PDA

View Full Version : AMD Moving focus away from PC market, Intel and Nvidia new faces of PC gaming?



NoodleFighter
21-10-2012, 04:46 AM
For those too lazy to read: AMD got destroyed by intel and is suffering major losses, all they really have now is their GPU division which is keeping them alive. Now AMD will focus more on APUs and GPUs than CPUs. If AMD goes down this is big trouble for PC gamers since Intel and Nvidia will become drunk with power and raise their prices 10 fold, but on the other hand Intel and Nvidia have been making the better products which has been making consumers and companies lean more towards them.
If AMD looses the tablet market they're screwed.

Article (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ultramobile-tablet-apu-cpu,18546.html)

squirrel
21-10-2012, 06:44 AM
What a shame, considering AMD is the one developed x64 standard (not a big add-on for gamers, I know, but this is a very important innovation for desktop computing no one can afford to ignore).

I dont see any PC producers would be excited about Windows 8's launch. People here who have tried out the RTM are making rather negative comments on it. Not that it is technically a faulty product, but they generally consider it as a major update with absence of major innovation. In short, it simply wont worth the price. Therefore, no one really would upgrade their hardware just for it.

And even we acknowledge the fact ATI had been bought out completely by AMD for long, we still feel for more comfortable with the brand name ATI than AMD for their GPUs. I dont know, has AMD dropped the ATI branding yet?

Lukasz
21-10-2012, 08:02 AM
I dont know, has AMD dropped the ATI branding yet?

Yeah. Completely.


It is sad news. Intel will abuse the power.

NoodleFighter
21-10-2012, 08:04 AM
What a shame, considering AMD is the one developed x64 standard (not a big add-on for gamers, I know, but this is a very important innovation for desktop computing no one can afford to ignore).

I dont see any PC producers would be excited about Windows 8's launch. People here who have tried out the RTM are making rather negative comments on it. Not that it is technically a faulty product, but they generally consider it as a major update with absence of major innovation. In short, it simply wont worth the price. Therefore, no one really would upgrade their hardware just for it.

And even we acknowledge the fact ATI had been bought out completely by AMD for long, we still feel for more comfortable with the brand name ATI than AMD for their GPUs. I dont know, has AMD dropped the ATI branding yet?

Too be honest what do people hate about windows 8 that's not about the UI and unconfirmed rumors. It seems better than Windows 7 in almost everyway and gives a performance boost in gaming and uses up less resources.

popej
21-10-2012, 08:30 AM
Too be honest what do people hate about windows 8 that's not about the Wii U and unconfirmed rumors. It seems better than Windows 7 in almost everyway and gives a performance boost in gaming and uses up less resources.

Because the holy father hates it? (Mojang bloke)

Heliocentric
21-10-2012, 09:15 AM
Yeah. Completely.


It is sad news. Intel will abuse the power.Yes, this is horrific, enough to turn console hardware into an attractive proposition.

Xercies
21-10-2012, 09:16 AM
No because of this the ui looks terrible

http://t.co/EAm88WXu

mashakos
21-10-2012, 09:17 AM
Too be honest what do people hate about windows 8 that's not about the Wii U and unconfirmed rumors. It seems better than Windows 7 in almost everyway and gives a performance boost in gaming and uses up less resources.

It's quite clear by now that the bulk of the R&D that went into Windows 8 was directed towards the ARM (tablet) version.
You are always welcome to spend $250-$300 on Windows 8 over say, a new graphics card and see what that does to your performance.

Hypernetic
21-10-2012, 10:56 AM
New faces? lol.

Batolemaeus
21-10-2012, 11:06 AM
Yeah. Completely.


It is sad news. Intel will abuse the power.

Intel has abused its power for more than a decade. I don't know how much you've been following the whole thing, but Intel behaves worse than Microsoft. We're talking extremely shady deals and threats to retail chains..

Finicky
21-10-2012, 12:10 PM
Amd still has 60 percent of their resources on PC hardware : thread title copied from tom's (the IGN/daily mail of hardware sites) says amd moves away from pc hardware...
They have always been in the server market btw... and already have pachinko machine custom parts, the only thing that changes is the layoffs and that they are apparently putting more money into APU's.
Tom's wouldn't be the farce they are if they didn't try to be sensationalist for more clicks. (it worked, just look at the OP)

I love the wording from the AMD exec: calling firing your engineer staff 'savings'.

They just want a piece of the tablet and phone pie while it lasts.. There is no way they will pull out of the pc market unless they really don't understand the difference between a saturated steady market and a new market...
In a year or 3-4 they'll get outcompeted to hell on the then also saturated mobile hardware front too, especially after firing more staff, and then what? They'd have given up their pc share to end up in the exact same situation with mobile hardware?

AMD has been the underdog before (right before the ahtlon 64 era), but it seems like tech media and these forums are populated by speculants instead of gamers or consumers.

soldant
21-10-2012, 12:13 PM
People here who have tried out the RTM are making rather negative comments on it.
Are we? No problems here. My biggest issue with the RTM was the Metro/Modern UI, which I've largely forgotten about because I spend all my time on the Desktop, just like I did with Windows 7. Apart from that I'm quite pleased at the faster overall system performance. Is it a revolution? No. But neither was Win7, it was just an updated version of Vista, which was the major overhaul. And everyone bitched to hell and back about Vista despite the fact that it dragged us kicking and screaming into the future. The real success of Win8 will be determined by how well it works on tablets, because Win8 brings with it a new Microsoft ecosystem which might break Apple's hold on the tablet sector if it's done right. Like it or not, the big change in Win8 (Modern UI) will still be there for Windows 9. Also there are plenty of new features, but they're under the hood. One of them is a complete overhaul of the shadow copy service, which turns it into a Time Machine-style backup solution that doesn't actually suck and isn't absurdly inaccessible. Though it's in the Control Panel... so maybe it is?


Regarding AMD - well, the simple solution for AMD is to make something that doesn't suck. They broke Intel in the late 90s and early 2000s, then proceeded to screw around while Intel went from strength to strength. While less competition is bad and I hope that this is a misunderstanding or that they'll reconsider, I can't help but think that their desktop CPUs aren't doing so well because they're inferior to Intel's offerings. We shouldn't lament the loss of an inferior product. All my friends used to use AMD CPUs (I've usually bought Intel CPUs, had a few AMDs though) but none of them will touch them these days. Intel might cost more but it's worth it. Step it up AMD.

The real sad part is the possible decline of the old ATI range. Bad move for ATI I guess...

Have to laugh at all the people going "OMG BUY AN AMD CPU GUYZ WE GOTS TO SAVE THE MOONS!"

Finicky
21-10-2012, 12:19 PM
Soldant: your whole top paragraph reads as a PR statement from Microsoft, intentional or not..

Also what the fuck am I even reading? You shouldn't lament the loss of a competitor in a duopoly if it happens?
OKAY THEN BRO.

Bulldozer is a piece of shit but Intel couldn't compete with amd in the amd64 era, and amd couldn't compete with intel in the p2-p3 era, but noone called for the death of either back then (well noone who was sane).
Their current exec is making damn sure that their cpus will remain dogshit for the next few years though, he lays off staff after they already had a bunch of engineer talent leaving.

The world will not end in the next 2 years, there is a future to be mindful of (irrelevant to speculants and fanboys), as tech changes there are plenty of chances for AMD to claw back like they have before (and like intel has before).
A future where intel (or amd) would hold the monopoly on the cpu market would be a horrible one for consumers.

Keep rooting for your favorite though bro, what are you , twelve?

archonsod
21-10-2012, 01:13 PM
Their current exec is making damn sure that their cpus will remain dogshit for the next few years though, he lays off staff after they already had a bunch of engineer talent leaving.

It's not the engineers that are the problem, it's AMD's lack of fabrication facilities.


A future where intel (or amd) would hold the monopoly on the cpu market would be a horrible one for consumers.

Intel and AMD aren't the only ones who make CPU's, and the main drivers in the CPU market tend to be the companies producing off the shelf models.

trjp
21-10-2012, 01:22 PM
Too be honest what do people hate about windows 8 that's not about the Wii U and unconfirmed rumors. It seems better than Windows 7 in almost everyway and gives a performance boost in gaming and uses up less resources.

