Slashdot Mirror

Ryzen 5 2400g integrated graphics are about on par with a GT1030, which should be a chunk faster than that GT720.

Like you said, the shared memory bus is a bottleneck, so I just built one with 2933, which seems to hit the sweet spot with price/performance for RAM:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...

It's a heck of a step up in games from the system I was running before (an elderly GTX260 with a quad core FX processor) and the whole thing draws about 1/3 what the old system did running all out (and almost nothing at idle).

Nice upgrade for the price, and you can throw in a discreet card later as the integrated graphics get long in the tooth.

Today.

Actually not the fairest of comparisons, but I'm not going to do the parent poster's fucking job for them.

Now you're turning a bit irrational as well by dismissing facts just because they don't fit your narrative.
It's true that BCLK can get problematic, but a very mild rise by something like 5MHz is considered to be stable in all scenarios that are known to me. Anyway, the point here is that you can push a lot of Intels even further this way, while you'd be lucky to get a Ryzen 2 that can run at 4.3GHz consistently. Getting that higher single core performance from Intel is not as exorbitantly more expensive as (#57031102) claimed. That was the original irrational post I was referring to.
This is something that we should be capable of admitting. In 4 of 5 other (non professional) use cases I'd still recommend to go for a R5 Ryzen 2 at the moment.

What the future brings remains to be seen. AMD also has to do something about their higher inter core latencies as far as those time critical gaming applications go, because strictly speaking games aren't really single threaded these days but rather bottlenecked by single threaded performance. And as previous testing has shown, those latencies increase for every CCX that is added to the work load (one source for example: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...). DDR5 certainly promises some improvements here as well as their Zen2 architecture in itself, but their SoC and chipset on the mobo will also have to play nicely with those high memory clocks. Alternatively they could invest into game studios, making them aware and optimize for those CCX idiosyncrasies.
There's a lot that could happen in the future indeed. But in the end we have to be able to see it happen.

Yep, still a pretty big chunk of chip.

" Fortunately for Qualcomm, they're still in the lead "....err....ahem.

Yeah, yeah. I wonder why Samsung won't go ahead and make an Android running S9 with an A11 inside. Maybe because it's... ahem... impossible?

I know fanboyism always get in the way of reading comprehension, but still.

" Fortunately for Qualcomm, they're still in the lead "....err....ahem.

If you care about latency you're going to want to just keep your shit in RAM. That's the trend on the enterprise side.

Consumers and even high end gamers do not benefit from that small latency advantage. Optane drives only beat traditional drives when you do synthetic, random access tests or crank the queue depth down for no reason. People moving large files don't benefit. Gamers don't benefit - assets are loaded from sequential blobs and (ideally) kept in RAM/VRAM. People working with media and shit don't benefit as their video/design/etc. files are big sequential blobs.

About the only real life, consumer level workloads that I can see benefiting are virus scans and code compiling.

The focus on latency by review sites is because INTEL IS PAYING THEM.

This started back with the 900P on PC Perspective. PC Perspective developed their own benchmark just for reviewing these new drives from Intel.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...

Except, that's not what happened. What happened was Intel approached "Shrout Research", which is run by Ryan Shrout of PC Perspective. Intel paid him money for a "white paper", gave him samples of the product for that white paper, and gave him direction on what the white paper should say and how to test things.

PC Perspective then took the conclusions from the white paper and presented it as an unbiased review, without disclosing the fact that the site owner was paid for that shit, or that the site was using the samples given for the "white paper" as the samples tested in the review (which is why they had so many to test with when other sites were lucky to get one), or that they white paper even existed.

PC Perspective got called out on all of this. Their response? Adding a vague disclaimer to the very end of the very last page of the review.

Disclaimer:

Ownership of PC Perspective also operates consulting firm Shrout Research. Shrout Research has provided research, consulting, and analysis for many companies in the high-tech industry including AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Arm. A white paper was published by Shrout Research using 900P engineering samples and was commissioned by Intel. All testing for this review was conducted separately and on retail samples of the 900P. This review was not commissioned or sponsored by Intel.

That disclaimer should actually say: Intel paid for this review and our new testing methodology that focuses on the only thing that Optane is good at.

We know that the review testing was not conducted separately from the white paper (people have gone through both and shown that shit was copied) and we know that they didn't buy their own retail products to test with (based on the date the review was published and the availability of the product).

PC Perspective has been scrambling to downplay this and spin it ever since some Scottish YouTube guy called them out on this shit. But at the end of the day, tech sites that review these things are suddenly starting to care about latency as the biggest thing? GEE, I WONDER WHY!

Mobile SOCs have been stacked package on package for ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Apple A8 is a package on package (PoP) 64-bit system-on-a-chip (SoC) designed by Apple and manufactured by TSMC.

Package on Package, as the name suggests, is stacking packaged chips. There's a good diagram here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Something like a MicroSDXC chip is bare dies stacked together. Good photo of the die stack.

https://www.anandtech.com/show...

While SanDisk didn't release any details of the internals, it's pretty safe to assume that the 512GB Extreme PRO consists of 32 x 128Gbit (16GB) dies. The photo above is from SanDisk's 2014 Investor Day presentation where the company claimed that it has the technology for a 32-die SDXC card and with the Extreme PRO the technology has made it into the retail. Since SanDisk/Toshiba doesn't have a 256Gbit NAND die (nobody has one in mass production yet), the only way to achieve 512GB is through a 32-die stack. SanDisk hasn't specified whether the NAND is MLC or TLC, but given that it is a high-end product I'm guessing it is MLC based.

NAND flash chips do it too

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...

This prototype Toshiba flash part has 16 (!) layers of 32 Gbit 34nm flash, adding up to a whopping 64GB in a single package.

Not true. They are using chips that would have been shit canned because of bad display controllers. It is a Win Win If the prices are low enough. The clocks are slower because they are compute only now. Sapphire is making a 470 also.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Gra...

The other consideration is heat, to read/write data that fast generates a lot of heat (as you can see in this page of TFA). Fitting the same heat load in a small enclosure would probably require some cooling (although this is a problem the computing industry has had to solve with practically every other component).

I think they must have made a scale error when rendering their graph. In the article they introduced this latency tool in (Oct 2015); you'll see that even the best PCIe SSDs tested had their 85th percentile at 100 microseconds: http://www.pcper.com/image/vie...

Additionally; the far right of the graph in this article is labeled as "1ms", when if the scale was reasonable, it'd be 1us. I suspect they just forgot about microseconds when doing their conversion.

They also cite a 6ns overhead due to the RAID controller - I wouldn't be surprised if this was also actually 6us.

PC gaming is a larger market than all other platforms... COMBINED.

What are you drinking because I want some!

PC Gaming is expected to see worldwide revenue of $27 billion in 2017.

As you can see, PC Gaming and Console revenue worldwide is pretty comparable in 2015. Both pull in a bit under $25 billion.

According to Gartner, the Gaming industry was projected to be $111 billion in 2015.

So, if Gartner's projection was roughly right, and PC Gaming & Console Gaming's worldwide revenues are about $25 billion each, who is grabbing the remaining $61 billion? Well, according to Digital-Capital, a game investment bank, the future is mobile gaming.

When monitors are 40 or 50 inch, then 4K will make sense for gaming

What do you mean, "when"?. 40+ inch UHD ("4K") gaming monitors are already here! Even comes with freesync.

This pictures illustrates it clearly: http://www.pcper.com/files/ima...
And Wikipedia goes into more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

SLC - Single Level Cell = 1 bit (2 states), most robust
MLC - Multi Level Cell = (typically) 2 bits (4 states), ~1/10 of the lifespan of SLC
TLC - Triple Level Cell = 3 bits (8 states), ~1/10 of the lifespan of MLC

Youtube links sparky? That's not entirely a trustworthy source considering that they say themselves they're biased! The first link points to their website...

http://www.pcper.com/news/Gene...

That build costs $790, that's almost TWO PS4's, and the RAM it has isn't as fast as the PS4's RAM.

And games cost the same?

New games do.

you've apparently never heard of these little things known as Steam sales not to mention that anybody not sticking their head in the sand while waving their little console flag was fast as their little arms will go KNOWS that PC prices drop MUCH faster than on the consoles

I know of Steam Sales, I also know of PSN sales. And while PC games do drop in price faster, that's not a good thing. That means that publishers think PC gamers are simply cheap and secondary priority. You know as well as I do that PC gamers are always saying "why does the PC version seem an afterthought and low priority" It's a low priority because PC gamers are cheap and in the 2nd/3rd world...pirates. Besides...I know a lot of Steamers are collectors. Even if you can buy a 100 games on Steam, you won't have the time to play them all, will you. Go ahead throw 5 bucks at 12 games you will never actually get around to playing, instead of paying $60 on ONE game you will play.

Theif 4 is currently $20 on consoles, not bad eh?

