AMD and Microsoft will rule
Fusion of the forces is complete. Vista will be the final nail on Intel's coffin.
Nvidia, HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, Broadcom praise AMD's leadership. Expect every AMD CPU to be DOOM4 capable, while Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution.
The iNazis tried to block people from buying ATI products.
As I have shown here, Intel is hopelessly kicking below AMD's waist.
For those who analyse AMD+ATI merger, they all fail to see the real hand behind it -- Microsoft. Microsoft has worked closely with AMD on Vista's Aero engine and Direct X 10. My cheap $40 MB with AMD Radeon IGP can handle Vista beautifully(machine spec). It seems to me that MS and AMD have teamed up to frag Intel. The Intel + Apple axis has enraged the emperor at Redmond. Patty knew Bill Gates is a "ruthless, aggressive, demanding" guy, he knew Intel's love affair with Steve Jobs will be punished. When Paul O said he could't reveal the secret things he is doing with Steve or he would be killed, I bet that Gates was infuriated. Microsoft specifically recommends AMD graphics for Vista. Intel graphics? Microsoft didn't even mention them.
Intel's situation will be extremely bad in the mobile market. Every Turion will be paired with a ATI or Nvdia IGP, while Intel notebooks must use Nvidia discrete graphics or it will simply crap out on Vista's demanding Aero GUI. Even if Intel managed to get Aero to work marginally with its crappy graphics, it will leave no room for playing the simplest 3D games.
Now, you understand why Michael Dell chooses AMD. Dell is a smart guy, smarter than Steve Jobs for sure.
Soon, all Intel graphics solutions will be declared unsuitable for Vista and Intel's BK will be accelerated as a result.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 10/25/2006 12:04:00 AM
100 Comments:
Looks like even Amd is joining the Core 2 duo bandwagon.
http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossfire/promotions/overdriveCore/index.html
Hail to the new Lord of the Semiconductors!!!
With what information did you deduce that people with an Intel CPU won't be able to use Vista?
Seems like a strikingly idiotic statement to me personally, since Vista has already been running on my Intel based machine. Mind you, I removed Vista because it's junk anyways...looks like a Mac.
Moving on, the only reason I would buy an AMD CPU in the next little while is because it had a graphics boost with Fusion. But you know what? Maybe I (or many people for that matter) won't want to pay the higher cost of a CPU with 'Fusion' because it may increase the price of a system and removes the easy ability to mix and match components to suit my needs.
Maybe after 6 months with a Fusion system a nVidia GPU is released onto the market that blows away whatever ATI/AMD has. Then what? Get a new mobo and CPU?
"Looks like even Amd is joining the Core 2 duo bandwagon."
Uhhhh... No. That's some stupid rag's idea of thier 2006 top of the line setup that happens to have ATI cards in it and an Intel chipset that actually happens to support Crossfire surprisingly.
HELLO!?!?!
ATI's chipset support for Core2 got PULLED BY INTEL at Core 2's debut after Intel got wind of AMD's aquision plans of ATI.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/24/intel_pulls_ati_chipset_license/
You won't see another AMD/ATI chipset in another Intel board ever again after this generation, that I can guarantee. Care to try again? (with your head removed from your rectum this time?)
"Looks like even Amd is joining the Core 2 duo bandwagon."
And is that bad?
-Almost 80% of market share.
-Can get money out of their main competitor, a thing that Intel cant do to AMD.
-Brand recognition works in both ways, so we have AMD as Intel systems, or Intel as AMD.
Moving on, the only reason I would buy an AMD CPU in the next little while is because it had a graphics boost with Fusion. But you know what? Maybe I (or many people for that matter) won't want to pay the higher cost of a CPU with 'Fusion' because it may increase the price of a system and removes the easy ability to mix and match components to suit my needs.
I guess you don't understand what the Fusion is. it's just placing the IGP on the same silicon with the CPU and connecting it through direct Connect. This means you don't need the second IGP chip. It may even be possible to create a larger chip that also has the South Bridge in additon to the IGP and CPU.
1 350mm^2(65nm) chip will take up less room than 1 230mm^2(CPU) plus 1 200mm^2(IGP) plus 1 220mm^2 chip(chipset).
"Maybe after 6 months with a Fusion system a nVidia GPU is released onto the market that blows away whatever ATI/AMD has. Then what? Get a new mobo and CPU?"
I don’t think Fusion or what ever is that is going to replace the GPU. But that fusion will help GPU acceleration by a huge amount I expect that. And for that you don’t have to change a thing in years.
How many times did amd or Intel changed their Integer or FPU units in their processor in past 10 years?
How many times did Ati or NVIDIA changed their AA GPU engines?
NVIDIA is still using their Geforce 4 with minor changes, Ati the Ati 9700 with minor changes.
Sharikou said...
"Expect every AMD CPU to be DOOM4 capable, while Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution."
Doom 4, got a link or something stating that they will make a Doom 4?
Or did you mean Doom 3?
"Expect every AMD CPU to be DOOM4 capable"
So will be every comparable Intel CPU, starting with Netbursts. Though first ones might not be all that fast.
"Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution"
Well, Intel's next-gen integrated GPU should support enough to make Aero work. Without Aero Vista will work on almost everything out there.
"Uhhhh... No. That's some stupid rag's idea of thier 2006 top of the line setup that happens to have ATI cards in it and an Intel chipset that actually happens to support Crossfire surprisingly.
HELLO!?!?!"
Are you kidding me,take look at the link again.
http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossfire/promotions/overdriveCor
It's from ATI. Are you STUPID or just can't read??
You win the title DUMB MF!!
while Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution.
Why do you insist on making bald-faced lies like this? The above statement is simply a lie, and ergo you are simply a liar.
Microsoft Vista prices from there own website…
Ultimate (Aero) = $399 / Upgrade $259
Home (Basic) = $199 / Upgrade $100
Home Premium = $239 / Upgrade $159
Enterprise = Not listed / Not listed
Business = $299 / Upgrade $199
If someone is willing to go out and buy Aero at $400 are they really going to be the same person who is using an IGP?
Aero from my perspective will be more for enthusiast, the price is to high for your general “Dell, HP, Best Buy, Circuit City etc…” shopper.
One would think that the Home (Basic) will be the OS for the masses.
My point is Vista Aero will not be as big a factor as Sharikou is claiming.
Intel fanboy retard asked...
"With what information did you deduce that people with an Intel CPU won't be able to use Vista?"
Answer from the original post...
"Expect every AMD CPU to be DOOM4 capable, while Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution."
1 350mm^2(65nm) chip will take up less room than 1 230mm^2(CPU) plus 1 200mm^2(IGP) plus 1 220mm^2 chip(chipset).
Very true. And great for a value platform, but not for a high end. Issues with the fusion approach:
1. A standalone chipset would likely be fabbed on an n-1 (90nm) node process, making it cheaper and higher yielding. It also soaks up n-1 fab capacity. AMD isn't EOL'ing all 90nm capacity.
2. The GPU that is now on board won't likely be as high performing as an independent chip because there isn't as much real estate available. Good, yes. Leading edge- unlikely.
3. A 350mm2 total chip size will soak up capacity like nobody's business. DPW tanks that large, and yields drop precipitously as well. If your 220mm^2 CPU yields 70% good dpw (including edge exclusion), you would only expect ~57% good dpw for a 350mm^2 chip on the same process. Delta would be ~225 good dpw vs. 116 good dpw. So- do you think that economically, AMD could charge 2X more per die just to break even on the "integrated approach"?
4. Motherboard layout costs will be much, much lower with a Fusion approach. Great. But tell me what this does to the layout and verification costs to the chip itself? Which is more time (read personnel) intensive. Which costs more on a rework basis- a 4 layer motherboard, or a 65nnm mask set (hint- a 65nm mask set is ~$1M, proto MBs are a few $K.)
It is a step in the right direction if AMD can come up with a "stable platform" approach for the general consumer and low-mid range corporate markets by integrating an "okay" GPU onto a K8 for a SOC. There is a lot of market and $$$ to be had in that space. I just don't see the value proposition on the high end, and I haven't seen any arguments to support such a claim.
Some blind idiot said...
"You kidding me,take look at the link again.
http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossfire/promotions/overdriveCor
It's from ATI. Are you STUPID or just can't read??
You win the title DUMB MF!!"
TAKE YOUR OWN DAMN ADVICE ASSHOLE.
anonymous said...
"You won't see another AMD/ATI chipset in another Intel board ever again after this generation, that I can guarantee."
Once again, maybe this will finally sink into your obviously thick skull. Quoted straight from the article:
"Intel has pulled ATI's chipset license, meaning that there will be no more ATI (or rather, AMD) chipsets for Intel processors after the end of the year.
There will still be time for one more though, namely the upcoming RD600 chipset, which doesn't look like it will be cancelled, despite the earlier news. However, it is unclear whether the RD600 project will see the light of day though."
Now as far as the ATI Overdrive PC 2006 PC is concerned:
"Motherboard: [Intel] D975XBX CrossFire (775) Motherboard"
The board is an INTEL BOARD, not an ATI one, Crossfire IS supported by it, but it is NOT an ATI board.
WHO WINS THE TITLE OF DUMB MF'ER NOW??? LOOKS LIKE IT'S YOU! Couldn't have happened to a better person it seems!
--haha, you're stupid. that ATI bus licence article was dead wrong and was retracted by the inquirer the day after they posted it.
link
As I have shown here, Intel is hopelessly kicking below AMD's waist.
Yup and AMD is rolling on the ground in pain. Look at their stock.. look at their margins.
When are you going to put your money where your blog is and bet on the BK prediction you pretender
Oh for crying out loud. It's the AMD site advertising a Core 2 Duo.
http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossfire/promotions/overdriveCore
I agree with the guy who gave you the title of dumb MF!!! and I think that you deserver another title of Biggest Idiot!!! Congrats.
Looks like even Amd is joining the Core 2 dou bandwagon.
The Inquirer:
AMD recommends Core 2 Duo
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35329
If you look at the market segments for graphics you can easily understand about fusion. Nvidia and ATI have a good stake in standalone graphic cards. However, Intel has the lion's share in both desktop and mobile integrated graphics. AMD has now made these two areas a priority and Intel will be faced with a full assault like it has never had to deal with in these two markets. Step one is to release an improved mobile motherboard integrated chipset and a motherboard integrated chipset for corporate sales. Fusion is step two and is just a cost reduced version of the current motherboard integrated graphics chip. This is about cost and power consumption not about performance. I realize that none of this is exciting and won't really effect the average consumer; it's just something that will give Intel competition in an area where it today faces none. And, it should put more money in AMD's pockets.
"This is about cost and power consumption not about performance. I realize that none of this is exciting and won't really effect the average consumer;"
Why not? As you said, this is about cost and power consumption. IMO both these affect the average consumer more than sheer performance.
As I have shown here, Intel is hopelessly kicking below AMD's waist.
To be more precise, Intel is kicking AMD in the balls. But technically, it is below the waisteline. So yest, you got that right.
Can someone explain FX 4x4 line.
The Inquirer says that it is going to be a Quad-Core build with two dies in one chip and one socket.
From last 4 months we hear that 4x4 is two socket solution or maybe it is two socket-8 core?
AMD will not rule till Intel bungle their 45nm.
Come'on be realistic. Intel's advantage in process is too much.
-Longan-
P.S. Intel has been going solo in process for so long, I think they will get into trouble with 32nm. At 32nm and down-ward, it takes a whole alliance to develope. I believe IBM has a technology called emergence. Fabricate chips submerged in water instead of air.
(Note: Water has higher index than air and help with the optics).
-Longan-
Some idiotic mouthbreather said...
"I agree with the guy who gave you the title of dumb MF!!! and I think that you deserver another title of Biggest Idiot!!! Congrats."
Uhhh... LET'S SEE. The ATI VP said it still has it's liscense, whoopty doo. LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT AMD (and Intel for that matter) HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT SINCE THEY OFFICIALLY OWN ATI NOW. I guarantee if Intel's got anything to say about it they WON'T be using anything hardware wise that is anyway designed or engineered by AMD if they can help it, history between the two has proven this verifiably as a FACT.
Seriously you bunch of Intel mouthbreathers can go piss off, talk about taking a bunch of nothing out of context and pulling assumptions out of your ass! The article was originally on ATI's site and now that both AMD and ATI's sites are intergrated it more than likely got left there, but I can almost put good money on it won't be staying there much longer.
The bottom line is this: Until it's IN STONE FROM AMD that they're going to be pumping Intel chipsets via ATI indefinately, I can almost safely guarantee it's not going to happen, AMD is not going to give Intel any breaks and vice versa.
THE ONLY DUMB MF'S HERE ARE THE ONE'S WHO THINK AMD IS GOING TO ALLOW ATI TO PUMP INTEL CHIPSETS IN THE LONG TERM MUCH LESS INTEL LETTING ATI/AMD INTO THIER PLATFORMS, PERIOD. In short, GO TO WALMART AND BUY A FUCKING CLUE, you Intel mouthbreathers are all about 10 cents short of one.
Sorry about the flaming Sharikou, but some idiots here just don't have a clue... Even after it falls out of the sky, lands and on them and starts flopping.
Heard of the Chinese Blogger that got jailed?
I wish he will get some company one day and I hope that company will be YOU
Intel fanboy retard asked...
"With what information did you deduce that people with an Intel CPU won't be able to use Vista?"
Answer from the original post...
"Expect every AMD CPU to be DOOM4 capable, while Intel users won't be able to use Vista unless they get a AMD or Nvidia graphics solution."
Okay, forgive me for saying Intel CPU when I should have said Intel GPU. I fail to see how someone with an Intel onboard GPU can't use Vista.
Sure, Intels integrated graphics solutions are questionable for modern 3d games, but if that's what you want to do with your PC RIGHT NOW you will have to buy a video card anyways. Fusion is a pie in the sky as we speak anyways.
Sharikou, do you want to explain to everyone how a modern Intel graphics solution can't handle Vista?
you Intel mouthbreathers
You're supposed to breathe with your mouth. In through the nose, out through the mouth. If you knew that, maybe you'd be a little more calm.
But you're not...and therefore anything you say sounds kinda idiotic - doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.
Also, when you start a comment with an insult like you always do, you sound like a moron, to be blunt. All the typos don't help either, but you're only human.
I'm only harping on you in particular because you sound like an asshole and need a little direction to help your arguments sound more valid (and some of your arguments I agree with). Take my advice or not, it's a free world.
Sharikou, do you want to explain to everyone how a modern Intel graphics solution can't handle Vista?
Which Intel GPU can handle Vista?
GPU on-die is a new idea and a new technology,
Oh my, you people really are clueless. You think GPU on-die is a new idea?
Hardly. There are plenty of SOC processors out there, look up "Timna" on Google, for one, from 2000. It got cancelled, but GPU on die is hardly an original or new idea.
Which Intel GPU can handle Vista?
You make it sooo easy.
965G can handle Vista, including the Aero interface. This is simply a fact, so I'm not sure what you're blathering about exactly.
965G can handle Vista, including the Aero interface
Who said that? Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?
Sharikou...
"Microsoft specifically recommends AMD graphics for Vista."
Why do you insist on lying or spinning the truth to suit you?
The article you reference is about ATI, and long before the merger with AMD.
"Microsoft didn't even mention them."
Really...
1. Acer Ferrari 3400 = AMD
2. Acer Ferrari 4000 = AMD
3. HP Pavilion zd8230 = Intel
4. IBM Thinkpad T43 = Intel
5. Toshiba Tecra M4 = Intel
---------------------------
"Which Intel GPU can handle Vista?"
Well here are two, and I have to believe there will be more, Intel GMA 950, also they have the X3000.
"Soon, all Intel graphics solutions will be declared unsuitable for Vista and Intel's BK will be accelerated as a result."
Accelarated by how much from your Q2'08 push out prediction.
Does this mean Q4'07 BK now?
"GPU on-die is a new idea and a new technology,"
Actually on board graphics was proposed in the early 1990's by Intel (if not early). They had a program on this but it never made it to market. I also suppose (but have not data) that Intel was not the first to think this up as there was a lot of "system on a chip" (SOC) work back then.
Will AMD be first to get it to market? Possibly. New Idea? No!
"I believe IBM has a technology called emergence. Fabricate chips submerged in water instead of air."
HA! I think you mean immersion (in reference to lithography)...and no this is not an IBM technology; this is out there for any IC manufacturer.
And no the wafers are not "submerged" in water - there is a very small amount of water between the mask and wafer. There are still numerous issues to be overcome before this gets to volume manufacturing (but to be fair all other competing technologies face major issues as well)
Stupid question:
What impact would an integrated GPU (or some subset of GP functions) do to the socket pin out (count)?
Would this lead to a signicant pin count increase and if so would this mean a new socket beyond AM3 would be required? Or could it work the other way and decrease the pin count?
Please no flames, just meant to be an innocent question(s).
Moving on, the only reason I would buy an AMD CPU in the next little while is because it had a graphics boost with Fusion. But you know what? Maybe I (or many people for that matter) won't want to pay the higher cost of a CPU with 'Fusion' because it may increase the price of a system and removes the easy ability to mix and match components to suit my needs.
You guys are silly. The purpose of Fusion is to lessen the amount of chips necessary for a full feature system.
The first targets for this will be notebooks, since less chips and smaller transistor sizes will use less power.
At the point where you see a high end version, it will be in a Torrenza socket. I expect that by Q307, there will be a Readeon sitting in an Opteron socket.
Fusion will be the end result, not the first iteration. It will more than liekly need to be at 45nm to keep the chip under 400mm2. They will also have to exchange some of the GPU logic for CPU logic, while leaving the pipelines intact.
Also this will make for cooler GPUs because the RAM can exist in an HTX slot or even be shared with the CPU through DCA.
nVidia is also working on this as is Intel. Are they crazy too?
I just went to Scientia's blog and he hit the nail right on the head with his post about double standards regarding AMD and Intel.
I see it everywhere I go (forums, review sites) and it's as bad as racism.
ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!! AMD isn't going anywhere. MS uses them to build Wndows and run ALL OF THEIR WEBSITES(HP 585DL)
Google will be waiting for Barcelona, as will Blizzard, Yahoo and others.
Who said that? Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?
Last time I checked, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs said anything about G80!! Does that mean it won't support vista?
Dumbass!!
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/g965/index.htm
"support for Microsoft DirectX* 9.0c Shader Model 3.0, OpenGL* 1.5, and floating point operations. Intel graphics technology also support the highest levels of the Microsoft Vista* Aero experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Graphics_hardware_requirements
"as of Vista Beta 2 the NVIDIA GeForce FX family and later, the ATI Radeon 9500 and later, Intel's GMA 950 integrated graphics, and a handful of VIA chipsets and S3 Graphics discrete chips are supported"
Also remember that Aero is usable only on the Premium version. Vast majority of home users and no enterprise users will not buy that version as it is awfuly expensive.
"Who said that?"
From Wikipedia you can move to MS homepage to see who said that ;)
Now tell us where did you read that no Intel GPU's can handle Vista.
support for Microsoft DirectX* 9.0c Shader Model 3.0, OpenGL* 1.5,
You can't trust Intel mkting. Vista uses Direct X 10. Intel doesn't have any parts for that.
I think Apple is starting to represent, having taken on board x86 (as opposed to intel) serious competition to msoft.. at last...
"You can't trust Intel mkting. Vista uses Direct X 10. Intel doesn't have any parts for that."
You do know that Aero only needs DX9-capable HW, do you? How else could it run on GF FX and R9500.
Also, neither AMD nor ATI have no DX10 capable HW so will each and every one of their GPU's be obsolete by the day Vista launches?
"You can't trust Intel mkting. Vista uses Direct X 10. Intel doesn't have any parts for that. "
Ummm...No it doesn't. While Vista contains DX10, DX9 is what the OS uses.