I don't hate W8 but here's my concern list

1 - Microsoft have realised that Apple and Google are about to steal their entire industry and so they're switching to an 'AppStore' model to try to catch-up and I suspect they'll do this with all the finesse that they've applied to most other things (GFWL, XBOX Live, Kinect and 100 other products they bodged) - and it's we, the consumers, who'll suffer in this.

2 - The new interface is a mess for conventional desktops - it might be lovely for these new touchscreens but almost no-one owns one of those yet (and quite possibly, most people never will!).

3 - W8 DOES require more resources and better hardware than W7 - the only people who says it doesn't are Microsoft and that's a lie so large that it bodes poorly for everything else they're promising. Even on better hardware, I'd say the RP release runs noticeably slower than W7...

4 - they're punting W8 out CHEAP - that's because they've realised the really are losing to smartphones and tablets they don't make (the ones they do being laughable crap). This means they've going to be aggressive in how they market W8/what they local to W8-only - none of this is good for the traditional 'open' PC platform.

My feeling is that most PC Gamer types would have ignored W8 - anyone with sense ignores an MS OS until SP1 anyway - but they're going to be put under MUCH greater pressure both in terms of 'cheap' upgrade offers and what's likely to be a large amount of s/w which is W8-only for no other reason than to force upgrades.

It's not really the OS itself which is an issue (tho I'm struggling to work out where the benefits for us actually are) - it's the way MS are going to promote and push it which is going to have a detrimental effect on the PC marketplace at a fundamental level.

So not hate - just 2 genuine issues

1 - Microsoft are going to shaft us to save their market
2 - What exactly do we gain from W8 other than saving Microsoft?

Vicious
21-10-2012, 01:50 PM
It's quite clear by now that the bulk of the R&D that went into Windows 8 was directed towards the ARM (tablet) version.
You are always welcome to spend $250-$300 on Windows 8 over say, a new graphics card and see what that does to your performance.
Windows 8 upgrade is like 50.

b0rsuk
21-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Intel ? New ?!! Have you ever heard the word "wintel" ?



Wintel is a portmanteau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) of Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) and Intel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel), referring to personal computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer) using Intel x86 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86) compatible processors running Microsoft Windows. It is mostly used to describe the monopolistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) actions undertaken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) by both companies when attempting to dominate the market.
(...)
By the early 1980s, the chaos and incompatibility of the first years had given way to a smaller number of de-facto industry standards, including the S-100 bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-100_bus), CP/M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M), the Apple II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II), Microsoft BASIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_BASIC) in read-only memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-only_memory) (ROM), and the 5.25 inch floppy drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive). No one firm controlled the industry, and fierce competition ensured that innovation in both hardware and software was the rule rather than the exception. Most of the software used today is directly derived from the ideas that grew out of this creative bonanza. One example is the spreadsheet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet), but there are countless others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel

The Windows/Intel monopoly is the reason why most computer users have trouble understanding what an operating system or computer architecture is.

mashakos
21-10-2012, 03:26 PM
Windows 8 upgrade is like 50.

okay then. I'd like to see other poster upgrade and report back on his performance gains. (spoiler: there aren't any)

Vicious
21-10-2012, 03:27 PM
okay then. Upgrade away and report back on your performance gains. (spoiler: there aren't any)
I don't recall saying there were any performance gains.

I do recall you talking out of your ass.

mashakos
21-10-2012, 03:42 PM
I don't recall saying there were any performance gains.

referring to this guy:


Too be honest what do people hate about windows 8 that's not about the Wii U and unconfirmed rumors. It seems better than Windows 7 in almost everyway and gives a performance boost in gaming and uses up less resources.

TillEulenspiegel
21-10-2012, 03:45 PM
Do you remember the days before Core? The hot, slow Pentium 4 which forced Microsoft to switch from x86 to PowerPC for the Xbox 360? Without competition, Intel stagnated badly.

When Intel needed to jump past AMD, they did. And now they're comfortably ahead. They do have a roadmap for architecture improvements and die shrinks for the next ten years, but without real competition who knows.

Grizzly
21-10-2012, 04:08 PM
Do you remember the days before Core? The hot, slow Pentium 4 which forced Microsoft to switch from x86 to PowerPC for the Xbox 360? Without competition, Intel stagnated badly.

When Intel needed to jump past AMD, they did. And now they're comfortably ahead. They do have a roadmap for architecture improvements and die shrinks for the next ten years, but without real competition who knows.

If AMD APUs actually manage to provide compelling graphics performance, I can see intel's lower market segment be hamstrung severely.

CuriousOrange
21-10-2012, 05:31 PM
You are always welcome to spend $250-$300 on Windows 8 over say, a new graphics card and see what that does to your performance.

It costs less than forty quid. Stop spreading bile about Windows 8 for gods sake, it's actually pathetic.

Patrick Swayze
21-10-2012, 05:31 PM
Well, AMD cpus have been shit for a while. It's their own fault.

And their driver support for their gpus is fucking abysmal.

AMD stuff always seem to test well but in day to day use the hardware is fucking shite.

Their video cards have been nothing but a pain in the rectum for me and I can't wait to get a real video card from Nvidia again.

Patrick Swayze
21-10-2012, 05:35 PM
Also, I've been using the full retail version of Windows 8 on a test machine in a computer store I visit for a few weeks now.

Pure and utter BUM.

Have fun trying to find your control panel.

Have fun trying to get to device manager.

Have fun with all those adverts on your screen.

Have fun moving your mouse to the corner of your desktop and bringing some play school xbox menu up.

FUK DAT

Come at me, Microsoft Defence force

CuriousOrange
21-10-2012, 05:36 PM
3 - W8 DOES require more resources and better hardware than W7 - the only people who says it doesn't are Microsoft and that's a lie so large that it bodes poorly for everything else they're promising. Even on better hardware, I'd say the RP release runs noticeably slower than W7...


I agree with a lot of what you said, except this really isn't true at all. It runs faster than Xp, Vista and 7 for me. I know because I've tested it. So far it's faster in every way, booting, games etc.

Also uses far less resources when sitting idle. So, yeah some stuff is concerning, overall it's a big improvement. And it definitely runs a lot faster on equivalent hardware to their old OSs, although the difference between 7 and 8 on a decent pc isn't noticeable, it's absolutely huge on slow hardware.

eRa
21-10-2012, 05:37 PM
My last piece of AMD/ATI hardware was a Radeon 9700 or 9800 some ten years ago, which was a pretty good GPU back in the day. Every subsequent purchase was from Nvidia, because they usually outperformed equivalent ATI cards badly.

Still sad to see them in such bad shape, the market needs at least two competitors.

CuriousOrange
21-10-2012, 05:38 PM
@Patrick Swayze

I won't try and argue (or maybe I will), but the control panel is accessible by right clicking in the bottom left of the screen, the new start bar. You can get straight to control panel, or device manager from it.

Do you have any actual criticisms? Not liking the style of the UI, fair enough. But other than that you were just being stupid. It actually requires LESS clicks to get to both of those menus. (FYI you can also access system, command prompt, disk management as well as various other tasks from there too, very handy!)

Also, AMD cpus have not been 'shit' for ages.

They are actually quite excellent for HTPCs, and various low power solutions. Just because they don't exactly fit your own needs, or aren't the fastest doesn't mean they are shit.

I can see an attempt at actual discussion with you is going to be pretty pointless though right? If you are interested in it then I'm sure you'll be happy to back up your hyperbole with actual facts to support them? For example, AMD drivers are shite, explain. Why exactly do you think Nvidia is much better?

I always go for best in the price range myself, which falls back and forth with every pc I've bought, at the moment I'm with AMD, been a little put off Nvidias by their tendency to explode on me, though I could have just been unlucky.

Mohorovicic
21-10-2012, 06:00 PM
New faces? lol.

Seriously... it's like every second game you launch has "nvidia - the way it's meant to be played" attached. If not more.

So Intel is not a monopoly and will probably stagnate. Who cares? Next generation of consoles is still not even announced yet, and even the lowest members of the Sandy Bridge lineup can trash absolutely everything the current gen can throw at them and then some. Even if all Intel will now put out is mud, there's still plenty of time for some nuggets to appear(they always do).