It's currently free for PS+, not bad, eh?

Oh and there is this little thing you may have heard of called Humble Bundles?

Oh yeah, the bundles that many PC Gamers pay 1 cent for? I'll say it again, PC gamers are cheap bastards who'd rather waste money on hardware than spend money on software.

Well first of all you are gonna need TWO consoles as not all the games are on XBone and PS4

I do have 2, or 7. The old ones didn't stop working when I got the PS4.

Reality is you can grab a quad core PC made within the past 5 years for $300, slap a $100 GPU in, and be kicking with some serious gaming with better FPS and higher res than the netbook based consoles can deliver.

I have a quad core Phenom II with a GT640 rev2 GDDR5. It's not the equal of the PS4.

Don't mind a little DIY? Then you can spend $80 less than a PS4

That doesn't include a Hard drive, or blu-ray drive, or an OS, has only a 450W power supply (which will need an immediate upgrade if you want to stick a PS4 beating card in), and only has 4GB of DDR3. Also it's a quad core, and #cores DOES matter.

Then grab yourself a fire breathing monster and pair it with a 250x or 260x and enjoy a PC that will run maybe $20 more than XBone with Kinect that will DEVASTATE both the PS4 and XBone on gaming!

No OS, no blu-ray drive. Adding that videocard and upgrading the power supply will add more to the cost. Not to mention those are barebones systems that require some DIY skills. You expect the masses to do DIY, routing cables, installing the various components INCLUDING the CPU and cooler, when they can just go to their local big box and buy a PS4 or Xbox one "that just works without the hassle" I run Linux, so I don't mind a bit of computing hassle, but with games I want zero hassle and I don't want Windows.

along with any game I want from the early 80s on up, every console from the Atari 2600- PS2

Do you own all the games those ROMs and ISO's belong to and did you rip all those ROM's and ISO's yourself...pirate?

insanely cheap prices and sales, free MP

Frequent sales, and free games every month with PS+.

streaming from any site in any format without needing a subscription

You seem to b

Ah yes. The "Mantle is AMAZING, DX12 is AMAZING, huge increases incoming because you can code to the metal with no driver overhead and otherwise more efficient CPU usage" argument.

Reality rained on it already. Only cases where gains are present are where CPU is extremely weak while GPU is extremely powerful. Gains are minimal if you're running even a half decent i5 and nonexistent if you're running i7. You're late with the hype.

That is why all the tech demos so far were done on ridiculously underpowered CPUs and top end GPUs. It does use CPU more efficiently, but almost all modern games massively undersubscribe the CPU, meaning no gains for using Mantle. This is what we already see in tests:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/G...

Well, I was always surprised nobody seriously tried to allow laptops to use external, desktop video cards

Ask and ye shalt receive, MSI has just unveiled exactly that: http://www.pcper.com/news/Mobi...

not sure what scene that was, but the different was never THAT big that i saw in benchmarks.... citations: 1, 2, 3, 4

not sure what scene that was, but the different was never THAT big that i saw in benchmarks.... citations: 1, 2, 3, 4

Here's a 2011 interview

I’ve revisited voxels at least a half dozen times in my career, and they’ve never quite won. I am confident in saying now that ray tracing of some form will eventually win because there are too many things that we’ve suffered with rasterization for, especially for shadows and environment mapping. We live with hacks that ray tracing can let us do much better. For years I was thinking that traditional analytical ray tracing intersecting with an analytic primitive couldn’t possibly be the right solution, and it would have to be something like voxels or metaballs or something. I’m less certain of that now because the analytic tracing is closer than I thought it would be. I think it’s an interesting battle between potentially ray tracing into dense polygonal geometry versus ray tracing into voxels and things like that. The appeal of voxels, like bitmaps, [is that] a lot of things can be done with filtering operations. You can stream more things in and there is still very definitely appeals about that. You start to look at them as little light field transformers rather than hard surfaces that you bounce things off of. I still wouldn’t say that the smart money is on voxels because lots of smart people have been trying it for a long time. It’s possible now with our current, modern generation graphics cards to do incredible full screen voxel rendering into hyper-detailed environments, and especially as we look towards the next generation I’m sure some people would take a stab at it. I think it’s less likely to be something that is a corner stone of a top-of-the-line triple A title. It’s in the mix but not a forgone conclusion right now.

In 1999, he was working with 3d "light maps".

This GPU has nearly identical performance to the R9 280 that came before it

Which had nearly identical performance to the 7950 that came before it. Which came out nearly three years ago.

