Haswell will rival graphics performance of today's discrete cards!

[AnandThenMan]

That's the bottom line - cpu performance will make a much bigger difference to most people then gpu performance will.

Name a CPU intensive task that is holding average users back, and they are demanding more CPU power to do it.

 

[ieatdonuts]

Name a GPU intensive tasks that is holding average users back, and they are demanding more GPU power to do it.

(3D gaming is not an "average user" task)

 

[AnandThenMan]

(3D gaming is not an "average user" task)

You can't be serious.

 

[SirPauly]

The vast majority if the market is served by integrated graphics. Given this fact, Intel has held back the adoption of graphically rich content more than anyone else by far.

What bothers me a bit about integrated is the powers at be are leveraging an Intel licensed x86 and not only does this hold back adoption but trying to destroy a competitive landscape and forcing others out.

Hopefully ARM can bring much needed innovation based on many more players trying to innovate and compete instead of trying to force others out with x86.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Hopefully ARM can bring much needed innovation based on many more players trying to innovate and compete instead of trying to force others out with x86.

I would love to see this, and would love to see ARM enter the desktop space. Being held hostage by x86 has gotten completely ridiculous IMO. This would also be a big win for Nvidia (and the consumer), the more competition the better.

 

[AtenRa]

That's the bottom line - cpu performance will make a much bigger difference to most people then gpu performance will. For the AMD camp the mantra is cpu performance just needs to be good enough, it's gpu performance that really matters. In the real world it's the other way around most of the time. Just like SB, Haswell should mean Intel's gpu is good enough for most users.

Fusions other mantra is gpu compute matters a lot - you need a cpu that can do it. One day that might be true but that day is a long way off yet. Being as AMD is small and poor that is unlikely to change until intel starts pushing opencl, which isn't going to happen till they are faster at it then AMD.

IMO, for 99% of the users at $100-150 APU market, an SSD and faster Internet speeds will make a much much much much bigger difference than a faster CPU or GPU compared to Core i3 and Llano.

99% of that segment will not be able to understand the difference of CPU performance between Core i3 and Llano in everyday apps (word, internet, video playing etc etc), but they will definitely understand the performance difference with an SSD and a faster Internet connection.

It will take a few more years until more apps will use the GPU for acceleration and until then, Llanos faster iGPU it mostly serves for Gaming (yes i know up to 720p).

And now that i said 720p, 99% of console games run at or less than 720p

 

[ieatdonuts]

How am I not serious? 3D gaming is NOT an average user task. Consoles are king these days for anyone who does want to 3d game.

You ever see those NBD group statistics talking about PC Gaming? And how something like 90% of the PC gaming market is Farmville and Angry Birds (2D)?

Most people who use a computer - i.e. the average user - uses it for word processing, internet sites, video playback, and at the most a 2D game like bejeweled or whatnot.

 

[Arkaign]

IMO, for 99% of the users at $100-150 APU market, an SSD and faster Internet speeds will make a much much much much bigger difference than a faster CPU or GPU compared to Core i3 and Llano.

99% of that segment will not be able to understand the difference of CPU performance between Core i3 and Llano in everyday apps (word, internet, video playing etc etc), but they will definitely understand the performance difference with an SSD and a faster Internet connection.

It will take a few more years until more apps will use the GPU for acceleration and until then, Llanos faster iGPU it mostly serves for Gaming (yes i know up to 720p).

And now that i said 720p, 99% of console games run at or less than 720p

This is the truth for sure.

I do think that 720p res usually looks terrible if you try to run it on a 1080p display though. I'm not talking about how the consoles will scale things but render at low res internally or whatever, which looks okayish, but the literal ugliness you get when you have a 1080p display hooked up to a PC but you're pushing 1280x720 or 1280x800/etc. It looks nasty as hell.

 

[AnandThenMan]

How am I not serious? 3D gaming is NOT an average user task.

It's a lot more common than some CPU intensive task that is forcing users to upgrade to a faster processor. Let's put it this way, I upgrade systems from integrated graphics all the time, and the user is very happy with the improvements. If I were to put in a faster CPU, they would hardly notice, if at all, and would be confused as to what exactly I upgraded.

 

[AnandThenMan]

...but the literal ugliness you get when you have a 1080p display hooked up to a PC but you're pushing 1280x720 or 1280x800/etc. It looks nasty as hell.

That's very likely the fault of how the display scales, not the fault of the output.

 

[bryanW1995]

IMO, for 99% of the users at $100-150 APU market, an SSD and faster Internet speeds will make a much much much much bigger difference than a faster CPU or GPU compared to Core i3 and Llano.

99% of that segment will not be able to understand the difference of CPU performance between Core i3 and Llano in everyday apps (word, internet, video playing etc etc), but they will definitely understand the performance difference with an SSD and a faster Internet connection.

It will take a few more years until more apps will use the GPU for acceleration and until then, Llanos faster iGPU it mostly serves for Gaming (yes i know up to 720p).

And now that i said 720p, 99% of console games run at or less than 720p

Probably more like 1/2, maybe 2/3. There are a LOT of semi-casual pc gamers out there, and all it takes is one choppy game to get you to spring for too much money on an outdated gpu. Don't get me wrong, I love my ssd, but it's so small that I only use it for my windows directory and maybe 1-2 games. If I ran office apps I'd put them on it as well, but that computer is gaming/web browsing only.

 

[Arkaign]

That's very likely the fault of how the display scales, not the fault of the output.

Oh yeah, I agree, that's 110% correct, but the result is the same for the end user.

Ideally, people wanting to game at low res will pick up say an 18.5" 1366x768 native screen, because 720p and 13x7 look terrible due to the non-native resolution on 1080p screens. Scaling is 'okay' on some, but even at best it's pretty blurry, at worst you get a blocky muddled mess where small text becomes completely destroyed.

 

[Red Storm]

How am I not serious? 3D gaming is NOT an average user task. Consoles are king these days for anyone who does want to 3d game.

You ever see those NBD group statistics talking about PC Gaming? And how something like 90% of the PC gaming market is Farmville and Angry Birds (2D)?

Most people who use a computer - i.e. the average user - uses it for word processing, internet sites, video playback, and at the most a 2D game like bejeweled or whatnot.

AFAIK those statistics never count MMO players, nor does Valve release Steam sales figures, and those two are pretty big portions of the PC gaming market.

 

[Outrage]

I don't mind the side of the debate your on but keep it honest you have lied several times. Its like another poster here that kept insisting AMD can use the Vexprefix . Were they going to get the code not from intel . Instruction sets . and code are not the same . Amd can use the AVX instruction set only . And intel actually legeally made it so AMD has to stay in parimators . As intel reserved the space above 256bit. Intel can use that space but AMD can't until after the fact 2 generations behind. You say so what . and I say exactly my point. Its all compiler work . Intel is going to abstract the very most out of its hardware . AMD can't because they are tied down at AVX256 bit . Until intel officially goes AVX512 B AMDs hands are tied . Than again Above the 512 bit intel has that space reserved. Intel can use it but AMD can't until Intel goes AVX1024b . I see clearly you don't understand this . But if you go back read the OPs statements than read the AVX 2 info we have . It might shed some light in that closet your in.

lol ? so much cluelessness in this post. Resurrect the thread in the cpu forum where you where proven wrong about this, if you want to discuss it again, since it's ot here.

 

[grimpr]

The vast majority if the market is served by integrated graphics. Given this fact, Intel has held back the adoption of graphically rich content more than anyone else by far.

Not to mention the huge damage to pc gaming, APUs are the now and future of pc, and not only, gaming.

"Intel’s integrated graphics just don't work. I don't think they will ever work."
-- Tim Sweeney

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and...good-for-anything-just-not-games%E2%80%9D

 

[Red Hawk]

This is the truth for sure.

