AMD's Claim, Nvidia's Rebutle, and Intel's Intelligence

[xerox]

Despite AMD's stock being worth pocket change, AMD has managed to stay afloat in the arm's race

against leading juggernaut Intel for consumer grade processor's and even stay in the game

against Nvidia in the Graphics department. Before you continue with this article understand that

you the reader, need all three companies to produce jobs, research advances in technology, and drive 

competition. Any* one of them going under would be bad for everyone and only having these three is 

detrimental to the industry and the consumer.

 

To prove that im not bias here are my specs:

Amd 8350 

Galaxy GTX 660 

Asus Sabertooth R2.0 

OCZ vecter 128gb 

Seagate Baricuda 1Tb

Corsair vengance 1600mhz

Corsair H80

Corsair 850d

 

AMD's Claim to the Throne:

 

AMD has effectively low-balled sony and microsoft into using them exclusively for their Next gen

consoles because of this AMD is getting the upper hand against their competitors Intel and Nvidia.

sony and microsoft save some cash on some decent specs. This is Good for AMD's Integrity as they can

now start to turn some profit with sony and microsoft as their cushion for the next 10 years or some

would think. AMD's main source of profit and goal is the PC market, and by locking down the consoles 

they have effectively secured their seat on the silicon throne. since most if not all games on the

Next gen consoles will be ported over to pc to maximize profits, Lets face it PC market crushes console

market, and because the software will be directly ported over to pc they will natively run better on

the specs of those console's. That means 8 cores, lots of ram, and Mantle. The FX chipset Amd has produced

and was thought to be a bulldozer and piledriving flop from the start, but most sucker's including myself

who bought into the "more cores, more better" phenomenon told Intel enthusiasts to wait until the software

caught up, and it looks like it finally has. At least the consumer end of things i.e. games but that's

a bigger market then say Adobe. Mantle looks promising and all next gen console software developers are 

encouraged to use it since they next gen consoles will run the games better if they do. 

Brilliant strategy AMD has moved its pieces on the chess board and

that pocket change stock is looking real nice right about now so whats their competitors move?

 

Nvidia's Rebuttal:

 

There's no doubt that Nvidia was the place to go to for its reliability and awesome performance.

AMD came out with a blitzkrieg assault against Nvidia by winning the bid war for the next gen 

consoles. Now there's going to be a flood of console software hitting the PC market in the upcoming

months and Nvidia's going to have to have to work harder to support that software, compete with mantle,

and lock down something since their competitor already took the console's. Their plan? To lock down 

the monitor's your PC runs on with G-sync since developer's pretty much abandoned phys-x which was

the only differentiating factor they had with AMD. This is horrible for both themselves and you the reader

because that means more new things we have to buy since G-sync requires a special monitor and decent

video card. G-sync is a good thing but it hinders performance so quality doesn't suffer thats all it does.

Instead they should be focusing on Better software support which is hard for them now with mantle coming.

G-sync was obviously a last minute gimmick as its a very poor marketing strategy trying to shove certified monitors

down everyone's throat like AMD is doing with Mantle, Both are great for the industry but both are

terrible for the cost of the consumer. Read this article to see the evidence that Nvidia wasn't ready for

AMD- http://www.pcworld.com/article/2058325/nvidia-cuts-high-end-graphics-card-prices-to-fight-amd.html

-Price gauging and low-balling is a thing, its whats kept Nvidia on top and allowed AMD to survive, looks

like Nvidia is getting back down in the mud against AMD, good to see threes a spark back in the industry.

 

 

Intel's Intelligence:

 

Intel's down the Intelligent thing right now and that's staying quiet and waiting for AMD's move.

Let's all agree that Intel's manufacturers better cpu's then AMD and they will continue doing so

especially if they develop an affordable 8 core cpu, fat chance. An Intel i7 vs AMD 8350

is like putting 4 Einstein's in a room vs 8 Archimedes sharing their resources, guess which one

solves a problem faster? Intel i7 of coarse, Intel needs an 8 core like AMD needs an 8 core to stop

sharing resources with each other, maybe one day well see this but for now it looks like Intel is

content with continuing on with Moore's Law. We can agree that the future is multicore as we 

already taped the full potential of the modern cpu and even gpu architecture. 

 

Interested in knowing your comments and hope to see Linus and Slick Talk about this on their up-coming WAN Show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CornOnJacob]

Is there a source or is this your opinion? You seem to be confused about G-Sync. It doesn't need a "decent GPU" and it doesn't hurt performance.

[Vitalius]

Well, 

AMD is aiming for 100% synergy between CPU and GPU (Thus, APU), and since they produce both, they are in the perfect position to make this happen. 

Intel and Nvidia would have to work together to achieve anything similar. Not sure the chances on that happening, but ... eh. 

I think AMD is going to become a power house in the coming years due to this synergy that they are aiming for. Synergy means more performance all around. And more performance is good.

[Guest]

Amd is tearing it up this last quarter.i just wished amd CPU were properly optimized for windows 8.1 it shows up as 3cores and 6 threads or 2 cores and 6 threads for most. Even so I get 200fps minecraft at default settings so I'm happy

[meneervent]

You have some interesting thoughts and perspectives on this. Would have like to see more sources, since not everything is entirely true.

[Warcony]

AMD is still around today because Intel and Nvidia decided it was better to keep them around for competition rather than crush them.  I really like how AMD brings value and "synergy" to the gaming/computing industries, something Intel and Nvidia do not do too much.  Hopefully AMD keeps going on this path. 

[Wolfur]

 

snip

 

 

Neither Nvidia or Intel ever wanted to kill AMD, it's a neverending race how to save AMD which is commiting suicide with every move. First Bulldozer CPUs, now after 2 years they release a GPU that doesn't beat Titan... AMD is lagging behind because they dont have money on R&D and NOBODY in the industry wants AMD dead.

Intel and Nvidia know that if they become the monopolists they will get a lot of bang on their heads from antimonopolist organisations and laws.

 

I'll also add that if Nvidia or intel WANTED to kill AMD, it was as easy for them as to:

 

Intel: Release i7 Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge or recently Haswell with six cores (even without hyper threading) for 300$

Nvidia: Release GK110 as their GTX 680 for 500$ back in 2012.

[Wolfur]

AMD is still around today because Intel and Nvidia decided it was better to keep them around for competition rather than crush them.  I really like how AMD brings value and "synergy" to the gaming/computing industries, something Intel and Nvidia do not do too much.  Hopefully AMD keeps going on this path. 

 

Well said.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I don't think people realise this but Nvidia will probably be releasing it's new GPU's at the end of Q1. They plant to anyway. Besides Nvidia and Intel work very close together. APU's are crap and so are all integrated graphics for gaming. They always will be and that is simple because dedicated GPU's are bigger and integrated GPU's are not.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Neither Nvidia or Intel ever wanted to kill AMD, it's a neverending race how to save AMD which is commiting suicide with every move. First Bulldozer CPUs, now after 2 years they release a GPU that doesn't beat Titan... AMD is lagging behind because they dont have money on R&D and NOBODY in the industry wants AMD dead.

Intel and Nvidia know that if they become the monopolists they will get a lot of bang on their heads from antimonopolist organisations and laws.

 

I'll also add that if Nvidia or intel WANTED to kill AMD, it was as easy for them as to:

 

Intel: Release i7 Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge or recently Haswell with six cores (even without hyper threading) for 300$

Nvidia: Release GK110 as their GTX 680 for 500$ back in 2012.

That is pretty much correct. Nvidia invests way more then Intel or AMD into dev tools and consumer software. Nvidia Experience and Shadowplay are just some which are very big side projects. but also Shield was another side project. I think they just like to try and use as much money as possible even if they know that it wouldn't successful. Shield was never going to be a mobile market killer and Nvidia knew it.

[Warcony]

That is pretty much correct. Nvidia invests way more then Intel or AMD into dev tools and consumer software. Nvidia Experience and Shadowplay are just some which are very big side projects. but also Shield was another side project. I think they just like to try and use as much money as possible even if they know that it wouldn't successful. Shield was never going to be a mobile market killer and Nvidia knew it.

 

Yup you are correct!  At this point Nvidia has a healthy lead on AMD in the graphics department so they've started on these side projects and sink tons of time, money and man power into them.  The Shield, while not a mainstream product by any means, is incredibly well refined hardware-wise for a company's first shot at consumer electronics.  In a few years, if AMD keeps on going like they are now, they will be able to have some cash to invest in projects like Nvidia is doing.  I'd love to see a mobile device powered by AMD tech.

[sof006]

Neither Nvidia or Intel ever wanted to kill AMD, it's a neverending race how to save AMD which is commiting suicide with every move. First Bulldozer CPUs, now after 2 years they release a GPU that doesn't beat Titan... AMD is lagging behind because they dont have money on R&D and NOBODY in the industry wants AMD dead.

Intel and Nvidia know that if they become the monopolists they will get a lot of bang on their heads from antimonopolist organisations and laws.

 

I'll also add that if Nvidia or intel WANTED to kill AMD, it was as easy for them as to:

 

Intel: Release i7 Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge or recently Haswell with six cores (even without hyper threading) for 300$

Nvidia: Release GK110 as their GTX 680 for 500$ back in 2012.

They already have a GPU that beats the Titan for half the price of a Titan... The 7990.

[Osmium]

You lose me with the fine details which sound a little false. But your overall view of the picture is pretty much what I've been thinking. However your definition of G-Sync is completely untrue. The only time it lowers the refresh rate of your monitor is when the GPU cant supply the frames to match the refresh rate of your monitor and so your framerate would be the same either way.

[lufihengr]

There is a few flaws with the OP. For example console games won't be directly ported and they don't use mantle. That's what I interpreted from this.

Also G-Sync, like someone mentioned already, does NOT require a decent GPU since the whole idea of it is to get smooth picture even with LOW framerates! And also in no way, shape or form does it hinder performance! Come on man, get your facts straight! I don't want to hate on you, but that text does look a bit AMD biased to me

[kuddlesworth9419]

Yup you are correct!  At this point Nvidia has a healthy lead on AMD in the graphics department so they've started on these side projects and sink tons of time, money and man power into them.  The Shield, while not a mainstream product by any means, is incredibly well refined hardware-wise for a company's first shot at consumer electronics.  In a few years, if AMD keeps on going like they are now, they will be able to have some cash to invest in projects like Nvidia is doing.  I'd love to see a mobile device powered by AMD tech.

its better to get your staff to actually do something rather then them doing nothing and getting payed for it.

[Wolfur]

They already have a GPU that beats the Titan for half the price of a Titan... The 7990.

 

That's not single GPU solution.

 

Can you do 4-way Crossfire 7990?

 

Nope.

 

Can you do 4-way Titan SLI?

 

Yep.

[Vitalius]

I don't think people realise this but Nvidia will probably be releasing it's new GPU's at the end of Q1. They plant to anyway. Besides Nvidia and Intel work very close together. APU's are crap and so are all integrated graphics for gaming. They always will be and that is simple because dedicated GPU's are bigger and integrated GPU's are not.

The underlined part is the important part. The integrated graphics in APUs is not for gaming. It's ultimately going to be for making CPUs more efficient. It's complicated. 

 

 

That's not single GPU solution.

 

Can you do 4-way Crossfire 7990?

 

Nope.

 

Can you do 4-way Titan SLI?

 

Yep.

*facepalm*

... 2 7990's crossfired is 4-way crossfire. 

[rashdanml]

The underlined part is the important part. The integrated graphics in APUs is not for gaming. It's ultimately going to be for making CPUs more efficient. It's complicated.

*facepalm*

... 2 7990's crossfired is 4-way crossfire.

He means 4x 7990. The fact that it takes a dual GPU card (7990) to beat the titan says a lot. Even if it's half the price.

[Humbug]

G-sync is a good thing but it hinders performance so quality doesn't suffer thats all it does

can you explain how G-sync hinders performance? Having the monitor's refresh rate dynamically tied to the game framerate is brilliant both in terms of latency and image quality.

[kuddlesworth9419]

The underlined part is the important part. The integrated graphics in APUs is not for gaming. It's ultimately going to be for making CPUs more efficient. It's complicated. 

 

 

*facepalm*

... 2 7990's crossfired is 4-way crossfire. 

I know it complicated but the way that AMP is marketing APU's would make most people believe that they want them to be for gaming. I still don't think that having integrated GPU in a CPU makes the CPU more efficient. If anything it makes them less so as there is not enough room for the CPU. Compare AMD's top CPU to their top APU part. There is a huge difference in efficiency and performance. It is better off to have a CPU and a GPU separated for the highest performance. I simply isn't possible to make an APU as powerful as any modern CPU for CPU tasks. 

[Poocannon]

Neither Nvidia or Intel ever wanted to kill AMD, it's a neverending race how to save AMD which is commiting suicide with every move. First Bulldozer CPUs, now after 2 years they release a GPU that doesn't beat Titan... AMD is lagging behind because they dont have money on R&D and NOBODY in the industry wants AMD dead.

