Think I may aswell get one now at that price
UT3 should be fun with it aswell.
Dammit! They have got TOM! They have got TOM!
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.
Think I may aswell get one now at that price
UT3 should be fun with it aswell.
No, I meant a source for AMD making a killing. We know that the GT is in very short supply, but that doesn't mean that AMD are recovering from their losses last quarter (of which I do have a source if you're interested.)There's no point having a brilliant product, which the GT is, if there is no stock available.
Well if they're $99 you're looking at about £50 before tax and nearly £60 after, not including shipping and the typical price-hike that we in the UK suffer from.Think I may aswell get one now at that price
Really, like making a killing from the GT shortage ?
I meant a source for AMD making a killing.
willhub said:They'll detroy Ageia even more than it is just like what happening to AMD/ATi, flopped GPU's and CPU's, whats next? PPU's? What are they going to do next? Buy QTec? at least it'll add to there flops.
See I prefer to go on market share than idle speculation, and market share tells an entirely different story. This article from August shows Nvidia gaining ground in market share around August, and this article from only a two weeks ago shows Nvidia boasting record profits.There are no sources, (seems strange there is no 'vga charts' for GPU sales) mine was merely a theoretical guesstimation based on the figures of which are most readily available.
My thinking was "If you can't buy one, and you want a new budget(y) graphics card, which would it be ?"
See I prefer to go on market share than idle speculation, and market share tells an entirely different story. This article from August shows Nvidia gaining ground in market share around August, and this article from only a two weeks ago shows Nvidia boasting record profits.
So when it comes down to the facts, AMD aren't really making a killing at all. They're getting their arses kicked by both Intel and Nvidia in all areas of the graphics market. They even had to have a cash injection from the middle east recently by selling off loads of their shares.
Never seen such speculation in all my time on OcUK. He should look at the articles I just linked to.Tell that to drunkenmaster, he thinks he can accurately predict their position now and in 10 years time. Read from post #12 downwards http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17806150
I clearly lack common sense Pottse, PLEASE post some real-life examples, whether it be benchmarks or whatever.
Only at lower resolutions. At resolutions such as 1680*1050 or higher on max details then a second GPU will always pay dividends as the load on the GPU increases, and CPU power becomes less of an issue. Hence why at high resolutions on modern games you see weaker CPU's being only marginally slower than more powerful CPU's.
Pottsey's post was clearly refering to a scenario where you are CPU limited. In this scenario the GPU is idle while it waits for the CPU to finish its work for that frame and send the next frame to it to render. Adding a second graphics card will not offer an improvement as you would just have two graphics cards waiting for the CPU. However if you add a Physx card you remove some of the burden from the cpu which will mean it will finish it's work sooner that frame and will be in a position to send data for the next frame to the gpu to render.
If you increase the resolution the GPU has more work to do and the scenario can change to you becoming GPU limited. i.e. the CPU has finished all it's work for that frame but is having to wait on the GPU to finish drawing the frame before it can send the next one. If you added a more powerful or second gpu in this case then of course it would speed things up.
Just because the resolution is 1680 * 1050 does not mean that you will not be CPU limited and will benefit by adding a second gpu. The load on the gpu does increase as the resolution increases however the work the cpu has to do remains the same. Therefore if you have a very fast of multi gpu set up you may well still be cpu limited. Especially in a game where complex physics calculations are being handled by the CPU along with complex ai routines. CPU power only becomes less of an issue when you are heavily GPU limited.
However, having said that at high resolutions at the highest settings most modern games do tend to be gpu limited. I believe one exception to this is stalker which is cpu limited at fairly high resolutions.
Well they've gotta sell them (relatively) cheap, to make way for this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/news/460
The brand new spanky PCIe version!
Thanks for the explanation but i'm well aware of all this, my point was that the situation Pottsey is referring to is rarely, if ever, going to be applicable to anyone who is in a situation to go SLI/Crossfire. For the vast, vast majority of users a second GPU will ALWAYS bring a greater performance increase than adding a PhysX card, and imo to suggest otherwise is just silly. Pottsey loves ot wac lyrical about these supposed benefits of PhysX, byt his talk seems to be based on the theoretical, rather than having actual practical examples to show us. Until then...
I was clearly referring to the modern standard of hardware and the resolutions most gamers will be playing at. A gamer will be GPU limited at higher resolutions with modern games 99% of the time, especially with the price/power ratio of modern CPU architecture.
He has not lost any with that reply.Pottsey you usually debate really well, but this makes you seriously lose some credibility.
Source?
Which is why I said he's usually so good at debating.He is nearly always posting links the backup his posts
Where did I state a "fact"? The only thing I've really said about the PPU in this thread is that I still don't think it's worth the cost when I, personally, would probably only play one game that utilises it. If you want a link for me to prove that opinion then you must be off the planet.So if that means not posting links now means no credibility wheres yours.
Im sure people have paid a lot more to play Crysis
Which is why I said he's usually so good at debating. If anything, I respect the way he posts here.
Where did I state a "fact"?
Bottom line: Pottsey doesn't need you to stick up for him, get out of my face and butt in someone elses conversation. Last I knew your name wasn't Pottsey, so why did you even reply to me?
Erm, yes I do? I stated that AMD are not "making a killing" as knowledge123 said, and I posted links. Other than that, I've not stated any "facts" in this thread at all, never mind not backing them up with links.Its not about Pottsey its about you not backing up your stuff in anyway with links
If twice means continually now, then I guess you're continually bugging me with your bull.while your continually asking from others