Vicious
21-10-2012, 06:07 PM
My last piece of AMD/ATI hardware was a Radeon 9700 or 9800 some ten years ago, which was a pretty good GPU back in the day. Every subsequent purchase was from Nvidia, because they usually outperformed equivalent ATI cards badly.

Still sad to see them in such bad shape, the market needs at least two competitors.

On a price/performance ratio, AMD/ATI and Nvidia have traded blows every generation. Currently, the 7870 is *the* mid range GPU from a price+performance aspect.

Batolemaeus
21-10-2012, 06:53 PM
Well, AMD has a few strong points, but let's be clear here..traditional desktop pcs aren't exactly known for the high margins of their CPUs. It makes perfect sense for them to go for other areas.

So I'll just go on a short list of hardware in my room alone:

HP Microserver N40l - AMD Turion II Neo 2x 1.5Ghz processor - faster than Intel Atoms and not castrated
Router: alix2d3 - AMD Geode LX800, a small embedded processor with a crypto accelerator AND random number generator
Desktop: A Gigabyte 990XA-UD3 running a Phenom II processor..and a HD 47something.
Notebook: Needed something adequate, and I needed it fast - Some generic acer with an Intel i3. Terrible processor, very unhappy with it.

AMD is actually the perfect match for what I need: Reasonable performance for a reasonable price at reasonable power consumption. What amazes me about the company is that they are in many ways the innovators. They were very quick to jump on multicore and got burnt by it. They introduced AMD64 and got burnt. They decided that moving more towards SOC was going to be the future, and have not gotten far. They removed the fsb and went for hypertransport, only to have intel copy the concept later.

Patrick Swayze
21-10-2012, 07:01 PM
Plenty of games have ATI shit coming up at the start, but case in point... Dawn Of War 2.

You had to disable a specific kind of anti aliasing (the default, adaptive multisample) for half the games models to even show up.

The problem crops up in alternate driver releases and has never been fixed.

Way to support the releases you're sponsoring.

I'm glad ATi got swallowed by AMD, hopefully they'll both go the way of the dodo.

Lukasz
21-10-2012, 07:24 PM
I'm glad ATi got swallowed by AMD, hopefully they'll both go the way of the dodo.

Really? even if you think they are shit shouldn't you hope they get better instead. why hoping that intel and nvidia become monopoly for us gamers?

where is the logic in that?

Vandelay
21-10-2012, 07:24 PM
Feel like I'm the only one that has not had any issues with my last two AMD graphics cards (the 4850 and 6950.) Both have been excellent hardware and I've not had any driver issues, not even in DoW2, which Patrick Swayze is suggesting was an issue for everybody. My 4850 did run very hot, but I believe this was an issue with early versions that was quickly resolved. Still ran games perfectly right up until I built a new system.

The only thing that would make me tempted to go over to Nvidia is the PhysX support, something that should be handled by our many cored CPUs by now and probably only isn't because of Nvidia pushing their tech on developers.

NoodleFighter
21-10-2012, 07:33 PM
referring to this guy:

PCWizKid did some demonstrations on Windows 8 vs Windows 7, Windows 8 used less resources and got a bit higher scores in benchmarks. Do you even have Windows 8?

I noticed that in this article Windows 8 got a massive advantage in Shogun 2 Total war (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2011088/pc-gaming-performance-on-windows-8-a-hard-data-analysis.html)

Sketch
21-10-2012, 07:41 PM
I have been pleased with AMD too, think a lot of them are excellent value for money, especially when you see Nvidia's top of the line is that exceptionally overpriced 690. Not to say I don't like Nvidia, I loved my old 8800GTX and when it got about 40FPS in Skyrim it was extraordinary, but I still rate AMD. A lot of bang for your buck.

Moraven
21-10-2012, 08:24 PM
Have had great success with AMD for my past 4 cards.

First custom PC was an Athlon when they were top. Thought about sticking to it (and save $100) but the Core 2 Duo wolfdales were hard to pass on then.

Patrick Swayze
21-10-2012, 08:33 PM
If we can get forget about AMD tech, devs will have more time to focus on getting the best out of the superior Intel and Nvidia tech.

Kaira-
21-10-2012, 08:43 PM
If we can get forget about AMD tech, devs will have more time to focus on getting the best out of the superior Intel and Nvidia tech.

And the hiking of prices, obviously. And the soaring new innovation provided by no competition and... wait, what.

byteCrunch
21-10-2012, 09:20 PM
If we can get forget about AMD tech, devs will have more time to focus on getting the best out of the superior Intel and Nvidia tech.

By this logic we should all just become console gamers. Damn you AMD, for giving me a choice.

trjp
21-10-2012, 09:28 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said, except this really isn't true at all. It runs faster than Xp, Vista and 7 for me. I know because I've tested it. So far it's faster in every way, booting, games etc.

Also uses far less resources when sitting idle. So, yeah some stuff is concerning, overall it's a big improvement. And it definitely runs a lot faster on equivalent hardware to their old OSs, although the difference between 7 and 8 on a decent pc isn't noticeable, it's absolutely huge on slow hardware.

I detailed my adventures with W8 in the Hardware forum here.

First shock was discovering, with the move from CP to RP, that older CPUs are blacklisted (anything without NX support - so that's pre-Core Pentiums and some mobile chips then) - given that my test rig was an old P4 (3.4 - easily able to run W7) that was a bit of a hurdle.

Hey ho - I took them at their word and threw the RP onto an old laptop - half the Mhz but it did have NX support and it duly installed and ran for a short while before crashing. I quick head-scratching session reminded me I'd removed 1Gb of it's RAM to lean to someone - so it was running with 512Mb which probably wasn't ideal - I put that back and it booted and ran OK except...

Older legacy devices seem to have patchy support - anything which was 'moody' with 64 bit W7 probably won't work at-all in 32 or 64 bit W8. We're talking ancient things like Realtek Network and Sound chips - but people are still using machines with those - they're present in many 'USB' network/sound/headsets etc. and W8 seems reluctant to support them (it decided - after several reboots - to recognise my laptops Realtek sound and then promptly forgot it again on the next reboot!!)

As someone said there - why do you care about old hardware and whilst that's true, it's another example of how MS are making a big leap forward which isn't really beneficial to users.

ANY benchmark which shows W8 running faster than W7 I'm going to be very suspicious of - I'm going to look for a 'cooked' test of some sort. I'm sure some stuff will be quicker for whatever reasons - but to say W8 is 'faster than W7' would have to be a qualified statement.

and again - I see no other advantage to changing to it other than they're going to say "here's a game we paid the developer to NOT give to you unless you upgrade"...

mashakos
21-10-2012, 09:38 PM
It costs less than forty quid. Stop spreading bile about Windows 8 for gods sake, it's actually pathetic.

quoting local retail prices for Windows 8 Pro. Seems the standard retail price is $199
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/windows_8_retail_price_and_packaging_shots_reveale d.html

You can of course get it much cheaper if you upgrade NOW or buy an OEM copy at launch sale offers, but I will stick to standard pricing.

b0rsuk
21-10-2012, 09:50 PM
And the hiking of prices, obviously. And the soaring new innovation provided by no competition and... wait, what.

And he won't feel ripped off, because he won't notice. You can't really notice if you have nothing to compare to. Until several years later, when another player enters the market and releases a line of CPU's that are both a lot cheaper and faster. Like AMD has done a to Intel a long time ago. Only then you realize you could have been getting better products years ago if it wasn't for monopoly.

Danny252
21-10-2012, 09:54 PM
We're talking ancient things like Realtek Network and Sound chips

Ancient? I bought a laptop this year with a Realtek sound chip in it - laptop manufacturers swear by the things. The drivers were always a bit iffy as you say, but not recognising it at all? Bit worrying, considering how common they are.

Doesn't Win8 share the Vista/7 driver line, then?

mashakos
21-10-2012, 10:13 PM
PCWizKid did some demonstrations on Windows 8 vs Windows 7, Windows 8 used less resources and got a bit higher scores in benchmarks. Do you even have Windows 8?

