Barcelona, late and slow.

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Intel is supposedly aiming at a Q4 08 launch for Nehalem which is sooner than expected.

Isn't Fusion supposed to be coming out before then? From what I've read, Fusion will come out in 2008...so chances are it will either be out at the same time as Nehalem or even sooner.

Fusion is 2009 or later.

Fusion is also not meant for desktop, it's meant for laptop power savings.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Intel is supposedly aiming at a Q4 08 launch for Nehalem which is sooner than expected.

Isn't Fusion supposed to be coming out before then? From what I've read, Fusion will come out in 2008...so chances are it will either be out at the same time as Nehalem or even sooner.

Fusion is 2009 or later.

Fusion is also not meant for desktop, it's meant for laptop power savings.

No, no!

Fusion is aimed for laptops in 2009, after that it is aimed for desktops.

 

[McCartney]

I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

:laugh:

I don't need to say anything; your post speaks for itself...

 

[Cookie Monster]

Technically fusion is aimed at the low end/budget segment of the market.

 

[heyheybooboo]

8GHz 286 cpu (on 'turbo' ), 16mb ram, 20mb hard drive, 16 color monitor = $2000

mmmm - let's see . . . .

(scribble scribble scribble) 300 x that (scribble scribble scribble) 125 x this (scribble scribble scribble) factor in inverse proportion (scribble scribble scribble) carry the 9 (scribble scribble scribble) coefficient of drag A Cd equal to 1 (scribble scribble scribble) ah! lunar eclipse . . . (scribble scribble scribble) pecker hangs to the right (scribble scribble scribble) Alright!!!

Can somebody loan me $186,453.87 for my new rig ?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

Hehe, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting the most for one's money. Cheap has nothing to do with it. It's called being smart. Why pay 600 bux for a vid card that gets 200fps, when all you really need to be happy is a 300.00 vid card that cranks out 150fps? I think you're missing this very point and not truly understand what the term "bang for buck" means.
Anyway, stop spreadin the hate.

And, it is very hard to compare AMD to Intel from a "size of company" standpoint. For AMD to grow in size to something similar to Intel, would take a product/products SO revolutionary that it would take Intel 10 years to catch up in order for AMD to get even to half Intels size. Intel IS more business savvy, but AMD seems to be working on this as they seem to want to replace Hector Ruiz with Dirk Meyer as CEO. Maybe Dirk will actually spend a few bucks on advertising. Who knows.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

Ok, just one thing to ask...Where is Nvidia's good Vista drivers? They don't exist...so many problems still. I've been looking at a new video card and Nvidia won't be it. Sorry.

I dunno if you're joking or not, but seriously if you want to pay $2000 for a 2.4Ghz Intel chip because they have no market competition be my guest.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
8GHz 286 cpu (on 'turbo' ), 16mb ram, 20mb hard drive, 16 color monitor = $2000

mmmm - let's see . . . .

(scribble scribble scribble) 300 x that (scribble scribble scribble) 125 x this (scribble scribble scribble) factor in inverse proportion (scribble scribble scribble) carry the 9 (scribble scribble scribble) coefficient of drag A Cd equal to 1 (scribble scribble scribble) ah! lunar eclipse . . . (scribble scribble scribble) pecker hangs to the right (scribble scribble scribble) Alright!!!

Can somebody loan me $186,453.87 for my new rig ?

I could lend you the 87cents to get you started.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: McCartney
INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

Is that you, Dothan? :laugh:

 

[McCartney]

No, it's not whoever you said it was.

GL with the garbage x2900 cmdr. ATI's drivers suck more than nvidias.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

Don't worry, we like you even less. But, let me point out just a few of the most moronic things you said in this post. 1) In late 2005, an X2 4800 was the fastest processor available to the general public, except for it's bigger brother, the FX-60. 2) A 9800 Pro was so much faster than an FX5900 Ultra, it's a good thing you didn't buy one-- the rest of your slow P4 system wouldn't have been able to keep up with it. Oh, and did I mention that the 9800's also had about twice the IQ of the 5900's?

 

[tatteredpotato]

I'll probably get a Phenom sometime in the next few years when they aren't too expensive, since I can just drop it in and replace my 4600. Keeping the new architecture (optionally) socket compatible is a great move on AMDs part. This isn't just good news for us, but system builders won't have to come up with any new designs to use the quad core chip, they just have to drop it into existing designs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: McCartney
No, it's not whoever you said it was.

GL with the garbage x2900 cmdr. ATI's drivers suck more than nvidias.

Shows your ignorance. Ever try doing a search on any forums about Nvidia's Vista drivers? no? I have and let me tell you...they suck. Slowdown issues with 8800 series cards in many games and no fix until september. Yeah they're good drivers :roll:

Now the cards don't suck, just the drivers.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Im' a brand loyalist. I"ve ran 1 AMD Athlon XP and it sucked. I went northwood the next build
I had an X2 in late 05 manchester 4800+, sucked and I went C2D the following summer.

I hate AMD, I hate you people that are so cheap that go "I need the best bang for my buck" so you can feel good. Brand loyalty is key, I was the "idiot" that bought hte fx5900 ultra over a radeon 9800 ultra. I never believe ATi had earned their stake in my beloved video card hardware industry, and they didn't. Where's big ol' ati now? After their 9700 miracle and a couple of rehashes, they fell flat on their face and should go back to making RAGE 3D AIW cards for 300 bucks.

AMD IS the same, I hope they go back to what they were good and stop challenging the top dogs for something the Top Dogs earned. INTEL was never in danger of going under for the sole fact that they have business savvy.

lol

 

[McCartney]

LOL when you say that the fx5900 was not as good as the Radeon 9800 pro
If my memory serves me right they were TIED in ALL benchmarks.

X2 4800+ was fast? TOo bad it died to me when it's stupid ON DIE memory controller couldn't handle 4x1gb at ddr400mhz nad needed toclock down to 333mhz

 

[McCartney]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1821&p=28

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: McCartney
LOL when you say that the fx5900 was not as good as the Radeon 9800 pro
If my memory serves me right they were TIED in ALL benchmarks.

Haha, you're right, the 5900 Ultra was as fast. That was many video cards ago. Their image quality was horrible, though, especially for what they cost:

NVIDIA has shot back with the improved GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, but it is a testament to the ATI design that the original Radeon 9800 Pro can still match it in outright performance, and surpass it in image quality.

link to that article

X2 4800+ was fast? TOo bad it died to me when it's stupid ON DIE memory controller couldn't handle 4x1gb at ddr400mhz nad needed toclock down to 333mhz

Yeah, an X2 4800 was faster than Intel's fastest (at that time) P4 EE, even if you were running the RAM @ 100 Mhz; the speed the RAM runs at doesn't make much difference, with an on-die memory controller. Of course, anyone who had ever owned one would know that.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Now the cards don't suck, just the drivers.

With ATI, their cards and their drivers both suck. You're not going to convince anyone that ATI's drivers are more bug-free than Nvidia's, because ATI is notorious for bugged drivers. At least the hardware used to be good, it isn't now.

ATI lost it along with AMD when they merged. They need to stop resting on their last generation designs because they don't cut it against Intel and Nvidia's latest. Look at the GPU market, it's pitiful. ATI released their cards almost a year late and they're still no competition for Nvidia's hastily-released 8800s.

Nvidia has second-generation DX10 cards ready, but with this disgraceful showing by ATI they'd don't even have any incentive to release them.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Now the cards don't suck, just the drivers.

With ATI, their cards and their drivers both suck. You're not going to convince anyone that ATI's drivers are more bug-free than Nvidia's, because ATI is notorious for bugged drivers. At least the hardware used to be good, it isn't now.

Which 2900XT do you own? Because, according to the people who own either an 8800GTx or a 2900XT, the ATI drivers are much better than nVidia's drivers: link. And I personally am using a card from each company, and I can tell you from personal experience, ATI's drivers make it look like a 3 year old is writing the drivers for nVidia's cards, at least with XP. And according to the people running Vista, ATI still writes better drivers. Of course, if you want to run Linux, you have no choice there, nVidia owns Linux.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: McCartney
I hate you bang for buck computer builders.
Blah blah blah

How about you not hijack my thread about Barcelona?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Now the cards don't suck, just the drivers.

With ATI, their cards and their drivers both suck. You're not going to convince anyone that ATI's drivers are more bug-free than Nvidia's, because ATI is notorious for bugged drivers. At least the hardware used to be good, it isn't now.

ATI lost it along with AMD when they merged. They need to stop resting on their last generation designs because they don't cut it against Intel and Nvidia's latest. Look at the GPU market, it's pitiful. ATI released their cards almost a year late and they're still no competition for Nvidia's hastily-released 8800s.

Nvidia has second-generation DX10 cards ready, but with this disgraceful showing by ATI they'd don't even have any incentive to release them.

The Card is not bad honestly. It just goes in a different direction and some games benefit from the shaders. The drivers make the 8800 a bad choice for me. I did ALOT of research on Vista with these cards and the 8800 had alot of problems. There are not many reports of people being unhappy with the HD2900xt running on Vista. It may not be the fastest card, but from what I can tell it works.

People I've talked to who have used both have said they prefer the HD2900XT because of the drivers working better at this time. Either way it's your choice but honestly don't make it seem like Nvidia is flawless. They are not.

