Intel Quad Core Caters to PC Gamers

[chrisv]

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6395573.html

Funny that Intel's demo system used but a single Nvidia card - their
mobo does not support Nvidia in SLI mode, but DOES support ATI in SLI
mode. I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

 

[Neil Barras]

I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

Maybe because AMD own ATI?

 

[DaveW]

Because AMD bought ATI. ATI is now the enemy to Intel. So Intel uses
Nvidia boards.


DaveW

 

[Tony Hill]

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6395573.html

Funny that Intel's demo system used but a single Nvidia card - their
mobo does not support Nvidia in SLI mode, but DOES support ATI in SLI
mode. I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

Actually, despite what you might intially think, it probably doens't
have too much to do with AMD and ATI being one and the same now.

What's much more likely is that they just went for the higher
performance video setup they could get, and right now nVidia is
beating the pants off ATI. A single GeForce 8800 can match or beat
the performance of two top-of-the-line ATI cards.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6395573.html

Funny that Intel's demo system used but a single Nvidia card - their
mobo does not support Nvidia in SLI mode, but DOES support ATI in SLI
mode. I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

And Nvidia is charging upto $120 for an SLI chipset for Intel. I've
bought motherboards for less than half of that! It doesn't charge that
much for AMD chipsets.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6395573.html

Funny that Intel's demo system used but a single Nvidia card - their
mobo does not support Nvidia in SLI mode, but DOES support ATI in SLI
mode. I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

Just further proof, if we needed it, that Intel's is a hate-based
culture... with a dusting of bi-polar disorder.... sickos!

 

[James Boswell]

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6395573.html

Funny that Intel's demo system used but a single Nvidia card - their
mobo does not support Nvidia in SLI mode, but DOES support ATI in SLI
mode. I wonder why they chose Nvidia? 8)

Because a single Geforce 8800GTX is a match for a pair of X1950XTX's in
Crossfire...

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/geforce-8800/oblivion-hdr-aa.gif

-JB

 

[chrisv]

Actually, despite what you might intially think, it probably doens't
have too much to do with AMD and ATI being one and the same now.

What's much more likely is that they just went for the higher
performance video setup they could get, and right now nVidia is
beating the pants off ATI. A single GeForce 8800 can match or beat
the performance of two top-of-the-line ATI cards.

Hmm... I guess I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I shouldn't be so
cynical, eh? 8)

Still, from what I've read, a high-end Conroe would probably keep-up
with any video card on the planet, no quad-core needed...

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Still, from what I've read, a high-end Conroe would probably keep-up
with any video card on the planet, no quad-core needed...

Depends on the resolution. As soon as the FPS remains the same no matter
what detail level you've set on the game, then you've reached CPU
limits. Those do exist on Conroe too.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

Depends on the resolution. As soon as the FPS remains the same no matter
what detail level you've set on the game, then you've reached CPU
limits. Those do exist on Conroe too.

Don't you mean CPU "contribution" limit? IOW what you've really reached is
the GPU limit - i.e. it doesn't matter how much faster the CPU can deliver
its info, the GPU is pegged. Interestingly that point seems to have moved
up dramatically fairly recently. I'm not a gamer so only look at such
benchmarks occasionally but I notice that the gamer benchmarks no longer
even bother with 640x480 as a CPU comparison point. At high detail, the
resolution point where the CPU performance quits "contributing" is now
somewhere around 1600x1200... with exceptions of course.

 

[The little lost angel]

Don't you mean CPU "contribution" limit? IOW what you've really reached is
the GPU limit - i.e. it doesn't matter how much faster the CPU can deliver
its info, the GPU is pegged.

Hmm I'm getting confused.

If the FPS doesn't change with details/resolution, doesn't it mean the
CPU is the limit and not the GPU?

Since if the GPU's hitting the limit, more details (since AFAIK CPU
only does the setup and leaves the GPU to do all the fanciful
additional details like AA, HDR etc) will cause it to slow down
further no?

But since the FPS isn't changing despite the GPU having more details
to render, it would mean the CPU isn't throwing enough data at the GPU
to choke it right?