I noticed that in this article Windows 8 got a massive advantage in Shogun 2 Total war (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2011088/pc-gaming-performance-on-windows-8-a-hard-data-analysis.html)just took a random screen cap from my copy of Shogun 2 - DX11 1080p high Q. benchmark:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7.png
Average famerate on a gtx580 and windows 7? 50 fps. The author of the article is doing something wrong.

spacein_vader
21-10-2012, 10:38 PM
quoting local retail prices for Windows 8 Pro. Seems the standard retail price is $199
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/windows_8_retail_price_and_packaging_shots_reveale d.html

You can of course get it much cheaper if you upgrade NOW or buy an OEM copy at launch sale offers, but I will stick to standard pricing.
You do realise that even if you buy it on launch, you aren't obliged to install it immediately?

mashakos
21-10-2012, 11:08 PM
You do realise that even if you buy it on launch, you aren't obliged to install it immediately?

Hey, I don't plan to artificially inflate Microsoft's sales numbers!

My reasoning is that the current prices will not be available to everybody indefinitely. I mean sure, I got the PC version of Spec Ops the Line for $15 on a sale, but I'm not going to go around saying that's how much it's worth to anyone who asks because it is simply impossible to find the game at that price level now.

Vicious
21-10-2012, 11:41 PM
quoting local retail prices for Windows 8 Pro. Seems the standard retail price is $199
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/windows_8_retail_price_and_packaging_shots_reveale d.html

You can of course get it much cheaper if you upgrade NOW or buy an OEM copy at launch sale offers, but I will stick to standard pricing.
The RRP of my graphics card is approx 300. I bought it brand new from a reputable retailer for 180. The RRP of the Tefal Actifry I bought for myself and the girlfriend today is around 150-160, I bought it for 99.99 (again from a reputable retailer).

Also, you're comparing your benchmark results to someone elses, even though the overall hardware and system are completely different?

Keep talking utter shite, by all means.

mashakos
21-10-2012, 11:51 PM
Also, you're comparing your benchmark results to someone elses, even though the overall hardware and system are completely different?
the someone else in question is using better hardware than I am and getting worse results. Please take your own advice:


Keep talking utter shite, by all means.

Patrick Swayze
22-10-2012, 12:55 AM
Sure smells like internet explorer in here

soldant
22-10-2012, 02:30 AM
Also what the fuck am I even reading? You shouldn't lament the loss of a competitor in a duopoly if it happens? OKAY THEN BRO.
I don't know what you're reading, because you clearly didn't read. Let me spell it out for you:


While less competition is bad and I hope that this is a misunderstanding or that they'll reconsider, I can't help but think that their desktop CPUs aren't doing so well because they're inferior to Intel's offerings.

Did you read that part? Wait, don't answer that, you clearly didn't. Before you spout a bunch of nonsense and attempt to be insulting and accusing me of being an Intel fanboy, how about you brush up on your reading skills? Or maybe think a little bit before clicking the reply button? Come on, your post basically agrees with me. I never said less competition is good, I said that AMD failing is because their CPUs are weaker than Intel's offerings right now, just like you went on to say in your post. Who cares that the AMD64 range was awesome when it came out, or the Athlon line before it that kicked Intel down? Point is that since the Core range, AMD have been on the backfoot, and if they fail because their products are inferior, that's nothing to get sad about. I won't cry for a company that couldn't compete because they couldn't make something good enough.


Doesn't Win8 share the Vista/7 driver line, then?
It does to a point, as in it's not such a radically different kernel. Out of the box support for some legacy devices has been dropped though (while new support has been added) and for the most part drivers for Win7 will work. There are some exceptions or hoops to jump through for some older devices though.

Vicious
22-10-2012, 03:07 AM
the someone else in question is using better hardware than I am and getting worse results. Please take your own advice:
You're starting to annoy me now. Every single thing you've said in this thread has not only been wrong, it's been stupidly wrong.

Upgrades for Windows 8 Pro are $39.99 in 131 countries. You stated it was between $200 and $250. When confronted with the fact you were talking bollocks, you found a page about the launch prices. This url: http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/windows_8_retail_price_and_packaging_shots_reveale d.html
That URL only mentions $199 once, and only in relation to a newegg (vendor) page suggesting that the launch prices may be an introductory offer and that sometime in 2013 the prices MAY rise to $199. How you focused on this figure and used it to defend your argument - I have no idea. Regardless, it's deliberately stupid.

On to Shogun 2: You compared someone with a different system, running different graphical settings to yours and somehow came out with the conclusion that the article was false.
He used an ultra quality benchmark running 4x MSAA. You used a high quality benchmark with no MSAA.

For comparison, I just did the DX11 High Quality 1080p benchmark and recorded 58.15. I then benchmarked my settings (1080p, ultra everything, SSAO and 4x MSAA) and recorded 26.35.

So again, you're spouting utter nonsense.

Protip: If you're wrong, admit it, learn something and move on. Don't make up nonsense to somehow make you "right".

Now, enough of your bullshit!

Hypernetic
22-10-2012, 03:38 AM
I don't know what you're reading, because you clearly didn't read. Let me spell it out for you:

[/COLOR]

Did you read that part? Wait, don't answer that, you clearly didn't. Before you spout a bunch of nonsense and attempt to be insulting and accusing me of being an Intel fanboy, how about you brush up on your reading skills? Or maybe think a little bit before clicking the reply button? Come on, your post basically agrees with me. I never said less competition is good, I said that AMD failing is because their CPUs are weaker than Intel's offerings right now, just like you went on to say in your post. Who cares that the AMD64 range was awesome when it came out, or the Athlon line before it that kicked Intel down? Point is that since the Core range, AMD have been on the backfoot, and if they fail because their products are inferior, that's nothing to get sad about. I won't cry for a company that couldn't compete because they couldn't make something good enough.


It does to a point, as in it's not such a radically different kernel. Out of the box support for some legacy devices has been dropped though (while new support has been added) and for the most part drivers for Win7 will work. There are some exceptions or hoops to jump through for some older devices though.

Honestly, I think part of AMDs problem is their driver support and customer service. I haven't had an AMD/ATi product in a very long time,, but all of my friends who have ATi video cards have all kinds of driver issues. Almost every new game release causes them some kind of problem that they usually have to wait a few days or even weeks to get fixed with a driver update.

This is all anecdotal for sure, but from reading various forums and other things online it seems to be a fairly prevalent perception of AMD/ATi.

soldant
22-10-2012, 04:48 AM
This is all anecdotal for sure, but from reading various forums and other things online it seems to be a fairly prevalent perception of AMD/ATi.
Actually I agree. I had a 5850 which had major issues with multiple monitors - the 2nd monitor would flicker whenever the driver throttled the clock speeds. I had to use Afterburner to force 2D or 3D clocks to prevent the flickering from occurring on the 2nd monitor. It was infuriating. A good card otherwise, but that issue was way more trouble than it was worth having the card.

Mohorovicic
22-10-2012, 06:18 AM
This is all anecdotal for sure, but from reading various forums and other things online it seems to be a fairly prevalent perception of AMD/ATi.

Well, going by what's written online Windows 7 crashes to bluescreen daily. Because it's windows, ja?

ATI used to have horrible drivers, but these times are long gone.

Hypernetic
22-10-2012, 06:43 AM
Well, going by what's written online Windows 7 crashes to bluescreen daily. Because it's windows, ja?

ATI used to have horrible drivers, but these times are long gone.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/04/raging-about-rage-pc/

Long gone eh? There have been other problems since then, but that's the only one I could remember off the top of my head.

Mohorovicic
22-10-2012, 07:50 AM
Well, I played RAGE on a GeForce and the texture/geometry pop-in was so horrible it made Unreal Engine 3 look like CryEngine 2. Wow what a nerd thing to say. Anyway, I don't think RAGE is a good metric since it was FUBAR from the get go.

Alex Bakke
22-10-2012, 10:03 AM
ATI/AMD cards still have niggling issues now and then, especially with showing textures - But it tends to be specific to certain cards, and it's nowhere near as bad as what it was like 3-4 years ago. IIRC the original Mass Effect was unplayable for loads of people for months, before a patch was released.

Intel have had serious issues in the past with Drivers as well. There was a driver released, 175.4 IIRC, that set people's GPU fans to 0% speed all the time, so loads of 8800s cooked.

mashakos
22-10-2012, 10:24 AM
Forgot that there's a game settings benchmark in Shogun 2. Silly me!
Anyway here are the settings:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset.png
and here are the screen caps:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset1.png
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset2.png

Bottom line: Windows 8 does not have any magic sauce that makes games run twice as fast.