Meanwhile, this says it all about the CPU. Sure, the AMD might save you $100 over the (faster) Intel, but you'll pay that back on a beefier PSU and cooler and electricity bills to support the beast.

What happened, AMD? I loved you back in the Athlon64 era...

Good drive, for sure, but keep in mind that the Crucial MX100 broke that barrier at its launch in June (and at $0.44/GB).

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/S...

128GB - $129.99 USD ($1.02/GB)
256GB - $199.99 USD ($0.78/GB)
512GB - $399.99 USD ($0.78/GB)
1TB - $699.99 USD ($0.68/GB)

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/S...

the R9 295X2 offered higher and more consistent frame rates

http://cdn.pcper.com/files/ima...

But not "stable", "consistent" or "smooth". This is still a major issue with the core of all AMD cards which hasnt been fixed.
You get what you pay for. Nvidia might be the "expensive" of the bunch, just wish i forked out a little more instead of getting my HD7770.

Do you realize that in the graph you linked no card dips below 50fps at any time? In fact, if you count the occasional peaks crossing the (ridiculously low) 15ms/66fps threshold, the Titan Z shows 6 frames slower than 15ms and the 295X2 shows 4 frames at more than 15ms (if I count correctly). You really can't argue that the Titan Z is smoother. All cards are extremely smooth.

the R9 295X2 offered higher and more consistent frame rates

http://cdn.pcper.com/files/ima...

But not "stable", "consistent" or "smooth". This is still a major issue with the core of all AMD cards which hasnt been fixed.
You get what you pay for. Nvidia might be the "expensive" of the bunch, just wish i forked out a little more instead of getting my HD7770.

30 Percent Faster in 3 Years:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/P...

Overclocking issues?
http://linustechtips.com/main/...

5v is so your keyboard doesn't need a voltage regulator [...] 100mA at 20v to 3.3v inside a keyboard? A nice 1.7 watts of heat converting your keyboard to a gentle hand warmer.

You might have noticed that USB has more than two wires... It would be absolutely trivial to add one more pin that outputs 12V.

Higher voltages, like 20V, would be trickier, because computer PSUs are standardized on providing lots of amps on the 5V and 12V rails, and only very, very little at other voltages. PSUs do 24VDC, but you can't draw more than a quarter amp before something pops.

http://cdn.pcper.com/files/ima...

That's news to me. What keywords should I put into Google or Bing to find more reliable sources that mention the use of a fixed pixel clock on the vast majority of LCD computer monitors?

ISTR discussing NVIDIA G-Sync here on Slashdot. In fact, so did you. Caught you. No need to be a disingenuous dick.

asm.js is fantastic! Anyone who says JavaScript is slow should read about how they ported the Unreal Engine 3 to asm.js and got over 140 fps.

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Bay-Trail-M-Powered-Intel-NUC-Coming-Q1-2014-140

You have to wait, but compared to this it's worth it.

I've been all AMD almost forever, for this reason among others.

http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?470102-Intel-s-compiler-cripples-code-on-AMD-and-VIA-chips 2010

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/intel_ftc/ 2009

http://techreport.com/news/8547/does-intel-compiler-cripple-amd-performance 2005

I found those three on the first page of my search results, and quit looking. Different search terms and a more determined search will find hits as old as about 1999, maybe even older. Hard to remember, but I think I first became aware of compiler cheats by Intel around 2000 or 2001. Prior to that, I naively thought that a compiler was a compiler.

I would agree a $1K GPU is largely a waste for the majority however you are missing WHY someone would even spend $1,000 on a GPU in the first place.

Namely, I recently picked up a GTX Titan for a couple of reasons:

* I run all* my games at 120 Hz** so I can use LightBoost*** on my Asus VG248QE monitor. (I don't care about triple monitor 5760x1080)
* Since it is a single GPU chip I don't have to worry about microstuttering**** issues plague that ALL SLI / XFIRE cards.
* It only uses 250W***** under full load
* It is quiet even under full load
* It supports CUDA 5
* I've been tracking GPU performance & prices since 2000. GPU cards depreciate about $100/year. I expect my Titan to last 5 to 10 years before shitty mobile & laptop GPUs catch up. For my game dev I am NOT targeting the high end BUT the LOW end. I need the lowest common denominator to significantly rise.

So before your smug comments you might actually want to TALK to a gamer and find out their _reasons_ instead of just dissing everything as some epeen -- those losers are the posers / fanbois.

