be disappointed if you think those mobile systems can approach a desktop, or even a laptop or Llano netbook. Besides that, games played on machines that use those ARM chips with those graphics aren't capable of playing many (most?) PC games simply because of a difference in input style. Do you want to play a fast-paced FPS game on a phone? How about playing a strategy game like Command and Conquer 4 or Starcraft 2?
Going mobile also has little to do with using or not using x86... Intel already has x86 smart phones coming and the new Atoms being used are no worse than the ARM chips. In fact, the Atoms use similar amounts of power even though they have around twice as much IPC and have slightly higher clock rates. This is why the single core smart phone Atoms can compete with dual core ARMs in performance. Dual core or quad core Atoms will give the upcoming quad core ARM chips a real run for their money.
Then there are consoles... Well, they're okay, but you can't play on them as well as a PC and they don't come close to PC picture quality. They have the advantage in price, but a $700 gaming machine could play anything and everything at 1080p with maxed out quality settings. Can any other type of machine do that? Yes, but the only machine that could besides a $700 or better desktop would be a laptop with a huge price tag, and it would need to be plugged into an outlet anyway, unless half the price went to something like dual high capacity batteries or better.
Also, as has been said, no ARM chip comes close to even some of the slowest processors in use today. Those new quad core ARMs? They might challenge an old netbook with an Atom, but even a P4 can beat an Atom. The processing power of a $40 (on newegg) single core Sandy Bridge Celeron G440 (1.6GHz) would fly around the fastest ARM CPUs to come out within the next year or two. Throw in the $50 (on newegg) Sandy Bridge Celeron G530 (dual core 2.4GHz) for only $10 more and you get about 200% more performance, solidifying Desktop performance superiority. Think about that... The $40 CPU is faster than the fastest quad core ARMs to come out, yet for a measly 25% more, you get triple the performance.
Desktop gaming is undoubtedly more common than mobile gaming with similar quality and desktops can offer far better quality than any other platform. Desktops are also much more versatile in that thay can do many more things than just games. Desktop video cards are all capable of some sort of GPGPU work and acceleration of things besides gaming. Desktop gaming is not a small market compared to any mobile gaming.
You know that graphics from the companies you mentioned? I'm willing to be that a $25 desktop video card will be exponentially faster, let alone the high end models. You will be disappointed if you think those mobile systems can approach a desktop, or even a laptop or Llano netbook. Besides that, games played on machines that use those ARM chips with those graphics aren't capable of playing many (most?) PC games simply because of a difference in input style. Do you want to play a fast-paced FPS game on a phone? How about playing a strategy game like Command and Conquer 4 or Starcraft 2?
Going mobile also has little to do with using or not using x86... Intel already has x86 smart phones coming and the new Atoms being used are no worse than the ARM chips. In fact, the Atoms use similar amounts of power even though they have around twice as much IPC and have slightly higher clock rates. This is why the single core smart phone Atoms can compete with dual core ARMs in performance. Dual core or quad core Atoms will give the upcoming quad core ARM chips a real run for their money.
Then there are consoles... Well, they're okay, but you can't play on them as well as a PC and they don't come close to PC picture quality. They have the advantage in price, but a $700 gaming machine could play anything and everything at 1080p with maxed out quality settings. Can any other type of machine do that? Yes, but the only machine that could besides a $700 or better desktop would be a laptop with a huge price tag, and it would need to be plugged into an outlet anyway, unless half the price went to something like dual high capacity batteries or better.
Also, as has been said, no ARM chip comes close to even some of the slowest processors in use today. Those new quad core ARMs? They might challenge an old netbook with an Atom, but even a P4 can beat an Atom. The processing power of a $40 (on newegg) single core Sandy Bridge Celeron G440 (1.6GHz) would fly around the fastest ARM CPUs to come out within the next year or two. Throw in the $50 (on newegg) Sandy Bridge Celeron G530 (dual core 2.4GHz) for only $10 more and you get about 200% more performance, solidifying Desktop performance superiority. Think about that... The $40 CPU is faster than the fastest quad core ARMs to come out, yet for a measly 25% more, you get triple the performance.
eliteclone25
Honorable
- Feb 25, 2012
- 41
- 0
- 10,530
Metroidam11
Honorable
- Feb 19, 2012
- 25
- 0
- 10,530
knownballer
Distinguished
- Mar 3, 2010
- 21
- 0
- 18,510
Knew about this one years ago...
http://www.tgdaily.com/business/36073-amd-to-merge-or-not-to-merge
But think if they actually did merge? Imagine where would we would be now? It's questions like these that make me love the tech industry.
http://www.tgdaily.com/business/36073-amd-to-merge-or-not-to-merge
But think if they actually did merge? Imagine where would we would be now? It's questions like these that make me love the tech industry.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]qaqcqbz[/nom]I'm surprised that Huang even considered selling out to AMD, it doesn't seem like something he would do, even for a seat on the board.[/citation]
Surprised that Huang considered selling out for a promotion? Yeah, I'm not. He wanted to control the merged company, not help control it. If he was in control, then we would probably have a better AMD, but Ati may have simply gone out of business or would be where AMD is now compared to the Intel, Ati could have simply been junk in comparison and might have been stuck at the low end with high end cards being overpriced, Nvidia only cards.
