Dark Clan Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: GeForce® GTX 480  (Read 3218 times)
PainSavour
Dark Clan Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 250



« Reply #20 on: Wed 02.02.2011 21:12:09 »

Well considering the mobo manufacturers have stopped shipping the motherboards with the faulty Sandy Bridge chipset and retailers are pulling them from their listings you can't even buy one anymore. Intel says they start manufacturing the new fixed chipsets by the end of February, but mobo manufacturers still need time after that to make the boards, so April is the earliest you can buy a new Sandy Bridge system if you don't have one already.

Intel set aside 700 million dollars for the replacement/repair but I heard they estimated it again to 1 billion dollars. Rather costly mistake to make it seems. AMD must be happy, but for consumers this isn't really a good thing. The current AMD CPUs are just way too slow compared to Sandy Bridge. They need to get Bulldozer CPUs out soon.

You can't spell Slaughter without Laughter!
assassin[be]
Godlike Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


Where's the gum?


« Reply #21 on: Wed 02.02.2011 21:55:16 »

Well considering the mobo manufacturers have stopped shipping the motherboards with the faulty Sandy Bridge chipset and retailers are pulling them from their listings you can't even buy one anymore. Intel says they start manufacturing the new fixed chipsets by the end of February, but mobo manufacturers still need time after that to make the boards, so April is the earliest you can buy a new Sandy Bridge system if you don't have one already.

Intel set aside 700 million dollars for the replacement/repair but I heard they estimated it again to 1 billion dollars. Rather costly mistake to make it seems. AMD must be happy, but for consumers this isn't really a good thing. The current AMD CPUs are just way too slow compared to Sandy Bridge. They need to get Bulldozer CPUs out soon.

You say it's too slow, but you have to consider that the i7 series are not made for gamers. And if you compare price/performance you'll see that AMD comes out better that way. You may call me cheap but I prefer not to spend too much money on my hardware. Rather have some money aside for some other stuff  Smiley.

If you want to know, I own a Phenom II x4 965 that runs on 3,4 GHz.

Also the fact that AMD is focussing more on the mobile and laptop. With their Fusion-tech they will have a nice grip on that market for smart phones and laptops.

I haven't been paying much attention to the latest CPU's or GPU's so I dunno what's new for Intel, AMD or Nvidia.
I am noticing that they are busy releasing hexacores, which I think is too soon.
You have to consider that just now the developers are now supporting quadcores for their games.

m4rt1ni
Dark Clan Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760


« Reply #22 on: Wed 02.02.2011 23:40:35 »

You say it's too slow, but you have to consider that the i7 series are not made for gamers. And if you compare price/performance you'll see that AMD comes out better that way. You may call me cheap but I prefer not to spend too much money on my hardware. Rather have some money aside for some other stuff  Smiley.


You're among the 0.00001% of PC users that know to handpick the best components, build their own rigs, know how to OC and so on...
Most of the, lets call them "casual" users, don't care about AMD - which is sad but true. Even though I have an Intel CPU I'm a big AMD fan, because lets face it, can you imagine the Intel prices if there would be no competition at all?


Intel set aside 700 million dollars for the replacement/repair but I heard they estimated it again to 1 billion dollars. Rather costly mistake to make it seems. AMD must be happy, but for consumers this isn't really a good thing.

Intel closed Q4 with a revenue of 11,5 billion and 3,4 billion in profit. AMD was in red numbers for Q2 and Q3, though they managed to close Q4 with a 1.65 billion in revenue and 0,375 b in profit for their 2010 fiscal year. So yea, no worries, Intel can get over it pretty easily :)

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/fourth-quarter-earnings-20jan2011.aspx
« Last Edit: Wed 02.02.2011 23:52:35 by m4rt1ni »

PainSavour
Dark Clan Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 250



« Reply #23 on: Thu 03.02.2011 00:03:48 »

You say it's too slow, but you have to consider that the i7 series are not made for gamers. And if you compare price/performance you'll see that AMD comes out better that way. You may call me cheap but I prefer not to spend too much money on my hardware. Rather have some money aside for some other stuff  Smiley.

If you want to know, I own a Phenom II x4 965 that runs on 3,4 GHz.

Also the fact that AMD is focussing more on the mobile and laptop. With their Fusion-tech they will have a nice grip on that market for smart phones and laptops.

I haven't been paying much attention to the latest CPU's or GPU's so I dunno what's new for Intel, AMD or Nvidia.
I am noticing that they are busy releasing hexacores, which I think is too soon.
You have to consider that just now the developers are now supporting quadcores for their games.

While i7 might not be "made for gamers" it is faster in games that require cpu power. Now most of the graphics heavy games benefit little from more CPU horsepower, so in those cases it doesn't matter if you're using AMD or Intel CPU, as long as it's sufficiently fast, because the graphics card will be the bottleneck. But in games like GTAIV, CIV5, Total War series CPU plays a bigger part and in those games the Intel Core processors are clearly better than Phenoms. Sad but true, especially since I have a Phenom II 955.  msn012.gif

AMD might be trying to get more mobile market share, but if you look at laptop sales Intel dominates it and AMD CPUs aren't really in favor in laptops, they suck more power and give less performance. AMDs strongest suit is desktop CPUs and the hexa-cores you mention, but as you say, there's not a lot of use for six cores at the moment because of lacking software threading. AMD's hope will be in Fusion and Bulldozer, but it remains to be seen how well they end up doing. It just looks like all Bulldozer is good for is well threaded applications, but 8 cores don't do a lot of good in games at the moment.

For Intel this chipset problem is probably more of an embarrassment. They've already paid billions in the past year or so to AMD and Nvidia and I think there was some other entity too I don't care to remember right now. Obviously they have a near monopoly on the x86 market and make billions in profit every quarter regardless of paying a few fines now and then.


You can't spell Slaughter without Laughter!
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
Print
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
© 2008-2016 | design by radarfox | webmaster VegasKill