3 out of 4 PC Gamers own an Nvidia GPU

[Sauron]

Why would we deliberately cripple a gaming rig with a graphics card or CPU that isn't the best we could buy for our money  :huh:

 

well, on the GPU side you really ARE getting the best for your money most of the time... I mean, at the 650$ price range you can buy either a 980, or a 295x2... and we know which card is faster and by how much...

 

On the cpu side not as much unfortunately, but that's more an optimization problem. In properly optimized games (surprisingly enough at least for me, gta V is one of these) they are good enough for their price range (again in gta v the 8350 beats an i3 by a decent margin, although it doesn't quite threaten a 4690k).

[Dabombinable]

well, on the GPU side you really ARE getting the best for your money most of the time... I mean, at the 650$ price range you can buy either a 980, or a 295x2... and we know which card is faster and by how much...

 

On the cpu side not as much unfortunately, but that's more an optimization problem. In properly optimized games (surprisingly enough at least for me, gta V is one of these) they are good enough for their price range (again in gta v the 8350 beats an i3 by a decent margin, although it doesn't quite threaten a 4690k).

I should have been more clear, not all of their GPU's can be classed as crippling for computers, but their CPU's actually do cripple them, as their best CPU's have all the problems associated with a long pipeline (which are the very reasons Intel dropped netburst, and isn't in AMD's position): low IPC, high temps, high power consumption, high inefficiency compared to products with shorter pipelines.

[Solkia]

"75% of PC gamers use and Nvidia GPU. Put this in your signature if you use AMD" is the first thing that came to mind fromt he thread title.

 

I need to get off the internet

[xAcid9]

Uhm, where in the world is the 290 100 bucks cheaper than 970? Tell me!

 

Malaysia?

290 Tri-X around $295

970 Tiger OC around $400

 

That is top tier cooler vs mediocre, G1/Strix cost over $450 here. 

[XplosiveNoctua99]

actual 1/2 gamers use intel ingegrated gfx

[zappian]

4/5 of all gamers have intel igpus because they probably own a core cpu.

Intel must control the gpu market then.

What will nvidia do to stop intel?

We have known that nvidia has a bigger market share for YEARS now.

AMD stills packs a huge punch in the <300 dollar market so you shouldn't complain.

For example nvidia has no decent alternative to the r9 270 , the only thing that comes close is the gtx 660 which pales

in speed and OC capability compared to 270 and 270x cards.

The last thing you want is a nvidia owned monopoly because that means paying more for your nvidia cards.

[as96]

Opposite here: paired my intel cpu with an AMD gpu.

Same here, even though is quite old now my 7970 can still run new games, most of the times even maxed out (HBAO destroys my FPS counter though  )

[MrDynamicMan]

Well shit.

Aslo, how is this new?

[xAcid9]

Same here, even though is quite old now my 7970 can still run new games, most of the times even maxed out (HBAO destroys my FPS counter though  )

 

2 years ago i posted i paired 7950 with a Xeon, everyone laughed.

[minibois]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

According to the steam hardware survey only 50% are nvidia

Those are surveys for you.

They did not look at the sales or whatever, they only questioned (small) group of people to get this percentage. 

[MrDynamicMan]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

According to the steam hardware survey only 50% are nvidia

Yeah but I think this refers to rigs/laptops meant for gaming. Remember a lot of people have steam installed on non-gaming specific pcs

[Dabombinable]

Yeah but I think this refers to rigs/laptops meant for gaming. Remember a lot of people have steam installed on non-gaming specific pcs

Intel iGPU can play a surprisingly large amount of games.

[Mephy04]

 

Yeah can I just add onto that Intel iGPU thing. Ive been using the one in my 2600k while my 280x is in rma. That thing is powerfull though, when you consider what its doing for the size, I mean its in a CPU for god sakes. Can we get intel to start making graphic cards please.

[patrickjp93]

 

 

Yeah can I just add onto that Intel iGPU thing. Ive been using the one in my 2600k while my 280x is in rma. That thing is powerfull though, when you consider what its doing for the size, I mean its in a CPU for god sakes. Can we get intel to start making graphic cards please.

 

Intel really can't make dGPUs due to the patent trolling and refusal to license fundamental (crucial) tech from the 90s which they have used to lock out all other competition up to this point. The last time Intel tried to make a graphics card was the Larrabee project, and then Nvidia pulled a lot of its licenses in order to stop Intel from becoming a solid competitor. The solution has been to focus on compute and undermine Nvidia's HPC presence until they are no longer in real competition, and then Intel can just buy out Nvidia, having its cake and eating it too.

