Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 169
  1. #101
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,963
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    63,748 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterMunky View Post
    Since AMD is doing both because it's an APU, and Intel's onboard graphics are nothing to boast about... I didn't even think Intel was an option for the setup they were going for next gen.
    Thats what I thought.
    I remember John Carmack saying 60FPS in Rage will be possible on Intel onboard soon.
    I found this with a very quick search
    Last edited by keefy; 03-19-2013 at 01:13.

  2. #102
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,237
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    123,315 (18,076 Banked)
    Items Ghost in the ShellTidusLightningBruce LeeAppleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Thats what I thought.
    I remember John Carmack saying 60FPS in Rage will be possible on Intel onboard soon.
    I found this with a very quick search
    Yes, I hear they're making some leaps with the next onboard graphics generation in the Haswell chips. It still won't hold a candle to PS4 or PCs with dedicated GPUs. They're at least worth something now.
    "The biggest adversary in our life is ourselves. We are what we are, in a sense, because of the dominating thoughts we allow to gather in our head. All concepts of self-improvement, all actions and paths we take, relate solely to our abstract image of ourselves. Life is limited only by how we really see ourselves and feel about our being. A great deal of pure self-knowledge and inner understanding allows us to lay an all-important foundation for the structure of our life from which we can perceive and take the right avenues.

  3. #103
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by admartian View Post
    Yeah why aren't they (Intel) doing that? Are these decisions predominantly based on the the company (Nvidia, intel etc) though? As in, do they get the final say?

    I've always perceived it to be a more or less equal partnership.
    Sony/MS/Nintendo will solicit various companies to find out if they are interested in developing components for next gen consoles. Not the other way around where Nvidia, intel, ect. go around and solicit to Sony/Nintendo/MS
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterMunky View Post
    Since AMD is doing both because it's an APU, and Intel's onboard graphics are nothing to boast about... I didn't even think Intel was an option for the setup they were going for next gen.
    What makes you think that the APU setup is the only option?

    Nothing stopped them from considering a setup like the 360 currently has.

    I'm betting they went with the current design primarily to save money.

    Also from what I've seen the PS4 uses the AMD jaguar CPU along with the unspecified discrete AMD GPU. No integrated gpu there.

    The next xbox could have a setup like that, but we won't know for a few more months.

  4. #104
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,237
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    123,315 (18,076 Banked)
    Items Ghost in the ShellTidusLightningBruce LeeAppleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    What makes you think that the APU setup is the only option?
    The PlayStation has never had an Intel processor. The PS1 had a RISC processor, the PS2 had the "Emotion Engine", which was created by Sony and Toshiba, the PS3 had the CELL processor, which was created by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM, and now we have PS4. Of course they could've very well used an Intel processor this time around, but knowing Sony ... even though they are using PC hardware ... they're still trying to do something a little different. You're right though, nothing could've stopped them from going with Intel... except for cost.
    "The biggest adversary in our life is ourselves. We are what we are, in a sense, because of the dominating thoughts we allow to gather in our head. All concepts of self-improvement, all actions and paths we take, relate solely to our abstract image of ourselves. Life is limited only by how we really see ourselves and feel about our being. A great deal of pure self-knowledge and inner understanding allows us to lay an all-important foundation for the structure of our life from which we can perceive and take the right avenues.

  5. #105
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,308
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,815 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Like I said the only thing AMD can compete on is price.

    I'm willing to bet you saved at most ~$100 by going with an AMD build over intel. Hard to say what exactly the performance loss was for that price savings but I have no doubts it wasn't insignificant.



    Funny thing about a lot of people in this thread, they are willing to $#@! about Nvidia but aren't saying anything about intel not electing to provide a CPU for any of the next gen consoles.....
    You tell me one good reason why I should spend more for same or less power.

  6. Likes The Cage likes this post
  7. #106
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    You tell me one good reason why I should spend more for same or less power.
    You aren't spending more for the same or less power. You are spending more for more power. More capability. More efficiency (and lower power consumption).

    Plus you live in Dallas which means you live near a Microcenter which pretty much wipes out any price advantage an AMD processor might have when you pay retail prices on newegg/tigerdirect, ect.

  8. #107
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,308
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,815 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    You aren't spending more for the same or less power. You are spending more for more power. More capability. More efficiency (and lower power consumption).

