Monday, October 30, 2006

AMD launches Radeon X1650 XT

AMD gracefully invites Intelers to the wonderland of high end graphics.

None of Intel's crappy graphics engine can play modern games.

15 Comments:

Anonymous PENIX said...

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am a former hardware and software beta tester. Intel GPUs are completely unstable and absurdly slow with their shared video memory and flawed Intel bus. We ran into graphical problems even while testing 2D applications. If Intel GPUs cannnot even do 2D properly, then 3D is out of the question.

Intel GPUs are essentially dead on arrival. A class action lawsuit should be filed against Intel to recall every single GPU they have ever produced, and be replace with an ATI GPU.

2:45 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How cool is that! AMD graphics card in an INTEL. Could I please here big THANK YOU from the Intel fan base?

Now if SuperPi had great graphics you Intel guys would have it all.

2:47 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger ashenman said...

I'd just like to point out that this product and the gpus Intel makes are targeted for different markets.

3:10 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll stick with the leader in graphics, Nvidia.

3:10 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou Ph .d wrote:

Intel must change itself and become a civilized and ethical member of the IT industry. Right now, many of the things Intel has done are bordered on fraud. Intel has bad genes, its behaviour can be traced back to NAZI and Soviet oppression. It's an animal living in constant fear and anxiety, and it's willing to step over moral boundaries for its survival. In essence, Intel is anti-American and anti-progress.

Intel must change its moral code to earn any respect.

Right now, it's safe to say that Intel will lag behind AMD in the next 5 years. The technology gap is simply too big.
10:05 AM, May 22, 2006

3:12 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question to Penix;

I remember your past post and I thank you for today’s post. I don’t know much about the complex algorithms required for modern GPUs. How come Intel can’t get it right, in your opinion? They have so much money to throw at the problem.

3:43 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr.,

Do you know that this is an ATI card and has nothing to do with AMD. AMD just bought it.. If Intel bought ATI, you would have cried foul!

Give the credit to where it is due, to ATI engineers who created it. And by the way, it is targeted for Intel as well as AMD..

So, No thanks, I won't attend the event..

3:45 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unless this is an integrated solution only available to AMD based PC's, your post is really stupid.

Are you really stupid?

3:59 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Do you know that this is an ATI card and has nothing to do with AMD’


True, except if you choose to buy this new graphics card AMD makes the money. I would say it has everything to do with AMD.

Intel could have purchased ATI instead of all those companies they’re selling.

Be Well

4:01 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The X1650XT is a pretty mid/low end range card.

Why is this important for Vista/embedded graphics?

Because it will trickle down to the embedded graphics chipsets really soon.

Look at Nvidia's nForce 6150 chipset. It is virtually an embedded version of the GeForce 6600GT, which was pretty much the low/mid-range just not so long ago.

Now imagine the embedded graphics performance gap between Intel and AMD in the not too distant future.

Just my 10 cents.. first 2 cents are free :P

5:21 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're comparing a mid range GPU with Intel's integrated graphics? How pathetic. It's also worth noting that *ALL* integrated graphics solutions are utter crap for gaming, whether they're from Nvidia, Intel or ATi.

Besides.. this card is nothing great. It simply matches the performance in the mid range sector that Nvidia has been supplying for the last six months at the same price point with it's 7600 GT.

Intel make the best CPUs. Nothing can touch the X6800. It beats the FX-62 at stocks speeds by OVER 20%. It also overclocks a hell of a lot better. As Hexus.net testing has confirmed the entry level E6400 can match the performance of the FX-62 with ease. AMD processors are overpriced and underpowered.

Right now I'll stick with my E6300 overclocked with a 1600mhz FSB on air cooling (2.8Ghz). This will easily FRAG any AMD dual core machine with air cooling you can throw a it. You can use an overclocked FX-62, it will make no difference. Because of AMD's ancient 90nm junkyard technology there is next to no overhead for overclocking for enthusiasts.

In graphics Nvidia is the clear leader. Nothing can touch the 7950 GX2. G80 DX10 parts are due out early next month.

Real people go with Nvidia and Intel. AMD makes slow old and poky processors. Ati makes GPUs that are furnaces with fans louder than my car! Their drivers are total and utter crap too. Have you seen how BLOATED the Catalyst Control Center is!?

Oh, and what about K8L? Who cares? By the times it gets here H2 '07 Intel will have 45nm online. That will be more than enough to deal with AMD. They can just release the 45nm shrinks of Conroe and Yorkfield native quad coree with further enchancements (SSE4 etc) with much higher clockspeeds and lower TDPs. As if that weren't enough Intel has the brand new Nehalem archiecture set for a 2008 release.

AMD can't even get it's 65nm process working right! If the rumors are correct AMD's 65nm processors when introduced will be in the same low 2 -> 2.6Ghz range with the same TDP. What's the point in that!? They become a bit cheaper for AMD to make but there's ZERO improvement to the end user!

5:30 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous PENIX said...


Question to Penix;

I remember your past post and I thank you for today’s post. I don’t know much about the complex algorithms required for modern GPUs. How come Intel can’t get it right, in your opinion? They have so much money to throw at the problem.


Intel has become fat, lazy and tangled with endless levels of bureaucracy. It is no longer the quick and nimble company it once was, and quite frankly, they no longer have the talent. It's not that they aren't trying, it's that they just aren't good enough.

9:50 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes petix.

For example in our company most pcs are P4 with integrated Intel 845G. Some times we get some errors on the IGP driver that defaults the desktop to 4 bit color (16 colors). Very annoying...

"They have so much money to throw at the problem."

Because the profit Intel does from the IGP market is very low even if they are the market leader with more than 40% of the graphics chips made.

1:42 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“*ALL* integrated graphics solutions are utter crap for gaming”
Yes they are all crap, but some off that crap works and plays better than other crap.


”As Hexus.net testing has confirmed the entry level E6400 can match the performance of the FX-62 with ease.”
And 3 months ago AMD X2 3800 beat the Intel 965EE and also overclocks a hell of a lot better.

”Real people go with Nvidia and Intel.”
Really?

They can just release the 45nm shrinks of Conroe and Yorkfield native quad coree with further enchancements (SSE4 etc) with much higher clockspeeds and lower TDPs.”
Who knows? Thay may be cooking the new prescott sucessor.

If the rumors are correct AMD's 65nm processors when introduced will be in the same low 2 -> 2.6Ghz range with the same TDP”
Not higher? No prescott from AMD? Pitty.

2:04 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not higher? No prescott from AMD? Pitty.

Correct. That means there will be zero performance increase from AMD's jump to 65nm. AMD's faster parts (3Ghz 6000+) will still be fabbed at 90nm.

Who knows? Thay may be cooking the new prescott sucessor.

Didn't you read the news going around a while ago? Intel partially solved the transistor leakage problems at 65nm This explains the impressive drop in power consumption and heat output with the 65nm process. Intel also announced that they had completely solved the leakage @ 45nm. So we can expect processors that use even less power and put out less heat than with the 65nm process.

So we know about Intel's new processors for next year and all you can say is "they must be cooking up the next Prescott".

But when AMD goes to 65nm and releases no faster processors based on that new process that's good? You defend this by saying "No Prescott from AMD? Pity.". So you are basically confirming that if AMD cranked up the clockspeed at 65nm they'd end up with a power consuming monster like Prescott. (Which I doubt is true, but they still have some bugs to work out in that 65nm process!) You say that as if it's a good thing!

And 3 months ago AMD X2 3800 beat the Intel 965EE and also overclocks a hell of a lot better.

It still does beat it. Three months ago you could buy a Core 2 Duo too. Three months ago the E6400 still beat the FX-62. What's your point?

6:16 PM, October 31, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home