 

What I'm a bit surprised by is why Intel hasn't made a GPGPU accelerator for the HPC space. Its iGPU architecture is very light weight and is actually very efficient when it comes to compute power. Though I suppose I understand a bit given the Xeon Phi and wanting to use the OpenMP model as the basis for heterogeneous computing acceleration.

 

Interestingly enough Direct X 12 can run on the Knight's Landing Xeon Phi, though I imagine it won't do so very well

[GoodBytes]

Yeah can I just add onto that Intel iGPU thing. Ive been using the one in my 2600k while my 280x is in rma. That thing is powerfull though, when you consider what its doing for the size, I mean its in a CPU for god sakes. Can we get intel to start making graphic cards please.

Intel tried to to make a dedicated graphic solution. They almost released one. But seeing the lovely performance and power consumption it consumes, and the fact that they still haven't mastered DirectCompute and OpenCL, Intel canceled the release of the card.

The above highlight the major problems that Intel has:

-> For the power consumption, Intel GPU is really sucky. Sure you can say "Well AMD and Nvidia doesn't have a solution". Actually they do. AMD uses it in their APUs, and Nvidia uses it in Tegra K1 and X1 chips. The problem is that there is no market for it. Manufactures look for a free solution to maximize profits, the consumer is not wanting one, because for one they don't know any better, and second those that do know,want serious gaming (or workstation) power. This is highlighter by the fact that Nvidia doesn't have lower end graphics cards. They just rebrand the old old old old crap again and again, same for AMD. it is not even worth doing any effort, not even in the desktop space. That is also why Nvidia is targeting Android, cars, and research (Tesla). That is also why the focus on Nvidia side is no longer performance, but rather optimizations to yes give an increase performance but the main goal: power efficiency. Allowing to make even lower power, or more powerful Android, car aimed processors, and Tesla as companies that buys serious computation power to run simulations or super demanding calculations, is paying the power bill.

Cooler operating systems, means it consumes less power, which also mean they can reduce the air conditioning, and do massive saving in tehir R&D department allowing for more R&D to be done, or be more price competitive.

-> Intel lack is knowledge and expertise in drivers is causing all sorts of design flaws. One of which is that they still use a list of games and apps where the drivers are specifically optimized in a way to get performance. How does it make sense that my Surface Pro 2 can play Civilization 5 just fine (considering IGP), and other games, yet struggles with the never touched since ages: Zune desktop application? Older Intel GPUs don't have the problem. I can reproduce the problem on other devices, this is not exclusive to my Surface Pro. The Zune desktop program has 0 problem on a GeForce 6200. This is a are really old chips, and freaking slow one. Why no problem? Yet Intel struggles with it? But older Intel chips with it's old drivers, hey no problem either? That is JUST 1 example. You can find more, if you look over the internet. But that is done, that is the "best case" scenario. If the program is not on the list and runs. I ran several games like Hitman:Absolution, or the new Civ 6 (which has about the same graphics as Civ 5), and it crashes at startup. At work, we develop a software that uses the GPU. It also crashes on Intel integrated graphics. But we don't care about that because our customers runs system with the latest and greatest GPU money can buy as they come out.

Nvidia and AMD makes solid drivers that runs on everything. Sure they have a list of games for optimizations, but usually the game will run at worst: OK. You know at least it will run and not crash at startup.

-> Intel STILL doesn't have full OpenGL, DirectX, OpenCL, DirectCompute support. Everytime they push the idea that now they really have full support, but I still have games crashing (those that do work) with: Unsupported OpenGL/DirectX API call. Is this a joke? I have to lower my game settings, not because of frame rate, but because I need to cross my finger that I avoid that API call that crashes the game as the Intel GPU doesn't support it. Lovely.

-> Buggy drivers. When you have options that work on reverse (granted they recently fix that), and not fixed after several version release, I am not convinced that they they come close to test their stuff.

I am sorry, Intel can show me the most fantastic benchmarks in the world, but until the above is solidly fixed, I would highly recommend anyone to avoid Intel integrated graphics solution. And yes, it ruins my Surface Pro 2, a device that would be otherwise perfect. I can only cross my fingers that Microsoft makes arrangement with AMD or Nvidia for a low powered 5W or something dedicated GPU. It would be the same or faster than Intel integrated graphics, and not have the above problems. But that is wishful thinking.

[Briggsy]

AMD are over 40 years old, and They are definitely very long term. When they bought ATI, Who would have thought AMD had a 15-20 year goal in mind to fuse cpu and gpu together to develop the APU, and use a unified memory architecture to gobble up new and old markets. The current/next gen game consoles (PS4, Xbone, Nintendo NX) are an example of where AMD is headed. They aren't interested in making the product, but rather designing future tech and licensing it out.

