dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Let me bring you back to earth one painfully harsh step at a time.
4x4 is a joke. Period. Moving on to the next bit of bullshit you spout. Intel V8 is a proof of concept (i.e joke) that pokes fun at AMD, their QuadFX platform and also the delay, performance and availability of the platform.
We don't use two cores to their peak efficiency in games now, much less quad core CPU's. If you think by Q4 2007, game makers will be moving away from the majority of gamers, who happen to still be on single core CPU's, you are terribly mistaken, and should be suffering thru my 8:00AM Business and Market Economy class too.
SLI, Crossfire and any implementation of multiple GPU's via multiple PCB's are considered gimmicks. Why? Because they offer diminished returns in lieu of high premiums. Also, if you want to waste your money on such concepts, you can look at the DQ6, 680i and P5B DLX which support SLI and quad core (which incidentally, is the highest support for multiple cores that we'll be seeing for games within the next year or so) or the XBX2 and the RD600, or the upcoming X38 for your Crossfire (or SLI if your smart enough) and quad core support.
The uber high end players, like FalconNW and even Voodoo, seem to be shying away from AMD.
Now respond. I've got all day.
4x4 is a joke. Period. Moving on to the next bit of bullshit you spout. Intel V8 is a proof of concept (i.e joke) that pokes fun at AMD, their QuadFX platform and also the delay, performance and availability of the platform.
We don't use two cores to their peak efficiency in games now, much less quad core CPU's. If you think by Q4 2007, game makers will be moving away from the majority of gamers, who happen to still be on single core CPU's, you are terribly mistaken, and should be suffering thru my 8:00AM Business and Market Economy class too.
SLI, Crossfire and any implementation of multiple GPU's via multiple PCB's are considered gimmicks. Why? Because they offer diminished returns in lieu of high premiums. Also, if you want to waste your money on such concepts, you can look at the DQ6, 680i and P5B DLX which support SLI and quad core (which incidentally, is the highest support for multiple cores that we'll be seeing for games within the next year or so) or the XBX2 and the RD600, or the upcoming X38 for your Crossfire (or SLI if your smart enough) and quad core support.
The uber high end players, like FalconNW and even Voodoo, seem to be shying away from AMD.
Now respond. I've got all day.
heartview
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 258
- 0
- 18,780
Well said, and I agree. Intel doesn't NEED to compete with those technologies, because they don't compete with Intel. It's like asking what does AMD have to compete with what Intel will release in 2008? Who the hell cares because it is pointless to discuss it at this point...
Intel is being so aggressive right now, I don't think AMD even knows what the hell they will do to compete. Everything they have right now can't compete, and I bet they're sweating bullets trying to make sure once they do have an answer, it's a damn good one. Especially considering how 4x4 isn't an answer to any question the vast majority of consumers have been asking.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Whoop-ti-f*cking-do, you found one. I can name the rest. HL2, possibly Crysis, possibly Halo 2, possibly FEAR.
You've found the exception. Let me state the rule. The majority of gamers use single core CPU's. Therefore coding games to work in a multicore environment, (let me tell you this, coding anything to work on two cores is a bitch, far less 4 or more) is not economical. Therefore, the majority of developers will not do much past dual core for now. That by no means says that these guys aren't working their asses off doing such, but you'll be left with hardware that is basically overkill. Hell, even my X6800 is overkill for the games that I run.
You want to talk about having those extra cores running physics? Just one will suffice. The biggest advancement you will see in games will come from graphics cards. Not the CPU.
Respond.
You've found the exception. Let me state the rule. The majority of gamers use single core CPU's. Therefore coding games to work in a multicore environment, (let me tell you this, coding anything to work on two cores is a bitch, far less 4 or more) is not economical. Therefore, the majority of developers will not do much past dual core for now. That by no means says that these guys aren't working their asses off doing such, but you'll be left with hardware that is basically overkill. Hell, even my X6800 is overkill for the games that I run.
