Friday, September 28, 2007

AMD dominates casual gaming performance

You want a basic PC with some 3D gaming capacity so your kids can have some Roller Coaster or reader rabbit fun, or maybe you want to learn to fly with MS Flight Simulator?

With AMD, you don't need to pay $100 for a GPU, AMD's integrated graphics solutions can do it all.

23 Comments:

Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

No arguement with this one.

ATI's integrated video is the best bar none for now.

The best thing? You can even get them for Intel CPU's


So by going with an Intel CPU and the ATI based motherboard you can have the best of both worlds!

1:00 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

For those of us that aren't casual gamers, AMD's solutions, along with Intel's, and even Nvidia's IGP's are worthless...

Go to the area where gaming perf really matters, and AMD's products are still second class...

1:15 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger GutterRat said...

AMD also dominates in the pissing away shareholder value category.

Congratulations!

Sharikou = Naive

P.S. George Ou says hi

1:16 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Oh totally agreed. Integrated video is bleh.

AMD's dedicated ATi stuff is nearly useless for a hardcore gamer.

The Nvida GPU with a intel CPU is far superior across the board for serious gamers.

1:21 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Mark said...

AMD does have a nice IGP.
Whooptie whoop.

That's like being at the top of your class..

in Special Ed.

1:55 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Bubba said...

So, Sharikou, where's that AMD system you said scores 30,000 in 3DMark?

4:04 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger JoJo said...

If you want to get a gaming solution for your kids that lets them play older, low graphics games, buy them a fucking game boy. Dear god why would you buy a computer for the sole purpose of old low end games like roller coaster tycoon? Get a damn Xbox you moron!

AMD had the integrated graphics market cornered, too bad the integrated graphics market consists of Sharikou and the incredibly drunk with way too much money that live within walking distance of a best buy.

6:45 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Andy said...

cool. $100 minus manufacturing costs minus the fact that Intel have most the share here.

Have fun making no money in this segment.

8:12 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

Yeah, go to Sharikou's link and look at the discrete graphics performance. AMD fragged all over.

IMAGE QUALITY: DISCRETE GRAPHICS vs. IGP SHOOTOUT

IMAGE QUALITY with IGP (800X6800, LOW DETAILS) in Hitman Blood Money: http://tinyurl.com/2qxcg9

IMAGE QUALITY with 8800 GTS (1680x1050, HIGHEST DETAILS, 16X AF/8X AA) in Hitman Blood Money: http://tinyurl.com/32vktc

Now not everyone wants to spend $300 on a graphics card. So I decided to see what could be run on an older but still good video card: a Geforce 7600 GT. (1680X1050, Medium Details and 8X AF)

http://tinyurl.com/32r2eh

In each case the framerates were perfectly smooth. If the image quality was increased further in any case the game would become laggy and would not be playable. (Aside from the 8800 GTS, which just maxed out every setting there was and was still playable nicely)

As we can see with a graphics card for less than $100 we're getting much of the image quality offered by the much more high end 8800 GTS. In any case, the 7600 GT's image quality completely blew away the image quality that you could obtain from an IGP. (Hitman Blood Money is a game from last year, so in a brand new game like BioShock, the differences would be more obvious between a 7600 GT and 8800 GTS) In Hitman Blood Money I could use 8X AA for instance, That's hard to see in a static screenshot, but it makes an awesome difference when actually playing the game.)

It's worth every dollar for a discrete video card if you want to play games - even if that card is a an $89 7600 GT (Newegg prices).

9:11 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger z said...

AMD's quad-core K10 "Barcelona" Opteron 30-35% faster (clock-for-clock) than Intel's "Penryn" Xeon in cryptographic operations (64-bit OpenSSL benchmark performing 2048-bit RSA sign & verify operations):

http://www.tecchannel.de/server/prozessoren/1729228/index9.html

IOW, expect a 2.3 GHz K10 to perform as well as a 3.0 GHz Penryn.

1:44 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:16 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:32 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Ycon said...

I thought Anand was the Intel paid pumper?

9:18 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:43 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...


ATI graphics have been the foundation of the entire graphics industry for eons and as far as I can see they will stay the unchallenged industry leader for many more decades to come.


You wish. 3dfx started the entire 3D graphics resolution back with the original Voodoo 3D accelerator. Nvidia started the second revolution with the Geforce, then Ati moved us into the DX9 revolution with the Radeon 9700. Finally, Nvidia hit it big time with the Geforce 8800. Arguably the biggest thing in graphics since the original Geforce.

Yes! ATI makes the best IGPs that can produce graphics like this:

http://tinyurl.com/2qxcg9

Or you can spend $79 and get this:

http://tinyurl.com/32r2eh

Not a hard decision at all. IGPs are fine for business computers and people who don't play 3D games but anyone that wants to play 3D games will be wanting a discrete GPU.

9:45 AM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

OneDouchebag said "...buy the original and still the best AMD."

This one statement proves you are an utter dimwitted fucktard who's brains ran down his mothers thigh when his crack addicted father didn't pull out in time...

AMD - copied x86 design - including the IMC from the 386/486 era...

AMD - bought Nexgen and used the Alpha architecture to design their CPU's - oh my, which had an IMC as well.

Oneretard is another example of why some people just shouldn't be allowed to breed...

12:20 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Only AMD said...

Another great post by the one & only PH.d dude

3:07 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:36 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:41 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Lets play it out for oneexpert since he is too fucking stupid to figure it out on his own:

1.) Intel owns the CPU market.
2.) Intel owns the chipset market.
3.) Intel owns the video card market.

All three by huge margins.

9:58 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

1.) Intel owns the CPU market.
2.) Intel owns the chipset market.
3.) Intel owns the video card market.

All three by huge margins


#1 and #2, absolutely. #3 only in IGPs though. Intel IGPs are low power and cheap to make, and good for business computers. Nvidia owns the discrete graphics market though.

One could also argue Nvidia's presence in the Intel enthusiast chipset market is good, due to their SLI chipsets.

10:11 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

z
"AMD's quad-core K10 "Barcelona" Opteron 30-35% faster (clock-for-clock) than Intel's "Penryn" Xeon in cryptographic operations"

Why only talk about a single benchmark from that review?

Cloc-to-clock Conroe is 33% faster than Barcelona in 64bit 3DMax. Compared to Penryn Barcelona is 41% slower.

1:57 AM, September 30, 2007  
Blogger z said...

ho ho said: "Why only talk about a single benchmark from that review?"

Because I wanted to point out that in some areas Intel kicks ass whereas in others AMD kicks ass. The truth is: there is no one processor better than the other overall. It all depends on the type of applications you run.

Beside, the 3ds max numbers you state apply to the 2nd scene. If you look at the 1st scene, it appears the perf per clock is identical between the Clovertown 2.33 GHz and the Opteron 2.0 GHz. Which proves my point: it all depends on the type of application/data you run/process.

2:51 AM, September 30, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home