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!
-
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.
Merry Xmas Pottsey
- Thread starter helmutcheese
- Start date
Dammit! They have got TOM! They have got TOM!
Soldato
Unreal Tournament 3 - PhysX Mod Pack available here
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.)
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
So it's still not worth it.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Really, like making a killing from the GT shortage ?
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.
Soldato
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 ?"
willhub said:
Yes, it's a rough patch for ATi & AMD atm, there is no denying that, but if they fail, and the business goes bankrupt, and Nvidia is the only GPU manufacturer left; would that be better for you ?
Last edited:
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 ?"
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.
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
Never seen such speculation in all my time on OcUK. He should look at the articles I just linked to.
P.S. Sorry for the off-topic folks.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 173
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
The only reason I could ever imagine buying one would be to allow developers to have fully destructable environments, but I doubt it could ever assist with that.
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.
Man of Honour
Dual slot cooler!!! How much heat can something sitting in your pc doing nothing generate.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 173
I was aware of the scenario you were referring to however I was pointing out this was not what Pottsey was talking about. He was talking about a specific scenario where you are cpu limited in a ppu enabled game and how adding a ppu would be of more benefit than a second gpu. He never mentioned high resolutions where you are GPU limited.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2828&p=2
Whilst they have not tested with a multi gpu set up if you look at the graph it shows that there is no change in performance as the resolution is increased. This indicates the game is cpu limited even with the physics offloaded to the ppu. The last paragraph on page 3 also comes to this conclusion.
“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.”
I depends on the games you play. Most MMORPG are CPU limited something like City of Heros will give you a bigger FPS boost with a PPU then a 2nd GPU. Not everyone plays as super high resolution so many are CPU limited..
I do agree a lot of the time a 2nd GPU is better. I was just pointing out its not always better.
“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….”
Most people still use 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Super high resolutions are not common for your average gamer. I believe 1280x1024 has now overtaken 1024x768 as the main resolution used. Only the higher end gamers use high resolutions and they make up a very small part of the gaming population.
”Impossible? Please expand on this.”
Take any two SLI cards of the same spec. Now assuming everything is 100% perfect. You double the fillrate double the bandwidth, well double everything so the max FPS boost you can get is double. In other words 50% FPS increase is the max possible.
In reality you have bottlenecks, some things have to be in both sets of ram so ram isn’t really double. Some things are sent more then once so you don’t have effectively twice as much bandwidth as you sending more then twice as much stuff. You have driver overheads and other overheads of getting the two cards to work together. You CPU has to send more data holding you back more. In reality you don’t get 50% increase in speed from a 2nd GPU. Its more like 30% if your lucky.
CPU’s are the same a 2nd CPU core doesn’t double the speed. 4 cores chips are not 4x faster then 1 core.
I depends on the games you play. Most MMORPG are CPU limited something like City of Heros will give you a bigger FPS boost with a PPU then a 2nd GPU. Not everyone plays as super high resolution so many are CPU limited..
I do agree a lot of the time a 2nd GPU is better. I was just pointing out its not always better.
“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….”
Most people still use 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Super high resolutions are not common for your average gamer. I believe 1280x1024 has now overtaken 1024x768 as the main resolution used. Only the higher end gamers use high resolutions and they make up a very small part of the gaming population.
”Impossible? Please expand on this.”
Take any two SLI cards of the same spec. Now assuming everything is 100% perfect. You double the fillrate double the bandwidth, well double everything so the max FPS boost you can get is double. In other words 50% FPS increase is the max possible.
In reality you have bottlenecks, some things have to be in both sets of ram so ram isn’t really double. Some things are sent more then once so you don’t have effectively twice as much bandwidth as you sending more then twice as much stuff. You have driver overheads and other overheads of getting the two cards to work together. You CPU has to send more data holding you back more. In reality you don’t get 50% increase in speed from a 2nd GPU. Its more like 30% if your lucky.
CPU’s are the same a 2nd CPU core doesn’t double the speed. 4 cores chips are not 4x faster then 1 core.
Soldato
He has not lost any with that reply.
He is nearly always posting links the backup his posts while nearly everyone else who is attacking his views post nothing at all.
So if that means not posting links now means no credibility wheres yours.
Last edited:
Which is why I said he's usually so good at debating.
If anything, I respect the way he usually debates and backs up his point here.
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.
Oh, I did state that AMD are not "making a killing", but I did provide links. So I guess you're SOL here.
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?
Last edited:
Soldato
Im sure people have paid a lot more to play Crysis
I paid around £900 quid getting a new system so i could run Crysis well (That did include a 20 inch monitor)
Soldato
Its not about Pottsey its about you & others not backing up there stuff in anyway with links while they continually asking from others which can involve effort & time on there part only to then be overlooked as if it was not posted at all or just a cheap remark is all that is returned.
Last edited:
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.
Are you even reading the same thread that I am? I'm beginning to wonder.
If twice means continually now, then I guess you're continually bugging me with your bull.
Soldato
Sorry i edited my post because its not just about you in this thread.