Oh, and BTW, nobody has any DX10 parts yet, not even AMD/ATI.
Sharikou said...
"Vista uses DirectX 10"
Not entirely.
"The D3D10 API was designed around the new driver model in Vista. In addition, Aero Glass runs on DX9.0L. Aero Glass is one of the main reasons DX9.0L exists on Vista."
-[Link]-
So Intel is fine as long as they have compliance for DX9.0L.
Sharikou, do you want to explain to everyone how a modern Intel graphics solution can't handle Vista?
Which Intel GPU can handle Vista?
Whilst I was building my PC a few weeks ago I happened to use the latest Vista RC with my GMA 950 integrated video processor. Worked just fine, in fact.
It probably won't handle Aero, and I'm not going to bother trying because Aero's not worth it anyways.
"Conroe is fake, Intel chips are blowing up, Intel will lose money this year, Intel will never sell off their inventory, Intel is losing money on every chip they sell, Intel is doomed and will go BK, Amd will have 40% of the market share this year."
I know I missed a bunch other things that you were completely wrong about, and YES that includes Intel going bankrupt next year or 5 years from now. Now can anyone name one thing that the great nostredamus was right about?
Whilst I was building my PC a few weeks ago I happened to use the latest Vista RC with my GMA 950 integrated video processor. Worked just fine, in fact.
It probably won't handle Aero, and I'm not going to bother trying because Aero's not worth it anyways.
Intel fanboys are crazy. You can get ADM+ATI for $150 (X2 3800+ MB with ATI IGP) and get beautiful 3D desktop, as I have shown in the screen capture. Why do you want to stick with the ugly Intel 2D interface?
Anonymous said...
"...I happened to use the latest Vista RC with my GMA 950 integrated video processor.
It probably won't handle Aero, and I'm not going to bother trying because Aero's not worth it anyways."
Actually it should be able to do Aero, here is a link.
In the wise words of Chris Rock:
"Sure, you can do it, but that don't mean it's to be done. You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good fucking idea!"
As a former software and hardware beta tester, I can verify that Intel GPUs are, by far, the most slow, unstable and incompatible modern GPU available today. Many software companies dropped support for them all together, forcing users to buy either ATI or nVidia.
Intel integrated video will not be suitable for Vista. In theory, it might be possible, but that doesn't mean it will be worth a damn.
The vast majority of computer owners do not upgrade components, only complete systems. Unlike AMD, Intel out-of-the-box solutions will not support Vista, and this will cause a landslide move from Intel to AMD.
The clock is ticking towards Vista's release, and so far Intel has not shown an ounce of respect for their loyal users. It may very well be that Intel has become so arrogant and greedy that they no longer care.
About AMD+Miscrosft:
does it mean that if I move away from a (not yet convicted?) monopolist (Intel) I have to go with a convicted monopolist (Microsoft) partner ?
What is my best solution for Linux64 ? Not AMD because it's working with Microsft. Not Intel because of crappy 64 bit. What's left ? Via ? Broadcom ?
does it mean that if I move away from a (not yet convicted?) monopolist (Intel) I have to go with a convicted monopolist (Microsoft) partner ?
Well, USA allied with USSR to take down the NAZIs
"Intel integrated video will not be suitable for Vista. In theory, it might be possible, but that doesn't mean it will be worth a damn"
32M GF2 on 500MHz P3 was enough to run GLX. Is Aero really that much more of a recource hog that several times faster Intel GPU is not good enough?
This is straight from the Windows Vista home page.
"Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs
To get an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience, ask for a Windows Vista Capable PC that is designated Premium Ready, or choose a PC that meets or exceeds the Premium Ready requirements described below. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability."
As you can see, the requirements are 128MB of graphic memory, DX9, pixel shader 2.0, and 32 bits per pixel which by the way the 950GMA can easily do. Did a quick google and found this review that states just that.
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article/Toshibas+Tecra+M7+Notebook+with+Tablet+PC+Bonus/191320_1.aspx
Sharkikou is really starting to sound desperate nowaday. FUD! FUD!
I'm starting to miss the old rants about the Core Duo is exploding or the Conroe is a fraud. Those were the good old day.
"32M GF2 on 500MHz P3 was enough to run GLX. Is Aero really that much more of a recource hog that several times faster Intel GPU is not good enough?"
Of course it's not good enough. This is Microsoft we are talking about.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
WDDM driver and 128MB memory, pixel shader...
Intel craps out on these
You're right, Intel will go BK, because unlike the past, they were so great in IGP;)
Intel's GMA950 supports the Vista Aero.
It has a WDDM driver.
256MB of graphics memory.
Pixel shade 2.0
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
Quit spreading FUD!doogqiz
"WDDM driver and 128MB memory, pixel shader...
Intel craps out on these"
Are you willing to bet on that?
"* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel."
Intel integrated graphics may or may not allow 128MB to be allocated. In the event they do, it uses shared system memory, which is extremely slow compared to onboard graphics memory.
Sharikou said...
"WDDM driver and 128MB memory, pixel shader...
Intel craps out on these"
The information is out there, it has been shown to you, yet you don't accept it...
Intel also has the Intel(R) GMA X3000 and GMA 3000.
Intel has Vista Aero compliance, why is this so hard to accept?
"Soon, all Intel graphics solutions will be declared unsuitable for Vista and Intel's BK will be accelerated as a result."
[b]posted by Sharikou, Ph. D @ 10/25/2006 12:04:00 AM[/b]
Cool! So what's the new date for Intel's BK now? How many quarters will it be moved up? Put your money where your mouth is and give us a prediction Sharikou. :)
Tick tock tick tock... ;)
Hey Sharikou I just found this neat little Benchmark, and am curious if you would let your readers try it.
Geekbench
I am curious, with all of the talk about future and present technology, what is everyone using, and how do we all compare.
Thanks.
"P.S. Intel has been going solo in process for so long, I think they will get into trouble with 32nm. At 32nm and down-ward, it takes a whole alliance to develope. I believe IBM has a technology called emergence. Fabricate chips submerged in water instead of air.
(Note: Water has higher index than air and help with the optics).
-Longan-"
I'm amazed is this what you get when you get a alliance? No wonder they are behind INTEL.
INTEL has figured out how to do 45nm without immersion and everyone else is probably getting
surprised. I figure INTEL will have some rabbits at 32nm. Look what they did at 90 and 65nm.
It only proves again when you got the bucks, ( billions a year ) you can go it alone. And when you don't have any money you compromise and have to go with the group consensus. Anyone who tells you that a consortium has advantages vs. singular focus team with more money is an idiot and doesn't understand the business.
Pretender .. you going to wager 100:1 about your BK prediction? I noticed you don't respond to the challenge. Frankly you must not be too sure heah????
PS... FUsion is NOTHING... Its AMD-ATI sad attempt to cover their assess. AMD-ATI is nothing but a poor and late attempt to copy INTEL's platform strategy. Fusion is a diversion and a broken one at that!
How many times did Ati or NVIDIA changed their AA GPU engines?
NVIDIA is still using their Geforce 4 with minor changes, Ati the Ati 9700 with minor changes.
The Geforce 4 was based on the Geforce 3 Direct X 8). They later released the Geforce FX (DX9). The shader performance was awful so they redesigned the whole thing and released the Geforce 6. The Geforce 7 is still based on the Geforce 6 core.
You are correct about Ati though. The X1000 GPUs are all still based on the R300 9700 pro core. I would hardly describe the modifications they've made to the core "minor" though.
G80 and R600 should be all-new DX10 cores. Awesome!
Why does Sharikou continue to harp on about the poor performance of Intel integrated graphics? He acts as if Intel is presenting the GMA graphics as competition to Ati or Nvidia's GPUs. They were never intended for more than general usage, certainly not designed for gaming.
For the record the GMA950 and the GMA 965 based intergrated graphics all support Aero Glass on Vista.
Anyone that wants to play games will use a separate graphics card. Anything else is just a waste of time.
Sharikou - AKA the FUD King!
Somehow I posted a bad link, so maybe this one will work, sorry :)
Geekbench
If that one does not work, go here, and look for Geekbench 2006.
For the record the GMA950 and the GMA 965 based intergrated graphics all support Aero Glass on Vista.
On paper maybe. Look at my screen capture of the beautiful X2 3800+ and ATI IGP in action, that's real action.
On paper maybe. Look at my screen capture of the beautiful X2 3800+ and ATI IGP in action, that's real action.
It looks as if Intel has won. Shakira has finally gone fully off the deep end.
It looks as if Intel has won. Shakira has finally gone fully off the deep end.
You have to read my comments in conjunction with my earlier comment that Intel marketing can be trusted.
Sharikou said...
"You have to read my comments in conjunction with my earlier comment that Intel marketing can be trusted."
That has to be a typo... "can", probably meant "can't".
Back then Intel was near monopoly and had the bucks to go solo, pushing process ahead of everyone else.
Now day, that's no more. Intel is suffering price-war and yet AMD is still profitable (with increase profit).
That model of monopoly/advanced-process is totally destroyed while everyone else is in an alliance of some sort. While is very hard for Intel to continue going forward, it's equally hard for Intel to go backward and join an alliance.
Just wait and see a couple years from now...Intel will be in a very deep trouble. Not BK but reversed role, AMD owns 60% market, Intel owns 40% market.
-Longan-
Vista Windows Experience Index... Compare...
http://www.duke.edu/~bkp/images/cineb_2.4.jpg
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz stock = 5.3
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35078
AMD X2 4800+ 2.4GHz stock = 4.5
INQ's own machine. Look at how the Inquirer whined about the low score!
Vista favors Core 2 processors more! Ask Microsoft about that!
"Look at my screen capture of the beautiful X2 3800+ and ATI IGP in action, that's real action"
Now show us how bad it would look like with Intel GMA so we could actually compare. How stuff looks like with ATI GPU has nothing to do with how it would look on Intel.
does it mean that if I move away from a (not yet convicted?) monopolist (Intel) I have to go with a convicted monopolist (Microsoft) partner ?
