Actually, I never mentioned CPU vs GPU bottlenecks in anything. Don't get all self-righteous without being able to read.
Well, you're right. However, your rhetorical question "Can you really see the difference between 155 fps and 187 fps?" implies the same argument used for GPUs being the bottleneck, that being that CPUs today are powerful enough that it doesn't matter if you see a 20% speed increase. That it doesn't matter if your CPU can provide you with 155 or 187 fps. I argue that if I can get that 20% speed increase for less money, and the product uses less power, and makes less noise and heat, why the hell should I opt not to?
You can buy/build a gaming rig that will handle all the games you will want to play with a sub-$200 CPU and a sub-$300 video card right now.
Perhaps, but in a few months, that same $200 for a CPU will go a lot further. What was your point?
Getting the latest and greatest doesn't apply unless you feel inadequate because you can't play in 1200x1600 with 4xAA.
Again, it's not about what the performance of the extreme $1000 unit is, it's about what can I as a casual gamer get for under $1000 for an entire system. I'm excited because I will get a lot more for my money with Conroe. For the same $1000 I can, should I choose, now get a significant video card upgrade. Or, I can pocket the difference.
That said, it is a lot more pleasant to play in higher resolutions with AA turned on yes.
Trying to buy something now to future-proof it is futile in the computer world because you technology will be eclipsed by something better and cheaper in 6 months, unless you live on the bleeding edge and have a huge budget.
And that's completely irrelevant to this thread. Who's talked about wanting something future-proof? I do believe I mentioned that I'm still on a 3 year old system that has served me well. And because CPU's are now so insanely fast across the board, I expect the next one I get to last just as long. That'd be true for a X2 3800 or 4200, but I feel more assured it will be true with a Conroe.
And then there's your previous question:
Why don't you just stick with AMD since it was their competition that brought you this little gem from Intel?
So when AMD responds with a better, cheaper, faster processor in a few months/years I should buy Intel because they forced that development?
Uh, yeah, I'll just skip one step in that logic and buy from the one with the best performance/cost at the time.
Brand loyalty should be somewhat important as well.
No, it shouldn't. Brand loyalty leads to stagnation. Jumping ship as soon as someone offers a competitive alternative keeps providers of goods and services on their toes.
Obviously you want the most for your money, but if AMD goes away how long are you willing to wait until somebody comes along to challenge Intel again? Might be a lot longer than 2009.
The way a free market works is that they will evolve or perish. If AMD can respond to Conroe (And I'm sure they will), why would they go under?
Yes, I know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.
Yes, I know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.
I'm a working father of two who's just bought a house in need of significant renovations. I'm not a hardcore gamer, I don't overclock my machine and I don't buy a lot of games. If I'm lucky, I can get a couple hours per week in. More likely it's a couple of hours a month.
The whole point of my post was that the Conroe CPU gives me the option to buy a middle or bottom of the line CPU and still get the performance I would've gotten with a mid-or high end AMD. That translates to money left in my pocket.
For me, that matters more than brand loyalty. I have more important things to spend that money on.
And next year (or 2) AMD will pass Intel again and you'll have to change your mind again
No, because I'm not upgrading my machine next year. My current box (AMD 2500+) is 3 years old, and I suspect my next purchase will have a similar, if not longer, life span. That's why Conroe has me excited, not because it would let me play Quake 4 at 300 fps.
Get back to me in 2009 and I may indeed be praising AMD again.
Not really. AMD will have to do some very extreme price cuts to compete in performance/price. The E6300 keeps up with most AMD x2 CPUS, and I strongly doubt that they will drop the X2 4800 to the $200 range. But even if they do, the lower heat output and power consumption of the E6300 would tip the scale back in its favour.
Obviously, if they do decide to practically give their CPUs away, I'll consider what is the best option for me at the time. But right now, there doesn't appear to be any chance for AMD to compete over the next couple of months.
Yes, we all know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.
Yes, we all know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.
But dammit, how about just being exited over what appears to be a big step forward in CPU performance, price, and power consumption? How about focusing on the technology and the application of it rather than the brand?