You're starting to annoy me now.
likewise.

mashakos
22-10-2012, 10:38 AM
Well, going by what's written online Windows 7 crashes to bluescreen daily. Because it's windows, ja?

ATI used to have horrible drivers, but these times are long gone.

I had a 5870 2 years ago and experienced enough issues to sell it after 3 months of use:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1509360
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1513352

In general, AMD is a very bad choice if you are building an HTPC and need proper DXVA, deinterlacing and upscaling - as well as high end gaming etc.
For a purely gaming PC AMD cards are great.

soldant
22-10-2012, 11:30 AM
Intel have had serious issues in the past with Drivers as well. There was a driver released, 175.4 IIRC, that set people's GPU fans to 0% speed all the time, so loads of 8800s cooked.
Well that was nVidia... and that wasn't what happened. The bug in 196.75 that you're referring to wouldn't throttle up the fans properly, they only went a little over 40% under load. Exactly how many cards actually cooked isn't apparent, though some people did lose their cards. And yeah, that's a hell of a critical bug that shouldn't have got out.

Apart from that though, I can't think of any super massive nVidia driver bugs in recent times, or at least bugs that weren't fixed incredibly quickly.

Alex Bakke
22-10-2012, 11:42 AM
Well that was nVidia...

Derp, you're right. It's too early in the morning! Same for 196.75, it's been a while. It was added as an afterthought, really - my main point was that driver support for AMD is pretty decent nowadays. Response times are still slow, but nowhere near as slow as they used to be.

TechnicalBen
22-10-2012, 11:52 AM
ATI/AMD cards still have niggling issues now and then, especially with showing textures - But it tends to be specific to certain cards, and it's nowhere near as bad as what it was like 3-4 years ago. IIRC the original Mass Effect was unplayable for loads of people for months, before a patch was released.

Intel have had serious issues in the past with Drivers as well. There was a driver released, 175.4 IIRC, that set people's GPU fans to 0% speed all the time, so loads of 8800s cooked.

Yeah, and these bugs have apsolutely nothing to do with companies making their game "For Nvidia", or forgetting to change the memory buffer flag for ATI/AMD cards? (I've been able to fix shadow bugs manually with ini tweaks, why the game programers left the Nvidia settings in for the ATI card is beyond me. :/ )

Yep, both cards get problems. ATI probably get more, but I prefer the underdog here, because he does not go around shouting about what people must put in their PC. For example Havok physics is hardware independent, Nvidia Px-makes-me-sics, not so much. :(

Patrick Swayze
22-10-2012, 12:43 PM
There hasn't been a non beta ATI/AMD driver update since August, over two months ago.

Hypernetic
22-10-2012, 01:07 PM
@Driver thing: I didn't bring that up to bash on AMD, but more as a reason for the decline in their sales. While their driver support may have improved some recently (according to you guys), it was pretty terrible for the last 4+ years. Since video cards aren't something people generally buy frequently, this terrible driver support probably contributed to people not buying an ATi card down the road. So basically, the point is that with these kinds of products something that happened 1-4 years ago can affect sales today.


Yeah, and these bugs have apsolutely nothing to do with companies making their game "For Nvidia", or forgetting to change the memory buffer flag for ATI/AMD cards? (I've been able to fix shadow bugs manually with ini tweaks, why the game programers left the Nvidia settings in for the ATI card is beyond me. :/ )

Yep, both cards get problems. ATI probably get more, but I prefer the underdog here, because he does not go around shouting about what people must put in their PC. For example Havok physics is hardware independent, Nvidia Px-makes-me-sics, not so much. :(

You do know that AMD does the same shit right? There are tons of games that have an ATi splash screen instead of Nvidia.

Also, why would you "go for the underdog"? This isn't a boxing match, it's an industry. You should "go for" the company that makes the best quality product for the best value. There is no point in this silly fanboyism when it comes to these things. I don't like to waste money on inferior products out of some misguided sense of loyalty, and neither should you.

sunaiac
22-10-2012, 01:18 PM
I always go for the underdog when its a close call, I don't like the idea of paying my cards 800$ 8800 ultra like in the future.
and this 4+ years of driver problems is BS of course. I'v had 8600GT, 4850, GTX275, 5870, GTX580 now, and both work as well.

By the way, 12.11 drivers :
(http://www.hardware.fr/articles/879-21/upgrade-face-x-anciennes-generations.html)http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039185.gif

Hypernetic
22-10-2012, 01:26 PM
I always go for the underdog when its a close call, I don't like the idea of paying my cards 800$ 8800 ultra like in the future.
and this 4+ years of driver problems is BS of course. I'v had 8600GT, 4850, GTX275, 5870, GTX580 now, and both work as well.


(http://www.hardware.fr/articles/879-21/upgrade-face-x-anciennes-generations.html)


You seem to be confusing "underdog" with "lower price"...

Also, I can assure you that ATi has had a vast amount of driver related troubled for well over 4 years. The last ATi card I owned was probably 6+ years ago? Something like that, and I had all kinds of problems with drivers and catalyst.

Patrick Swayze
22-10-2012, 01:30 PM
I always go for the underdog when its a close call, I don't like the idea of paying my cards 800$ 8800 ultra like in the future.
and this 4+ years of driver problems is BS of course. I'v had 8600GT, 4850, GTX275, 5870, GTX580 now, and both work as well.

By the way, 12.11 drivers :
(http://www.hardware.fr/articles/879-21/upgrade-face-x-anciennes-generations.html)http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039185.gif

As if i'll risk ATI BETA drivers! LOL!

Sketch
22-10-2012, 01:33 PM
LOL

I have had pretty much no trouble with AMD, other than Crossfire not working amazingly in Skyrim.

byteCrunch
22-10-2012, 01:37 PM
There hasn't been a non beta ATI/AMD driver update since August, over two months ago.

AMD have moved to a release when its done cycle, rather then the release every month they previously used.


As if i'll risk ATI BETA drivers! LOL!

I am running the AMD 12.9 beta drivers and they are working fine, you're just trolling now.

Just a note, never personally had issues with AMD drivers once (well maybe under linux, but nvidia is no better in this regard), and I have been running ATI cards for years.

soldant
22-10-2012, 01:42 PM
Also, why would you "go for the underdog"? This isn't a boxing match, it's an industry. You should "go for" the company that makes the best quality product for the best value. There is no point in this silly fanboyism when it comes to these things. I don't like to waste money on inferior products out of some misguided sense of loyalty, and neither should you.
Now, now... I said the same thing earlier in the thread, and had some misguided tool try to bite my head off. Didn't you get the memo? Inferior competition is good because... um... well there's this thing with the stuff and the... um...

Well, anyway, money is bad.

Jesus_Phish
22-10-2012, 01:43 PM
Also, why would you "go for the underdog"? This isn't a boxing match, it's an industry. You should "go for" the company that makes the best quality product for the best value. There is no point in this silly fanboyism when it comes to these things. I don't like to waste money on inferior products out of some misguided sense of loyalty, and neither should you.

This is just what I was thinking. Rooting for the underdogs in sports can be fun, in industries it's stupid. Do people root for the underdog when buying a car? I better not buy that car with it's amazing performance and safety features when I can buy the "underdogs" cheaper version which has been known to randomly set on fire. Honestly, AMD are a company, they don't care about you. Neither do Nvidia. Nvidia are just better at marketing and keeping a hold on the gaming industry. AMD try this from time to time too, they just don't do it nearly frequent enough to get noticed with Deus Ex:HR and GW2 being two of the latest games I can think of that spout the "run us with AMD for the best performance" spiel, while Nvidia pump their logos everywhere.

gundato
22-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Always worth remembering that The Saboteur (VERY good game) was "best run with ATI". And ATI/AMD cards used to cause it to crash instantly :p

As for "rooting for the underdog". It makes sense, but only if said underdog is actually trying to innovate in their field. At which point, you aren't "rooting for the underdog". You are "supporting progress", as it were.

The JG Man
22-10-2012, 02:07 PM
It seems that the 12.11 drivers actually have no impact for cards other than in the 7000 series. Whilst I'm not claiming that my 6850 is an up-to-date beast, nor that the 7000 series doesn't deserve updates...come on. My AMD Phenom processor works absolutely fine, it's great, but I can see my keeping that with my next upgrade and going for a nVidia card next time.

Sparkasaurusmex
22-10-2012, 02:40 PM
I'm glad they finally stopped updating the Catalyst drivers every month. It basically meant I always had old drivers, because it's sort of a pain to update the drivers cleanly... and I assume AMD or Nvidia still don't have proper driver updaters... no clean removal of old drivers without third party apps or meticulous manual cleaning.

TechnicalBen
22-10-2012, 03:02 PM
@Driver thing: I didn't bring that up to bash on AMD, but more as a reason for the decline in their sales. While their driver support may have improved some recently (according to you guys), it was pretty terrible for the last 4+ years. Since video cards aren't something people generally buy frequently, this terrible driver support probably contributed to people not buying an ATi card down the road. So basically, the point is that with these kinds of products something that happened 1-4 years ago can affect sales today.



You do know that AMD does the same shit right? There are tons of games that have an ATi splash screen instead of Nvidia.

Also, why would you "go for the underdog"? This isn't a boxing match, it's an industry. You should "go for" the company that makes the best quality product for the best value. There is no point in this silly fanboyism when it comes to these things. I don't like to waste money on inferior products out of some misguided sense of loyalty, and neither should you.
1) AFAIK while AMD do it too, they never locked out Nvidia from the tech. Correct me if I'm wrong. :P
2) "The underdog" here applies just to the fact, that a monopoly will not help us consumers. So I've always wanted there to be equal "fight" in each side to keep good products being made. If one dies back, the other can get lazy. :(

PS, I'll add, as you guys have taken my comment way out of context. I meant by underdog, that AMD have less to work with, and can still make better cards! (See the 5 and 6 series that blew Nvidia out of the water for a while). So, while they have fallen recently, they can and do catch up from time to time. So no, I'm not choosing "the worse" company, I'm choosing the "one that wins out, even with less investment, less cooperate shenanigans and better service to customers". Sometimes they go for the budget end of the market, in which case they still are not "the worse choice". Sometimes I wonder if the shops really have trained buyers too well.

It's not the times we do great with the stuff we have, it's the times we do great with the stuff we don't have. :)

mashakos
22-10-2012, 03:17 PM
and I assume AMD or Nvidia still don't have proper driver updaters...
nvidia has proper driver "updaters", in the form of automated updates and update notifiers.

Moraven
22-10-2012, 04:16 PM
nvidia has proper driver "updaters", in the form of automated updates and update notifiers.

AMD drivers have the ability to auto update. I get a notification asking if I want to install the latest driver. Since Windows 7 I have had no problems just using the installer without having to uninstall the old drivers.

Windows 7+ update and Steam (not sure if automatic) also check if your video driver are up to date. Windows had it in before the two companies themselves had their own built in auto updater.

Lukasz
22-10-2012, 04:24 PM
You seem to be confusing "underdog" with "lower price"...

Also, I can assure you that ATi has had a vast amount of driver related troubled for well over 4 years. The last ATi card I owned was probably 6+ years ago? Something like that, and I had all kinds of problems with drivers and catalyst.

yeah. 6 years ago they had some troubles with drivers. in recent years... not more than nvidia. your assurance then is baseless as you had no experience with any x000 series.

i had been sitting on 4850 since it was 3 months old. no problem ever. (which is a surprise as my my computer literally is falling apart. )


what i hate about nvidia is physx. this is great tech they bought and it being at the hands of nvidia prevents it really going mainstream (this and consoles )
I was told there is no reason whatsoever why amd and cpus can't do calculations (hardware wise). Only Nvidia prevents it from happening (like they killed the ability to play games on amd card while nvidia card run as dedicated physx card)

mashakos
22-10-2012, 04:31 PM
AMD drivers have the ability to auto update. I get a notification asking if I want to install the latest driver. Since Windows 7 I have had no problems just using the installer without having to uninstall the old drivers.
Interesting, even when doing a clean driver install, I got thousands of orphaned registry entries (http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1513352) with catalyst. Even after manually fixing the issue, it happened again on the newer version of the driver. Don't remember which, I sold the card after that.
I would like to point out that I resorted to beta drivers since the certified (standard) drivers at the time produced horrible performance results across the board - I was getting framerates on par with previous gen cards. The catalyst updater probably does not install beta drivers
Still, I haven't had the kind of problem I mentioned above with beta Nvidia drivers, to the point where I now take absolutely no care in installing beta versions nvidia forceware. New version? Download, install, done. Maybe things have changed since 2010, but as others have mentioned this kind of thing impacts the buying decisions of customers for years.


Windows 7+ update and Steam (not sure if automatic) also check if your video driver are up to date.
Windows update installs a barebones WHQL certified driver that while being the most stable has a lot of the features you would expect in a modern gpu driver package stripped out. It's sort of a "driver for dummies" so to speak.

Vicious
22-10-2012, 05:20 PM
Forgot that there's a game settings benchmark in Shogun 2. Silly me!
Anyway here are the settings:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset.png
and here are the screen caps:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset1.png
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset2.png

Right, the difference between High and Ultra with 4x MSAA is only approximately 6 fps. Yeah, I believe you. I'd go find benchmarks to show you to be telling fibs, but you'd only ignore them like you've ignored every other fact that shows you to be talking out your bottom.



Bottom line: Windows 8 does not have any magic sauce that makes games run twice as fast.


likewise.
Bottom line: You've still been wrong on everything you've posted so far, which I've you know...proven with external sources.

Funny that.

Moraven
22-10-2012, 05:32 PM
New Benchmarks for Catalyst 12.11. The update affects the performance of the 7xxx range of cards.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6393/amds-holiday-plans-cat1211-new-bundle

Wish the game bundle was around in Feb for 7900s. Ah well. Wouldn't change my purchase decision, I just like free games. (Gave away my Dirt 3 Steam codes to RPSers.)

Grizzly
22-10-2012, 05:36 PM
Forgot that there's a game settings benchmark in Shogun 2. Silly me!
Anyway here are the settings:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset.png
and here are the screen caps:
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset1.png
http://mashakos.com/pers/img/shogun2win7gameset2.png

Bottom line: Windows 8 does not have any magic sauce that makes games run twice as fast.

I think that, for a fair comparison, you should run the CPU benchmark as opposed to the "Game Settings" benchmark, as both Win7 and Win8 do not impact your graphics card in any way, whilst that is the biggest tested component in the normal tests.
EDIT: looks like they do, nvm.

Also, I am very sorry, but you should post a screenshot from the benchmarks RESULTS in Win7 and Win8, before you can make any valid conclusions.

mashakos
22-10-2012, 05:48 PM
Also, I am very sorry, but you should post a screenshot from the benchmarks RESULTS in Win7 and Win8, before you can make any valid conclusions.
I don't have win8 (don't care to install it really), but we do have the results of win7 from an article linked here.
How should we do this? screen cap of benchmark result or log file?

EDIT: Here's a screencap

http://mashakos.com/pers/img/bench.jpg

trjp
22-10-2012, 06:18 PM
Ancient? I bought a laptop this year with a Realtek sound chip in it - laptop manufacturers swear by the things. The drivers were always a bit iffy as you say, but not recognising it at all? Bit worrying, considering how common they are.

Doesn't Win8 share the Vista/7 driver line, then?

I should qualify that the Realtek Sound chip I ran into problems with was an AC97 - which is ancient - but the laptop has a more modern LAN chip which it's also moody about (tho again you're talking 3+ year old laptop).

I also baulked at 2 USB Wifi adaptors I had lying around - and one cheapest gamer headset (which uses some sort of Realtek chip too)

Obviously, manufs aren't putting out fully supported W8 drivers yet and they'll appear through their sites (and Windows Update) in due course - but Realtek are a great case in point because their website looks like it was made in 1996 and is running on a Pentium 2 and I don't see anything new coming from that corner anytime soon :)

W8 burns bridges in a way no previous Windows has done tho and it's very different to use (a don't actually dislike it although much of it feels like change-for-changes-sake and the 'Office Bar' stuff always grated on me and it's everywhere here).

Those tempting introductory discounts are clearly there to get early adopters in larger numbers tho - it's retail price will be as-much-or-more-than W7 was (never cheap) but those "upgrade now for next-to-nothing" deals will be hard to turn-down.