 

Putting HBM memory on their graphic cards is a cool step forward, but if you look at their long term goal, AMD are really looking to utilize HBM, along with HUMA on APU's. Their next APU's will merge x86 and ARM cores, allowing for a seamless transition between the two on a hardware and software level - in order to lower large scale production costs in smart devices, gadgets, cars etc.. Really, the only reason why AMD still produce discrete graphic cards is to fund their unified architecture and keep moving the industry forward. At some point we will see AMD do a Major transition from low end discrete GPU's to APU. Right now its stupid to buy a sub $100 graphic card over an APU if you are building a new computer. Given time that will change to sub $200 dollars, then sub $300 dollars. And that reality is maybe a year away, two at most. Designing Mantle was again not an end, but a means to an end. The efficiency gain in Vulkan and DX12 compliment discrete graphics quite a bit, but again the APU benefits more than anything else - even before your throw HBM into the mix.

 

I think if the rest of AMD's plans come to fruition, the landscape is going to change drastically in the coming years.

[sgloux3470]

AMD are over 40 years old, and They are definitely very long term. When they bought ATI, Who would have thought AMD had a 15-20 year goal in mind to fuse cpu and gpu together to develop the APU, and use a unified memory architecture to gobble up new and old markets. The current/next gen game consoles (PS4, Xbone, Nintendo NX) are an example of where AMD is headed. They aren't interested in making the product, but rather designing future tech and licensing it out.

 

Putting HBM memory on their graphic cards is a cool step forward, but if you look at their long term goal, AMD are really looking to utilize HBM, along with HUMA on APU's. Their next APU's will merge x86 and ARM cores, allowing for a seamless transition between the two on a hardware and software level - in order to lower large scale production costs in smart devices, gadgets, cars etc.. Really, the only reason why AMD still produce discrete graphic cards is to fund their unified architecture and keep moving the industry forward. At some point we will see AMD do a Major transition from low end discrete GPU's to APU. Right now its stupid to buy a sub $100 graphic card over an APU if you are building a new computer. Given time that will change to sub $200 dollars, then sub $300 dollars. And that reality is maybe a year away, two at most. Designing Mantle was again not an end, but a means to an end. The efficiency gain in Vulkan and DX12 compliment discrete graphics quite a bit, but again the APU benefits more than anything else - even before your throw HBM into the mix.

 

I think if the rest of AMD's plans come to fruition, the landscape is going to change drastically in the coming years.

As much as I enjoy the feeling of holding a new GPU, it definitely feels like we're going to see them go the way of sound cards or disc drives in the next 10 years.

[DaRk0]

This really isn't a surprise. It's a known fact that Nvidia is holding over 60% of dedicated GPU market share.

[Guest Kloaked]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

According to the steam hardware survey only 50% are nvidia

Not every PC gamer uses Steam or runs the hardware survey.

Plus, I don't know how any of this is relevant to anything. I reported the thread for being irrelevant and just troll bait, yet it's still up.

[Guest Kloaked]

As much as I enjoy the feeling of holding a new GPU, it definitely feels like we're going to see them go the way of sound cards or disc drives in the next 10 years.

Sound cards are still being made for PCI slots. ODD's are still widely being used.

[IceCold007]

Everytime I think of AMD I think of crappy drivers. I cant shake this feeling ive been scarred many years ago when I brought my only AMD card and sent it back after a week lol. Its going to have to be something pretty good for the 300 series to make me swap from Nvidia to AMD.  Im allways up for a change but there are limits.

[Dabombinable]

Sound cards are still being made for PCI slots. ODD's are still widely being used.

And I should know, I bought one a month ago for my media center.

[Blackie Sheen]

Funny how people are still convinced that the shit FX is good by AMD. But they arent convinced that the Awesome gpu's are good.

Yeah. Their GPUs deserve more respect even if they are old because they still perform great. I personnaly own a 280x

[Blackie Sheen]

Everytime I think of AMD I think of crappy drivers. I cant shake this feeling ive been scarred many years ago when I brought my only AMD card and sent it back after a week lol. Its going to have to be something pretty good for the 300 series to make me swap from Nvidia to AMD.  Im allways up for a change but there are limits.

The current drivers are as good as Nvidia drivers. Only thing is that AMD seems to be slower to get final drivers after the release of a game

[sgloux3470]

Sound cards are still being made for PCI slots. ODD's are still widely being used.

But how relevant are they to the average PC users experience? That's my point: They won't disappear entirely, but the alternatives are good enough that most people won't bother with them.

Which is exactly what is happening to graphics cards.