Wow NV is basically beaten at all price points

[geokilla]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Children, behave!



ATi certainly has the best performance/$ ratio for gaming but unfortunately they fall short in the one category that really matters to me: F@H ppd.

I mostly play WoW on my system and even the 8800GTS in my second rig is more than adequate for that purpose. But for folding - nVidia is the only way to go from a ppd/$ viewpoint. GTX 260 cranks through ~7k ppd while an equivalently priced 4870 only does about 3-4k.

QFT. ATI needs to do something with Pande Group and see if they cal get their GPUs to fold better. GPU folding was first supported by ATI. Then later came NVIDIA and basically dominated the GPU folding scene.

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Hopefully AMD can get some good tech in their CPU line as well, and force Intel to come down on their prices.

What are you talking about? Phenom IIs are doing very well against the Core 2 series. It took AMD a while though.

I have a Gigabyte 4670 coming in and will see if I can compare it to my 9600GT. According to Legit Reviews, the 4670 is comparable to my 9600GT, with some games favouring ATI while others favouring NVIDIA.

Lol I didn't even bother checking the other pages cus I knew there's gonna be some stupid arguement again. Typical video forum.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: geokilla
What are you talking about? Phenom IIs are doing very well against the Core 2 series. It took AMD a while though.

That doesn't exactly force Core i7 prices down, does it?
Besides, Core2 is on its way out, Core i3/i5 are on their way in. Doesn't look like Phenom II will be doing as well against those as it did against Core2.

 

[evolucion8]

The Phenom II can be competitive quite with the Core i5 if it comes with Hyper Threading disabled, so it would be only a normal quad core, after all, in a per clock basis, Nehalem isn't any faster than the Penryn, hence, the Turbo mode. But I heard that the Core i5 will come with Hyper Threading, so if that's true, Phenom II would only be competitive with the Core i3 or low end Core i5 or low end Core i7 like the 920 at stock speed.

 

[dguy6789]

Nehalem is faster than the Penryn on a clock for clock basis. It's just not consistent across every single application, but it definitely is.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Phenom II can be competitive quite with the Core i5 if it comes with Hyper Threading disabled, so it would be only a normal quad core, after all, in a per clock basis, Nehalem isn't any faster than the Penryn, hence, the Turbo mode.

Well, firstly, HT will be enabled on the higher models of the i5 series... Secondly, Nehalem most definitely is faster than Penryn clock-for-clock. Even without HT.
See these results for example:
http://mos.techradar.com/techr...-corei7-benchmarks.pdf
Both the i7 965 and the QX9770 are 3.2 GHz, so we have clock-for-clock comparisons.
At the bottom, you see the tests done with and without HT. As you can see, even the results with HT off are way above what the QX9770 scores.
And these are actually applications that benefit greatly from multithreading. In most games, HT has little effect, and in some cases it's actually slightly slower.

Preliminary benchmarks with Core i5 and simulations with Core i7 running with dual channel memory have both shown that the performance difference between i5 and i7 on a clock-for-clock basis is generally very close. And because of the insane turbo mode the i5 is getting, it is actually faster than i7 in various mostly singlethreaded tasks (such as games).
So I don't think there's much hope for Phenom II, to be honest. It looks every bit like Core i5 is just going to be Core i7 performance at Core2 prices. That's going to hurt AMD.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Nehalem is faster than the Penryn on a clock for clock basis. It's just not consistent across every single application, but it definitely is.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=15

Nehalem is about to maximize it's 4 Issue front end utilization, the Nehalem Architecture isn't any wider than Conroe was. Added more instructions compatible with Macro-ops fusion, which in the end is to maximize it's resource utilization, also works in 64-Bit, something that wasn't possible with Penryn. Loopstream Detector was moved behind the Decoder and now can cache the micro-ops. Moderated branch predictor improvements and cache speeds. 33% increase in the size of the out of order window. Which it's main goal is keep the execution engine fed. Nehalem may not be any wider than Conroe/Penryn, but it should make better usage of its architecture than any of its predecessors. New TLB, faster Unaligned cache, faster synchronization of threads, and Hyper Threading.

In the end, it's optimizations are toward multi threading, not single threading.

 

[dguy6789]

I understand that the focus of the Nehalem was to improve multithread and server performance, but benchmarks still show it performing better than an equivalently clocked Yorkfield with hyperthreading off.

 

[evolucion8]

Probably it triggers the turbo mode which overclocks itself to improve the performance of single threaded appz.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Tiger Direct's current top seller list:

10.
BFG GeForce 7600 GS OC 512MB

WTF? People are still buying those?

Originally posted by: brblx
epic overpricing that really went through the ceiling with the 8-series.

Is it really "overpricing" if people are willingly paying for them (and then bragging about it in forums, or submitting benchmark/overclock records)?

If the market supports the price, then it isn't overpriced.

Wishing something were cheaper doesn't mean it is overpriced. Heck, I wish the BMW M3 were cheaper. :brokenheart: I have to be satisfied with my Mazda. Zoom Zoom!

EDIT: Oh yeah, BITD I thought the ATI Radeon X850XT was horrendously overpriced at $500+. A friend of mine bought one and thought it was great! I guess when the performance is good, both ATI and NVIDIA price 'em high.

Originally posted by: TheMeanestGuest
I honestly don't understand why the GTS 250 would suddenly be much more appealing with a new name, but whatever.

The 9800 GTX+ was pretty appealing before the name changed to GTS 250, so why would it be less appealing? I think it is a good seller because it is at a sweet price point for consumers.

Originally posted by: SiliconDoc
often I find the ati person has a very large chip on their shoulder against nvidia.

Why can't we all just get along?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Probably it triggers the turbo mode which overclocks itself to improve the performance of single threaded appz.

What is it with you? Why do you need to find excuses for why Nehalem is faster?
Why can it only be HT or turbo mode? Why can't you just admit that Nehalem not only made the execution core more efficient, but also feeds it better with the new onboard memory controller, which reduces latency and increases bandwidth?
Nehalem is just faster clock-for-clock, even without HT and without turbo mode.
Do you somehow need to hold on to idle hope that Phenom II and Core2 will still be good performers when Core i5 hits?

Well it's all in vain anyway, because Core i5 will get a turbo mode, even more extreme than the i7 does... and most Core i5 CPUs will also get HT. Not that they'd need it to outperform Core2 and Phenom II, but they're getting it anyway. Which is good for us, because we're getting faster computers at lower prices. And that's all that matters, right?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Probably it triggers the turbo mode which overclocks itself to improve the performance of single threaded appz.

AMD's fastest, the PhenomII 955 at 3.2GHz is usually sitting somewhere in between an Intel Q9400 at 2.66GHz and a Q9650 at 3GHz. That in itself is quite impressive for AMD to come from the original Phenom, but still falls way short of the slowest i7. There are rare occasions where it gets close to i7 920, but those are few and very far between.

Basically, PhenomII has just caught up with the almost EOL C2D architecture. i3 and i5 are at the door. Core 2 is almost out.

You can downplay Nehalem all you wish. To the rest of us, it just looks silly to do so.
To say, "Nehalem is just faster because it has HT and Turbo mode" is quite off the hook. There have been many MANY reviews showing HT and Turbo modes on and off. It's still always faster.

And what the....??? I thought we were in the CPU forum for a sec. Back OT guys? LOL.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Probably it triggers the turbo mode which overclocks itself to improve the performance of single threaded appz.

What is it with you? Why do you need to find excuses for why Nehalem is faster?
Why can it only be HT or turbo mode? Why can't you just admit that Nehalem not only made the execution core more efficient, but also feeds it better with the new onboard memory controller, which reduces latency and increases bandwidth?
Nehalem is just faster clock-for-clock, even without HT and without turbo mode.
Do you somehow need to hold on to idle hope that Phenom II and Core2 will still be good performers when Core i5 hits?

Well it's all in vain anyway, because Core i5 will get a turbo mode, even more extreme than the i7 does... and most Core i5 CPUs will also get HT. Not that they'd need it to outperform Core2 and Phenom II, but they're getting it anyway. Which is good for us, because we're getting faster computers at lower prices. And that's all that matters, right?

I don't have to explain myself to you, because unlike you, I don't believe myself as a Mr. Know It all, so keep that rant to your self got it?. Like I stated before, Nehalem is about efficiency and maximum utilization of it's execution. If you bothered to read all the posts before, you would know what I and dguy6789 we were talking about, actually we were having a nice conversation until you got in as a medler.

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Probably it triggers the turbo mode which overclocks itself to improve the performance of single threaded appz.

AMD's fastest, the PhenomII 955 at 3.2GHz is usually sitting somewhere in between an Intel Q9400 at 2.66GHz and a Q9650 at 3GHz. That in itself is quite impressive for AMD to come from the original Phenom, but still falls way short of the slowest i7. There are rare occasions where it gets close to i7 920, but those are few and very far between.

Basically, PhenomII has just caught up with the almost EOL C2D architecture. i3 and i5 are at the door. Core 2 is almost out.

You can downplay Nehalem all you wish. To the rest of us, it just looks silly to do so.
To say, "Nehalem is just faster because it has HT and Turbo mode" is quite off the hook. There have been many MANY reviews showing HT and Turbo modes on and off. It's still always faster.

And what the....??? I thought we were in the CPU forum for a sec. Back OT guys? LOL.

Downplaying it? LOLL nothing like that, I posted a link with evidence of the improvements made, and actually if you also bothered to read before, you would know of what I and dguy6789 we were talking about instead of attacking me for no reason. Nehalem without Hyper Threading, will execute almost as fast as a Core 2 Quad of the same frequency, Nehalem isn't any wider, most of the improvements done in Nehalem, are toward multi threading and math/FPU intensive applications, not single threading, after all we reached a point were increasing the IPC in serial processing is almost impossible without huge amount of R&D, so they beef up multi threading performance, single threading performance improved mostly because of it's better cache and integrated memory controller.

Nehalem shines in multi threading applications. Phenom 2 is out of the equation as it only competes with the old Core 2 architecture and everybody knows about it. Do you feel smarter trying to underscore the same stuff that everybody here knows? That looks silly to me.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
I don't have to explain myself to you, because unlike you, I don't believe myself as a Mr. Know It all, so keep that rant to your self got it?.

You're the one acting like Mr. Know It All here. Even though various people have told you that Nehalem is faster than Penryn clock-for-clock, and have given links to benchmark results that support this, you insist that it must be HT or Turbo mode. Then you go for the personal jabs.

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Nehalem without Hyper Threading, will execute almost as fast as a Core 2 Quad of the same frequency.

Still wrong. Even in Cinebench single-threaded test, Core i7 is faster. The 920 outperforms the Q9650 and everything below, that's a 2.66 GHz CPU outperforming a 3.0 GHz one.
Even if we assume that it was running at full turbo all the time, it would only get it up to 2.8 GHz, still below the 3.0 GHz of the Core2 Quad.
Nehalem just has higher IPC than Penryn, period. Even in single-threaded tasks, even without HT and turbo mode, and even without using special new SSE instructions.

 

[MegaWorks]

Here boys, cmon you can go and play here.

 

[10e]

Here's my quick take on all this nV vs. AMD/ATI talk, and these are just my opinions:

What I like about AMD/ATI:

1) Crossfire works with dual monitors in ALL operating systems
2) CCC is actually useful now. It allows more color customizations than NVCPL, and the built in overdrive, GPU load reporting, and temperature reporting is there as well as fan adjustments with no additional software required
3) Competitive performance
4) Simpler product line with fewer models that are not old, rebranded cards posing as new and "fresh"
5) They employ my compatriots (as I'm Canadian)
6) Built-in audio chips for HDMI sound output in HTPC use
7) Cards are generally 9.5" or shorter for single-GPU models

What I don't like about ATI:

1) Loud reference coolers
2) Many ATI vendors do NOT provide lifetime limited or unlimited warranties, though I've never had an ATI card fail that I didn't "help" to fail by screwing around with custom coolers (refers to point 1)
3) Don't work with game developers as actively as nVidia
4) Non-competitive folding performance, and dual GPU require crossfire to be enabled or dual-monitors in all operating systems (for folding@home)
5) Stream applications are limited and buggy, especially for video transcoding

What I like about nVidia:

1) Strong folding performance
2) Work with developers to ensure good performance on the newest games usually upon release
3) Fairly quiet and effective reference coolers
4) Most vendors have lifetime warranties and some like EVGA really push the envelope with add-on value software like the EVGA Precision and Voltage Tuner utilities
5) The ability to define custom resolutions and refresh rates
6) Competitive gaming performance
7) CUDA apps like Baddaboom seem to work pretty well

What I don't like about nVidia:

1) Confusing product line with too many rebranded designs, and initially high prices on GT2x0 boards
2) nvCPL still limited in color customizations
3) Requires third party utilities to overclock, or use nVidia system monitoring tools which are OK at best
4) My personal failure rates have been high with the 9x00 and GT200 series on cards that I have not OC'd or modified
5) All GT200 cards are 10.5" long or more
6) Questionable chip design that possibly led to high laptop failure rates

Both have their relative merits such as nVidia with their PhysX support, and ATI with DX10.1 in their last two major chip designs, and their performance for the most part are close. You generally can't go wrong with either these days as long as you do your research, so I don't see why people have to "fan up" and attack each other. Neither company is "your friend" unless you have invested heavily in their stock, and the only benefit we all see is performance for $$$ due to competition, which no one can refute as a good thing.

Again I'm just opining that both are good choices, and I have a number of each company's cards, and other than some failures I've seen, have been happy with both.

 

[Acanthus]

Nvidia really hasnt been presenting a good value at all this year.

I may go ATi for the first time since my 9700 Pro.

 

[Jacen]

Too bad the general public isn't on the up-n-up on this kind of stuff to realize the issues with following silly brand loyalty. I'll buy whatever is the best at my accepted price point, or what I plan on spending that generation. Unfortunately most people don't do the research and just buy NV thanks to brand recognition. I do my part to recommend the best stuff at each price point but dont reach the masses here.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Jacen
Too bad the general public isn't on the up-n-up on this kind of stuff to realize the issues with following silly brand loyalty. I'll buy whatever is the best at my accepted price point, or what I plan on spending that generation. Unfortunately most people don't do the research and just buy NV thanks to brand recognition. I do my part to recommend the best stuff at each price point but dont reach the masses here.

Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. nVidia has such strong brand recognition today because they've delivered solid products (and drivers) for over a decade now, and also did some effective marketing, such as with the TWIMTBP campaign. In times when their products aren't as strong (eg today, or a few years ago with the GeForce FX), they reap the benefits.

I think another factor here is supply. nVidia simply builds more videocards than AMD does. Even if the world wanted to switch to AMD cards tomorrow, they simply wouldn't be available. So you'd still buy nVidia by default.

We saw the exact same thing happening with CPUs in the Athlon-Pentium 4 era. Intel's products weren't as good, but they still outsold AMD by a large margin. Partly because people went for the familiar Intel brand anyway, partly because OEMs couldn't put AMD in all their machines even if they wanted to, there simply wasn't enough supply.

AMD has its work cut out if they want to build up a reputation as strong as nVidia's.
Even though ATi has been around a lot longer than nVidia, I think most gamers/enthusiasts still see ATi as the newcomer, because they never were really competitive until the Radeon 9700.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Scali
I think another factor here is supply. nVidia simply builds more videocards than AMD does. Even if the world wanted to switch to AMD cards tomorrow, they simply wouldn't be available.

Both IHVs are fabless. Yet somehow nVIDIA has the edge when it comes to supply?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Both IHVs are fabless. Yet somehow nVIDIA has the edge when it comes to supply?

That is correct. AMD can't just triple their orders with TSMC and UMC, so they can provide the ~66% of market that nVidia currently caters for.
TSMC and UMC simply don't have the capacity for that. And they can't just stop producing nVidia chips because AMD wants to put in a big order, because they have a contract with nVidia.
So it has to go down something like this:
1) AMD needs to drive down demand for nVidia products
2) nVidia will reduce its orders from the fabs because of reduced demand
3) AMD can pick up the extra capacity at the fabs

It can't go the other way around.

 

[Genx87]

Yes unfortunately AMD has finally caught up with Intels 2 year old core that is being replaced next quarter. I remember the days when AMD towed Intel along, and made them produce Emergency Edition processors to sniff the performance crown. Now the best AMD can do is compete with Intels low end

 

[frozentundra123456]

Agreed, the price of the 9600 GT has really come down and it does have somewhat higher performance that the 4670. I really like the 4670 because it does not require an external power attachment, but if you have a good power supply (which I do not), the 9600 GT is a better deal. However, if you have an off the shelf model with say a 300W power supply, the 4670 will probably work without upgrading the power supply, while the 9600 GT will not.
To me this makes the 4670 very attractive since it avoids the cost and hassle of upgrading the power supply.

 

[Gikaseixas]

i've always bought my stuff with one thing in mind... performance

If brand A is performing worst than brand B than i will go with B.

I bought my 2 GTX280's when they where the best in the market but if i was in the market for a new card today i would get a 4890 for sure.