    Plus you live in Dallas which means you live near a Microcenter which pretty much wipes out any price advantage an AMD processor might have when you pay retail prices on newegg/tigerdirect, ect.
    No, I'm saying. The power that AMD brings for the price, Intel can't compete. Of course AMD chips have a limit and Intel has overall better performance BUT for the higher price too. So I don't get it.

    Is it really more efficient? Couldn't sworn AMD chips were better...but it's been a while so I don't remember. I do know that I checked all that before buying.

    Last part I don't get, could you clarify on how it matters that I live in Dallas again? I buy my stuff from online yes.

  9. #108
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    No, I'm saying. The power that AMD brings for the price, Intel can't compete. Of course AMD chips have a limit and Intel has overall better performance BUT for the higher price too. So I don't get it.

    Is it really more efficient? Couldn't sworn AMD chips were better...but it's been a while so I don't remember. I do know that I checked all that before buying.

    Last part I don't get, could you clarify on how it matters that I live in Dallas again? I buy my stuff from online yes.
    The cost increase from AMD to intel are marginal. The performance difference isn't (especially over the long run). It also doesn't help that current AMD processors are proving to be bottlenecks for current video cards in various games.

    Because microcenter sells cpu's/motherboards for significantly less than newegg, tigerdirect, ect. do. Which essentially wipes out the price advantage of AMD, making the decision a no brainier.

  10. #109
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,308
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,815 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    The cost increase from AMD to intel are marginal. The performance difference isn't (especially over the long run). It also doesn't help that current AMD processors are proving to be bottlenecks for current video cards in various games.
    Exactly. So when someone doesn't care about peak performance but wants a good CPU for the best price out there, you can't go wrong with AMD. You've just said that yourself here.

    Because microcenter sells cpu's/motherboards for significantly less than newegg, tigerdirect, ect. do. Which essentially wipes out the price advantage of AMD, making the decision a no brainier.
    I don't know what a microcenter is.

    EDIT: Ok, so it's like a retailer, online as well?

    But why does that matter when AMD processors are also cheaper here than newegg/tigerdirect?
    Last edited by Omar; 03-19-2013 at 03:50.

  11. #110
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Like I said the only thing AMD can compete on is price.

    I'm willing to bet you saved at most ~$100 by going with an AMD build over intel. Hard to say what exactly the performance loss was for that price savings but I have no doubts it wasn't insignificant.
    $10 saved per CPU/GPU across 75 million consoles is $750 Million in savings. Nickles and dimes add up when you're talking about 75+ million consoles. Even if the AMD CPU and GPU combo only saved $5 per console, that's still $375 million saved based on current 360/PS3 sales.


    Funny thing about a lot of people in this thread, they are willing to $#@! about Nvidia but aren't saying anything about intel not electing to provide a CPU for any of the next gen consoles.....
    I don't hear Intel claiming it wasn't worth investing in. Quite honestly I don't think Intel cared in the slightest. They haven't produced a console part since the original Xbox and didn't seem to mind losing the contract for the 360 to IBM. It's just not part of their business model.

    But consoles has ALWAYS been part of Nvidia's business model. The original Nvidia NV1 was made so that Sega Saturn games could be ported over and played on the PC with the Saturn gamepad.

    The NV2 was originally intended for the Dreamcast, but Sega changed their minds and went with a polygon based graphics solution. Still, Nvidia made some R&D money out of the deal.

    The NV2A was of course the original Xbox GPU.

    Then came RSX.

    This will be the first console generation since the Saturn where Nvidia had no income from console manufacturers.

  12. #111
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post

    Because microcenter sells cpu's/motherboards for significantly less than newegg, tigerdirect, ect. do. Which essentially wipes out the price advantage of AMD, making the decision a no brainier.

    Err, WHAT?


    Buying from Microcenter an AMD FX-8350 is still $60 cheaper than an Intel i7 3770k for the CPU alone.

    And that FX-8350 is just a touch faster than the i7 3770k.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/g...pu-cpu-scaling



    Save $60 and have a faster CPU in games? Yeah, that is a no brainer. Not the way you're suggesting though.
    Last edited by Completely Average; 03-19-2013 at 05:01.

  13. #112
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Exactly. So when someone doesn't care about peak performance but wants a good CPU for the best price out there, you can't go wrong with AMD. You've just said that yourself here.


    I don't know what a microcenter is.

    EDIT: Ok, so it's like a retailer, online as well?

    But why does that matter when AMD processors are also cheaper here than newegg/tigerdirect?
    No. I said the intel/amd price difference isn't significant. The performance difference however is significant.

    Each company makes several processors for various price points, so seek out the ones that fall withing your price range.

    regarding microcenter:

    Because the price differential is lessened (or perhaps even nonexistent if you buy a cpu/motherboard bundle)

    Do you understand what the trade off it is vs. your minimal monetary savings of $20, 40, 60, ect. ? (and I haven't even factored the effect of the power consumption and your electricity bill)

    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    $10 saved per CPU/GPU across 75 million consoles is $750 Million in savings. Nickles and dimes add up when you're talking about 75+ million consoles. Even if the AMD CPU and GPU combo only saved $5 per console, that's still $375 million saved based on current 360/PS3 sales.




    I don't hear Intel claiming it wasn't worth investing in. Quite honestly I don't think Intel cared in the slightest. They haven't produced a console part since the original Xbox and didn't seem to mind losing the contract for the 360 to IBM. It's just not part of their business model.

    But consoles has ALWAYS been part of Nvidia's business model. The original Nvidia NV1 was made so that Sega Saturn games could be ported over and played on the PC with the Saturn gamepad.

    The NV2 was originally intended for the Dreamcast, but Sega changed their minds and went with a polygon based graphics solution. Still, Nvidia made some R&D money out of the deal.

    The NV2A was of course the original Xbox GPU.

    Then came RSX.

    This will be the first console generation since the Saturn where Nvidia had no income from console manufacturers.
    Both parties would come to an agreement on price. And there are other reasons to consider other hardware vendors besides the initial hardware cost.

    The reason you didn't hear anything from intel is that they were not asked. I think they would have answered similarly to nvidia if asked the same question.

    Perhaps what you said about intel is what nvidia is realizing. They aren't really gaining anything from making console gpu's. So why bother doing so anymore? Let amd/other vendors deal with that so they can focus on more purposeful/profitable products.

  14. #113
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    Err, WHAT?


    Buying from Microcenter an AMD FX-8350 is still $60 cheaper than an Intel i7 3770k for the CPU alone.

    And that FX-8350 is just a touch faster than the i7 3770k.





    Save $60 and have a faster CPU in games? Yeah, that is a no brainer. Not the way you're suggesting though.
    #1 why are you comparing a 3770k to the 8350 instead of the 3570k.

    #2 Bull$#@!.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3427-9.html

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/5

  15. #114
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,308
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,815 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    No. I said the intel/amd price difference isn't significant. The performance difference however is significant.

    Each company makes several processors for various price points, so seek out the ones that fall withing your price range.

    regarding microcenter:

    Because the price differential is lessened (or perhaps even nonexistent if you buy a cpu/motherboard bundle)

    Do you understand what the trade off it is vs. your minimal monetary savings of $20, 40, 60, ect. ? (and I haven't even factored the effect of the power consumption and your electricity bill)
    No I mean that if you look at Intel and AMD and have a similar CPU (mid-range), you will see that AMD will have a better price.

    Though I didn't know about the consumption so I see your point.

  16. #115
    Dedicated Member
    PS3-The Ultimate Machine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,207
    Rep Power
    58
    Points
    2,082 (0 Banked)
    Sounds like Sour grapes to me. Nvidia have always had higher prices just for their own profits, not superior tech. AMD's APUs are very very capable, and that's why both Sony and MS went that route. I'm glad that both companies were smart enough to work with AMD since that would ensure that the costs go down and the quality (since it is a custom APU) remains up.
    On a side note, didn't some high-up AMD execs steal a whole bunch of console-specific docs and run away to Nvidia a while back? That would make it appear that Nvidia might be worried about the loss of profits from the 8th gen consoles.

  17. Likes The Cage likes this post
  18. #116
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Both parties would come to an agreement on price.
    And Nvidia's price is one that no console manufacturer could agree to. Why is that so hard to understand.

    And there are other reasons to consider other hardware vendors besides the initial hardware cost.
    The only other reason is the ability to deliver a product that does what is required. I think you will agree that Nvidia has the ability to deliver a product that does what is required, which leaves price as the sticking point.

    The reason you didn't hear anything from intel is that they were not asked. I think they would have answered similarly to nvidia if asked the same question.
    And how exactly do you know Intel was not asked?


    Perhaps what you said about intel is what nvidia is realizing. They aren't really gaining anything from making console gpu's. So why bother doing so anymore? Let amd/other vendors deal with that so they can focus on more purposeful/profitable products.
    There is a MASSIVE difference between Intel and Nvidia.

    Intel makes a huge amount of money from server CPUs. They've got a huge amount of their business dedicated to server CPUs. They also make integrated graphics chipsets for workstations, which sell tens of millions per year. They then have motherboard chipsets as well. They have a very diverse product portfolio where they earn money from.

    AMD also has an extremely diverse product portfolio. They have their graphics cards, their cpus, motherboard chipsets, tablets, even GDDR memory is their baby.

    Nvidia is a tiny little graphics chip designer. They don't even manufacture their own parts. And with the loss of console GPUs their income and portfolio just shrank. Shrinking product portfolios is never a sign of a strong business.

  19. Likes The Cage likes this post
  20. #117
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    No I mean that if you look at Intel and AMD and have a similar CPU (mid-range), you will see that AMD will have a better price.

    Though I didn't know about the consumption so I see your point.
    Yes, but the price difference is small. The savings aren't really worth the performance loss (among other tradeoffs).

    And then there is the power draw issue.

    I would like AMD to be more competitive, but for whatever reason they haven't since 2006.

    So I see no reason to give my money to the company who is offering me less.

    And considering how often people change/upgrade pc's, is the price difference really going to be that noticeable?

  21. #118
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,308
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,815 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Yes, but the price difference is small. The savings aren't really worth the performance loss (among other tradeoffs).

    And then there is the power draw issue.

    I would like AMD to be more competitive, but for whatever reason they haven't since 2006.

    So I see no reason to give my money to the company who is offering me less.

    And considering how often people change/upgrade pc's, is the price difference really going to be that noticeable?
    I understand your other points but you're saying that AMD provides less performance for the same price as Intel, that's not true. AMD is cheaper than Intel from what I've seen over the years. I'm speaking about the mid-range.

  22. #119
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    And Nvidia's price is one that no console manufacturer could agree to. Why is that so hard to understand.



    The only other reason is the ability to deliver a product that does what is required. I think you will agree that Nvidia has the ability to deliver a product that does what is required, which leaves price as the sticking point.
    What makes you think Nvidia even bothered this time around? Lets say when solicited by Sony for the PS4's gpu, and telling them that they were not interested in offering a gpu for the PS4 and that they were done with the console business.



    And how exactly do you know Intel was not asked?
    Because they haven't said anything (neither has anybody else in the industry).




    There is a MASSIVE difference between Intel and Nvidia.

    Intel makes a huge amount of money from server CPUs. They've got a huge amount of their business dedicated to server CPUs. They also make integrated graphics chipsets for workstations, which sell tens of millions per year. They then have motherboard chipsets as well. They have a very diverse product portfolio where they earn money from.

    AMD also has an extremely diverse product portfolio. They have their graphics cards, their cpus, motherboard chipsets, tablets, even GDDR memory is their baby.

    Nvidia is a tiny little graphics chip designer. They don't even manufacture their own parts. And with the loss of console GPUs their income and portfolio just shrank. Shrinking product portfolios is never a sign of a strong business.[/QUOTE]

    http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread...=1#post6044784

    Now there are some issues in that generalization, but perhaps Nvidia has decided to make its business more lean and focus on a few select areas.

  23. #120
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I understand your other points but you're saying that AMD provides less performance for the same price as Intel, that's not true. AMD is cheaper than Intel from what I've seen over the years. I'm speaking about the mid-range.
    I'd suggest you look at the links in my previous post:

    http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread...=1#post6046888

  24. #121
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    #1 why are you comparing a 3770k to the 8350 instead of the 3570k.
    DUH!! Because the 3770k is FASTER than the 3570k



    Did you seriously try to use these to propaganda sites as references.

    Start with Toms. In your own link go back to the system setup and explain to me why the RAM is set at 1866 MT/s in the Intel build but reduced to 1600 MT/s in the AMD build. AMD supports the 1866 MT/s setting, and Tom claims it's the same RAM chips used in both systems, so why did he set the AMD up with a reduced RAM speed and bandwidth?

    As for Anand, did you happen to look at this page....

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/8

  25. #122
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,237
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    123,315 (18,076 Banked)
    Items Ghost in the ShellTidusLightningBruce LeeAppleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    @ MATRIX 2: Most of the things you're arguing about are hypothetical imaginary situations which you have no evidence to base them on. I don't understand how an argument can be made over such things. Stick to arguing about facts, at the very least.


    Example:
    What makes you think Nvidia even bothered this time around? Lets say when solicited by Sony for the PS4's gpu, and telling them that they were not interested in offering a gpu for the PS4 and that they were done with the console business.
    You have no idea what went down, so why create imaginary scenarios just for the hell of it?
    Last edited by Brandon; 03-19-2013 at 05:26.
    "The biggest adversary in our life is ourselves. We are what we are, in a sense, because of the dominating thoughts we allow to gather in our head. All concepts of self-improvement, all actions and paths we take, relate solely to our abstract image of ourselves. Life is limited only by how we really see ourselves and feel about our being. A great deal of pure self-knowledge and inner understanding allows us to lay an all-important foundation for the structure of our life from which we can perceive and take the right avenues.

  26. #123
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    *Deleted due to forum error*

  27. #124
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,906 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    DUH!! Because the 3770k is FASTER than the 3570k
    Only in a select few scenarios that can take advantage of hyperthreading.





    Did you seriously try to use these to propaganda sites as references.

    Start with Toms. In your own link go back to the system setup and explain to me why the RAM is set at 1866 MT/s in the Intel build but reduced to 1600 MT/s in the AMD build. AMD supports the 1866 MT/s setting, and Tom claims it's the same RAM chips used in both systems, so why did he set the AMD up with a reduced RAM speed and bandwidth?

    As for Anand, did you happen to look at this page....

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/8
    Not sure why tom's did that. But running the ram at 1600Mhz vs 1866Mhz isn't going to result in a tangible difference (especially for gaming)

    Not sure what you are trying to get at with the anandtech link?

    If you are trying to show me a benchmark where the AMD cpu did better, well than all I have to say is:

    DUH, of course a 6 or 8 core processor will do better than a 4 core processor in a benchmark take advantage of more than 4 cores.

    If you were trying to imply something else, you were too subtle about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterMunky View Post
    @ MATRIX 2: Most of the things you're arguing about are hypothetical imaginary situations which you have no evidence to base them on. I don't understand how an argument can be made over such things. Stick to arguing about facts, at the very least.


    Example:


    You have no idea what went down, so why create imaginary scenarios just for the hell of it?
    Are you really trying to discount real world program and game benchmarks? (these aren't the BS synthetic benchmarks)

    Those are the facts.

  28. #125
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    Rep Power
    40
    Points
    20,127 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    What makes you think Nvidia even bothered this time around? Lets say when solicited by Sony for the PS4's gpu, and telling them that they were not interested in offering a gpu for the PS4 and that they were done with the console business.

    Because they haven't said anything (neither has anybody else in the industry)

    Do you see the hypocrisy of these two statements? I sure do.



    These are what you would call your personal GUESS based on nothing more than what you want to believe. You don't have a shred of proof to support either, but you're going to grasp on to these straws as tight as you can because if you don't then you just might have to accept that you could be wrong.

    And you're so unwilling to accept that possibility that you'll just make stuff up and pretend like it's the truth. You may even fool yourself into believing it if you find the alternative so bad that you just cannot accept it.



    I'll readily accept and admit that after the Xbox no one went to Intel to ask them for a chip. Everyone knew that the Xbox deal did nothing but hurt MS, and MS wasn't going to repeat that mistake and no one else was willing to make the same mistake.

    You admit that Nvidia was likely asked to produce a GPU but couldn't do it within the budget limits that manufacturers would accept. There is no other reason why they would turn down hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars in profits.

    Just imagine you're the CEO of Nvidia at the next investor meeting, and you have to tell the investors "We were offered the contract for console X which would have resulted in as many as 80 million consoles sold at $5 profit for us per console, and we turned it down." How long do you think you would have your job? Think you would last to the end of the meeting?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.