Settlerteo

Do folks just don't pay attention to the fact there are still more than two processor vendors around?
 
They just don't compete in consumer market like Intel and AMD do.
The other vendors that are still around:
IBM
ARM
Ampere Computing
Fujitsu
Marvell Technology Group
 
Nice little read:  https://www.eweek.com/pc-hardware/eweek-s-top-vendors-server-processor-makers

more like A Dozend.

Who remembers Siemens x86 CPUs or Texas Instruments, IBM??
 
According to CPU World:
 
For 8086:
AMD, Fujitsu, Harris, Intel, Oki, MHS, Mitsubishi, NEC, Siemens
80286
AMD, Fujitsu, Harris, IBM, Intersil, Siemens
80386:
AMD, Chips, Cyrix, IBM, Intel, MC, Texas Instruments
80486:
AMD, Cryrix, IBM, INtel, ST, Texas Instruments, UMC
 
Later there were a couple of Startups like Transmeta, Rise Technology, NexGen, IDT.
 
They get less because Intel sued most of them out of x86 Cloning business back in the mid 80s or so.
 
But there is a third one:
Zhaoxin
And against them, Intel can't do shit...

Where did that rumour even come from, everyone has been saying july for a long time, and suddenly April? Doesn't sound doable.
Also 07.07 07:07:07 would be perfect launch time for ryzen 7nm.

again, brand doesn't matter. if you want to know if some PSU is good, check with reviews online. your corsair SF is one of the best in the SFX PSU market.

thought about something like a skull canon nuc yet?

or fortunately, depends on how you look at it

And you still don't get it. I'm gonna stop coz this is pointless.

I'm not raging, I'm just realistic. But hey, whatever, I don't give a shit. RTX is great, uge success, all must boy it!

I know enough that no one's gonna buy a superduper cool product if they can't use features on it. Especially if it costs bloody 1000€ and more...

Erm, have you thought you're looking at this the wrong way? You're saying they couldn't release features for cards that didn't exist yet. I was thinking more along the lines of NVIDIA making sure devs are capable of doing that before releasing cards. You know, not releasing them before their prime time?
 
Why do you all think people were buying graphic cards, proper 3D ones like mad in the past? Because Doom and Quake games were pushing the boundaries of graphics and were basically the only games to utilize tech to such extent. People WANTED to buy new hardware because of that. Today, it doesn't matter if you have a 250€ graphic card or a 1200€ graphic card, end experience is basically the same, it's just how fluid it is. And it's very even with cheap cards if they aren't exactly bottom crap. If RTX was marketed properly, people would WANT the RTX cards for that. What we got instead? Almost everyone recommending to just buy old 1080Ti coz it makes no difference if it's older gen without RTX. NVIDIA released this awesome super realistic feature with basically zero incentive to jump on it other than bunch of hyped videos that are next to worthless for a gamer. Essentially they had to have just 1 high profile game fully ready to go with RTX on release day and it would make the whole difference, for which they should partner with a developer to do it before the launch. They were making this thing for 10 years if CEO of NVIDIA is to be believed and yet in 10 years time, they were unable to make a deal and ensure that. Come on, who's the idiot here? It would also be easy to convince shareholders to postpone the launch if they were pressuring them, because rushing a product when competition has nothing and then have this awesome hardware no one can really use is all the R&D time and money thrown down the toilet. No one's gonna buy a 1200€ card for the future to maybe use it for this feature some day. It's struggling to do it now, it's not gonna be faster in next 2-3 years...

The kind of logic where if you push some shit and brag so hard about it, at least have a significant backlog of games featuring it already. You can't compare whole API with a single feature from it. Which RTX is. NVIDIA should have made sure they have enough big titles ready to go with it on release date of RTX cards. One thing is impressing people with tech videos of it, another saying, we'll have 5 RTX ready games in 1 week time after the release of cards. People would go mad about it. Instead, big load of nothing happened.

Which is what the OP plans to write. Also, this is a misinformation. C# (Mono) is a cross-platform language.
 
Mono is open source.

Visual Studio is not much more than a glorified text editor with built-in compilers and linkers. I, personally, use other text editors and the Clang/LLVM compiler suite.
 
For C, you will need a text editor (for writing code), a compiler (generating intermediate object files) and a linker (linking your object files with system libraries, resulting in an .EXE file). Honestly, Pelles C is not a bad alternative, especially as it sometimes supports newer C standards better than Visual Studio does.

Well i am not gonna vote in the poll. I will advise you this. If you want to just make one program use whatever you want. If you are into programming and maybe thinking working as a software engineer start with C.

Well i am not gonna vote in the poll. I will advise you this. If you want to just make one program use whatever you want. If you are into programming and maybe thinking working as a software engineer start with C.

Grab some books like "C programming language", "C in depth" and "C programming: a modern approach" and prepare for some really long long nights. I used to like that in the past. Now i am used to falling into that shit called php  

I totally agree with you. I was the first one to tell him to write in the language more fitted for what he wants to do. And i also wrote that he can write in Assembly. No one is deciding for him. I really like C, well much more than C++ but i wouldn't use it unless it was the only option for me or the best option for me. For example there are still projects that are better written in Cobol nowadays.

I guess that would be an interesting project, but even I would suggest the OP to not do that. It is possible, but nothing of value is won when using Assembly instead of C.
 
Sure, e.g. handling large amounts of data is what COBOL was invented for and it still can do that.

I agree, I don't want to be doing high level stuff at the moment, just simple applications that's can work with hardware, once I get to know how coding working in a few years then sure I can try to go to some hard languages like C++...

The thing with programming languages is, you can use any programming language for basically anything. Sure some will do some tasks better than other languages but overall you are fine with whatever you choose. From your comments I assume that you want to do something to monitor your PC hardware? Example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25552/get-os-level-system-information here is a stackoverflow thread specifically for the Java programming language (which works on any OS) to get some hardware information. You can probably find libraries for ANY programming language that you want. In my opinion, if you have a programming language that you already know well or like, then just use that one.
 
Edit: If you are totally new to progamming I recommend to start with python. I don't like python a lot for bigger projects, but it is very easy to get into.

The word you were looking for is "mature". Unlike C# with ever-changing frameworks and language standards, C is mostly complete. That said, the newest version of the C standard is C17 ("C 2017"). How is that a bad thing?
 
I respectfully disagree. Also, nobody stops you from writing and debugging C code in Visual Studio (although there are better IDEs for that).
 
C++ adds a whole bunch of complexity even for relatively easy tasks. Even worse, there are many contradicting concepts in C++ which all claim to "make your life easier". Let me add that I wrote "relatively complex" tools in both languages and I have stopped to write new ones in C++. Just because C++ is a horrible mess of a language.
For a tool like CPU-Z which does not need all that class cruft and can make perfect use of pointers, idiomatic C++ would be a joke when compared to C.
 
We get it, you can't write in C. If @Snifferdog3 looked at it and thinks it fits, who are you to decide otherwise though?

And i quote. C is a great language to get into programming. You will learn so many things and you will have a very strong programming base knowledge which will make learning a new tool easier. But and this is a big but. C is old. It's good to start but not so good to continue unless you don't have an option. For example i currently write in CA Gen which is total shit but it's the best tool for what the company i work for needs to develop its product. C# will make your life easier. Visual studio will help you so much with debugging and a lot of issues which would be a pain in the ass in C.
It doesn't work with hardware? Really? where do you read these articles. Almost every new software backend code for windows is written in C#. And you have microsoft support, you have visual studio. I don't know why this is a debate even more for an in experienced user like you. Wanna write in Assembly or C? Yes you can but do you want to make life easier or harder?

C# along with dot Net framework. Period.

You won't be laughing in 2 years time when the 2080 is dropping frames off a cliff due to having 8gb of vram, meanwhile the Radeon VII is perfectly smooth. We're seeing glimpses of what is to come already, some games use over 10gb at 4k now. I will never regret buying a Radeon VII over the 2080. The 2080 vs Radeon VII is just another case of what happened with the 290x and it's Nvidia rivals.
 
Look at the 290x, it's STILL a viable card. Where are it's rival cards from Nvidia. In the bin, dead by now. Why? Because they lacked vram. The 780ti has gone down the drain because it only had 3gb.
 
Now look at Turing. The 2060 has 6gb, the 2080 has 8gb. It's criminal as far as I'm concerned. It's clear Nvidia are setting traps for buyers. They want you to buy their current generation, and then buy next generation by forcing you into a bad experience because they gave you no vram to play with. More money for them. I will never compromise on longevity and other people should do the same.
 
Also, when was the Radeon VII a 2070 rival? It was always meant to compete against the 2080. Yes, it falls short for the most part. But it is definitely in the same ballpark. And in a lot of heavy compute workloads it wipes the floor with even the 2080ti.
 
 

AMD CPUs are more energy efficient than Intel CPUs, yet nobody cares.
 
So that's just an argument used on the nVidia side to justify their purchase.
And don't come with the Enviroement.
Just look at GTX680 vs 7970! Wich one was the one that lasted longer??

And what's better for the Enviroment: a slightly higher energy consumption but +2 years or so usable time or slightly less but you have to replace the GPU a couple of times more because the driver optimizations were canned and only come for the newest generation...
Bullshit.
There is the AMD Driver thing floating around, wich comes to a different conclusion.

And the nVidia Users in the Discord are always telling something about Problems with the Driver.
That's just not true anymore. And some people are very dissatisfied.
 
Also the nVidia Driver Panel is the same old shit from 20 years ago.
 
Where did you get that shit from?
Remember this, from last year?
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/third-party-audit-reveals-amd-drivers-are-the-most-stable-gamers.html
 
That are FACTS. You are talking about anecdotes.
 
In the end: Both drivers are kinda garbage, claiming "driver superiority" is just nonsense. And that is proven.
 
See, I got a wide variety of Graphics cards between 1996 or so and 2006 or so when I got fed up and switched to ATi/AMD and stuck with it. Not that I didn't have any nVidia Cards, I did (two GTX 570 and the GT710 I use right now)...
 
So what??
THen you are told wrong because I have rarely any issue today while the nVidia Users say they have.
 
Buttom Line:
BOTH sides have issues!
The only difference is that one side it is accepted and dealt with, the other side is bashed.
Same with an Intel System: If that don't work, you fix it.
If an AMD System don't work, you don't fix it, go through forums and claim that its shit because you have some shit Memory.
Wait, are you contradict yourself here right now?!
 
First, DXVK looks like Linux. If he has Issues with the AMD Driver, he could fix them himself! because AMD has some nice Open Source Drivers,. nVidia does not.
 
So you are saying that the Problem is under Linux?
And instead of trying to fix the Problem someone just complains about it??
 
Yet you don't mention that the nVidia drivers are violating the Kernel rules as they don't come with an open source component that has to be compiled into the Kernel but rather hack the Kernel, while AMD complies with the Kernel driver rules.
And also the sabotage of the Open Source Drivers from nVidia, who often don't help them with newer GPUs and lock them down.
 
Ähm, RLY?! You see the Problem, don't you??
 
You are wrong and came to the wrong conclusion.
The "energy efficiency" is the usual Pseudo Argument that hardly anyone cares about, especially the bunch who has Intel "MCE" enabled or even overclock the CPU...
 
Yeah, totally makes sense to run around with a "Intel At 5,2GHz" thing and then complain about the Power COnsumption of the Graphics Card...