• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users -- And Potentially The Entire PC Gaming Ecosystem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the tablets,Intel contra-revenue is not going to mean many design wins,especially after this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2158...rge-partnership-to-boost-android-tablets.html

Intel is so desperate,that they are now licensing the Atom cores to Rockchip,aka,as the company which makes many low cost ARM based SOCs. This is unprecedented.

They are literally cratering margins in that segment to compete and losing billions of dollars in the process. AMD really does not have that sort of money,and even if they have the better SOC it is not going to matter.

Enthusiast PCs,server and services are what is offsetting the losses in that area for Intel. The console wins are going to be quite important for AMD longterm.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Regarding the tablets,Intel contra-revenue is not going to mean many design wins,especially after this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2158...rge-partnership-to-boost-android-tablets.html

Intel is so desperate,that they are now licensing the Atom cores to Rockchip,aka,as the company which makes many low cost ARM based SOCs. This is unprecedented.

They are literally cratering margins in that segment to compete and losing billions of dollars in the process. AMD really does not have that sort of money,and even if they have the better SOC it is not going to matter.

Enthusiast PCs,server and services are what is offsetting the losses in that area for Intel. The console wins are going to be quite important for AMD longterm.
Click to expand...

They can't keep on throwing money around like that, eventually something will give.
 
humbug said:
They can't keep on throwing money around like that, eventually something will give.
Click to expand...

I think the hope is for the next year or so,they will buy marketshare and ecosystem.

Once they do that,they can begin to sell at more profitable prices.

There is noise that 14NM is more orientated towards density than outright power consumption alone.

So I assume,as time progresses they will intend to make the SOCs as dense and as small as possible,so they can reduce prices.

The only problem,is that the competition is going to do the same,or spend more transistors in upping performance.

Martini1991 said:
Then we'll have no X86 Windows tablets :p
Click to expand...

I think that larger convertible ones will survive,and I suspect that is what AMD will try to target with their X86 SOCs.

However,I have the feeling AMD might eventually replace the CAT cores with ARM ones.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
The mainstream don't want larger expensive tablets.
Click to expand...

The problem is the ARM SOCs are cheap to make and don't always use cutting edge fabs to cut down on costs.

Companies like Allwinner are starting to cut into more established companies like Qualcomm at the low end.

Sure custom designed ARM cores are faster,but a much tinier company can use standard ARM IP and whack together a SOC on the cheap,and get it made on a less than bleeding edge process node relatively cheaply,and with relatively small R and D costs.

As standard ARM cores get better and better,it also creates problems for the bigger ARM based SOC makers too. Intel has the problem they need to spend loads of money on bleeding edge process node tech and fabs. You can see why AMD went fabless,as the money needed is huge and you need the volume to amortise costs.

However,despite this fabless Qualcomm has more free cash in hand than Intel or AMD,at over $30 billion and under $100 million of debt.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
And if Microsoft hadn't messed up, we'd have had Windows RT tablets in the mainstream with these ARM SOC's.
Click to expand...

Good old MS,at times their stubbornness is quite amazing!!

I expect both Intel and AMD must be kicking themselves at selling their ARM based SOC design departments years ago.

After all the Adreno GPU cores used by Qualcomm used to be ATI Imageon.

Lets hope the K12 ARM core is quite good - by then Nvidia will have its own ARM core,ie,Project Denver which Nvidia has been working on for years.
 
Last edited:
Seems the CPU is more important for this game.


Conclusion :


"Watch Dogs is a surprisingly demanding game, particularly when you consider the console hardware it's also running on. But at its most entry-level detail settings and a 1280x720 resolution, you can get by with a Radeon R7 240 or GeForce GT 630 GDDR5. At 1920x1080, you want a GeForce GTX 650 or Radeon R7 250X to keep your nose above 30 FPS. But a Radeon R7 260X or GeForce GTX 750 Ti is going to save you from a lot of the stuttering we observed.


Step up to the highest detail levels, though, and you'll want a Radeon R9 270 or GeForce GTX 760 to run at 1080p. At any resolution higher than that, shoot for high-end hardware like the Radeon R9 290 or GeForce GTX 780. Indeed, the best experience we had was with Nvidia's GeForce GTX Titan overclocked to achieve performance similar to a GeForce GTX 780 Ti.

Even with the Ultra detail preset enabled, which you'd think would shift the workload toward graphics, a strong host processor is surprisingly critical. While the Core i3-3220 and FX-4170 only mustered a 24 FPS minimum, the FX-6300 almost hit 30. The FX-8350 and Core i5-3550 managed a more tolerable 37-88 FPS, and Intel's Core i7-3960X lead by not dropping under 51 FPS.

Of course, you can mitigate the performance hit by lowering your detail settings, bringing frame rates back up, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of gaming on a PC. Make sure you have an FX-6000-series CPU at minimum to enjoy Watch Dogs at higher graphics quality settings, but a Core i5 or FX-8000 would be much better. The publisher recommends a Core i7 for the best possible performance, and we have to agree."



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833.html
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I think the hope is for the next year or so,they will buy marketshare and ecosystem.

Once they do that,they can begin to sell at more profitable prices.

There is noise that 14NM is more orientated towards density than outright power consumption alone.

So I assume,as time progresses they will intend to make the SOCs as dense and as small as possible,so they can reduce prices.

The only problem,is that the competition is going to do the same,or spend more transistors in upping performance.



I think that larger convertible ones will survive,and I suspect that is what AMD will try to target with their X86 SOCs.

However,I have the feeling AMD might eventually replace the CAT cores with ARM ones.
Click to expand...

Intel, or AMD for that matter can't compete with the 10 pence ARMH SoC, Nvidia have already realised that.

IMO the only way for Intel to enter the Tablet Market in away that turns a profit for them is to Take ARMH out of the equation.

They will throw Billions at vendors for as long as it takes to put ARMH out of business so they can then jack the price up, if they can. If they don't run out of disposable cash before.
 
Last edited:
Stanners said:
AMD perform well compared to Nvidia. This thread just needs to die.
Click to expand...

Yes. Unfortunately (if your face doesn't fit and all that) your opinion is judged on your brand rather than sense. There is some real clicky users on this place.

drunkenmaster said:
As others have pointed out to you, it's not about CPU directly...
None of them care which cpu you buy or don't, it's about game making
...
If AMD's £150 cpu couldn't compete with Intel's £250 cpu, and Mantle makes it, woo, but then Intel's £150 cpu will compete as well now, meaning AMD still has competition, the same competition.
Click to expand...

As usual the DM has something worth reading. :)

I think I will pick up watch dogs when I get some free time, looks like a keeper.

jh30uk said:
Even with the Ultra detail preset enabled, which you'd think would shift the workload toward graphics, a strong host processor is surprisingly critical. While the Core i3-3220 and FX-4170 only mustered a 24 FPS minimum, the FX-6300 almost hit 30. The FX-8350 and Core i5-3550 managed a more tolerable 37-88 FPS, and Intel's Core i7-3960X lead by not dropping under 51 FPS.
Click to expand...

After a couple of patches and driver optimisations it will be a different story. Give it some time.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia responds to AMD's GameWorks allegations
http://techreport.com/news/26521/nvidia-responds-to-amd-gameworks-allegations

"Our driver engineers typically—actually almost never have looked game source code. So that's not really the operating model."

I asked whether, prior to the establishment of the GameWorks licensing model, AMD would have had access to the code for games with Nvidia middleware. "No, I don't think so," Cebenoyan replied. "In general, most game developers don't really give people source code, anyway."

Addressing AMD's specific complaint about code samples disappearing from Nvidia's website, Cebenoyan pointed out that the samples are still there. "Someone just failed in navigating the website," he said. The samples can be downloaded here, and Nvidia doesn't intend to remove them; indeed, the company says it wants to add more of them.

Cebenoyan went on to tell me that, in "at least" two instances, AMD's own developer relations efforts impeded Nvidia's work with game developers. "We know of real examples where we have actually explicitly been forbidden from seeing builds—forget source code, even just binary builds—of games that include high-end effects," Cebenoyan said. "The full game with all of the effects, the important PC ultra quality settings, [was] hidden from us until say a few weeks before launch, something like that. These were things that were contractually obligated."
 
Since you posted the above this was what got that response :

http://techreport.com/news/26515/amd-lashes-out-at-nvidia-gameworks-program

I read the comments this afternoon and 1 guy seems spot on that AMD blame Evil Nvidia/Linux/MS/DX/OpenGL when things do not go their way.


@ Th0nt, that is not my info I only posted it here and have do not care for Watch Dogs so will not be playing it and nothing DM posts is worth reading and I do not even see his posts.
 
Last edited:
Interesting find Andy would seem there been dodgy dealings on bothsides in the past ,, Not that i really thing anyone in there right mind wouldnt of already assumed so.
Hopefully now the issue's resolved to peoples satisfaction
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom