And why would they, the number of returns every year is minimal in general, those killed by overclocking even less. EVGA have replaced and upgraded 4 of my Titan cards, im now running Maxwell Titan X's, the original cards were first gen titan superclocked, and, theyre still in warranty for 2 more years lol...
-
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.
AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X
- Thread starter faceman123
- Start date
And why would they, the number of returns every year is minimal in general, those killed by overclocking even less. EVGA have replaced and upgraded 4 of my Titan cards, im now running Maxwell Titan X's, the original cards were first gen titan superclocked, and, theyre still in warranty for 2 more years lol...
Damn right! Video work + gaming so a Threadripper or SkylakeX would be fantastic.
For Threadripper it all depends on the base clocks, and what OC I can squeeze out on a Noctua cooler for it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,392
- Location
- Planet Earth
I had a think about it - will Threadripper be better than Ryzen for gaming?? Its four CCX modules over two different chips - so if certain games need optimisations to help with the two CCX design,what about when you have four?? Or am I worrying too much??
Voiced concern about that earlier in the thread but they were saying in the prey demo that it was optimised for gaming as well so we'll see.
All those years people were asking for future proofing. Now we have it with the Ryzen CPUs, and there are complaints
tsk tsk (lol)
I do not believe there are going to be many issues. All engines and devs are already informed of the architectural layout by AMD. And according to them, they have sent out thousands of dev kits.
Is not like we are back in March, with everything under wraps, were even the mobo manufacturers had no idea.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,392
- Location
- Planet Earth
All those years people were asking for future proofing. Now we have it with the Ryzen CPUs, and there are complaints
tsk tsk (lol)
I do not believe there are going to be many issues. All engines and devs are already informed of the architectural layout by AMD. And according to them, they have sent out thousands of dev kits.
Is not like we are back in March, with everything under wraps, were even the mobo manufacturers had no idea.
Well TBH,a £300 Ryzen 7 1700 is more than future proof since its double the threads of a Core i7 quad core - its most likely we will see another stepping out,as you saw that with the Phenom II X4 920/940 to the Phenom II X4 955BE/965BE which had a good increase in clockspeeds.
If 7NM is indeed using IBM technology like the 32NM and 45NM process are,I think Ryzen 2 is going to have a really decent IPC uplift and clockspeed uplift,and its no wonder Intel has now announced they are developing a new uarch.
Yep. Same applies to the X399 platform, which I am more anxious to see how it will work with the Vega & Infinity Fabric the latter supports, with the extra lanes and having multiple cards.
In addition to the perf benefits, if any, with quad channel ram and Infinity Fabric.
We didn't had new tech to explore many many years now. :/ Possible since the Athlon 64.
Unfortunately Windows these days, is sub par compared to what used to be :/
MS simply doesn't care, and they only want to keep is as dummy as possible to cut costs that would require to optimise it. The sooner more game devs embrace Vulcan, the better for all of us, so we can get out of Windows.
Personally the small game I am making is Vulcan only. And finding it not that more difficult to optimise it compare to DX11 or DX12. The effort is exactly the same, even for someone who just starts up on game development and is "one man band". (I have 25 years career as software developer and hobby on top).
I wish steam would pull their finger out and get stuff running smoother on their OS. Then we would be good to go from windows if all you do is game and surf the net.
But it would be good if they could also get it to run other stuff too like windows does.
But it would be good if they could also get it to run other stuff too like windows does.
I'm surprised that Windows still doesn't have a real competitor. Obviously an OS is a massive undertaking but surely the Russians or Chinese or even the Japanese could come up with something? Is it that MS have too many patents and would cripple any competition with lawsuits?
No.
The issue is the masses only know one OS. The one that came with their laptop or using at work.
Learning something new, even if is simpler, is difficult for them.
I am writing software 22 years. Believe me in many instances employees were resistant to adopt a new piece of software even if it required a third of the effort to do the same amount of work. For no other reason other than "I know what I am doing, no need replacement".
Let alone start educating them to use a new OS.
But all comes down to the next generation of users always. If MS hadn't bribed their way in the 90s, they would have ended up along side IBMs OS/2 and the Dodo.
If MS hadn't allowed piracy to run on all their products, they would be dead. They expanded and became what they are, because of the piracy.
Also if Nvidia for example hadn't bought 3DFX just to kill Glide, and only support the worst API of them all back then, the DirectX, things could have been different.
The main culprits is my generation (early 40s). Those who were going into the job market in the mid 90s, when the whole market was forming, the only OS we knew to use was Windows because of the gaming.