Intel and Nvidia know that if they become the monopolists they will get a lot of bang on their heads from antimonopolist organisations and laws.

 

I'll also add that if Nvidia or intel WANTED to kill AMD, it was as easy for them as to:

 

Intel: Release i7 Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge or recently Haswell with six cores (even without hyper threading) for 300$

Nvidia: Release GK110 as their GTX 680 for 500$ back in 2012.

Yeah, no, that's sadly not how that works. As much as people seem to want do believe that, no competition is more or less already the case for intel,

but AMD going down would be Dreamworld for Nvidia. These laws you are talking about prevent guys like Intel from buying out AMD and be the sole source for cpus.

AMD going down themselves would give them the monopoly without breaking any laws. AMD is fighting tooth and nails to stay alive. They made some very clever move the last 1-2 quarters.

Please stop dreaming about how Nvidia is so incredibly way ahead of AMD and just holds itself back to keep the competition alive, that's just not how economics work.

[Vitalius]

I know it complicated but the way that AMP is marketing APU's would make most people believe that they want them to be for gaming. I still don't think that having integrated GPU in a CPU makes the CPU more efficient. If anything it makes them less so as there is not enough room for the CPU. Compare AMD's top CPU to their top APU part. There is a huge difference in efficiency and performance. It is better off to have a CPU and a GPU separated for the highest performance. I simply isn't possible to make an APU as powerful as any modern CPU for CPU tasks. 

There are 2 types of operations computers use. 

Floating Point Operations & Integer Operations.

CPU's, or specifically, the cores in the CPU that you have multiple of, (a 3570k has 4, an 8350 technically has 8), are only good at doing Integer Operations. They can do FP Operations (IIRC), but are much slower at it.

Integer Operations are what they sound like. Operations that only involve integers. Whole numbers. 

Floating Point Operations are what they sound like as well. Operations that involve decimals and fractions. 

A CPU needs a special unit in it called an "FP Unit" (FP for Floating Point) so that it can actually do the FP operations quickly. Otherwise, it can, but it's absurdly slow as the normal cores don't do them well.

Video games, particularly physics and tesselation related things, use TONS of Floating Point operations, for various reasons. 

And I'll let Kuzma handle it from here if he feels like it, since I don't know much beyond that. Also, Glenwing, I think I got it right. Not certain though.

Anyway, you get the idea.

[RatedBlam]

He means 4x 7990. The fact that it takes a dual GPU card (7990) to beat the titan says a lot. Even if it's half the price.

It could say a lot but officially it's AMDs strategy that their best card is dual GPU, I'm pretty sure AMD could make a GK110 sized chip and have the same performance

[Wolfur]

There are 2 types of operations computers use. 

Floating Point Operations & Integer Operations.

CPU's, or specifically, the cores in the CPU that you have multiple of, (a 3570k has 4, an 8350 technically has 8), are only good at doing Integer Operations. They can do FP Operations (IIRC), but are much slower at it.

Integer Operations are what they sound like. Operations that only involve integers. Whole numbers. 

Floating Point Operations are what they sound like as well. Operations that involve decimals and fractions. 

A CPU needs a special unit in it called an "FP Unit" (FP for Floating Point) so that it can actually do the FP operations. Otherwise, it can, but it's absurdly slow as the normal cores don't do them well.

Video games, particularly physics and tesselation related things, use TONS of Floating Point operations, for various reasons. 

And I'll let @Kuzma handle it from here if he feels like it, since I don't know much beyond that. Also, @Glenwing, I think I got it right. Not certain though.

Anyway, you ge tthe diea. 

 

Kuzma isn't the alpha and omega.

 

Not all floating point calculations can be calculated with parallelity of GPU (hundreds if not thousands of processors).

 

And until AMD actually shows me something that works I will not believe in anything Kuzma makes up about the 'APU is the future' crap. You can define it as you like but I don't see 7 billion transistors that can be found on Titan put onto CPU+GPU die.

[Wolfur]

The underlined part is the important part. The integrated graphics in APUs is not for gaming. It's ultimately going to be for making CPUs more efficient. It's complicated. 

 

 

*facepalm*

... 2 7990's crossfired is 4-way crossfire. 

 

YOU CANNOT do 4-way 7990 as it is not a single GPU, it's double GPU on single pcb and it is 2x 7970 at that. 

 

2x 7990 in Crossfire is 4-way 7970 crossfire.

 

4x Titan in SLI is 4-way Titan crossfire.

 

See what I did there?