Originally posted by: akugami
So what is new about AMD's dual GPU solutions? Instead of being the odd SKU, AMD has made dual GPU cards the centerpiece of their GPU strategy. Whereas previously the odd dual GPU card was made to fill a very high end niche (nVidia GTX 295), AMD is now using it to create a more "top to bottom" release of GPU's.
Yea, that's a bit funny really.
People are on about how ATi uses smaller, cheaper GPUs...
But as soon as you start using a dual-GPU card, the whole thing blows out of proportion. Your PCB becomes much more expensive, you're 'wasting' half your memory, so you need to put twice as much on, and the power consumption goes way over the top.
And then there's the problem that performance relies a lot on how well the drivers and the games get on. In some games you just get the performance of one GPU.
So even if you're going to argue that small, cheap GPUs are a good strategy... The X2 strategy doesn't fit into those advantages AT ALL. But I never hear anyone mention that. It's as if they think 'single GPU is good, so two GPUs is twice as good'.
Originally posted by: akugami
Let's face it, while nVidia has held the top spot for quite a while now, their lower mid-range and low-range GPU's are still running on previous gen technologies and only the upper mid-range and high end parts use the newer GPU's. Not that there is anything wrong with a 8800/9800. But I'd like to see some of the new fangled tech trickle down to the $100-$150 price range instead of repackaging the same old GPU they've been using for the last two years as a new part.
There is very little difference between G92 and GT200, and both are made on 55 nm now, so for all intents and purposes, a G92 *is* a scaled-down version of the 'latest tech'.
Originally posted by: akugami
Though the bottom line is performance, more important would be how much bang can I get for my dollars. At this point, AMD/ATI's strategy seems to make a little more sense. Especially with the economy the way it is. AMD can produce video cards based on their new smaller GPU designs and get them out to the public faster than with nVidia's monolithic GPU approach.
That depends though. Just because AMD's current 4000-series is successful doesn't mean that the smaller GPU is ALWAYS the more successful one.
I'd like to point out that AMD's current 'smaller cheaper' strategy was started with the 3000-series.
They were an improvement over the 2000-series in the sense that you got the same performance with a smaller chip, so AMD could actually make some profit... and the power consumption was a bit more realistic than before...
But the REAL star of that generation was the nVidia G92 (8800GT/GTS 512). THAT was the GPU that completely redefined price/performance. It was faster than anything AMD offered, and it was also REALLY cheap. They forced AMD's prices down.
As a result, the 3000-series still weren't a big success, even though they were decent cards in their own right. The G92-based cards were just too good to ignore.
We'll just have to see where the balance lies in this generation.
Originally posted by: akugami
One huge area AMD will need to beef up is the GPGPU segment. While AMD makes very good GPU's, nVidia is not standing still and their GPU's are very high performers. nVidia also is much further ahead on stuff like physics acceleration and things like using the GPU for video encoding. So even though products like Badaboom and RapiHD are not ready for prime time, they will get better and better. This creates positive buzz for nVidia that AMD can't ignore.
AMD needs to do better in those areas. The markets are still young enough that nVidia, while in the lead, is not guaranteed any long term victory. So AMD can still make a splash and if not win, at least be in the race. But it has to get off its rear end and start showing something.
I agree. So far AMD has only talked about physics and GPGPU, but actual tools and software failed to materialize. We'll have to see if AMD's next-gen gets improved GPGPU capabilities.
As I said before, I think the current generation of nVidia GPUs has an advantage over AMD's GPUs in GPGPU tasks. Aside from the fact that all nVidia's GPUs since the 8-series can run OpenCL, where only the 4000-series from AMD supports it, I also think that nVidia's architecture is considerably more efficient for OpenCL-style code.
So I wonder if AMD will close that gap a bit with the next generation... Ofcourse nVidia isn't resting on its laurels either, and probably has some new tricks up their sleeve for Cuda (current Cuda is already ahead of OpenCL/DX11 Compute in terms of features anyway).
