Currently Online 
Zappykins said:
I'm not exactly sure what you were refering too. I was saying I hope next gen's concoles GPU's were more powerful than 5 Tflops. Yes, you are correct, it's more complicated than simple, "This is 4 Tflopes, and that is only 3.4!" So this one is 60% better (cause 4-3.4=.6 .6 = 60%!!!) Plus, your CPU and how they talk to each other is imporant too. So what do you think 'next gens' GPU's should be? |
I am refering to your blatant mis-use of "Teraflops" as some kind of denominator for comparing performance.
| Ruler said: it was a lot more than 280$ when it launched. The core i7 920 is still a good processor even in 2016 and sadley beats everything from AMD to this day, it has turbo mode, 8 threads and the other stuff. And in fact it even has tripple channel ram, a technology which is supirior than the dual channel ram of the intel processors of today. How is it that the corei7 series increased in price instead dropped? Sure they updated it making it stronger and more efficient but i would have imagined you could get intel processor with 6 or 8 cores as the low budget entry 7 years later. But instead everything is stagneting |
1) It doesn't beat everything AMD has.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=47
But it certainly is good enough at a decent enough TDP.
2) The number of memory channels isn't really a massive changer in terms of CPU performance. I know this because I can do both Dual-channel and Quad-Channel in my PC, for gaming, the difference is neglible to non-existent, unless we start talking about integrated graphics. (Which aren't available anyway.)
3) The Bulk price of the Core i7 920 on launch was about $280. - Most OEM retailers though at the time had their own markup and it often sat around $350. But you could find cheaper.
4) Reason for the higher increase is because of lack of competition, Intel's market is in decline, which means Intel needs to increase the price in order to conserve profit, R&D has also increase.
| Ruler said: its not 7 times more powerfull than a PS4 i can gureentee you that. This card wont run current AAA in 4K 60fps. 4K is almost 4 times the resolution size of 1080p not 7 times. The R280x gives you a barley more performance than a PS4 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=131688&d=1383230180 The PS4 alone can be bought used for 160€ |
Try to use Anandtech above all else, they have a better track record for accuracy and reliability.
But to say that a Radeon 280X is barely an improvement over the PS4 is a big big big big big big stretch, you are getting anywhere from 40-70% more performance, almost double the performance if something is single precision compute heavy.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1076?vs=1041
In Australia a second hand PS4 can be bought used for about $350 - $400, you could buy a second hand Radeon 7950 off ebay for about $200-$250 AUD, that wipes the floor with the PS4, graphically.
For about $50-$100 you could pick up a Nahelem or Phenom 2 quad-core PC complete, second hand... Or free if you scavange around computer stores or recyclers for components.
And whoops. There it is. A PC faster than a PS4, plays games better than a PS4 at the same/cheaper price.
On top of that you have cheaper accessories, cheaper games, free online, so it also pays for itself over the long term.
I have saved thousands over the past generation on games alone.
fatslob-:O said:
LOL, can't deny that how good 3-way scaling is for AMD but I wish their driver team were faster at making games support crossfire ... |
Yeah. AMD has had the edge in terms of performance scaling. Just a shame the drivers aren't updated fast enough, it's their archillies heel.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