You want to talk about having those extra cores running physics? Just one will suffice. The biggest advancement you will see in games will come from graphics cards. Not the CPU.
Respond.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
heartview
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 258
- 0
- 18,780
Generally speaking, it is no harder to code for 4 cores than it is for two. The real difficult transition is from a single thread to multi-thread, regardless of how many the "multi" stands for. Once multi-thread, it is all about efficiency on two or more cores.
A poorly written multi-thread app can perform worse on a dual core CPU than a single thread app would on a single core CPU (all else being equal, I mean). This jump to multi-thread gaming will take a few years to iron out, for sure.
A poorly written multi-thread app can perform worse on a dual core CPU than a single thread app would on a single core CPU (all else being equal, I mean). This jump to multi-thread gaming will take a few years to iron out, for sure.
shinigamiX
Distinguished
- Jan 8, 2006
- 1,107
- 0
- 19,280
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Well if AMD can trot out ALAN WAKE scores on there 4x4 K8L quad SLI rig and roast INTEL it will be good for PR
i am in no way saying this i what any sane person would buy.... or that its even feasible before 2010...
i am just saying.... intel will officially have the second fastest platform no matter how you slice it at that point... even if it not for the masses
joe blow hears that in Comp Usa ..he buys AMD
i am in no way saying this i what any sane person would buy.... or that its even feasible before 2010...
i am just saying.... intel will officially have the second fastest platform no matter how you slice it at that point... even if it not for the masses
joe blow hears that in Comp Usa ..he buys AMD
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
LMAO
You're kidding, right? You must be kidding...must be.
We're still waiting for the introduction of a 4x4 that doesnt short out th local power grid only to perfrom worse than a dual core, brisbane and K8L. Who cares about about AMDs rumoured octocore? They havent even produced a single socket quad yet, just the "glued" mobo quad.
heartview
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 258
- 0
- 18,780
4x4 will NEVER be economical for a volume market, so your point is moot. I'm sure Intel could turn out a rig that someone would coin V16 and blow away AMD with that platform, for less money, less power, and better performance. 4x4 is a dud. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
NMDante
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2002
- 1,588
- 0
- 19,780
Not sure why you linked to a game being demo'd at the Intel IDF. That's kind of against your own title, isn't it? I mean, the conclusion of the Alan Wake demo was:
Yes, the Quad was O/C'd, but it ran extremely well with a single GPU, and it wasn't even a 8800GT version.
You have a link of Alan Wake running on a QFX system? If it is the second fastest system as you clain, where's the benchmarks? Or did Remedy just not even try to run Alan Wake on a QFX? I mean, why not? If it is the supposed fastest system, why not show off it's power?
heartview
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 258
- 0
- 18,780
I honestly feel AMD is going down the wrong road with the whole 4x4 architecture. Any multi-socket approach is going to be more expensive than a single socket solution. So, regardless of how "good" AMD can make that architecture they can never really compete with one crucial (to the mass market) aspect, which is price. All Intel would have to do to discredit each generation of 4x4 would be to create a solution with the same number of cores that provides similar performance for less money and less power consumption (and that is an easy target for Intel).
About the only segment of the market that 4x4 has a chance in is the workstation segment. And that would only be justifiable if Intel didn't have something to compete with it, which is unlikely under the current situation.
4x4 is not in a battle with Intel, it is in a battle for relevance.
About the only segment of the market that 4x4 has a chance in is the workstation segment. And that would only be justifiable if Intel didn't have something to compete with it, which is unlikely under the current situation.
4x4 is not in a battle with Intel, it is in a battle for relevance.
killerguppy
Distinguished
- Mar 31, 2006
- 42
- 0
- 18,530
gOJDO
Distinguished
- Mar 16, 2006
- 2,309
- 1
- 19,780
your mother's prowness in bed still amazes me after all these years...Oh, talking about my mom is the best that your tight scull can..? :roll:
OK, my mom is a bitch, but that doesn't change the fact that you are uneducated stupid jerk with no life.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram