|
On December 04 2009 10:37 Virtue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 02:51 Drowsy wrote:
When's the next AMD processor supposed to come out? I heard they were doing a 6 core thing but that it's still going to use AM3 socket. If you're looking forward to 6+ cores then you looking forward to windows 8 and better just dump XP in the trash, which will be the main improvement over windows 7. Actually, what were going to see in W8 will make XP quite outdated, as it will use multi threading and "APU"/gpgpu usage much better than what we have today, even with W7.In the cpu section, in the AMD Intel general discussion sticky,early on, I gave links to W7 and its MT usage, and how its all going to change once we hit 8 cores on up, how itll leave XP in the dust.These chips are due in 2010 and 2011, plus LRB and the AMD "APU" approach as well. And why can't this be done via a patch to windows 7? because itll mainly be the floating point units being more used, or able to be used by W8, as well as better threading in a MT solution. As devs write their code in a MT friendly way, the OS working with these new Int/FP solutions, cpus with gfx capable on chip, it all works hand in hand, from SW to OS to HW. Where still nowheres near where we want to be, but even W7 using a 8 core will simply trample XP they way it deals with MT right now, and no patch can change this, just like the kernal was changed on Vista for DX10, no patch makes XP actually play a DX10 game, only thru emulation SW, which is too slow to be effective. Same here with the new OS'
I'm quite excited for Bulldozer with DX11 - because they've finally added tesselation support, with all that CPU power i guess we'll finally be hitting the point of photorealistic graphics.
|
On December 04 2009 13:44 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 10:37 Virtue wrote:On December 04 2009 02:51 Drowsy wrote:
When's the next AMD processor supposed to come out? I heard they were doing a 6 core thing but that it's still going to use AM3 socket. If you're looking forward to 6+ cores then you looking forward to windows 8 and better just dump XP in the trash, which will be the main improvement over windows 7. Actually, what were going to see in W8 will make XP quite outdated, as it will use multi threading and "APU"/gpgpu usage much better than what we have today, even with W7.In the cpu section, in the AMD Intel general discussion sticky,early on, I gave links to W7 and its MT usage, and how its all going to change once we hit 8 cores on up, how itll leave XP in the dust.These chips are due in 2010 and 2011, plus LRB and the AMD "APU" approach as well. And why can't this be done via a patch to windows 7? because itll mainly be the floating point units being more used, or able to be used by W8, as well as better threading in a MT solution. As devs write their code in a MT friendly way, the OS working with these new Int/FP solutions, cpus with gfx capable on chip, it all works hand in hand, from SW to OS to HW. Where still nowheres near where we want to be, but even W7 using a 8 core will simply trample XP they way it deals with MT right now, and no patch can change this, just like the kernal was changed on Vista for DX10, no patch makes XP actually play a DX10 game, only thru emulation SW, which is too slow to be effective. Same here with the new OS' I'm quite excited for Bulldozer with DX11 - because they've finally added tesselation support, with all that CPU power i guess we'll finally be hitting the point of photorealistic graphics.
nope photorealisic is a near impossibility as things are imperfect and consistency in textures and other things give a sense of a plastic of fake look to things photorealism is still more then a few years away at least in near real time rendering.