Well, USA allied with USSR to take down the NAZIs
Very true but it's not clear in my mind who is the worst monopolist: Intel or Microsoft.
SurJector (also the first anonymous of this thread)
You are correct about Ati though. The X1000 GPUs are all still based on the R300 9700 pro core. I would hardly describe the modifications they've made to the core "minor" though.
You didn’t understand what I was saying. I was talking about one specific part of both GPUs, the part that does the AA (Anti Aliasing) calculations or the AF engines (Anisotrofic).
My point is GPUs are almost copy paste, and there is a lot of transistor replication, so its possible to put many parts of the GPU in the CPU that don’t get updated often. They are basically the same, with new frequency/new memory type and more processing units.
Why doesn't someone with intel integrated video actually try to run AERO and give us his opinions on its performance? Argueing about this is pointless. Sure GMA supports AERO, but can it run it nicely? Someone should actually use it.
Sure GMA supports AERO, but can it run it nicely? Someone should actually use it.
Intelers lack the confidence to actually try it. I, knowing Microsoft worked AMD on the drivers, was very confident that Vista would work without a glitch on X2 3800 and Radeon. Intelers can't say the same, because Microsoft did not endorse Intel, only AMD. So intelers will have to do it at their own risk.
Sharikou said...
"Intelers can't say the same, because Microsoft did not endorse Intel, only AMD."
What is this crap?
The link you posted mentions more Intel platforms than AMD platforms, so why this effort to lie?
Or is there a link or something stating that Microsoft only supports/endorses AMD?
Let it go, Intel has WDDM drivers and Vista Aero support.
Or is there a link or something stating that Microsoft only supports/endorses AMD?
Dude, Bill Gates doesn't have to single out Intel. Microsoft only recommended AMD graphics for Vista.
I can sort of see what your saying, but, to be clear here is what your link says...
"It says that: "ATI is preferred to Nvidia at this time due to superior driver support"
Look at the date...
Saturday 07 January 2006
Just for the record ATI was not AMD in January, Intel accounted for 80% of ATI's chipsets, and at which time, also current times, who makes more chipsets for AMD, oh yeah Nvidia, so Microsoft is really saying AMD's are not as good as Intel.
I can spin the words too.
OK this clown has sunk to a new low in FUD. Oh wait nevermind he is sharikou. There's no such thing as sinking to new lows when it comes to spreading FUD.
New testing from Toms....Woodcrest vs Opteron. Go ahead read and make you own conclusions. Im sure it won't change any already biases that already exist.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/26/intel_woodcrest_and_amd_opteron_battle_head_to_head/
New testing from Toms
A bunch of under educated retards pushing buttons... according to their benchmark, Netbust is faster than Woodcrest 50% of the time.
Saturday 07 January 2006
Just for the record ATI was not AMD in January, Intel accounted for 80% of ATI's chipsets, and at which time, also current times, who makes more chipsets for AMD, oh yeah Nvidia, so Microsoft is really saying AMD's are not as good as Intel.
Thanks for noting the date. 10 months have passed since then, but, did Microsoft change its position?
I finally found what sharikou got a ph.d for....spreading FUD.
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
New testing from Toms
A bunch of under educated retards pushing buttons... according to their benchmark, Netbust is faster than Woodcrest 50% of the time.
Really? Actually reading the article, there weren't any tests that the netburst beat Woodcreast. Where did you see that? I did see that the Opterons manage to beat Woodcrest in some of the memory tests, but in none of the others.
If you have REAL links to anyone that has done on comparable tests I would be interested to see.
"New testing from Toms"
Note a few things from the test:
1. It compares 3.0GHz Woodcrest to 2.6GHz K8. How fair it is?
2. It uses S940 Opteron, where a more proper comparison should've been with Socket F.
3. It uses only 1GB memory to benchmark servers - my desktop has more than that. It also failed to benchmark any server application.
4. For DivX, it used insane quality to encode the 182MB VOB at speed ~1.5Mbps, with target quality at 3Mbps. It's clearly aimed to benefit large cache.
5. In 3D Studio Max, Woodcrest wins Dempsey by 33%; in Cinebench, Dempsey wins Woodcrest by 40%. Which one is better? Clearly both applications are heavily skewed.
6. Using the obscured SunGuard to claim Woodcrest "better" is just another laughable attempt.
7. Intel compiler was used. (Well, I don't suppose this being a bad thing since Intel makes very good compilers; still, some of its "Intel-exclusive optimization" tricks are notorious to say the least.)
IMO, Toms is exactly as Sharikou said: Intel paid pumper.
"Really? Actually reading the article, there weren't any tests that the netburst beat Woodcreast. Where did you see that?"
If your only interests are graphics rendering applications, according to Toms "new" test, Sharikou's claim is true.
You can't trust Intel mkting. Vista uses Direct X 10. Intel doesn't have any parts for that.
God you're stupid. Do you care that you sound like an idiot when you make these factual mistakes?
Vista supports DX9 and DX10. You can run DX9 games or DX10 games (if you have the hardware). You can run Aero (the fancy interface) with DX9.
There are no DX10 parts out from either AMD or NVidia yet. Please try to keep up with the technology you ridiculous cheeseball.
Wow, Shakira is getting more and more shrill. I think he's really getting dangerously close to outright insanity as opposed to his usual boring inanity.
Been hitting a bit of old Grandpa's cough syrup, have we Shakira? You sound really desperate and pathetic, even more so that usual, lately.
AMD's stock plunge got you down?
Sharikou said...
"...but, did Microsoft change its position?"
Why would they have to or want to change there position about ATI's drivers?
My whole point in posting was to have you correctly relate the article to "graphic drivers", and not Intel or AMD.
Can you pin down where Microsoft is pointing to a specific "Hardware" vendor for the best Vista Aero experience?
----------------------------------
But here is something funny...
Hear directly from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
----------------------------------
Looking here, it seems Intel is at the top of the list, they could have gone alphabetical, but they didn't.
Now, I am not serious about the last statement it is just that spinning something to make it look like it favors your view is a very weak tactic, I know your intelligent enough to realize you do this.
PS: Here is what it says on ATI's site...
"Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista and ATI has since developed extremely robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."
Even most people at tomshardware admitted that the article was crap and what no one would ever buy a server based on these benchmarks because they test things that no server user would actually use. In actual 64-bit server type apps that use all cores and need a decent amount of memory and need fast IO and can't benefit from the fast cache opteron is faster. Just because woodcrest is faster at some encoding benchmark does not make it a better server processor.
Even most people at tomshardware admitted that the article was crap and what no one would ever buy a server based on these benchmarks
That test only proved toms is a bunch of retards -- Windows button pushers. Anandtech dudes at least know how to pop in a Linux CD and run MySQL bench... Toms dudes stare at the root login prompt and don't know what to do next...
Edward said...
"New testing from Toms"
Note a few things from the test:
1. It compares 3.0GHz Woodcrest to 2.6GHz K8. How fair it is?
i always has a good laugh to look at statement as such. Just because you canoot have a higher frequency core doesn't mean the people has to clock down their part to compare with you. Bear in mind that the key thing to the user is the performace /$. If intel is able to sell users a higher clock cpu, that run faster, at lower process and power consumption, why bother?
Just imagine when user compare the AMD CPU to the VIA (if it ever did), then VIA cry out, not fair, please clock down your part before do any comparison.
Let's assume it still lose out, then it cries out: not fair! you are comparing your 3 years old design to my 3+N years old design ...
Just a loser would say that.
"i always has a good laugh to look at statement as such. Just because you canoot have a higher frequency core doesn't mean the people has to clock down their part to compare with you."
It at least shows two things:
1) Core 2 does not scale well to server/workstation workload, thus Intel is selling Woodcrest at higher clock rates for the same price.
2) Core 2 performance advantage over K8 is less than what THG has shown when running at the same clock rate (where a pair comparison between microarchitecture - rather than fabrication - should have been).
Sharikou - you neglected some posts.
"Soon, all Intel graphics solutions will be declared unsuitable for Vista and Intel's BK will be accelerated as a result"
Does this mean you are pulling your BK prediction back into 2007, now? (Or by accelerate do you mean no change?)
Edward said...
"i always has a good laugh to look at statement as such. Just because you canoot have a higher frequency core doesn't mean the people has to clock down their part to compare with you."
It at least shows two things:
1) Core 2 does not scale well to server/workstation workload, thus Intel is selling Woodcrest at higher clock rates for the same price.
2) Core 2 performance advantage over K8 is less than what THG has shown when running at the same clock rate (where a pair comparison between microarchitecture - rather than fabrication - should have been).
If you really wanna look at it that way then you missed out this fact then: at higher clock, the Core 2 system already comsume less power. It will consume much lesser when run at lower clock.
Anyway, just look at E6600 which run at 2.4Ghz vs the Fx 2.6GHz (not sure ... may be 2.8), which intel managed to beat AMD even at lower clock.
One can claim all it wants with its supposingly more advanced microarch (Intel), external system bus (AMD), process (intel), etc. End user just doesn't care. What user really want is the end result, the overall performance (pure perforomnace, or performance per $) for a given CPU itself in the system.
Knock – Out price for AMD graphics
AMD AMD today introduced an innovative graphics card that makes use of its new native CrossFire(TM) technology, the ATI Radeon(R) X1650 XT. With its incredible image quality features and superb performance, the ATI Radeon X1650 XT delivers enthusiast-class technology at an impressive price point. The ATI Radeon X1650 XT will hit store shelves during the week of 13 November, at an estimated street price of US$149.
Whoops here is the sorce for the knock-Out price on AMD/ATI graphics
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=BW&Date=20061030&ID=6146498
Lol.... Intel going BK?
Intel has like 80% market share whereas AMD has 16%
I have both AMD-ATi (Radeon X200) & Intel (GMA X3000) GPU MBs, both can run Vista real well...
Post a Comment
<< Home