Nvidia vs Intel

[ajaidevsingh]

Just read the Nvidia vs intel latest news wow that was one truth after anothere there. When i had bought my first computer a graph card was an extra and games could be run on via the CPU "no GPU needed" and Intel wants to bring that back..."I was here thinking that decentralization is a thumb rule for better system operations and upgrade, Sometimes i just think my collage Comp. Arc. professor need's to be shot well after he teaches us the Quantum processing models next week"

From the whole Intel vs Nvidia story i do like this phrase " ?Basically the CPU is dead. Yes, that processor you see advertised everywhere from Intel. It runs out of steam. The fact is that it no longer makes anything run faster. You don?t need a fast one anymore. ? because i had lesser impact of upgrade to a Q6600 from a X2 in games...

Ohhh and i also noted NVIDIA sayin' good thing about AMD/ATi OMG, AMD is loved by Intel and Nvidia and i would think asked to take a side....!!

Its like "We must combine our jeti force to fight the Intel lord" BTW where Via Jeti.

The final taught that comes to my mind is: AMD is doin' Fusion CPU+GPU +Huge bus and delay lesser on the other hand Intel is doin' CPUGP +Ray tracing its kickass but i saw Raytracing on a PS3 in Delhi, India and it was not very fast like the enviroment was slugish but the prog. there told me its a bus size issue so lets see how well can it go.



The nVidia vs Intel topic is already being discussed here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2175992&enterthread=y

Video Mod BFG10K.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Just thinking can Raytracing be done with shaders??

 

[Lithan]

I clicked through to their article on intels new gpu... and it says it's being headed by the guy in charge of making the p4... I read the first user comment.

" I guess we will se a GPU that is clocked at 500Ghz and perform less than a GeForce 7300, needs to be cooled with VapoChill and uses Rambus RAM?"

Never have wiser words been spoken.

How did anyone who worked on P4 stay out of the mailroom?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Lithan
I clicked through to their article on intels new gpu... and it says it's being headed by the guy in charge of making the p4... I read the first user comment.

" I guess we will se a GPU that is clocked at 500Ghz and perform less than a GeForce 7300, needs to be cooled with VapoChill and uses Rambus RAM?"

Never have wiser words been spoken.

How did anyone who worked on P4 stay out of the mailroom?

You do realise that the people behind the CPU codenamed nehalem is the ex-Prescott team?

 

[Lithan]

I dont really pay much attention to what's in the pipeline. If it's good and it's from the prescott team then I'd be looking for the lobotomy scars and or electrode burns from Intel "training" the retard out of them.

 

[Slugbait]

Originally posted by: Lithan
How did anyone who worked on P4 stay out of the mailroom?

My wife has my old Northwood 1.6. I think it's been running at 2.4 for well over five years now. Back then, that proc was the shitzel...

 

[Lithan]

Except the processors it replaced were faster than it.

 

[Slugbait]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Except the processors it replaced were faster than it.

Which ones? The Pentium III, or the Willamette? Although my o/c'd 1.6 was running at 400MHz FSB, at the time I bought it, the 2.4/533 (from what I heard everywhere) was the fastest Intel proc out there. I simply had a slower bus speed.

My current secondary machine has a Gallatin core, which blows away my overclocked Northwood.

In any case, if you're sure about this, you should modify the wiki:

With Northwood, the Pentium 4 came of age. The battle for performance leadership remained competitive (as AMD introduced faster versions of the Athlon XP) but most observers agreed that the fastest Northwood P4 was usually ahead of its rival.

Because if the Northwood beat AMD (however slight, and at that time, a feat), how could the Intel procs it replaced have been considered faster with half the cache, slower clock cycles, larger transistors and more heat?

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Except the processors it replaced were faster than it.

If you count the limited release 1.4ghz tulatin's, then yes initially the Pentium 4 was slower. Part of that came from the fact that most Pentium 4 systems at launch used sdram instead of rdram because of price.

Once the Pentium 4 moved up to the 533mhz bus (and ddr ram), it was faster than what AMD had at the time. Remember the Pentium 4 c's? Great overclockers and value for the price.

The whole idea about the Pentium 4 was scalability, it worked initially, but the manufacturing technology just couldn't keep up in any practical sense.