Hands up who remembers when...

[SieB]

Even for multi-threaded games there is inevitably one main thread, and if that main thread isn't running fast enough the other threads don't really matter.

Not all tasks can be run in parallel, I mean if they could we'd just use GPUs for everything.

So in a perfect game AMD can equal Intel, well that's fine if you limit yourself to only playing those games. But when being equal is the best case scenario my money is still going to Intel.

But no games are playable on Intel but not on AMD, so I don't get what you mean by equal. They are either playable on both or not playable on both.

If games were unplayable on AMD but playable on Intel then things would be different, but they aren't.

 

[barnsley]

Too early to say I know but for us AMD fanboys, it sends a little tingle down the leg thinking of all the trash we'll get to talk to the Intel fanboys. :lol:

I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy just yet . I try to keep a equal opinon on manufactures, hence why I've both attacked and defended AMD in the past. However, I've had such poor experience with Nvidia I do tend to sway towards AMD cards , even if I do hate myself for it xD.

Even for multi-threaded games there is inevitably one main thread, and if that main thread isn't running fast enough the other threads don't really matter.

The only games I can think of that do that is Shogun 2 and the stock ARMA 2 when hosting a server (hence why they developed standalone AI clients for the game). I'm sure there are some others but I very much doubt it is common.

 

[alienware]

There are no fanboys around here, just enthusiasts.

We hit fanboys with a stick.

 

[NeverBackDown]

The only games I can think of that do that is Shogun 2 and the stock ARMA 2 when hosting a server (hence why they developed standalone AI clients for the game). I'm sure there are some others but I very much doubt it is common.

To be fair Shogun 2 is easy to run, at 1100/1250 i can get up to 90fps with everything maxed out

Now for Amd cpus i have no idea what the difference would be.

 

[barnsley]

To be fair Shogun 2 is easy to run, at 1100/1250 i can get up to 90fps with everything maxed out

Now for Amd cpus i have no idea what the difference would be.

I've not tried it on mine but I know it runs suprisingly well on a 4300 so my comment about shogun might be quite redundant .

 

[NeverBackDown]

You can always delete the comment!

 

[barnsley]

Its still a game that has threading issues though . It did still not max out on the 4300 addmittedly.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Well ok... 1 game with a threading issue. Out of thousands? Not a big deal

 

[barnsley]

We're forgetting all the really old games though ;D. Anyway yeah you are right .

 

[vorticalbox]

We're forgetting all the really old games though ;D. Anyway yeah you are right .

old games don't really stress much, halo CE/portal 2 hardly takes my pc above idle.

gpu @ 39%

 

[Willzzz]

Well anything by Blizzard for a start.

 

[barnsley]

Interesting start. Starcraft does actually run on more than one core, albeit poorly (i'm looking at stuff on the internet, starcraft isn't my thing ). Diablo 3 did run on one core but even at stock clocks I wasn't struggling one bit and I'm pretty sure nothing bar my archaic laptop struggles to run warcraft. Blizzard will eventually scale up to using more than one core.

 

[NeverBackDown]

If they plan on making multi-platform games then yes they will.

 

[Willzzz]

There are quite a few other games, Borderlands 2, Hitman, Sim City (although even Intel enthusiast struggles here).

 

[alienware]

There are quite a few other games, Borderlands 2, Hitman, Sim City (although even Intel enthusiast struggles here).

Well I've got Hitman and BL2 so I will no doubt be comparing those to Sandybridge in the coming weeks

 

[alpenwasser]

AMD kicked Intel's ass and gave them a bloody nose?

[...img...]

My first PC was a Thunderbird-C 1400 MHz, hell yeah I remember! :rock: :amd:

But on another note: How does kicking somebody's ass give them a bloody nose? :lol:

Are things about to turn around again?

I honestly and truly think so.

I'm not sure if AMD is about to regain the upper hand (Intel's R&D budget just seems way
too massive), but with the new console generation things might at least be going in the
right direction (meaning: up :lol: ). And if they are able to make a decent profit on those
chips they might be able to level the playing field again to some degree within a few years.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Ya intel has over $119.5 billion while AMD has $3billion.. If intel wanted they could easily destroy Amd

 

[alpenwasser]

Ya intel has over $119.5 billion while AMD has $3billion.. If intel wanted they could easily destroy Amd

Where did you get those numbers?

According to Wikipedia (which takes those numbers directly from the companies' financial
statements), Intel had

• Revenue: 53.34 billion
• Operating income: 14.63 billion
• Net income: 11 billion
• Total assets: 84.35 billion
• Total equity: 51.2 billion

for 2012. (source)

AMD posted

• Revenue: 5.422 billion
• Operating income: -1.056 billion
• Net income: -1.183 billion
• Total assets: 4.0 billion
• Total equity: 538 million

in 2012. (source)

I'm not really sure if trade authorities would let Intel destroy AMD. At some point they
might just simply force Intel to give AMD access to parts of their technology for reasonable
licensing fees (remember: this has happened before on several occasions, and AMD has
a right to x86 for example). I'm not sure about that, but I think it's at least a possibility judging
from past examples. But speaking from pure financial power, Intel could of course splatter
AMD all over the place if they were willing and allowed to.

 

[NeverBackDown]

I just looked at their stock Marketing Cap. Appearently i do not know stocks very well

 

[alpenwasser]

Well, company numbers are usually skewed and twisted anyway to make things look as good
as possible for shareholders and as bad as possible for tax authorities, so who knows what's really
the truth? :huh: :lol: