EAC is the biggest PITA.
Pirated Version are fine compared to EAC any day to the the thing EAC is i hate it
Pirated Version are fine compared to EAC any day to the the thing EAC is i hate it
Agreed. It's yet another layer of complexity involved though. On top of needing DXVK. And if trying to rehab in old PC, getting rebar working. You can't ask that of shoppers when the other vendors simply work without all the hassles.EAC is the biggest PITA.
Pirated Version are fine compared to EAC any day to the the thing EAC is i hate it
Still the fault of the vendors IMO. Most of the code across main boards is relatively common. There are differences at the microcode level, but the lions share is the same. If they went open source the community could even keep it updated.It can be a PITA to get working depending on the vendor and system in question. Oz did it with a lenovo and it got rather involved. Video is time stamped -
It has to be easy, and it has to work for casuals. ARC has never been that. It's the closest it's ever been, but there are still games that are a hot mess using one. Some... I have no hope they will ever fix. Others you have to have the pirated version of the game due EAC. And of course, you have to use DXVK sometimes. All too much to ask when AMD and Nvidia have superior OOB experiences.
Still the fault of the vendors IMO. Most of the code across main boards is relatively common. There are differences at the microcode level, but the lions share is the same. If they went open source the community could even keep it updated.
I am not disagreeing that Intel should not have relied on rebar being enabled, but the board
makers need to do a better job.
Most of us would rather have a boring text based UI that is the same across systems, longer update support, and higher quality board/software releases rather than flashy new whiz bang UI with AI and fancy feature XYZ that isn’t actually exclusive even though a company markets it that way.
Just my opinion, of course. Give me 5 years of updates rather than junk. If you can’t, make it so others can.
If I had the capital, I’d put some of these guys out of business.
Agreed. Intel changes desktop sockets more than a hobo changes underwear. Why would boardmakers care about supporting them for more than a hot second?I think expecting board makers to go back and add support for features long after the board is EOL is not realistic.
Lack of OEM support does not change the reality for Intel: rebar requirement handicapped their GPUs when it came to value/budget shoppers.
It is up to INTEL to make sure it doesn't need Rebar. Neither of the competitors need one.It isn’t Intel’s fault OEMs don’t support the products they release. MOST UEFI systems support rebar. See this if your doesn’t: https://github.com/xCuri0/ReBarUEFI
EDIT: Not PCIE version dependent either. Supported on Sandy Bridge, so your old 2500k-2600k can use it.
Totally agree. Win95 was terrible. I literally had to reinstall the os everyday, because of registry errors. Then again I was always playing around with it, installing random apps and stuff. But that's what tinkerers do, right? Like checking everything in the CP and seeing what everything and anything does. Tweaking, modding, overclocking, etc...It is up to INTEL to make sure it doesn't need Rebar. Neither of the competitors need one.
Up until Windows XP I had to deal with Windows crashing every day. That's how I have the knowledge I do now. XP made it lot better and 7 practically eliminated it. Most people don't want to go through that. I don't either. There's a reason Smartphones gained massive marketshare. And the same reason why computers during those days were barely used. It was difficult to use.
Totally agree. Win95 was terrible. I literally had to reinstall the os everyday, because of registry errors. Then again I was always playing around with it, installing random apps and stuff. But that's what tinkerers do, right? Like checking everything in the CP and seeing what everything and anything does. Tweaking, modding, overclocking, etc...
The only Win9x that was unstable for me was WinMe.Totally agree. Win95 was terrible.
OS/2 died because of IBM. You know, the actual INVENTOR of the x86 PC. If those idiots couldn't hold onto the hardware, what chance did they have with software?which doesn't say much about OS/2 really.
Screw you for reminding me of that pain in the rear admiral!AGP slot
Raja Koduri himself is an inexcusable blunder of a humanIt's an inexcusable blunder.
Tinkering is fine, but if you cater your GPU to that, you will guaranteed fail, because the competing ones don't need you doing it.Totally agree. Win95 was terrible. I literally had to reinstall the os everyday, because of registry errors. Then again I was always playing around with it, installing random apps and stuff. But that's what tinkerers do, right?
While it is true, I had to repair/reinstall win95 twice a month or so. I guess it was mainly due to hard disk issues. Lost sectors..Registry errors etc. But the real benefit was, I learned a lot about windows and its inner workings because of this. Also it turned me into some sort on-call helper for others .Totally agree. Win95 was terrible. I literally had to reinstall the os everyday, because of registry errors. Then again I was always playing around with it, installing random apps and stuff. But that's what tinkerers do, right? Like checking everything in the CP and seeing what everything and anything does. Tweaking, modding, overclocking, etc...
We crunched the numbers, and we end up with Lunar Lake offering 10.33 FPS/TFLOPS across our test suite, Strix Point gives 9.05 FPS/TFLOPS, and Meteor Lake only offers 6.90 FPS/TFLOPS. That means, for our independent testing, Intel delivered exactly 50 percent higher performance per teraflops compared to its prior generation GPU.
with an almost completely useless NPU.
Lunar Lake also has an SLC to help with memory bandwidth. It's a lot more than 14% effective...
You are also seeing AMD shoot themselves in their own foot with Strix Point for replacing their MALL cache with an almost completely useless NPU. 16-32MB of MALL cache, or even just 16MB of Infinity Cache dedicated to the iGPU (the same amount that the 6400/6500 dGPUs had) would have made a world of difference...
Even if it isn't DIRECTLY for the GPU, it indirectly benefits it by relieving contention on the IMC for access to the DRAM by answering a portion of the calls from the CPU cores and DMA peripheral IO controllers.
That's asking for a static answer to what is a dynamic problem. It depends on the CPU and peripheral I/O memory access load. It's certainly non-zero, but definitely highly variable. I don't have any kind of specific answer for you.