Footnotes / References:

* Except for Path of Exile which crashes if you have LightBoost turned on !
** Anyone who says the human eye can't see more then 30 frames per second is full of shit -- they most likely have never even USED a 120 Hz monitor. There IS a difference between rendering at 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz.
*** Asus VG278H High Speed LightBoost Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
**** GPU stuttering
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6857/amd-stuttering-issues-driver-roadmap-fraps
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-New-Graphics-Performance-Metric
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Part-3-First-Results-New-GPU-Performance-Tools
***** http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/15

I would agree a $1K GPU is largely a waste for the majority however you are missing WHY someone would even spend $1,000 on a GPU in the first place.

Namely, I recently picked up a GTX Titan for a couple of reasons:

* I run all* my games at 120 Hz** so I can use LightBoost*** on my Asus VG248QE monitor. (I don't care about triple monitor 5760x1080)
* Since it is a single GPU chip I don't have to worry about microstuttering**** issues plague that ALL SLI / XFIRE cards.
* It only uses 250W***** under full load
* It is quiet even under full load
* It supports CUDA 5
* I've been tracking GPU performance & prices since 2000. GPU cards depreciate about $100/year. I expect my Titan to last 5 to 10 years before shitty mobile & laptop GPUs catch up. For my game dev I am NOT targeting the high end BUT the LOW end. I need the lowest common denominator to significantly rise.

So before your smug comments you might actually want to TALK to a gamer and find out their _reasons_ instead of just dissing everything as some epeen -- those losers are the posers / fanbois.

Footnotes / References:

* Except for Path of Exile which crashes if you have LightBoost turned on !
** Anyone who says the human eye can't see more then 30 frames per second is full of shit -- they most likely have never even USED a 120 Hz monitor. There IS a difference between rendering at 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz.
*** Asus VG278H High Speed LightBoost Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
**** GPU stuttering
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6857/amd-stuttering-issues-driver-roadmap-fraps
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-New-Graphics-Performance-Metric
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Part-3-First-Results-New-GPU-Performance-Tools
***** http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/15

It may be too late for this post, but Allyn over at pcper.com posted up some analysis of this article and that it leaves out important data:

Max data write speed did not take into account 8/10 encoding, meaning 6Gb/sec = 600MB/sec, not 750MB/sec.
The flash *page* size (8KB) and block sizes (2MB) chosen more closely resemble that of MLC parts (not SLC – see below for why this is important).
The paper makes no reference to Write Amplification.

"Write Amplification would be a factor of 500, meaning the flash memory is cycled at 500x the rate calculated in the paper." Gulp.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Taking-Accurate-Look-SSD-Write-Endurance

> AMD has the lead on average FPS, but it's now small enough that Intel wins in a few cases

Not really, Intel does win on a couple cases and is close for some cases.. Most of those are older CPU bound games. For Civ 5, AMD is close to 100% faster. A lot of the games that I looked at were ~ 40% faster (e.g. starcraft 2). e.g.
        http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Mobile/AMD-Trinity-Mobile-Review-Trying-Cut-Ivy/Performance-Synthetic-3D-Real-World-Gaming
        http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5831/trinity-vs-ivybridge-gaming-new.png

So better gaming perf at a cheaper price.. AMD has a better single chip solution for games. If you want a discrete graphics card for games, better to go with Intel.

And, oh yes, I am underwhelmed by the "tick". On the face of it, Intel would have accomplished more with another go around at 28nm.

Now for the Intel fanboys in the thread, let's shed some authoritative light on the subject.

A roundup of reviews from the usual major sites as well as others not mentioned in the summary above: Overclockers Review, Anandtech Review, Anandtech Undervolting/Overclocking, HardwareSecrets, Bit-tech, PCPer, Tweaktown, Hard OCP, The Inquirer, Techspot, Computer Shopper, Tom's Hardware, ExtremeTech, PC Mag, Overclockers Club, and Guru 3d

Look at the die layout for Sandy Bridge, there's no Ivy Bridge layout yet but it's probably the same. You see that huge chunk called "graphics"? Me neither, it's somewhere in those small "misc io" bits. That's the only little thing of your CPU you aren't using with a dGPU.

I guess that's simply a chip without an integrated GPU. Here's a picture of a Sandy Bridge Core i7 with GPU.