Honestly, I think that it's better with AMD owning Ati instead of Nvidia and AMD being together, although it seems like you would agree to that.
Surprised that Huang considered selling out for a promotion? Yeah, I'm not. He wanted to control the merged company, not help control it. If he was in control, then we would probably have a better AMD, but Ati may have simply gone out of business or would be where AMD is now compared to the Intel, Ati could have simply been junk in comparison and might have been stuck at the low end with high end cards being overpriced, Nvidia only cards.
Honestly, I think that it's better with AMD owning Ati instead of Nvidia and AMD being together, although it seems like you would agree to that.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Tavo_Nova[/nom]amd should just buy both intel and nvidia, that way no more competition lol, a bulldozer 8 core 16 threads with capabilities greater than 3960X, lol with built in graphics of 7970 3gb lol[/citation]
Doesn't work that way and AMD is much smaller than Nvidia which is smaller than Intel, so AMD is the one that could get bought out. However, there is little incentive to buy AMD at all, so it probably won't happen. Besides that, it is illegal for AMD to kill competition in such a way. Can't have 7970 as integrated graphics because it uses to much power and would have a HUGE memory bottleneck.
Bulldozer wouldn't be any faster the way it is for anything that can't use more than 8 threads (not a whole lot of software can use even four and what can use it probably wouldn't see much benefit anyway). It would basically be a system with a Radeon 6700 or so card's graphics performance, roughly the same poor CPU performance, and we would have no competition to show us how crappy it would be.
Anyway, AMD is something like half the size of Nvidia and Intel is far larger than both of them put together, so it can't be done, even if it were legal for AMD to wipe out competition. We would have anti-trust laws and such stopping it from happening. If AMD could have 7970 like IGPs then they probably would already have them right now. The 7970 has a 250w TDP, that is almost triple the TDP of a Sandy Bridge i5/i7 with a 95w TDP and is more than triple an Ivy Bridge i5/i7 at 77w TDPs.
Bulldozer has 95w TDPs for the low/middle end CPUs and 125 for the higher end models. The 8 cores have 125w TDPs, so 125+250=375w TDP. TDPs don't translate directly into power usage, but I think it goes without saying that this would be the most power INEFFICIENT modern system possible because of the many bottlenecks and inefficient parts.
Doesn't work that way and AMD is much smaller than Nvidia which is smaller than Intel, so AMD is the one that could get bought out. However, there is little incentive to buy AMD at all, so it probably won't happen. Besides that, it is illegal for AMD to kill competition in such a way. Can't have 7970 as integrated graphics because it uses to much power and would have a HUGE memory bottleneck.
Bulldozer wouldn't be any faster the way it is for anything that can't use more than 8 threads (not a whole lot of software can use even four and what can use it probably wouldn't see much benefit anyway). It would basically be a system with a Radeon 6700 or so card's graphics performance, roughly the same poor CPU performance, and we would have no competition to show us how crappy it would be.
Anyway, AMD is something like half the size of Nvidia and Intel is far larger than both of them put together, so it can't be done, even if it were legal for AMD to wipe out competition. We would have anti-trust laws and such stopping it from happening. If AMD could have 7970 like IGPs then they probably would already have them right now. The 7970 has a 250w TDP, that is almost triple the TDP of a Sandy Bridge i5/i7 with a 95w TDP and is more than triple an Ivy Bridge i5/i7 at 77w TDPs.
Bulldozer has 95w TDPs for the low/middle end CPUs and 125 for the higher end models. The 8 cores have 125w TDPs, so 125+250=375w TDP. TDPs don't translate directly into power usage, but I think it goes without saying that this would be the most power INEFFICIENT modern system possible because of the many bottlenecks and inefficient parts.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News Introducing the Tom’s Hardware Premium Beta: Exclusive content for members
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
Question Is there any way to connect this multi-adapter to a UHD disc drive?
- Started by Jay_34
- Replies: 3
-
-
Question Can my PC handle a NVIDA 3060 TI without upgrading anything else?
- Started by hexzero13
- Replies: 22
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram