By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - AMD and Intel capturing Nvidia's GPU market share

ssj12 on 05 May 2011
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
Soleron said:
 

I think your perspective is skewed. Sure, SLI matters to a lot of people. So does 3D Vision, F@h and PhysX. But that number is dwarfed by the number of people who don't care what they buy and buy the cheapest Dell box. And in a marketshare survey, they vastly outnumber the enthusiasts. In revenue, or maybe market importance, the enthusiasts are much more influential. I think we'll have to agree to differ on this point.

But:

- Nvidia's CPU is fail. How many actual products is it being used in? It's a generic ARM core that other vendors are doing better, delivering on promises of 1080p playback that Nvidia missed. Also the benchmark Nvidia used for that figure was rigged, they used an outdated version of gcc with optimisations disabled to run the C2D bench. Legitimate testing involves using the same test setup for both products at least. If we're talking about the future, then x86 fusion that Intel and AMD have will squeeze Nvidia's low-end market significantly.

- They are being beaten by Intel right now, yes. But even in their worst time ever, right before BD arrives, they are making a decent profit. They could live in this situation for a long time before being screwed. Neither of us know where BD will end up, and I happen to be optimistic.

- OK, Intel wins on process tech. They will have 22nm three years before AMD last I saw. However the initial Ivy Bridges are only 4 core, and it'll be 2H 2012 before Intel has 22nm products fighting BD. So AMD will have some time to shine if BD is good enough. By the way AMD (GF/IBM) also have that transistor tech, only they call it FinFET.

- Isn't AMD ahead in graphics at the moment? 6990 > GTX 590 and using a lot less silicon area? It is AMD who have pricing power as they have greater margins on their products. If AMD cut prices Nvidia would be pushed into the red on the GF110 die. 28nm is doubtful for this year so we are stuck in this AMD-favoured market for a while.

 

I'm not saying AMD has a lead in anything. But they are hardly screwed.

In the super long term Nvidia either needs x86 compatibility or bet on ARM domination (which I find unlikely).

uh, you guys are kinda off on a few things, AMD is not behind Nvidia SSJ, they use different methods to get performance is more like it, I still think Nvidia has better software support, but I think AMD hardware has a lot of strength over Nvidia stuff if you don't simply look for gaming but AMD software is not as proficient in many cases.

Nvidia CPU is not fail, it's able to do 1080p encoding and decoding just fine, the problem atm is software support, Tegra 2 basically took the place of the Neon set in their CPU since that'd cut costs and you wouldn't need the Neon instruction set if Tegra 2 is there and will eventually have good software support before the end of this year, not to mention they already have something that has 5x the performance with same or lower power drain. It will be interesting once AMD enters that same market in 2012 or later though.

Fuck Intel graphics, and nothing more on that particular topic, just fuck them. I love their i7 line though, ridiculous performance once overclocked, if you don't have money issues, always go Intel over AMD on CPU with current gen tech I say, otherwise AMD is awesome at budget CPUs. I've seen those sexy 12 thread xeons in action, ridiculous is all I can say.

considering this is the only one directed at me.

The GTX560 - 590 are stronger than AMD's HD6xxx line. And drivers are entirely apart of the GPU market so if AMD can't make decent drivers its not Nvidia's issue.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-sli-review/3

And Tri-SLi 580 is stronger than crossfire HD6990.


That's the thing, you are soely talking about gaming performance, and that's always back and forth, as far as techs go, AMD builds better hardware outside of their shittier memory bandwidth architecture that is made up with massive core count, and Nvidia has better memory architecture and software engineering to utilize the hardware better for what they do, that's what you get when using 3rd party contractors to write your drivers on AMD's part lol. The main difference is really that AMD is better at multimedia at a hardware level, and a lot of people look for that. I would never build a HTPC with Nvidia cards over AMD, and their performance is so close that the only reason you'd really want Nvidia is for games that support PhysX since AMD does 3D as well now. I mean, if Nvidia builds a really nice card that can trimph over AMD in multi monitor support and multimedia support while using less power and have on par performance at a good price, I'd gladly use them again, but Eyefinity and AMD DxVA kick the shit out of Nvidia and I can't give that up.


I have yet to see any use in display port or more than 3 monitors, so why is Eyefinity at all useful at all?



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
Soleron on 05 May 2011
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
...

...


I have yet to see any use in display port or more than 3 monitors, so why is Eyefinity at all useful at all?

It's not (IMO).

I'd like reviews to relegate discussion of 'features' to a page I don't have to read - and leave them off the conclusions page. That includes Optimus/PowerXpress, PhysX, OpenCL, CUDA, Bitstreamed audio, video decode, DX versions, AA modes, multi-display, Displayport and tesselation.



ssj12 on 05 May 2011

lol, AMD's benchmarks are just as balanced as Nvidia or Intel's.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/43087-octo-core-amd-fx-brings-performance-equal-to-core-i7-2600k.html

Seriously octo-core bulldozer with an HD6670 versus a core i7 2600k with integrated graphics. How about we compare them with both CPUs having an HD6670 behind them. I'm pretty sure the Core i7 will at least be even if paired with the non-integrated GPU. Then again the 2600k does have good performance with an integrated gpu, I have to say thats an impressive number.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
dahuman on 06 May 2011
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
Soleron said:
 

I think your perspective is skewed. Sure, SLI matters to a lot of people. So does 3D Vision, F@h and PhysX. But that number is dwarfed by the number of people who don't care what they buy and buy the cheapest Dell box. And in a marketshare survey, they vastly outnumber the enthusiasts. In revenue, or maybe market importance, the enthusiasts are much more influential. I think we'll have to agree to differ on this point.

But:

- Nvidia's CPU is fail. How many actual products is it being used in? It's a generic ARM core that other vendors are doing better, delivering on promises of 1080p playback that Nvidia missed. Also the benchmark Nvidia used for that figure was rigged, they used an outdated version of gcc with optimisations disabled to run the C2D bench. Legitimate testing involves using the same test setup for both products at least. If we're talking about the future, then x86 fusion that Intel and AMD have will squeeze Nvidia's low-end market significantly.

- They are being beaten by Intel right now, yes. But even in their worst time ever, right before BD arrives, they are making a decent profit. They could live in this situation for a long time before being screwed. Neither of us know where BD will end up, and I happen to be optimistic.

- OK, Intel wins on process tech. They will have 22nm three years before AMD last I saw. However the initial Ivy Bridges are only 4 core, and it'll be 2H 2012 before Intel has 22nm products fighting BD. So AMD will have some time to shine if BD is good enough. By the way AMD (GF/IBM) also have that transistor tech, only they call it FinFET.

- Isn't AMD ahead in graphics at the moment? 6990 > GTX 590 and using a lot less silicon area? It is AMD who have pricing power as they have greater margins on their products. If AMD cut prices Nvidia would be pushed into the red on the GF110 die. 28nm is doubtful for this year so we are stuck in this AMD-favoured market for a while.

 

I'm not saying AMD has a lead in anything. But they are hardly screwed.

In the super long term Nvidia either needs x86 compatibility or bet on ARM domination (which I find unlikely).

uh, you guys are kinda off on a few things, AMD is not behind Nvidia SSJ, they use different methods to get performance is more like it, I still think Nvidia has better software support, but I think AMD hardware has a lot of strength over Nvidia stuff if you don't simply look for gaming but AMD software is not as proficient in many cases.

Nvidia CPU is not fail, it's able to do 1080p encoding and decoding just fine, the problem atm is software support, Tegra 2 basically took the place of the Neon set in their CPU since that'd cut costs and you wouldn't need the Neon instruction set if Tegra 2 is there and will eventually have good software support before the end of this year, not to mention they already have something that has 5x the performance with same or lower power drain. It will be interesting once AMD enters that same market in 2012 or later though.

Fuck Intel graphics, and nothing more on that particular topic, just fuck them. I love their i7 line though, ridiculous performance once overclocked, if you don't have money issues, always go Intel over AMD on CPU with current gen tech I say, otherwise AMD is awesome at budget CPUs. I've seen those sexy 12 thread xeons in action, ridiculous is all I can say.

considering this is the only one directed at me.

The GTX560 - 590 are stronger than AMD's HD6xxx line. And drivers are entirely apart of the GPU market so if AMD can't make decent drivers its not Nvidia's issue.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-sli-review/3

And Tri-SLi 580 is stronger than crossfire HD6990.


That's the thing, you are soely talking about gaming performance, and that's always back and forth, as far as techs go, AMD builds better hardware outside of their shittier memory bandwidth architecture that is made up with massive core count, and Nvidia has better memory architecture and software engineering to utilize the hardware better for what they do, that's what you get when using 3rd party contractors to write your drivers on AMD's part lol. The main difference is really that AMD is better at multimedia at a hardware level, and a lot of people look for that. I would never build a HTPC with Nvidia cards over AMD, and their performance is so close that the only reason you'd really want Nvidia is for games that support PhysX since AMD does 3D as well now. I mean, if Nvidia builds a really nice card that can trimph over AMD in multi monitor support and multimedia support while using less power and have on par performance at a good price, I'd gladly use them again, but Eyefinity and AMD DxVA kick the shit out of Nvidia and I can't give that up.


I have yet to see any use in display port or more than 3 monitors, so why is Eyefinity at all useful at all?

Becuase I run more than 3 displays lol =P. It's really nice for multi-tasking, I don't care much for it with gaming since I'd just use my Bravia for that on a single screen unless I'm playing a racing game.



dahuman on 06 May 2011
ssj12 said:

lol, AMD's benchmarks are just as balanced as Nvidia or Intel's.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/43087-octo-core-amd-fx-brings-performance-equal-to-core-i7-2600k.html

Seriously octo-core bulldozer with an HD6670 versus a core i7 2600k with integrated graphics. How about we compare them with both CPUs having an HD6670 behind them. I'm pretty sure the Core i7 will at least be even if paired with the non-integrated GPU. Then again the 2600k does have good performance with an integrated gpu, I have to say thats an impressive number.


That's a retarded comparison for sure, 2600k with HD6670 would prolly rape it with ease (or at least be on par, or no diff at all due to bottle necks). I'm more interested in their single chip CPU/GPU combo performance on portable platforms since the cost would be cheap and the performance would be above Intel GPU, the problem would of course still be memory speeds though, without dedicated memory for the GPU, it's always tough.



Around the Network
NJ5 on 06 May 2011
ssj12 said:

lol, AMD's benchmarks are just as balanced as Nvidia or Intel's.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/43087-octo-core-amd-fx-brings-performance-equal-to-core-i7-2600k.html

Seriously octo-core bulldozer with an HD6670 versus a core i7 2600k with integrated graphics. How about we compare them with both CPUs having an HD6670 behind them. I'm pretty sure the Core i7 will at least be even if paired with the non-integrated GPU. Then again the 2600k does have good performance with an integrated gpu, I have to say thats an impressive number.

I don't think that benchmark was made by AMD.

It also seems like the benchmark application does not scale well beyond 4 cores... if that's true, Bulldozer is looking good.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

ssj12 on 06 May 2011
NJ5 said:
ssj12 said:

lol, AMD's benchmarks are just as balanced as Nvidia or Intel's.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/43087-octo-core-amd-fx-brings-performance-equal-to-core-i7-2600k.html

Seriously octo-core bulldozer with an HD6670 versus a core i7 2600k with integrated graphics. How about we compare them with both CPUs having an HD6670 behind them. I'm pretty sure the Core i7 will at least be even if paired with the non-integrated GPU. Then again the 2600k does have good performance with an integrated gpu, I have to say thats an impressive number.

I don't think that benchmark was made by AMD.

It also seems like the benchmark application does not scale well beyond 4 cores... if that's true, Bulldozer is looking good.


they are using PCmark and 3DMark, they scale to all cores.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
NJ5 on 06 May 2011
ssj12 said:
NJ5 said:
ssj12 said:

lol, AMD's benchmarks are just as balanced as Nvidia or Intel's.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/43087-octo-core-amd-fx-brings-performance-equal-to-core-i7-2600k.html

Seriously octo-core bulldozer with an HD6670 versus a core i7 2600k with integrated graphics. How about we compare them with both CPUs having an HD6670 behind them. I'm pretty sure the Core i7 will at least be even if paired with the non-integrated GPU. Then again the 2600k does have good performance with an integrated gpu, I have to say thats an impressive number.

I don't think that benchmark was made by AMD.

It also seems like the benchmark application does not scale well beyond 4 cores... if that's true, Bulldozer is looking good.


they are using PCmark and 3DMark, they scale to all cores.


That doesn't seem to be the case when looking at the AMD A4/A6/A8 results. A4 is 2 cores, A6 / A8 is 4 cores I believe.

They don't say what clockrates they're using, that's a problem.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Soleron on 06 May 2011
ssj12 said:
...


they are using PCmark and 3DMark, they scale to all cores.


Wrong, they scale to 4 cores. The difference between a Phenom II X4 and X6 at the same clock under PCMark is nearly zero. That favours Intel of course, but the benches are clearly unfair with the AMD GPU unless AMD plans to price BD a lot lower than the 2600K.

As an AMD fan I have to say: ignore these benchmarks, they have too little context to be representative and they could easily be an overestimate OR underestimate of the actual performance. Especially since clockspeeds are not final (btw 4.1GHz Turbo speed with all 8 cores active incoming!!).

I will trust benchmarks at launch from anandtech.com and techreport.com, both great neutral sites not afraid to criticise a company making poor decisions. Nothing else.