Eventually, AMD will adopt these things as well, and possibly improve on them to try to overtake Intel. Competition and innovation is a Good Thing(tm) for all of us, and not just when it's AMD doing it.
I'm currently running AMD on all my machines and was looking at upgrading to a X2 CPU later this year. Core 2 Duo has completely changed that. Instead I'm looking at an Intel based system where the money I save on the CPU can be put towards a stronger video card instead.
Many secular (and protestant) charities support Catholic charities.
It doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. It merely reflects the fact that catholic charities and churches can be found in many places where it would be too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to set up another office.
If the purpose is the same, and someone else already has the infrastructure in place, it doesn't make much sense to spend money building a duplicate of that infrastructure.
A fair argument against VB6 is that it's at end-of-life. Microsoft has dropped support. You find a bug in it and it's all yours. But honestly, there just aren't that many bugs left in VB6 that aren't already known.
Having just come off a VB6 job, this was a huge problem for us. Not so much because Microsoft has ended support, but many third party providers have stopped supporting their components as well. If you have a problem, well, tough luck.
There are also fairly few components out there (Compared to other languages) that provide source code when you purchase it. There has been somewhat of a culture change with.Net where source code is now made available to a much greater extent than it was for VB6. Not to mention, components are written in a.Net language as opposed to VB6 components written in C/C++ or making heavy use of the Win32 API. And you really don't want to try to fix bugs in controls written in 1999 using VB6 and Win32 API...
In my experience, the strongest argument against using VB6 is not technical limitations. You can work around those. But the support for the platform as a whole is eroding quickly. The past few years more and more websites with VB6 information are disapearing to be replaced with.Net sites. It's getting progressively more difficult to find VB6 information, components, and controls when you need them.
If you application is a temporary fix to get by a year or two, by all means, use VB6 to get your product out there quickly and keep bringing in money. But IMNSHO it's not a sustainable long-term solution.
Right, they have a responsibility to call it quits.
For all the complaints, The Simpsons still has a loyal following tuning in every week. When the numbers decline significantly the show will change, or die. Until then, well, why change what works just because you're bored with it?
If only there were some form of controlling apparatus for your TV that would allow you to change the channel and watch something you find more entertaining... Perhaps it could even be done remotely. Yes, a TV remote controlling apparatus, I'll se if I can find some investors for my idea to solve your problem. I believe I will call it... The TV remote controlling apparatus.
After they got through with all the patches and updates, Quake3 along with OSP came pretty close to being the perfect deathmatch FPS. It didn't make it easy on the newbies, it didn't have a ton of eye candy, it had its share of bugs and glitches. But when it came to measuring skill vs skill, few games compare.
I was hoping that we'd see Quake4 integrate OSP and its competition oriented features, but it doesn't look like that'll happen.
Microsoft is going to untold lengths to subsidize these boxes, in the expectation that they'll make it up with Live subscriptions and game licensing. Like cellphone providers.
Alternatively, Microsoft takes a short term hit and lose money overall but gain a much stronger foothold of the console market for future releases.
Yep, The JavaScript grabs the numbers from a XML file and does an estimate on the rate of downloads per minute. The XML file in turn is updated once a minute or so.
I'm always amazed that my sig generates such heated debate by nitpickers. But after the first dozen or three times I took the time to write a JE about why I chose it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, except for the Slashdot users who have to communicate with people without Slashdot accounts.
And here come the -1 Overrated downmods, how very predictable.
Actually, I never mentioned CPU vs GPU bottlenecks in anything. Don't get all self-righteous without being able to read.
Well, you're right. However, your rhetorical question "Can you really see the difference between 155 fps and 187 fps?" implies the same argument used for GPUs being the bottleneck, that being that CPUs today are powerful enough that it doesn't matter if you see a 20% speed increase. That it doesn't matter if your CPU can provide you with 155 or 187 fps. I argue that if I can get that 20% speed increase for less money, and the product uses less power, and makes less noise and heat, why the hell should I opt not to?
You can buy/build a gaming rig that will handle all the games you will want to play with a sub-$200 CPU and a sub-$300 video card right now.
Perhaps, but in a few months, that same $200 for a CPU will go a lot further. What was your point?
Getting the latest and greatest doesn't apply unless you feel inadequate because you can't play in 1200x1600 with 4xAA.
Again, it's not about what the performance of the extreme $1000 unit is, it's about what can I as a casual gamer get for under $1000 for an entire system. I'm excited because I will get a lot more for my money with Conroe. For the same $1000 I can, should I choose, now get a significant video card upgrade. Or, I can pocket the difference.
That said, it is a lot more pleasant to play in higher resolutions with AA turned on yes.
Trying to buy something now to future-proof it is futile in the computer world because you technology will be eclipsed by something better and cheaper in 6 months, unless you live on the bleeding edge and have a huge budget.
And that's completely irrelevant to this thread. Who's talked about wanting something future-proof? I do believe I mentioned that I'm still on a 3 year old system that has served me well. And because CPU's are now so insanely fast across the board, I expect the next one I get to last just as long. That'd be true for a X2 3800 or 4200, but I feel more assured it will be true with a Conroe.
And then there's your previous question:
Why don't you just stick with AMD since it was their competition that brought you this little gem from Intel?
So when AMD responds with a better, cheaper, faster processor in a few months/years I should buy Intel because they forced that development?
Uh, yeah, I'll just skip one step in that logic and buy from the one with the best performance/cost at the time.
Brand loyalty should be somewhat important as well.
No, it shouldn't. Brand loyalty leads to stagnation. Jumping ship as soon as someone offers a competitive alternative keeps providers of goods and services on their toes.
Obviously you want the most for your money, but if AMD goes away how long are you willing to wait until somebody comes along to challenge Intel again? Might be a lot longer than 2009.
The way a free market works is that they will evolve or perish. If AMD can respond to Conroe (And I'm sure they will), why would they go under?
Dear AMD fanboy,
Yes, I know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.
Yes, I know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.
I'm a working father of two who's just bought a house in need of significant renovations. I'm not a hardcore gamer, I don't overclock my machine and I don't buy a lot of games. If I'm lucky, I can get a couple hours per week in. More likely it's a couple of hours a month.
The whole point of my post was that the Conroe CPU gives me the option to buy a middle or bottom of the line CPU and still get the performance I would've gotten with a mid-or high end AMD. That translates to money left in my pocket.
For me, that matters more than brand loyalty. I have more important things to spend that money on.
And next year (or 2) AMD will pass Intel again and you'll have to change your mind again
No, because I'm not upgrading my machine next year. My current box (AMD 2500+) is 3 years old, and I suspect my next purchase will have a similar, if not longer, life span. That's why Conroe has me excited, not because it would let me play Quake 4 at 300 fps.
Get back to me in 2009 and I may indeed be praising AMD again.
Not really. AMD will have to do some very extreme price cuts to compete in performance/price. The E6300 keeps up with most AMD x2 CPUS, and I strongly doubt that they will drop the X2 4800 to the $200 range. But even if they do, the lower heat output and power consumption of the E6300 would tip the scale back in its favour.
Obviously, if they do decide to practically give their CPUs away, I'll consider what is the best option for me at the time. But right now, there doesn't appear to be any chance for AMD to compete over the next couple of months.
Yes, we all know that GPU is a much greater limitation than the CPU. You don't need to point this out, again.
Yes, we all know that because of this, you don't need a top of the line CPU to play the latest games. You don't need to point this out, again.
But dammit, how about just being exited over what appears to be a big step forward in CPU performance, price, and power consumption? How about focusing on the technology and the application of it rather than the brand?
Eventually, AMD will adopt these things as well, and possibly improve on them to try to overtake Intel. Competition and innovation is a Good Thing(tm) for all of us, and not just when it's AMD doing it.
I'm currently running AMD on all my machines and was looking at upgrading to a X2 CPU later this year. Core 2 Duo has completely changed that. Instead I'm looking at an Intel based system where the money I save on the CPU can be put towards a stronger video card instead.
Right, you don't need the $1000 CPU. But a $300 Intel CPU would apparently go a lot further than a $300 AMD.
How big an issue was the GPU in that test? None, or some? When they dropped a quality level down, the gap increased.
Another OCP comparison, without GPU limitations.
With apologies to Bash.org
It only appears as Big98Boob$-311 to you since it's your password. To me it just looks like **************
Many secular (and protestant) charities support Catholic charities.
It doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. It merely reflects the fact that catholic charities and churches can be found in many places where it would be too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to set up another office.
If the purpose is the same, and someone else already has the infrastructure in place, it doesn't make much sense to spend money building a duplicate of that infrastructure.
I think they might notice expulsion from Europe.
So would Europe.
Yes, the amount of pluralization misusii is astounding.
A fair argument against VB6 is that it's at end-of-life. Microsoft has dropped support. You find a bug in it and it's all yours. But honestly, there just aren't that many bugs left in VB6 that aren't already known.
.Net where source code is now made available to a much greater extent than it was for VB6. Not to mention, components are written in a .Net language as opposed to VB6 components written in C/C++ or making heavy use of the Win32 API. And you really don't want to try to fix bugs in controls written in 1999 using VB6 and Win32 API...
.Net sites. It's getting progressively more difficult to find VB6 information, components, and controls when you need them.
Having just come off a VB6 job, this was a huge problem for us. Not so much because Microsoft has ended support, but many third party providers have stopped supporting their components as well. If you have a problem, well, tough luck.
There are also fairly few components out there (Compared to other languages) that provide source code when you purchase it. There has been somewhat of a culture change with
In my experience, the strongest argument against using VB6 is not technical limitations. You can work around those. But the support for the platform as a whole is eroding quickly. The past few years more and more websites with VB6 information are disapearing to be replaced with
If you application is a temporary fix to get by a year or two, by all means, use VB6 to get your product out there quickly and keep bringing in money. But IMNSHO it's not a sustainable long-term solution.
Sure you have a choice, you can choose to not go.
You can choose to let the performer know why you didn't go.
If enough people actually cared, there would be pressure on TM to change their pricing model.
But, most people opt to just complain, and then cough up the dough anyway.
That's a free market in action, but perhaps not with the results you want.
Unless the event is important to me and is expected to sell out, I just line up at the doors. That's another choice you could make.
Try using Googles cache
True, they don't. But then, a parachute attached to the pieces in chess doesn't make any sense.
Right, they have a responsibility to call it quits.
For all the complaints, The Simpsons still has a loyal following tuning in every week. When the numbers decline significantly the show will change, or die. Until then, well, why change what works just because you're bored with it?
If only there were some form of controlling apparatus for your TV that would allow you to change the channel and watch something you find more entertaining... Perhaps it could even be done remotely. Yes, a TV remote controlling apparatus, I'll se if I can find some investors for my idea to solve your problem. I believe I will call it... The TV remote controlling apparatus.
Isn't that exactly what they'll do when they get out of school as well?
Because employers will often save the .doc file contents in a database?
After they got through with all the patches and updates, Quake3 along with OSP came pretty close to being the perfect deathmatch FPS. It didn't make it easy on the newbies, it didn't have a ton of eye candy, it had its share of bugs and glitches. But when it came to measuring skill vs skill, few games compare.
I was hoping that we'd see Quake4 integrate OSP and its competition oriented features, but it doesn't look like that'll happen.
Microsoft is going to untold lengths to subsidize these boxes, in the expectation that they'll make it up with Live subscriptions and game licensing. Like cellphone providers.
Alternatively, Microsoft takes a short term hit and lose money overall but gain a much stronger foothold of the console market for future releases.
Not quite real time.
Canadian information technology groups can't seem to get IT right.
Not to mention, that 95% Canadian is only like 50% American.
I'm always amazed that my sig generates such heated debate by nitpickers. But after the first dozen or three times I took the time to write a JE about why I chose it.
And just in case it does go down, here's the google cache for it.