Nvidia's card will have tesselation but it will be software it will hurt the cards bottom line but i guess they wanted to save realesate and the card is well suited for running such functions in time we will see if that actully does hurt the cards performance compared to ati's
|
On December 04 2009 15:04 Virtue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 13:44 ghermination wrote:On December 04 2009 10:37 Virtue wrote:On December 04 2009 02:51 Drowsy wrote:
When's the next AMD processor supposed to come out? I heard they were doing a 6 core thing but that it's still going to use AM3 socket. If you're looking forward to 6+ cores then you looking forward to windows 8 and better just dump XP in the trash, which will be the main improvement over windows 7. Actually, what were going to see in W8 will make XP quite outdated, as it will use multi threading and "APU"/gpgpu usage much better than what we have today, even with W7.In the cpu section, in the AMD Intel general discussion sticky,early on, I gave links to W7 and its MT usage, and how its all going to change once we hit 8 cores on up, how itll leave XP in the dust.These chips are due in 2010 and 2011, plus LRB and the AMD "APU" approach as well. And why can't this be done via a patch to windows 7? because itll mainly be the floating point units being more used, or able to be used by W8, as well as better threading in a MT solution. As devs write their code in a MT friendly way, the OS working with these new Int/FP solutions, cpus with gfx capable on chip, it all works hand in hand, from SW to OS to HW. Where still nowheres near where we want to be, but even W7 using a 8 core will simply trample XP they way it deals with MT right now, and no patch can change this, just like the kernal was changed on Vista for DX10, no patch makes XP actually play a DX10 game, only thru emulation SW, which is too slow to be effective. Same here with the new OS' I'm quite excited for Bulldozer with DX11 - because they've finally added tesselation support, with all that CPU power i guess we'll finally be hitting the point of photorealistic graphics. nope photorealisic is a near impossibility as things are imperfect and consistency in textures and other things give a sense of a plastic of fake look to things photorealism is still more then a few years away at least in near real time rendering. Nvidia's card will have tesselation but it will be software it will hurt the cards bottom line but i guess they wanted to save realesate and the card is well suited for running such functions in time we will see if that actully does hurt the cards performance compared to ati's
Wat.
The ATI cards have a fuller tesselation processor incorporated whereas the Nvidia cards only have software, meaning the ATI cards will perform much, much better. Also, the Nvidia die are even bigger this generation, meaning prices for the gtx385 or whatever they're calling it will be even greater than the gtx285 at launch (>$800)
|
=p i believe it goes by G1T00 i think
But it actually will be cheaper as nvidia moved to a 40nm process and don't forget they have a full 4870 in transistors above the 5870, and in terms of size it's acutlly smaller then the GT200b ie the gtx260 (216) the biggest chip every produced by nvidia or ati in terms of acutal size anything moving away from it is a good profit maker for nvidia. Anyways nvidia can wait TSMC still can't yeild at the 40nm they are at a 50% failure rate of chips coming out of there.
Nvidia's chip has the power to run tessellation via software arguing that because it's hardware it works better is not essentially true as there is already a predicted limit of need of something like 3 mil triangles so nvidia already has a mark to reach and can tune it as such.and tesselator is described having very minimal FF HW, and will be done much like intel's Larrabee, but, on a faster more tried and true process. As are/will be many things we will see on Fermi.
Fermi's extra processing power will be put into image quality although it's not confirmed if they tapped out a A3 scilicon yet which is troubling that they had to do 2 respins of the chip already but it's becuase their DP and SP numbers aren't as high as they wanted it it says a little bit in gaming power but not really as dp and sp numbers are driver related depending on program.
|
On December 04 2009 17:55 Virtue wrote:
=p i believe it goes by G1T00 i think
But it actually will be cheaper as nvidia moved to a 40nm process and don't forget they have a full 4870 in transistors above the 5870, and in terms of size it's acutlly smaller then the GT200b ie the gtx260 (216) the biggest chip every produced by nvidia or ati in terms of acutal size anything moving away from it is a good profit maker for nvidia. Anyways nvidia can wait TSMC still can't yeild at the 40nm they are at a 50% failure rate of chips coming out of there.
Nvidia's chip has the power to run tessellation via software arguing that because it's hardware it works better is not essentially true as there is already a predicted limit of need of something like 3 mil triangles so nvidia already has a mark to reach and can tune it as such.and tesselator is described having very minimal FF HW, and will be done much like intel's Larrabee, but, on a faster more tried and true process. As are/will be many things we will see on Fermi.
Fermi's extra processing power will be put into image quality although it's not confirmed if they tapped out a A3 scilicon yet which is troubling that they had to do 2 respins of the chip already but it's becuase their DP and SP numbers aren't as high as they wanted it it says a little bit in gaming power but not really as dp and sp numbers are driver related depending on program.
the 5870 will render tesselations better becaus having hardware support DOES increase it's capability. For example, have you ever tried to play a game inside an emulated (vmware or something) copy of windows? It doesn't exactly work to well. This is because using software to drive hardware acceleration fails hardcore. I guarantee that as far as tesselation goes, Nvidia just isn't prepared with it yet.
Also the transistor count doesn't necessarily count that much. The wafers they manufacture chips on are 200x200mm and if you can't fit many chips on that then that means the price goes through the roof because hafnium isn't exactly cheap and they only have like <50% success rate in manufacturing. The new dies are supposedly like 29mm^2.
|
You do realize that TSMC makes chips for both ATI and Nvidia if anything ATI is the one getting boned as they are tiring to sell a product and need the high yeilds while nvidia is still doing respins and testing with their tesla and their GT100 why do you think the 5850 went from 260 to 300 bucks in one week.
And transistor count does matter, as for as your explanation of tesslidation in comparison to a virtual os that is a horrible example becuase tesslidation are triangle based calculations that's all an os need to read from kernel to hw ot sw to hw to sw to work it's a totally different situation. I mean you could have a chip dedicated to ray tracing and HDR but it's a matter of do you really need the chip or can you do it though emulation, Nvidia's gpu can run assembly, c++ and a few other languages meaning software emulation is not that hard, also when you run software emulation over wmware you're cpu is doing all the work it's why it sucks.
The GT200b the 260's chip is the largest chip ever made,
Nvidia's new chip is big compared to ATI's ATI chip is about the same size as their 4870 nvidia is about the same size as a G80(nvidia) which is slighly bigger then their G92(nvidia) one of their smaller successful chips. It's not going to cost Nvidia that much if their chip is more sucessful in terms of power.
|
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 ( 3 GHz)
GPU: ATI Radeon HD4870 ( 512 MB)
MOBO:ASUS P5Q-PRO
RAM: 4 GB DDR2
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate
HD: Seagate 1,5 TB
Seagate 1,5 TB
Seagate 500 GB
I'm a poor student  . Can't afford to upgrade any hardware for the next 2 years or so.. Only games i would like to play are StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3. Is this rig fine enough ?
|
On December 07 2009 16:29 Mikami_ wrote:CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 ( 3 GHz) GPU: ATI Radeon HD4870 ( 512 MB) MOBO:ASUS P5Q-PRO RAM: 4 GB DDR2 OS: Windows Vista Ultimate HD: Seagate 1,5 TB Seagate 1,5 TB Seagate 500 GB I'm a poor student . Can't afford to upgrade any hardware for the next 2 years or so.. Only games i would like to play are StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3. Is this rig fine enough ?
That'll be perfectly fine.
|
I was bought my PC back in march because of the "final stretch" comment by Browder:D
specs are
E8400@3,6ghz
GTX260
4gb ram
so it will be good enough i think but would be much cheaper today or next year.
|
I was wondering if the new mac mini will be able to run SC2 at a decent level. The specs for the one Im looking at is:
CPU: 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics (Im pretty sure it doesn't have its own Ram)
HDD: 320GB Serial ATA Drive
RAM: 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
OS: Of course Snow Leopard
And if it will run it at a higher or level compared to this:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 (2,66 Ghz) 4 MB
GFX: Inno3D GeForce 8800GTS
MoBo: ASUS P5K SE
HDD: Hitachi DeskStar T7K500 320 GB
RAM: Kingston ValueRAM 2 x 1 GB
OS: Vista, perhaps if it is a significant improvement windows 7.
|
Both could run sc2 pretty well i assume ofc.
If that 9400m is integrated not the G version it is very possible it could still run it though as that is the most powerful integrated gpu on the market.
The 9400m is more powerful then some dedicated cards like the 8400m gs and g but not gt ,
the 2.53 core 2 cpu should be good enough even if it's a p low watt power cpu
8800gts should have no problem G80 or G92, desktop cpu is fine.
in other words they should both be able to run it to some extent.
|
On December 07 2009 23:21 Hasudk wrote:
I was wondering if the new mac mini will be able to run SC2 at a decent level. The specs for the one Im looking at is:
CPU: 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics (Im pretty sure it doesn't have its own Ram)
HDD: 320GB Serial ATA Drive
RAM: 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
OS: Of course Snow Leopard
And if it will run it at a higher or level compared to this:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 (2,66 Ghz) 4 MB
GFX: Inno3D GeForce 8800GTS
MoBo: ASUS P5K SE
HDD: Hitachi DeskStar T7K500 320 GB
RAM: Kingston ValueRAM 2 x 1 GB
OS: Vista, perhaps if it is a significant improvement windows 7.
The second one will definitely run it better. First one you should still be ok on lowish settings.
|
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 @ 2.2 GHz
RAM: 4GB
Video: Radeon 4650 512MB
OS: Windows 7
HD: 500GB
It's a laptop. I am going to be living abroad (Korea!) for a year. I hope this will run SC2 well. I don't need graphics maxed or anything ... I also probably will rarely, if ever, play higher than 2v2 games. Mostly 1v1 since my time schedules will be much different than my friends back home.
|
On December 08 2009 06:35 SoleSteeler wrote:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 @ 2.2 GHz
RAM: 4GB
Video: Radeon 4650 512MB
OS: Windows 7
HD: 500GB
It's a laptop. I am going to be living abroad (Korea!) for a year. I hope this will run SC2 well. I don't need graphics maxed or anything ... I also probably will rarely, if ever, play higher than 2v2 games. Mostly 1v1 since my time schedules will be much different than my friends back home.
Jury is kind of out on this one. The video will probably be fine at lower resolution and the CPU seems fine. I very much expect the game to run fine but i don't know about performance. Maybe you'll be surprised.
|
SoleSteeler the game will run fine at mediumish imo. 4650 is a surprisingly powerful card, and Blizzard won't make some unreachable sys req
|
CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) D CPU 3.33GHz, ~3.33 GHz
RAM: 2GB
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 9500GT 128MB
OS: Windows Vista
My computer sucks D: Do you think it can run it?
|
On December 08 2009 12:56 haruharu wrote:
CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) D CPU 3.33GHz, ~3.33 GHz
RAM: 2GB
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 9500GT 128MB
OS: Windows Vista
My computer sucks D: Do you think it can run it?
=\
9500GT is really weak but it should work just fine. The low memory means resolutions over ~1024x768 can't be played. Why don't you upgrade to something a little more passible? gt240/9800gt is a really good choice and they're cheap lately.
edit: something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162042&cm_re=gt240-_-14-162-042-_-Product
i mean doesn't that thing just LOOK badass?
|
On December 08 2009 13:01 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2009 12:56 haruharu wrote:
CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) D CPU 3.33GHz, ~3.33 GHz
RAM: 2GB
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 9500GT 128MB
OS: Windows Vista
My computer sucks D: Do you think it can run it? =\ 9500GT is really weak but it should work just fine. The low memory means resolutions over ~1024x768 can't be played. Why don't you upgrade to something a little more passible? gt240/9800gt is a really good choice and they're cheap lately. edit: something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162042&cm_re=gt240-_-14-162-042-_-Producti mean doesn't that thing just LOOK badass?
i really don't think a gt240 is such a good idea for the money.it's only a 128 bit card.yeah i know it's cheap.but,if you've got a little extra money i think this card is a much better option-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130339
|
I wouldn't go for a 9800 or a 240
Get a 4850 if you are stretched for cash. In almost all benchmarks the 4850 performs better than the 9800 GTX and is a bit cheaper I think.
|
of course.i completely forgot about it.thnx a lot.
silly me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
