Umm.
AMD is creating more cores to seperate themselves from Intel..??
I though the CPU companies moved to multi core CPUs because it was not possible to increase performance significantly on a single core CPU.
Plus, AMD's multi-threaded performance is pretty decent(Read: Not Haswell good, but not much far behind).
Plus who told you that FX-8350 is 8 Core..??
It is infact a 4 core just like Intel's i7. You think it is 8 cores because of AMD's stupid MODULE marketing and because they use CMT vs Intel's SMT(Hyper threading).
There is already enough blood being shed over this in the CPU forum, go there and educate yourself
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2353426&page=4
Well you have to pay dev's to use your features because this is a business, not an NPO(non profit organizations).
Intel has paid Dell in the past to use Intel's features (CPUs) eventhough they were performing worst then AMD's.
Similarly, if AMD doesn't pay the dev to use their features then the dev's will stick to what they have been previously using because, you know there is no $$$ incentive in trying something new.
Dev's usually don't care if something is good or bad, they care about the money. If someone is paying them to use something that is bad, they will not willingly move to a 'better' alternative, because the loose money.
But, if the 'better' alternative also comes with money, then maybe they can think about it.
Watch the Mantle video where the devs talk about it. Mantle is something they've been wanting for a long time. This is the 21st century where everything has a price. Nothing is done simply because it's better. There has to be an angle and money has to change hands. This doesn't mean that game Devs are just in it for the money. EA is just in it for the money. There are devs that strive to be the best. Who want their games to be the best.
No have a slight problem with this statement. If you have a better solution than the competition, you get more attention, sell more games, and make more money.
That's why Apple products are so popular, right?
I like how we now listen to AMD when it's bad news. Also he was talking about Kaveri. But keep going. I'm enjoying this.
Actually, yes. The iPad is still the best tablet, and the macbook pro is still the best most well rounded portable computer. Maybe that opinion will be controversial, but they are the best - in the tablet world, all of their applications are suited to the 4:3 display used on their ipads while android tablets are mostly using smartphone applications that don't suit well to the tablet form factor. As well, itunes has a VASTLY more complete selection of ebooks, movies, and music as compared to google play. The macbook pro is by far the best high end portable PC, although competition has been getting better in this respect.
In terms of phones, the question is more ambiguous. High end android phones have largely caught up to apple. The phone market is super crowded now and the high end is mostly at parity with each other, between the HTC 1, iphone 5s and Galaxy S4. Yet, as far as tablets and portable computers go? IMO apple makes the best products. When you buy a PC ultrabook all of those have crap screens, non responsive trackpads, terrible battery life, and HDMI out that doesn't go higher than 1080p (I use a 1600p monitor) among a variety of other issues.
Also notice. High quality products sell despite their high price tag. AMD should take note of this and focus on creating high quality instead of "cheap".
Bottom line, quality sells. I also have a problem with your statement that "nothing is done simply because it is better". Better quality sells. Period. Ipad and macbooks sell because they're high quality. Meanwhile, you have Dell, HP, etc selling crap systems that are cheap. What sells better? It isn't the cheaper product. The better higher quality products sell more.
Actually, yes. The iPad is still the best tablet, and the macbook pro is still the best most well rounded portable computer. Maybe that opinion will be controversial, but they are the best - in the tablet world, all of their applications are suited to the 4:3 display used on their ipads while android tablets are mostly using smartphone applications that don't suit well to the tablet form factor. As well, itunes has a VASTLY more complete selection of ebooks, movies, and music as compared to google play. The macbook pro is by far the best high end portable PC, although competition has been getting better in this respect.
In terms of phones, the question is more ambiguous. High end android phones have largely caught up to apple. The phone market is super crowded now and the high end is mostly at parity with each other, between the HTC 1, iphone 5s and Galaxy S4. Yet, as far as tablets and portable computers go? IMO apple makes the best products. When you buy a PC ultrabook all of those have crap screens, non responsive trackpads, terrible battery life, and HDMI out that doesn't go higher than 1080p (I use a 1600p monitor) among a variety of other issues.
Also notice. High quality products sell despite their high price tag. AMD should take note of this and focus on creating high quality instead of "cheap".
Bottom line, quality sells. I also have a problem with your statement that "nothing is done simply because it is better". Better quality sells. Period. Ipad and macbooks sell because they're high quality. Meanwhile, you have Dell, HP, etc selling crap systems that are cheap. What sells better? It isn't the cheaper product. The better higher quality products sell more.
Give me a break. nVidia is not higher quality than AMD. AMD's cards for quite a while now have been better built than nVidia. You buy Apple for the reasons you mentioned, apps, and the Apple experience. Not because they are any better quality build than the competition.
In the end Apple and nVidia are where they are today because of the vision of their CEO's, who happened to also be the owners of the companies. AMD has been run by hired guns who only care about their compensation and severance packages. There has definitely been a change at AMD though. They are concentrating on more than just the hardware. More now than in the past. Reed seems determined to make a legacy for himself. I think if they don't stumble badly they are heading in the right direction.
Iphone sucks. They may have started the mobile phone innovation with their Iphone but the past few Iphones have brought nothing new.
The finger print stuff is okay. Their iPhones still run at some stupid resolution when the top end Androids are already at Full HD and going beyond, while having superior pixels per inch than Retina displays.
blahsy blah blah blah blah. I hate apple. Certainly haven't heard this crap before. :thumbsup: This is a tangent so let's just stop there.
Personally, I would strongly disagree with this. Nvidia focuses on user experience and forces all of their AIBs to follow quality standards through their green light program. Their software is way better than AMD's with tons of little touches and ease of use features, and a wealth of options that AMD just can't match. For AMD to match those features, you need 3rd party software.
Whereas, AMD just says "screw it" and let's AIB's do whatever the heck they want. And then you have a situation where you have aftermarket cards with no VRM cooling with 2 star reviews on newegg. This doesn't happen with nvidia AIB cards, nvidia doesn't let it happen. They enforce quality through their AIB program and through their software. AMD focuses on performance only and basically says "screw" the user experience. That's why the acoustics and software situation on the 290 is where it is.
This is well tread ground though. You brought it up, though, and I think you'll find a lot of people disagreeing with you. I think NV is higher quality in terms of user experience and all metrics in consideration, and I also think you'll find most folks agreeing with that. This is why AMD cards are cheaper - they can't charge what nvidia does until they match the nvidia user experience and quality. That they just haven't done.
That's why Apple products are so popular, right?
I'm not sure what way you are going with this. If you are talking about iPhones, iPods and iPads, then they are very popular. They delivered a superior product, and are reaping the rewards, though they are sliding a bit now.
If you are talking about Mac's, they are not as popular due to other reasons. They don't have nearly the support that Microsoft has. In business in particular.
They still manage to ask a premium price on their products.
Give me a break. nVidia is not higher quality than AMD. AMD's cards for quite a while now have been better built than nVidia. You buy Apple for the reasons you mentioned, apps, and the Apple experience. Not because they are any better quality build than the competition.
In the end Apple and nVidia are where they are today because of the vision of their CEO's, who happened to also be the owners of the companies. AMD has been run by hired guns who only care about their compensation and severance packages. There has definitely been a change at AMD though. They are concentrating on more than just the hardware. More now than in the past. Reed seems determined to make a legacy for himself. I think if they don't stumble badly they are heading in the right direction.
Personally, I would strongly disagree with this. Nvidia focuses on user experience and forces all of their AIBs to follow quality standards through their green light program. Their software is way better than AMD's with tons of little touches and ease of use features, and a wealth of options that AMD just can't match. For AMD to match those features, you need 3rd party software.
Whereas, AMD just says "screw it" and let's AIB's do whatever the heck they want. And then you have a situation where you have aftermarket cards with no VRM cooling with 2 star reviews on newegg. This doesn't happen with nvidia AIB cards, nvidia doesn't let it happen. They enforce quality through their AIB program and through their software. AMD focuses on performance only and basically says "screw" the user experience. That's why the acoustics and software situation on the 290 is where it is. The software is substantially worse in terms of features and the user experience is worse if you value good acoustics or consistent performance.
This is well tread ground though. You brought it up, though, and I think you'll find a lot of people disagreeing with you. I think NV is higher quality in terms of user experience and all metrics in consideration, and I also think you'll find most folks agreeing with that - that is why nvidia is able to charge more money for their cards, and people will happily pay that premium. Better overall products that focus on the complete and overall user experience. This is why AMD cards are cheaper - they can't charge what nvidia does until they match the nvidia user experience and quality. That they just haven't done. Again, you brought this up, i'm responding, we can just end this tangent on that note. Personally, someone needs to take feedback like this to the AMD mothership and tell AMD to fix their crap - if they focused on the quality features as nvidia did, they could charge the same price levels and nobody would blink an eye. Instead, do you think anyone would buy a 290X over the 780ti if they were the same price? Or rather, if someone was given an option for a free 290X or a free 780ti which do you think they would choose. I think most people that have experienced nvidia's user experience would choose the latter in a heartbeat.
I guess the bottom line as to what i'm getting at is, AMD needs to focus more on software, user experience, and a complete and balanced overall package BY ALL METRICS. Perhaps mantle is a start to that? But I dunno. AMD still has a ton of work to do. And the 290, well, you know my thoughts there - I think the 290 is a big lost opportunity as it could be one of the greatest GPUs ever but it definitely falls short in my eyes because of user experience and overall quality.
Again, maybe Mantle is their start toward fixing things, but AMD has a LOT of lost ground to cover. Just IMO.
I see we're all done discussing Mantle here.
-- stahlhart
I'm going to quote this again because it's a really great video. Even if you're not specifically interested in Mantle, still a very interesting look into game development.AMD Mantle Q&A with Developers at APU13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSY2KXBoro0
Didn't see if this was posted. We do have some interesting answers here...
How much of Intel's marketshare uses APU for gaming..??
How much small number that might be, I am sure AMD can afford to loose that.
I don't think you get how large Intel's market share is. I'd say that most people that game on their PC use Intel integrated graphics.
I don't think you get how large Intel's market share is. I'd say that most people that game on their PC use Intel integrated graphics.
I know how big Intel's marketshare is. Approximatlely ~80% of the PC market seems fair..?
I don't think people play AAA titles on iGPU. With current state of Intel graphics,they'll barely brake 30FPS.
All this with exception of a certain 500$ OEM part that is.
Plus as I already mentioned, it is Intel's job to implement Mantle on their APUs. AMD wouldn't/shouldn't have to do it for them.
The best thing AMD can and should do is to provide Intel with proper Mantle source or API for Intel to implement on their CPUs. Rest is Intel's job.
I dont care if Intel has 99% of the PC market, it is not AMD's job to implement their API on Intel CPU to get Mantle to gain traction. They should rather scrap Mantle then implement it on Intel's behalf.
If Intel does not want Mantle, they don't need to do anything.
If AMD wants Intel to work with Mantle, then they must make it work on Intel.
Isn't that what we buy graphics cards for tho....better IQ..more on screen imagery and enhanced immersion ...not gameplay?I'm not expecting much of anything in the way of direct FPS boosts via GPU processing power.
It's been quite clear since the beginning before Mantle, when we argued here over the console advantage it has always been one of draw call overhead.
Mantle will undoubtedly enhance draw call potential for PCs, my only problem there is you're basically designing the game for DX11, then adding fluff on the backend for Mantle.
Mantle isn't going to change the way we play, much like PhysX never has because only one vendor can run it.
Take the Oxide demo, all they can do in the mantle version is add more crap to the background without directly affecting the gameplay. On that token I will say what I said before, Mantle is what the PC community needs, but Mantle isn't what the PC community needs. We need Mantle for the entire PC community, not just those running GCN.
You're delusional and have already been proven wrong, you just can't accept it because it will shatter the delusions you're using as a coping mechanism.
If the 8350 was a true quad with an HT like addition it wouldn't be a disaster in single threaded performance. The SMT tax explains why it isn't a beast in MT.
The technologies at their core are fundamentally different, go read something would you? Intel forces two threads down the same core, AMD has a dedicated integer core for each module with a shared FPU.
Resorting to personal attacks will award you an infraction. Keep that in mind for next time you want to call someone delusional.
-Rvenger