I do think that 720p res usually looks terrible if you try to run it on a 1080p display though. I'm not talking about how the consoles will scale things but render at low res internally or whatever, which looks okayish, but the literal ugliness you get when you have a 1080p display hooked up to a PC but you're pushing 1280x720 or 1280x800/etc. It looks nasty as hell.

Turn on GPU scaling on AMD cards. The 360 has a hardware upscaler that applies to all games, too. Not sure how to handle upscaling with Nvidia, and I don't think the PS3 upscales its games unless the developers specifically made the game to do so.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Not to mention the huge damage to pc gaming, APUs are the now and future of pc, and not only, gaming.

"Intel’s integrated graphics just don't work. I don't think they will ever work."
-- Tim Sweeney

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and...ney-pcs-are-good-for-anything-just-not-games”

You went and got a 2008 interview. LOL. Lame!

 

[Shift_]

Er, so GPU doesn't matter more, but then you list a bunch of things that improved GPU performance allowed?

Pretending that its not is outright delusional. Even if you don't game (which is silly to say, the majority of people do game; might as well point out that the majority of users don't do the things that need more CPU power), there's tons of stuff that is GPU accelerated, and its growing. Plus, as processing becomes more parallel, GPUs will bring even bigger gains. We're already getting to the point that advancing CPU performance will involve advancing GPU performance (hence why Intel is increasing GPU performance).

Your point about efficiency is confusing as well. GPUs are improving power efficiency.

I'm just saying my old intergrated graphics are more than enough to get things done.

I'm saying cpu power and power efficiency is much more important.

But I find it laughable that you claim most users do game. If you took a survey in my university class and asked who games on their PC or Xbox/PS3 other than flash games or facebook games, I'm sure you'd see less than 10% of the class answering. I am enrolled of course into a non computer related degree.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I'm saying cpu power and power efficiency is much more important.

Can you give me a few examples of applications you use that you feel require substantial CPU processing power?

 

[theeedude]

A 5 year old dual core CPU is more than enough to get things done too for the "average user" too. Good-enough-ism is a dangerous game for Intel to play if they want people to stick to regular upgrade cycles instead of just wear and tear replacements.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Good-enough-ism is a dangerous game for Intel to play if they want people to stick to regular upgrade cycles instead of just wear and tear replacements.

In graphics Intel has not even met the standard of "good-enough-ism", yet they ship the most GPUs in the industry.

 

[Shift_]

Can you give me a few examples of applications you use that you feel require substantial CPU processing power?

In terms of what is related to what I'm studying, CT imaging and CT modeling software would be quite CPU intensive.

However, for most people, there really isn't anything that would tax a modern day cpu.

Unless if you truly believe that the majority of computers in the world are used for 3d gaming, then even the onboard graphics from intel are overkill.

 

[CPUarchitect]

Why compromise?

The AVX2 instruction set brings major GPU features to the CPU cores. Haswell will still have an IGP, but it might be assisted by the massive computing power of these AVX2 enabled cores. Beyond that, CPUs may very well become homogeneous, i.e. performing graphics processing on fully unified cores. It would also be a superior architecture for generic high-throughput computing.

 

[Arkadrel]

Unless if you truly believe that the majority of computers in the world are used for 3d gaming, then even the onboard graphics from intel are overkill.

I bet there are alot more people useing 3D gameing, than people that use CPUs for taxing software, esp in the mainstream pc user segment (which is what we re talking about).

Face it... for mainstream users, the MOST demanding task they ll ever do on a pc, is loading up some 3D game. Which is why it makes sense, that you priotise the iGPU for the mainstream segment (they already have enough cpu prowess).

 

[Lonbjerg]

I bet there are alot more people useing 3D gameing, than people that use CPUs for taxing software, esp in the mainstream pc user segment (which is what we re talking about).

Face it... for mainstream users, the MOST demanding task they ll ever do on a pc, is loading up some 3D game. Which is why it makes sense, that you priotise the iGPU for the mainstream segment (they already have enough cpu prowess).

Gamers are a MINORITY in the land of PC's...*sigh*

Wishfull thinking makes lousy arguments...