Nvidia does NOT have new cards ready. They're rumored to be released around october-november which is the usual release schedule for new video cards. There is no secret here. Furthermore, I am not convincing people that ATI has better drivers. They know it for fact at this time. There is no way to deny that Nvidia needs to get back on the ball with drivers. The reason is because they have faster hardware they lag in the driver dept. ATI or if you prefer, AMD has released a card that performs under expectations but has done a fabulous job on their drivers. Problems actually get fixed, and performance is up by a fair bit. They do compete well in the price bracket that they are currently in. The 8800GTS 640GB is the same price as an ATI HD2900XT 512MB and they perform similarly in most games. The thing is, some games run better on one card than another. Given the slowdown bug in Nvidia's drivers that some people experience, I would not be hesitant to claim that the HD2900XT is actually faster than the 8800GTS since it does not suffer this same problem. Not to mention at high res and alot of AA and AF the ATI card catches up quickly and in many cases passes the 8800GTS in many games where it had previously lagged behind.

Do some real research and take an unbiast look at the hardware and drivers of both and you'll see. The grass is not always Green in Nvidia land. I did my homework on this because I'm not going to say "hey nvidia was better back then so they have to be the choice now" nor will I say the same for ATI/AMD. I will always be unbiast and buy whichever I feel is the better value at the time I plan to make a purchase. Right now, I have no reason to buy an Nvidia card. That's my choice.


We're strolling way off topic though

 

[McCartney]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: McCartney
LOL when you say that the fx5900 was not as good as the Radeon 9800 pro
If my memory serves me right they were TIED in ALL benchmarks.

Haha, you're right, the 5900 Ultra was as fast. That was many video cards ago. Their image quality was horrible, though, especially for what they cost:

NVIDIA has shot back with the improved GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, but it is a testament to the ATI design that the original Radeon 9800 Pro can still match it in outright performance, and surpass it in image quality.

link to that article

X2 4800+ was fast? TOo bad it died to me when it's stupid ON DIE memory controller couldn't handle 4x1gb at ddr400mhz nad needed toclock down to 333mhz

Yeah, an X2 4800 was faster than Intel's fastest (at that time) P4 EE, even if you were running the RAM @ 100 Mhz; the speed the RAM runs at doesn't make much difference, with an on-die memory controller. Of course, anyone who had ever owned one would know that.

Never said my x2 wasn't fast. GOt an opty 180 for my off-rig on an 8800 GTS 320mb. The problem with the X2 was the on die was weak. yes it was miles ahead of intel's offering but when you shell out on good ram and find out that the memory controller sucks, it makes you bitter. the X2 939 can hold it's own and is a GREAT proc for 939 boards since it offers no real advantage to upgrade to AM2 (Only that DDR is cheaper). IF you look at my argument against AMD I never said it was slow, I just said that it wasn't as good as it could be and that's a shame. Intel got caught being a leader for too long and then woke up. Never wake up the sleeping giant.

 

[Brutuz]

You know your a bad fanboy when you get someone to join up just to try and prove you wrong.

My aunt has a Socket 939 Venice 3500+ I have a Athlon XP 2600+, Both are way faster and better than the Intel my Mum has (Pentium M, can't remember speed).

I have a GeForce 6800GS, and a TNT2 (Old Pentium MMX200 computer) while my aunt has a X700Pro, She gets 40fps in San Andreas on the highest ingame settings (For us its 3x AA, Mip and Ultra High, with Draw Distance up to Full), while I get 25-30fps on the same settings.

You can't argue with real, homemade specs, btw, I did it with my own Benchmark, just by driving around the Highway in LV, and using a mod to take out all cars in that area.

Yes, Core 2 Duo is faster than Athlon64, But if Barcelona fails, then do you want to pay $2000 for the Pentium Duel Core E2160? Because unless VIA somehow made a CPU that can beat Penryn, Thats what would happen.

Oh, and I'm only getting a GTX in my new build because I like to mess around with Overclocking, and gettinga s high of a Mhz setting as possible, Hence why I'm going for DDR3 as well. (Yes, I know latencies matter as well, but if you get a good set of Sticks, you can get them to Cas5)

 

[NoSoup4You]

I'm running 4x512MB sticks of DDR400 2-2-2-5 at stock speeds with my X2 4400+. It required some BIOS changes to the DRAM Drive Strength settings on my DFI board, but it's rock solid at DDR400 and will run up to ~DDR520 when overclocked.

A co-worker of mine is running an X2 4400+ with 4 x 1Gig DDR400 at stock speeds as well with no issues.

In other words, what's this business about X2's not supporting 4 sticks of RAM at DDR400?