First PS3 bioshock screens released

kamspy

Oh yes I did

Intel stinks. The reviewers are shoved so far up Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce's ass to make an objective review.

Benchmark shmenchmark. AMD always performs better than Intel for 3/4 the cost.

Nice try though.

What's an AMD fanboy? Would that be considered a well informed shopper?

railven

Haha, the bolded is true during the K7 vs NetBurst days. But, now the whole new architecture of the Intel family has completely changed everything.

AMD is now playing catch up (all on fronts which sucks ass.) They bought ATI and then lost the GPU crown to nVidia. They waited too long to release Phenom and lost the CPU crown to Intel.

Now they can't produce high clocked CPUs, and instead release broken Quad cores as Tri-Cores to compete with Intel's dual cores, of which they still lose.

Go look at the prices, things have changed. Intel did a complete 180 this generation. They even cut throated their own inventory to keep an edge over AMD. Once the new FBS 1333mhz hit, they slashed the entry price lower than the 1066fbs on the market. They did a similar thing with the new Wolfdales.

An E8400 destroys just about any of the Phenom Tri-Cores and it cost a few dollars less than their mid-point CPUs. Evne the reviewer for Anandtech said it himself:

A fanboy is one who hides the facts to make their side look better. I've been an Intel fanboy since the 386's and not once during the Net Burst fiasco did I ever say "Intel is faster than AMD." They weren't. On any level in terms of performace-per-dollar. Now, they finally are, and AMD fanboys just can't accept it.

AMD screwed the pooch! hehe. It's all good, they still have the leading octo-core setup, course it would cost you over $2000, but at that price point the Intel Hammerhead is just as competetive with less funding required.

kamspy

Ah, young padawan......AMD has the Hypertransport Bus.

Higher Bandwidth = better.

Intel is all spec and no spunk.

Speed is useless if there's not enough lanes for it

railven

Haha, tell that to AMD.

Intel's new chipsets have faster DDR3 memory lanes, the new core communication gives them a wider bus lan than the current Phenoms (as I said, AMD still has the better octo-setup, but at the entry point for a consumer it isn't worth it and Intel's subsidizing helps them move more Xeons than AMD Opertons.)

Phenom was a great, a marvelous, design on paper. It had a lot of the industry abuzz. They couldn't wait. Then it got delayed, and delayed, and mysteriously the high clocked units disappeared and suddenly AMD was struggling to produce cores at 2.4ghz.

Then Phenom launched and it all fell on its face. I'm sure everyone is still waiting for AMD to pull out a victory dance, but if you've read the recent articles about AMD, it seems they are no longer focusing on the enthusiast, but aiming to beat Intel at their biggest market - the all-in-one.

With the acquisition of ATI, they now have a discrete IGP, their own NB/SB chipsets, and of course CPUs. Intel hasn't released the info on (what's its name I keep for getting it, always think of Langslier something Lebrowie?) which is hurting them. If AMD pulls it off, which I can see them doing it, say goodbye to the enthusiast AMD we've all known from the K7 generation and say hello to mediocre lower wattage/priced all in one low profile setups with AMD CPUs, chipsets, and GPUs.

EDIT: Even Tom's Hardware sees what I see, and many others:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...m-x4,1935.html

kamspy

It seems both chip makers are moving in that direction with the newfound popularity of the POS $300 eeePC labtops.

What about that Intel Atom man? Hot stuff. Hot stuff.

railven

Atom is going to be weird. I dunno why, I see it as the same marketing as Cell was pushed around, and we all know Cell hasn't done half the shit IBM/SONY promised it would do.

I'm on the fence for Atom, sounds promising, but I'll have to wait and see what Intel actually does with it.

kamspy

The Atom is a teeny tiny processor meant for the new breed of laptops I mentioned.

It's supposedly a bargain processor, and it seems to be Intel's focus right now. I don't even think it runs a Ghz

railven

Articles I've read mention Intel wanting to push it into all possible mobile devices.

Cell Phones to Gaming Hand helds and soon enough Coffee Machines and toasters.

One of the possible uses I read was even for future SAL DVD/BD players.

It all comes down to what Intel wants to use it for. And knowing them and there recent road maps I'm going to say everything they can possibly get it into.

kamspy

Right, but it's not focused at all toward the enthusiast crowd.

railven

Oh, I know. Atom is the successor to the Centrino. The current generation of Wolfdale processors are branching off towards performance.

Intel has their low wattage cores which they will most likely mass produce. But they will also offer their enthusiast line, most likely in lower quantity. As what happened with the Wolfdale launch, they focused more on Penryn (good performance at low wattage) then Wolfdale and there was a shortage on Wolfdale.

With AMD having issues breaking the 2.4ghz mark (their newest core runs at what 2.5ghz?) I can see them cutting their losses and focus more on the mainstream/casual users, especially with their new GAME innitiative, since they are the only platform that can offer everything (CPU+CHIPSETS+GPU.)

With Intel pushing their cores to 3.0ghz, they don't need to work much to keep the enthusiast crowd happy. With games moving to being GPU limited, and nVidia providing great chipsets, the enthusiast crowd will start to see less and less options, at least that's what I think.

Before, the GPUs it was tough, an X800 or a G6800, now AMD's HD 3870 gets blown out of the water by the 9800 GT. The only benefit is the cost, but that advantage is going to run out, and soon.

kamspy

I can't stand up for ATI for a second....

I guess you could count me as an Nvidea fanboy.

greg1184

My first computer had an original Pentium 75. After that, I used to swear by AMD. I had an AMD K6 computer 233Mhz when it was out. It was barely less powerful than the expensive Pentium II when it first came out. Then I got an AMD Athlon xp 1800+ computer. I upgraded its video card to an ATI Radeon X700 pro. More recent, I went Intel because, well AMD didn't have a quad core out when I bought it. I upgraded my ram to 4 gigs. I have an OEM computer so I can't return the processor. I run Battlefield 2 at full resolution and graphics fine. My GPU card sometimes acts kinda funky though.
I haven't bothered to upgrade it really because I shifted to a console gamer lately.

kamspy

I would hope so. Battlefield 2 isn't that taxing.

I don't know what the Nvidea equivalent to that ATI is, but the Nvidea 7000 series with that much RAM and any AMD dual core would tear BF2 up.

But I really don't know where the ATI 7000 are on the ladder compared to the Nvideas.

railven

The GeForce 8500 is a mid-range GPU from nVidia. It is a decent card with good processing power, which is why I said for the newer games expect medium detail settings with a moderate resolution.

I know the entry/mid-range cards by both nVidia and ATI got slammed for that generation.

I still think the card should be fine. Probably get above 30fps at medium settings with a 1024x768 rendering resolution. If you are playing on an HD-TV 1280x720 should give you equal performance to the Xbox360 version of the game at medium settings.

greg1184

We'll see. I will have to think about it. I have CoD4 for PS3 already, but that is before I got my 360. It would be nice if I can take advantage of the XBL community with achievements, etc. CoD4 is the only game I would get for all 3 consoles if I had money for waste. It is that good. Reason why I am also considering the PC version is because I have always been a PC gamer, and I don't like how the console versions lack in game type-chat. COD4 for PC has the traditional server-console/server list.