I am not one of them. Always had Linux as my primary system and even wrote parts for many pieces of software for it back then.
Even a web sniffing worm, to build up the first Greek language thesaurus and spellchecker database, to implement it on the text editors. (there was none).
But is all down to marketing. See Apple. They were almost dead, on the desktop/laptop market, until launched the first iPhone. Suddenly a new generation of users came out, who prefer using their OS compared to Windows.
Is unfortunate they do not unlock their OS to be used by PCs. They could carve a huge market share from Microsoft and Windows.
Which personally I believe is a good thing, even if I do not like Apple and what they represent.
Hell, if we move away from Windows, even the x86 platform should follow the same way and die.
But 32 years later, and Microsoft cannot release yet Windows for ARM natively. (Windows 10 ARM will have an x86 wrapper).
They are a monolithic behemoth, moving with the speed of granite unfortunately. And we are stuck until people get educated, or until the next generation of games comes out with Vulcan support.
The problem isnt writing an OS. It's hard, sure, but gaining market share is the difficult part. Unless it's compatible with existing software, nobody will use it. And if nobody uses it, nobody will develop software for it. Look at Linux, even with a (imho) better desktop experience and these days fairly good GPU driver support and vast amount of software availability, people won't use it because their favourite game/app won't work. And that's in with a £0.00 price tag. Try releasing an OS in a worse position and charging for it...
Unless you could write something with near 100% windows driver and binary compatibility, you're not going to gain any market share. Of course, doing so would probably be an invitation to Microsoft's patent lawyers.
Unless you could write something with near 100% windows driver and binary compatibility, you're not going to gain any market share. Of course, doing so would probably be an invitation to Microsoft's patent lawyers.
very true,
its a big shame Steam OS just isnt going anywhere
Steam OS + Android i could do 99% of my work flow..
How true.
spot on - its the corporate market that buy millions of pc's a year that rely on the last big release of MS rather than the current one (simply because its too complex to swap that many people at one time) and the likes of Barclays and all the other huge corporations that rely on complete compatability for the company to run as smoothly as possible.
Its very little to do with the gaming market , or even what people were coming through 20-25 years ago
Its funny, if every company was like I.D Software we wouldnnt have any issue running Linux
There is more to it than learning a new OS (which people generally have vastly different levels of difficulty with) - MS emerged because at the time their OS was more in touch with emerging user trends (sadly something they seem to have lost their way on) and generally a bit more robust GUI wise as well as pushing for wide hardware support, etc.
Linux GUI wise for a long time was extremely clunky and likely to break dumping you into the CLI environment outside of the very most prominent features - I mean look at GTK around early 2000s it might have in some cases looked quite nice but even things like file dialogues weren't even in the same league as Windows for quick, easy, use with lots of things not acting in a unified manner.
Creating an OS as above isn't really the difficult bit these days - none the least you can crib off the widely available *nix sources even if you essentially wrote something new from the ground up. The problem is so many people are invested into Windows very heavily - much of my everyday workflow has years of dependencies on software that only has a Windows version which couldn't easily be replaced, etc.
EDIT: One thing I find amusing is the seeming problems with just creating a decent file manager - you either end up with very poorly thought out software with a lack of deeper features and incoherent paths for different file operations and hit and miss basic features or very well written software with incredible feature depth but so complex that while they are a great tool to have in your software suite they have too much going on to be useful as a day to day file manager. I mean just look at how many flavours of Android ship with an incredibly naff and largely utterly useless outside of simplistic operations file manager :s
Linux GUI wise for a long time was extremely clunky and likely to break dumping you into the CLI environment outside of the very most prominent features - I mean look at GTK around early 2000s it might have in some cases looked quite nice but even things like file dialogues weren't even in the same league as Windows for quick, easy, use with lots of things not acting in a unified manner.
Creating an OS as above isn't really the difficult bit these days - none the least you can crib off the widely available *nix sources even if you essentially wrote something new from the ground up. The problem is so many people are invested into Windows very heavily - much of my everyday workflow has years of dependencies on software that only has a Windows version which couldn't easily be replaced, etc.
EDIT: One thing I find amusing is the seeming problems with just creating a decent file manager - you either end up with very poorly thought out software with a lack of deeper features and incoherent paths for different file operations and hit and miss basic features or very well written software with incredible feature depth but so complex that while they are a great tool to have in your software suite they have too much going on to be useful as a day to day file manager. I mean just look at how many flavours of Android ship with an incredibly naff and largely utterly useless outside of simplistic operations file manager :s
Last edited: