Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
As always ultimately the market decides. The problem is that there are a series of markets
Mobile phones- dominated by ARM
Tablets - likely to be dominated by ARM
Notebooks/laptops - power consumption is normally more important than raw power unless really a desktop in disguise
HTPC - (come back to the below)
low end business use - CPUs and GPUs already more powerful than needed. Price and power usage more important
high end business use - Intel wins this with the i5 by miles
ultra high end and gaming - no one cares about the IGP (and AMD do not have any competitor to the i5/i7)
So really AMD only have a realistic shot at HTPC, laptops and low end desktop markets.
In HTPC market their offering is still clearly better than Intel when relying on IGP, it is not just about raw power but the technical side of delivery correct frame rate, surround sound either through HDMI, upscaling and downscaling.
Laptops, key issue is power usage versus power of CPU/GPU. No matter how you look at the i3 is a more compelling package right now, but AMD are close enough to be a serious competitor particularly at low end laptops.
Low end business/desktop use - either AMD or Intel have really good packages. Basically it is down to price and marketing. Intel can steamroller AMD any time they want, but unlikely to do so because it eats into their margins. AMD will continue to have a reasonable market share.
This is a long ramble down to a simple point. The new numbers are impressive but exactly what is the point of them. Until such time as an IGP can replace a discrete graphics card with say power of an NVidia 560, then the extra power is useless for high end business use or gamers because the IGP is still not good enough and for users with less power needs, the existing IGPs are already good enough
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
No, they have not managed to out-perform Intel on raw performance.....but they did completely out-class them on price to performance ratio in many areas.
Read CATs post.....I think you may be reading something into that that is not there....but then most Intel fanboys/AMD haters seem to....it's normal ;)
I fail to see how what platform they release hex cores on has any bearing at all on the discussion TBH.
1. and performance is what we are talking about. The title is "ivy bridge performance numbers".
2. yeah, lets just label someone who uses evidence to draw a conclusion as a fanboy. great way to have a discussion.
3. you fail to see how increasing the number of cores has any bearing on increasing performance???
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
I'm sorry but you posted complete hyperbole as fact......it must be my fault you came across as a fanboy ;)
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Loving this thread and debate - for the record I like AMD and hope they are around for a long time, also I am planning to by a Bulldozer chip, so I am not biased towards Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
No, they have not managed to out-perform Intel on raw performance.....but they did completely out-class them on price to performance ratio in many areas.
Might want to ask yourself why AMD is so much in debt and struggling to make money. Clearly they were competitive on price because they didn't make enough money on their products.
Also there are financial records online that show how poor a financial state AMD is in. They can't afford to stay in the CPU game anymore. When a part of your business is loosing 100's millions quarter after quarter, year after year, you do tend to realise something is wrong.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brewster0101
Might want to ask yourself why AMD is so much in debt and struggling to make money. Clearly they were competitive on price because they didn't make enough money on their products.
Also there are financial records online that show how poor a financial state AMD is in. They can't afford to stay in the CPU game anymore. When a part of your business is loosing 100's millions quarter after quarter, year after year, you do tend to realise something is wrong.
http://forums.hexus.net/2203821-post11.html
Do you even know why they made losses in the first place??
It was the fab they owned. AMD was probably spending as much on keeping the fab up and going as they did on actual CPU and GPU R and D. If you look at companies like TSMC,GF and IBM they can spend significantly more money on this than AMD could ever hope to do. If ATI and Nvidia had to own their own fabs they would have collapsed years ago. Basically a company with between 10000 to 12000 employees cannot compete in CPU,GPU and fab development against a fabless Nvidia with 7000 employees and Intel with around 97000 employees. The fab had to go.
It was bleeding them billions of dollars over the last few years. If AMD had not gotten rid of it they would have become bankrupt.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
As always ultimately the market decides. The problem is that there are a series of markets
Mobile phones- dominated by ARM
Tablets - likely to be dominated by ARM
Notebooks/laptops - power consumption is normally more important than raw power unless really a desktop in disguise
HTPC - (come back to the below)
low end business use - CPUs and GPUs already more powerful than needed. Price and power usage more important
high end business use - Intel wins this with the i5 by miles
ultra high end and gaming - no one cares about the IGP (and AMD do not have any competitor to the i5/i7)
So really AMD only have a realistic shot at HTPC, laptops and low end desktop markets.
So the desktop market consists entirely of low-end business, high-end business and ultra-high-end gaming? What about the mid-range segment, you know, the sort of thing people who walk into PC World buy and casual gaming which the Llano GPU is more than capable of. Heck, it's more powerful than console GPUs and will even run new games at similar settings to consoles i.e. not completely maxed out. No, serious PC gamers probably won't be happy with lower settings but if you're happy with console performance, you'll be happy with Llano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
Laptops, key issue is power usage versus power of CPU/GPU. No matter how you look at the i3 is a more compelling package right now,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
Intel can steamroller AMD any time they want,
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
This is a long ramble down to a simple point. The new numbers are impressive but exactly what is the point of them. Until such time as an IGP can replace a discrete graphics card with say power of an NVidia 560, then the extra power is useless for high end business use or gamers because the IGP is still not good enough and for users with less power needs, the existing IGPs are already good enough
Low-mid range discrete GPUs make up quite a significant portion of the market; this is what the CPU MFRs are aiming for. Now you can make smaller, quieter, more efficient HTPCs, for instance. And your average user can get away with some gaming without having to worry about buying a discrete card for that game they just bought. But I digress, you're either completely avoiding mentioning the positives of AMD or just making stuff up in that post from what I can see.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
This is the article I base my comments on , I found most enlightened :
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/21747/...ket/index.html
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brewster0101
Strange it ends at 2010? ;)
Sounds more like over hysterical technology tabloid writing. Its very convenient they don't talk about 2011 and neither do you. On top of this nice how you ignore another metric. The chart shows AMD sales jumped in 2010 and it seems to be happening this year too.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
watercooled
Really?
Yep. All Intel would need to do is cut their margins. It'd hurt them a bit but their margins are currently big enough that they'd remain profitable. The main point really is that it benefits Intel to have AMD around from an anti-competitive perspective.. a bit like how Microsoft bought a load of Apple shares to keep them afloat when they were at risk of going under.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brewster0101
Hmm, i cant really agree with anything that the site goes on about. It says the demise of AMD is that it cant penetrate any market as they are far to late to them, they are doing fairly well in laptops and desktops really. The main thing is that they say about how consoles are going to be amazing and put pressure on AMD, i dont get how they have missed this part? AMD MAKE THE GPU FOR XBOX so can someone please tell me why AMD would do worse if consoles continue to succeed? AMD make a good chunk from console sales i reckon and thats probably a suitable reason why their GPU department does so well!.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
the real boon here is the lower power, in reality any decent cpu you buy now will last for a very long time performance wise. Lower power = quieter system + cheaper to run.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Watercooled: clearly I made a post that was too long and so you only looked at the bits you did not like. For the record
HTPC market: AMD package is better than Intel
Low end laptop and low end desktop: i3 is a better package, it is not that AMD is bad (particularly in low end laptop), just intel is a more compelling package
Mid end desktop/business: again i5 trumps
High end gaming: i5 or i7 + discrete GPU. Admittedly I have always used NVidia rather than AMD cards but that is by accident rather than a negative about AMD graphics which are very good.
The point was, exactly why are we getting excited about increased processing power. Outside of gamers (when discrete GPU is more important) the overwhelming proportion of the buying public simply do not need extra processing power because none of the applications that they are likely to use will be noticeably better/faster. I can get a little excited about the same processing power running cooler and on less wattage because then we can have quieter computers across all market segments but that is about it. Apart from that, until mainstream (ie mass use) software needs the extra processing power then these announcements are simply corporate willy waving
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
Low end laptop and low end desktop: i3 is a better package, it is not that AMD is bad (particularly in low end laptop), just intel is a more compelling package
Not necessarily. In terms of battery life it is competitive and I know people who do prefer the better graphics over the HD3000. Why?? There are quite a few casual gamers out there. The HD3000 is terrible and plenty of people still consider Intel IGPs rubbish for any sort of gaming from prior experience with previous generation. Their drivers have been a major sticking point for years. Having used the HD2000 in my Core i3 2100 it is OK but drivers are not perfect.
You can get an A6-3400M based laptop for as little as £407:
http://www.cclonline.com/product/694...ok-PC/NOT5080/
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
business: again i5 trumps
Business does not care. They get whatever is cheapest and most reliable;support packages are very important. It is even more so if all your critical applications are hosted on a server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
The point was, exactly why are we getting excited about increased processing power. Outside of gamers (when discrete GPU is more important) the overwhelming proportion of the buying public simply do not need extra processing power because none of the applications that they are likely to use will be noticeably better/faster. I can get a little excited about the same processing power running cooler and on less wattage because then we can have quieter computers across all market segments but that is about it. Apart from that, until mainstream (ie mass use) software needs the extra processing power then these announcements are simply corporate willy waving
GPU processing power is getting more relevant due to the increase in casual gaming. The problem is you think as an enthusiast,ie,that is why you think if you don't have a GTX560 you are not a gamer. You do realise most gamers in the world DON'T have a GTX560 level graphics card. Computer components are relatively cheap in the UK. In most countries in the world graphics cards cost more and since wages are lower the relative cost is higher.
What about all the people I know who still have cards like he 9800GT and midrange and lower end HD4000 and HD5000 series cards?? They actually play quite a few games. Until recently I had an HD4830 and I only got an HD5850 to play Crysis 2 and Metro 2033. Basically,two FPS games which are not even the most popular games in the world and one probably has higher console sales. However,the games I play the most ran fine on an HD4830 or even an HD5670 I was using for a while and so will the games I am interested in next year.
The graphics in Llano and indeed Trinity will be enough to play plenty of games,especially MMOs at reasonable settings. You do realise that 50% of AMD Fusion sales go to China which is the worlds biggest PC market and the among the fastest growing ones too. It also has a lot of gamers too and is a budget sensitive market.
The thing is that AMD has seen much bigger increases in mobile sales with their current generation CPUs. Llano is not much of an increase in CPU power over the previous generation CPUs they had last year. However,battery life has increased,graphics performance has increased at given price-points and BOM has probably gone down.
In Europe desktop sales are stagnating and IIRC so are laptops. Tablets are partially to blame but so is the recession. Even then laptops still are more popular than desktops.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
Low end laptop and low end desktop: i3 is a better package, it is not that AMD is bad (particularly in low end laptop), just intel is a more compelling package
Using the word "package" would make me inclined to believe that you mean the sum of all the parts. On that metric Llano is massively more compelling than the i3.
It's not just about gaming either, it's video playback as well. I'm a bit bemused as to why anyone would prefer the i3 for a low end laptop. It has practically zero useful benefits over Llano.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Incidentally, intel seems to be admitting they won't catch Llano's performance.
http://img.hexus.net/v2/motherboards...UD4/IGP3DV.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/lowe/News/In...formance_2.jpg
Both performance scores. Take 1025, add 200 points for the faster cpu then multiply by 2.99 and it's still going to fall 600 points short of the A8-3850.
Re: News - Intel Ivy Bridge performance numbers slide in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cjs150
Watercooled: clearly I made a post that was too long and so you only looked at the bits you did not like.
Why would I argue the points I agree with? I read it thoroughly and I found most very biased and/or simply untrue. I would have had to read all of it to find the bits I did/didn't like. ;)