Anyone with sense will take the deal and place their upgrade code in a drawer somewhere - pending at least SP1 ;)

spacein_vader
22-10-2012, 07:19 PM
Obviously, manufs aren't putting out fully supported W8 drivers yet and they'll appear through their sites (and Windows Update) in due course - but Realtek are a great case in point because their website looks like it was made in 1996 and is running on a Pentium 2 and I don't see anything new coming from that corner anytime soon :)[/QUOTE]

That's down to the manufacturers, not MS. It also happens at every Windows release. You can hardly blame Microsoft if somebody, say Creative Labs, decides not releasing updated drivers for a new OS is a good way of selling new sound cards.


W8 burns bridges in a way no previous Windows has done tho and it's very different to use (a don't actually dislike it although much of it feels like change-for-changes-sake and the 'Office Bar' stuff always grated on me and it's everywhere here).

In kernel terms it doesn't burn anywhere near as many as Vista needed to do to get onto an up to date platform. In UI terms it's no bigger than Windows 95 was from 3.11.


Those tempting introductory discounts are clearly there to get early adopters in larger numbers tho - it's retail price will be as-much-or-more-than W7 was (never cheap) but those "upgrade now for next-to-nothing" deals will be hard to turn-down.

Anyone with sense will take the deal and place their upgrade code in a drawer somewhere - pending at least SP1 ;)

I got 7 at launch for 50, it looks like 8 will be similar. Just like 7, I'll dual boot it until I'm happy it's stable enough to be my prime OS.

Don't get me wrong, MS have released some stinkers in the past (95 was flaky until the USB support version, 98 was similar until 2nd edition, Me was an unholy mess that should never have been published,) but not everything is their fault.

soldant
23-10-2012, 12:35 AM
2) "The underdog" here applies just to the fact, that a monopoly will not help us consumers. So I've always wanted there to be equal "fight" in each side to keep good products being made. If one dies back, the other can get lazy. :(
But if they're making inferior products, then there's no competition. Which is what we're saying - supporting the underdog who makes inferior gear doesn't help anybody. I don't know exactly who or what to blame when it comes to AMD turning out comparatively lower performance CPUs, but that's what they've done and I don't see why we should blindly support them. That's being a fanboy, and nobody wants to be a fanboy. I buy whatever happens to provide the best performance for my dollar. If that was AMD, I'd buy AMD. But since about 2006 it's been Intel, and AMD haven't come up with anything compelling to make me switch. There's no way I'd buy an AMD CPU just because they're now the underdog. Would you have bought an Intel P4 back when AMD was on top? No? Why do it for AMD now?


Anyone with sense will take the deal and place their upgrade code in a drawer somewhere - pending at least SP1 ;)
But SP1 probably won't fix any of the issues you're describing - they've dropped support for some older devices, that's not coming back. as for niggling issues - part of that will be due to waiting for driver updates, but others might be patched out. As spacein_vader said, the leap from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is primarily in the UI, not so much the kernel, unlike XP->Vista where waiting did help (not just for issues to be patched, but also for drivers to catch up, because everyone dicked around for some reason).

Not choosing to upgrade is fine, but the entire "Wait for SP1" mantra wasn't relevant for Windows 7, and doesn't yet appear to be relevant here.

Sakkura
23-10-2012, 02:43 AM
Honestly, I think part of AMDs problem is their driver support and customer service. I haven't had an AMD/ATi product in a very long time,, but all of my friends who have ATi video cards have all kinds of driver issues. Almost every new game release causes them some kind of problem that they usually have to wait a few days or even weeks to get fixed with a driver update.

This is all anecdotal for sure, but from reading various forums and other things online it seems to be a fairly prevalent perception of AMD/ATi.
I have not had any driver issues that I can think of with my last two graphics cards, which have been AMD cards. I remember having to roll back drivers and such in the past, with Nvidia cards. YMMV, driver support can suck from both sides.
However, the performance of the Radeon HD 7000 series has been hampered by driver immaturity for way too long. Almost a year after release and they suddenly dig up a ~20% performance boost in one of the most significant 3D games (BF3). Nice that they're finally getting it sorted, but it has taken way too long.


Ancient? I bought a laptop this year with a Realtek sound chip in it - laptop manufacturers swear by the things. The drivers were always a bit iffy as you say, but not recognising it at all? Bit worrying, considering how common they are.

Doesn't Win8 share the Vista/7 driver line, then?
Realtek codecs are the standard in PCs in general, not just laptops. They've almost managed to make sound cards obsolete.

AC97 though, that is some ancient stuff right there. No prizes for guessing what the 97 stands for.

Sakkura
23-10-2012, 02:53 AM
But if they're making inferior products, then there's no competition. Which is what we're saying - supporting the underdog who makes inferior gear doesn't help anybody. I don't know exactly who or what to blame when it comes to AMD turning out comparatively lower performance CPUs, but that's what they've done and I don't see why we should blindly support them. That's being a fanboy, and nobody wants to be a fanboy. I buy whatever happens to provide the best performance for my dollar. If that was AMD, I'd buy AMD. But since about 2006 it's been Intel, and AMD haven't come up with anything compelling to make me switch. There's no way I'd buy an AMD CPU just because they're now the underdog. Would you have bought an Intel P4 back when AMD was on top? No? Why do it for AMD now?
The Bulldozer CPUs can be rejiggled a bit to provide almost-competitive performance at the price. If they get their act together with Piledriver, they could be back in the game at least in the budget area. Where Intel screws people over by locking their chips. Overclockable cheap AMD chips can provide mighty nice competition there, as long as the performance doesn't suck.

Hypernetic
23-10-2012, 05:26 AM
All this stuff about a monopoly slowing innovation is kind of silly anyway. PC hardware has been out-pacing game developers ability to use said hardware for many years now. (i.e. it usually takes a few years before developers fully embrace a new technology. Look how long it took for most games to utilize multi-core processors and hyper-threading.)

hamster
23-10-2012, 07:58 AM
I suspect it's a case of devs building for lower tech in order to make games functional for as many people as possible.

Hypernetic
23-10-2012, 08:43 AM
I suspect it's a case of devs building for lower tech in order to make games functional for as many people as possible.

No, not really. You could have an engine that supported both (i.e. games that support physx still run on ATi cards).

Grizzly
23-10-2012, 09:14 AM
I don't have win8 (don't care to install it really), but we do have the results of win7 from an article linked here.
How should we do this? screen cap of benchmark result or log file?

EDIT: Here's a screencap


The thing is, since your computer is probably different from the guy from the article, in order to make valid statements about the performance, you must install win8 on your own PC and test Shogun 2 on there - and see if there is any major difference.

soldant
23-10-2012, 11:14 AM
The Bulldozer CPUs can be rejiggled a bit to provide almost-competitive performance at the price...
So then why don't they just release something that actually competes out of the box? Also if I remember correctly, back in the Athlon days, AMD would lock their CPUs too. You could easily bypass it by getting out a lead pencil to bridge two points, but they considered doing the same back then too. Also Intel still run the "k" lines don't they, which are unlocked? Can't blame them for trying to make money out of overclocking... but really, apart from the real hardware enthusiasts, who is overclocking these days? The hardware wars cooled due to the introduction of consoles, and the increase in cores has been more advantageous (along with software to support it) than bumping up the clockspeed. I'm not so sure that overclocking is as big of a deal as it was a few years ago.

TechnicalBen
23-10-2012, 11:30 AM
But if they're making inferior products, then there's no competition. Which is what we're saying - supporting the underdog who makes inferior gear doesn't help anybody. I don't know exactly who or what to blame when it comes to AMD turning out comparatively lower performance CPUs, but that's what they've done and I don't see why we should blindly support them. That's being a fanboy, and nobody wants to be a fanboy. I buy whatever happens to provide the best performance for my dollar. If that was AMD, I'd buy AMD. But since about 2006 it's been Intel, and AMD haven't come up with anything compelling to make me switch. There's no way I'd buy an AMD CPU just because they're now the underdog. Would you have bought an Intel P4 back when AMD was on top? No? Why do it for AMD now?


But SP1 probably won't fix any of the issues you're describing - they've dropped support for some older devices, that's not coming back. as for niggling issues - part of that will be due to waiting for driver updates, but others might be patched out. As spacein_vader said, the leap from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is primarily in the UI, not so much the kernel, unlike XP->Vista where waiting did help (not just for issues to be patched, but also for drivers to catch up, because everyone dicked around for some reason).

Not choosing to upgrade is fine, but the entire "Wait for SP1" mantra wasn't relevant for Windows 7, and doesn't yet appear to be relevant here.
You keep telling me ATI make inferior products. I keep saying they don't. I'll say "AMD have had a much better price per performance offer" while "Nvidia/Intel have the better performance". If you disagree, we'll agree to disagree.

Jesus_Phish
23-10-2012, 11:57 AM
You keep telling me ATI make inferior products. I keep saying they don't. I'll say "AMD have had a much better price per performance offer" while "Nvidia/Intel have the better performance". If you disagree, we'll agree to disagree.


You're confusing what he said and the history of the companies. AMD make CPUs while ATI made GPUs. A few years ago AMD bought out ATI, so ATI no longer exist, they were rolled into the AMD brand name.

As it stands now, AMD do make inferior CPUs to Intels CPUs. Their brand of GPUs generally can go toe to toe with Nvidia, but Nvidia have shiny tech like PhysX and a history of better driver updates/better game support (they buy it, but it's there). A few years ago AMD were top dog for processors. Then the i5 came along and AMD hasn't got an answer to it other than "we're cheap".

You're completely free to spend your money how you like, but what we're getting at here, is that buying AMD products because "they're the underdog" is redundant and stupid. I'd never buy the underdog products. I'll always buy the best for my money. If in a few years time AMD comes out with something that blows Intel out of the water again, I can assure you AMD will get my money when I next upgrade my machine.

soldant
23-10-2012, 12:43 PM
You keep telling me ATI make inferior products. I keep saying they don't. I'll say "AMD have had a much better price per performance offer" while "Nvidia/Intel have the better performance". If you disagree, we'll agree to disagree.
As Jesus_Phish have said, I'm not mentioning ATI, or what became of them. I specifically said CPU, though in relation to GPUs my experience with ATI/AMD hasn't been positive (namely due to driver issues). And it's true, they are making inferior products. Bulldozer was a goddamn mess. Piledriver doesn't look to be any better, and this isn't just talking performance either - they're not great in power consumption either. AMD's CPU arm doesn't seem to be worth the money at all, really. Is Intel more expensive? Sure. But I'm not seeing the compelling argument that it's worth spending money on an AMD CPU... and anyone suggesting that we should put down our cash on an inferior product just because it's AMD as the underdog is being a fanboy. I'm sure we at least agree on that.

Again I don't have much of an issue with the GPU arm of AMD (what was ATI) - the ATI cards I've owned were solid performers, but they had driver issues which frankly annoyed me. That's not to say that they're bad cards though (far from it) or that buying an AMD GPU is a silly move. But hypothetically if AMD were producing an inferior GPU like they are with their CPUs, the same argument would apply.

trjp
23-10-2012, 01:21 PM
Having owned a wide variety of GPUs I can say with some confidence that neither nVidia nor ATi/AMD have ever really gotten the hang of the whole driver/compatibility issue - both have had their low-points, both have released drivers which borked systems - both have released drivers which stopped games from running or caused entertaining side-effects or whatever - both have been slow to support some games - and so on.

I've personally run into 'slightly' more issues with ATI/AMD, simply because more of the games I've played seemed to lean towards nVidia, at least initially, but you could easily reverse that simply depending on the games you choose to play.

As for the cost issues, AMD have consistently offered better solutions for people on lower budgets (GPUs vs nVidia and CPUs vs Intel). The number crunchers/benchmark nerds/people who care about power usage and overclocking and stuff have sided with Intel on CPUs for a while now - but the fact remains you can make a usable system for FAR less money with AMD kit (it may not have the same power - but it will be 'usable' and it will offer upgrades later - again cheaper than Intel).

The big issue with this whole thing is lack of competition tho - Intel won't make great CPUs if no-one pushes them into doing it - and nVidia, freed from competition, will quickly stagnate (and I'd not describe their current non-high-end lineup as non-stagnant already, frankly).

Sparkasaurusmex
23-10-2012, 01:21 PM
I've always built AMD machines because when pricing them I can get comparable stuff for a lot less. A good shape gaming PC for $500 instead of $800 is what it comes down to for me. I'll check again next time I build, like I always do, but AMD/ATI have always been the brands I end up with based on massive price differences and small (sometimes negligible, sometimes better) differences in benchmarks.

When I started building machines I was a supporter of AMD because they had a local factory, were the "underdog" and I felt where putting out more advanced chips than Intel at the time. I don't do brand loyalty, but as long as AMD is just under Intel's benchmarks but half the price I'll probably stick with AMD. Next upgrade will probably be in six months, so we'll see then, although it does look like I might do Intel/"ATI" or possibly even Intel/Nvidia (GASP! maybe I'll even buy Abercrombie and Fitch to wear while sipping lattes at Starbucks!)

Sakkura
23-10-2012, 02:26 PM
So then why don't they just release something that actually competes out of the box? Also if I remember correctly, back in the Athlon days, AMD would lock their CPUs too. You could easily bypass it by getting out a lead pencil to bridge two points, but they considered doing the same back then too. Also Intel still run the "k" lines don't they, which are unlocked? Can't blame them for trying to make money out of overclocking... but really, apart from the real hardware enthusiasts, who is overclocking these days? The hardware wars cooled due to the introduction of consoles, and the increase in cores has been more advantageous (along with software to support it) than bumping up the clockspeed. I'm not so sure that overclocking is as big of a deal as it was a few years ago.
Well, much of it is technically on the OS side of things, relating to how threads are assigned to the modules and cores. AMD can't easily change that behaviour out of the box. Microsoft have made some changes to Windows thread scheduling which have yielded some minor performance improvements with Bulldozer CPUs, but that's about it.

And it's true that AMD used to do some processor locking too, and that Intel has good reason to do so. It's still annoying for the end customer. And overclocking does help, especially since the increase in cores has not been as advantageous as you'd imagine. Plenty of games still only barely benefit from extra cores beyond 2. Higher clocks provide a pretty universal boost.

soldant
23-10-2012, 03:06 PM
Well, much of it is technically on the OS side of things, relating to how threads are assigned to the modules and cores.
True, but it doesn't change the fact that it still isn't a particularly good solution right now. Initial impressions of Piledriver suggest that it doesn't help that much.


And overclocking does help, especially since the increase in cores has not been as advantageous as you'd imagine. Plenty of games still only barely benefit from extra cores beyond 2. Higher clocks provide a pretty universal boost.
Does it really matter today though? I know that games still aren't making full use of quad-core CPUs but even so I can't imagine that there's much of a requirement to overclock these days. Consoles are generally the target for games these days (except from the indie sector, but they usually target low-end hardware anyway) with more modest system requirements, and gamers tend to have fairly decent CPUs anyway (according to the last Steam hardware survey). Games and apps that are quite CPU heavy tend to be optimised for multiple cores anyway. Apart from synthetic benchmarks I'm not convinced that most people will really need to bother with it (or really bother with it period) or gain such a significant advantage that it's such an important issue.

Sakkura
23-10-2012, 03:18 PM
True, but it doesn't change the fact that it still isn't a particularly good solution right now. Initial impressions of Piledriver suggest that it doesn't help that much.
Actually, considering the price point, Piledriver CPUs are looking interesting. I just worry that Haswell will again completely crush AMD, just like Sandy Bridge did when it arrived.


Does it really matter today though? I know that games still aren't making full use of quad-core CPUs but even so I can't imagine that there's much of a requirement to overclock these days. Consoles are generally the target for games these days (except from the indie sector, but they usually target low-end hardware anyway) with more modest system requirements, and gamers tend to have fairly decent CPUs anyway (according to the last Steam hardware survey). Games and apps that are quite CPU heavy tend to be optimised for multiple cores anyway. Apart from synthetic benchmarks I'm not convinced that most people will really need to bother with it (or really bother with it period) or gain such a significant advantage that it's such an important issue.
Games like Skyrim certainly benefit noticeably from a faster CPU. It's worth it, especially now that overclocking is so relatively easy. That's why Intel is able to use it to drive people up to relatively high-end CPUs like the i5-2500k and -3570k.