Well, it's not like Intel does it just to annoy you. The top Intel chips have 16 EUs which is roughly equal to 32 shaders. A top graphics card like the 7970 has 2048 shaders. So if you use AMD's $450 price as basis that works out to about $7 for an Intel, make it $10 to include QuickSync and whatnot. For that small savings Intel would have to validate a new design and risk a potential shortage of chips with/without IGP. Look at the die layout for Sandy Bridge, there's no Ivy Bridge layout yet but it's probably the same. You see that huge chunk called "graphics"? Me neither, it's somewhere in those small "misc io" bits. That's the only little thing of your CPU you aren't using with a dGPU.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of these integrated GPUs. The theory is that its a cost saver, but since I just put in a dedicated graphics card it ends up being a cost with no benefit. Ah well.

According to this review, the AMD A8-3850 is 50% faster than the ~$50 Radeon 6450, but 50% slower than the ~$75 Radeon 6670.

So sure, it's not better than a $200 dedicated card, but it's far better than what integrated cards use to be like. Integrated will never be faster than dedicated, but if I can get about 50% of the performance from integrated then that's reasonable until I have an extra $200 for a "real" video card.

BUT this knight-whatever cards are optimized for ray-tracing and can do in REALTIME graphic and special effects you see in big blockbuster movies

An interesting quote from John Carmack in this interview where he says, "...in the real world where people make production renderings, even if they have almost infinite resources for movie budgets, very little of it is ray traced. There are spectacular off line ray tracers but even when you have production companies that have rooms and rooms of servers they choose not to use ray tracing very often because in the vast majority of cases it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter for what they are trying to do and it's not worth the extra cost."

Recent track record... Yeah, sure...

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Larrabee-canceled-Intel-concedes-discrete-graphics-NVIDIA-AMDfor-now

There's a few others like this one. This includes the GMA stuff where they claimed the Xy000 series of GMA's were capable of playing games, etc. They're better than their last passes at IGPs, but compared to AMD's lineup in that same space, they're below sub-par. Chipzilla rolls out stuff like this all the time. Been doing it for years now.

Larrabee.
Sandy Bridge (at it's beginnings...).
GMA X-series.
Pentium 4's NetBurst.
iAPX 432.

There's a past track record that implies your faith in this is a bit misplaced at this time.

Recent track record... Yeah, sure...

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Larrabee-canceled-Intel-concedes-discrete-graphics-NVIDIA-AMDfor-now

There's a few others like this one. This includes the GMA stuff where they claimed the Xy000 series of GMA's were capable of playing games, etc. They're better than their last passes at IGPs, but compared to AMD's lineup in that same space, they're below sub-par. Chipzilla rolls out stuff like this all the time. Been doing it for years now.

Larrabee.
Sandy Bridge (at it's beginnings...).
GMA X-series.
Pentium 4's NetBurst.
iAPX 432.

There's a past track record that implies your faith in this is a bit misplaced at this time.

Even the fastest Sandy Bridge-E draws less power than a Bulldozer even at much higher performance. It also costs 3-4 times as much, so performance/$ is quite shitty (hey, it's an extreme $999 proc) but you the winner in performance is clear. But thanks for trolling, come again.

• Overclockers
• pcperspective
• Hardware canucks
• hardocp
• neoseeker
• tweaktown
• hexus

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-E-Review-Core-i7-3960X-and-X79-Chipset-Tested
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1773/1/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/intel-core-i7-3960x-sandy-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive

This post over at pcper.com links to a good story on the Kal El "companion" core: http://www.pcper.com/news/Mobile/ASUS-Unveils-Prime-World%E2%80%99s-First-Quad-Core-Android-Tablet

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Reveals-5th-CPU-Core-Upcoming-Kal-El-Tegra-SoC

This post over at pcper.com links to a good story on the Kal El "companion" core: http://www.pcper.com/news/Mobile/ASUS-Unveils-Prime-World%E2%80%99s-First-Quad-Core-Android-Tablet

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Reveals-5th-CPU-Core-Upcoming-Kal-El-Tegra-SoC

Isn't that jumping the gun just a little bit? Have you seen any statements from id that custom maps will be impossible? Don't you think they would put some sort of effort into making their games easy to make content for?

This interview with Carmack:

For modders, Carmack stated that they were going to release the 64-bit version of tools though there is going to be a limit to what people can do with it because there is a lot of infrastructure involved with the mega-textured worlds. Expect to build new gaming characteristics and multiplayer modes, but not much more than that for now. Keeping in mind there is over a 1TB of source material to build RAGE, they can’t possibly put that all up for download.

Check this update out: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Bitcoin-Mining-Update-Power-Usage-Costs-Across-United-States