backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by navair2.. on Jun 11 at 1:26 AM


  (Source: Bright Side of the News)
Upcoming release should offer an alternative to Sandy Bridge, but will it perform?

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) is sitting pretty with strong graphics card sales and better than expected sales of its lightweight, power efficient fusion CPU+GPU systems on a chip (SoC).  The company is now profitable after years in the red.

Looking to continue its success, AMD previewed [press release] "Scorpius" at the 2011 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) at the Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) in Los Angeles.  Scorpius is AMD's answer for the high-end gaming market.

The design will feature an octacore, unlocked Zambezi processor dubbed "FX", reviving AMD's old enthusiast CPU branding.  Zambezi, codenamed after a river in Africa, is AMD's high performance 32 nm SOI process upcoming desktop CPU based on the company's new Bulldozer architecture.

The new platform will also feature a Radeon 6xxx HD graphics card from AMD and an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard (socket AM3).

Leslie Sobon, AMD's vice president of worldwide product marketing, comments, "AMD’s FX brand will enable an over-the-top experience for PC enthusiasts. By combining an unlocked, native eight-core processor, the latest in chipset technology, and AMD’s latest graphics cards, FX customers will enjoy an unrivalled feature set and amazing control over their PC’s performance."

The obvious competitor of Scorpius will be Intel Corp.'s (INTCSandy Bridge, possibly paired with GeForce 5xx series GPUs from NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA).  With eight physical cores, Scorpius will arguably have the edge over single-socket Intel designs, though, which currently only feature four cores (eight threads).  Intel will bump its core count to six cores in the near future, but it remains to be seen whether that will be enough.

Performance numbers on Bulldozer are still lacking, so it remains to be seen exactly how powerful this octacore gaming rig will be.

One thing that may excite some is AMD's growing array of HD3D partners.  HD3D, AMD's proprietary 3D technology works fully with the company's EyeFinity firmware, which supports up to six displays driven by a single graphics card.

AMD claims over 400 current and upcoming titles support the 3D gaming tech, including, Eidos Montreal's upcoming "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", Bioware's "Dragon Age II", Creative Assembly's "SHOGUN 2: Total War", and Codemasters' "DiRT 3."

Regardless of who comes out on top performance wise, it's refreshing to see a reinvigorated AMD challenging both Intel and NVIDIA in the CPU and GPU sectors.  A competitive market should push all three PC hardware makers to quicken the release of powerful new hardware that will delight PC gamers and enthusiasts -- few as they may be, these days.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Process technology ?
By 2ManyOptions on 6/7/2011 1:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Looks good, waiting to see some benchmarks for this one !
Is this built on 32 nm? Also, will this be competing against i7 - 990X Extreme edition and what will be the price?




RE: Process technology ?
By MrTeal on 6/7/2011 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
They're built on GF's 32nm process. I don't think that they've announced prices yet, but we'll have to wait and see where the performance puts them relative to Sandy Bridge. I would guess the upper-tier FX parts would target the same users as the 990X or the upcoming Sandy Bridge EX.


RE: Process technology ?
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 2:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Gaming wise the 990 is currently beaten by the 2600k. So whatever is replacing the 990 is most likely what it is targeted at and the current 2600k.

FX chips historicaly were 1000$ parts. The fact they are reviving the FX name gives me a considerable amount of hope for thier new cpus. But i dont expect them to be 1000$ parts anymore.

That being said i'm betting sandy and ivy will still be faster than amd. But all amd needs to do is get within 10-15% of sandy and ivy realisticly and then keep the prices reasonable and they will have an easy win with thier more flexible setups.


RE: Process technology ?
By fic2 on 6/7/2011 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
Wasn't Intel saying that their new 22nm process would provide Ivy with 20% speed improvement over Sandy? If I remember that correctly then AMD has to be at least equal to Sandy to have a prayer against Ivy.


RE: Process technology ?
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Depends where that 20% comes from. If its raw clock speed increases vs efficiency im not to worried. If they refined it to get more out of it clock for clock like p4 vs core, then im worried.


RE: Process technology ?
By BSMonitor on 6/7/2011 3:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gaming wise the 990 is currently beaten by the 2600k. So whatever is replacing the 990 is most likely what it is targeted at and the current 2600k.


Check again, a 990 barely competes against a 2400 sandy bridge.


RE: Process technology ?
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 4:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming im reading what you said correctly......thats exactly what i said, that the 990 is already outclassed and irrelevant.


RE: Process technology ?
By darckhart on 6/7/2011 4:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
people buying 990x aren't doing it for gaming, so the whole point is moot. can't arbitrarily compare it with SB. therefore it's not irrelevant. besides benching crowns, if you need 6c/12t and lots of memory bandwidth, it's a very nice platform.


RE: Process technology ?
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 4:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Its not an arbitrary comparision. I specified in gaming applications where it is beaten easily and for some reason people do buy 990s with gaming in mind.

Overall i agree with you , its awesome for what its intended for.

But anyway, the FX chips most likely wont be targeting the 990 which was the point of the response in the first place.


RE: Process technology ?
By Spoelie on 6/8/2011 3:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, bulldozer will probably be a better competitor to the 990x vs the 2600k. AMD emphasized throughput on this generation, not single thread performance. Likewise, the 990x is more throughput focused while the 2600k has better performance per thread.

Games tend to like the latter, business apps the former.


RE: Process technology ?
By borismkv on 6/8/2011 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Name a game that requires the absolute max hardware to look good these days. I have a 975 with a GeForce 465GTX and I have yet to find a game that is unplayable on max graphics.


RE: Process technology ?
By Unspoken Thought on 6/10/2011 1:06:17 AM , Rating: 3
Witcher 2?

"Look good" is subjective. DX9-DX11, Anti-Aliasing 2x-16x, Multi-Sampling vs Supersampling, Anisotropic Filtering, Ambient Occlusion, Triple Buffering, Tessellation, Dynamic Lighting, Soft Shadows, Depth of Field, just to name a few, all add to the eye candy extravaganza. Let's not throw 3D rendering or multi-monitor setup's into the mix.

Having your minimums above 60FPS is a treat, regardless of resolution. Try keeping your minimums the same with all the aforementioned...? You won't need to turn the heater on during the winter.


RE: Process technology ?
By Belard on 6/7/2011 4:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
FX haven't been $1000 parts (even the dual chip 4X4 crapshoot) since the intel shot out Core2Duo and then held AMD down while kicking them in the nuts for two years.

When it comes to gaming, AMD does okay against the Core i-whatever-the-F-it-is CPUs. Looking at costs, the AMD platform could be $150~300 cheaper, resulting in games getting 80fps vs 90fps with a 2600k. (yeah, this is in general)... I'd rather pocket the money or put it towards an SSD or better graphics card, its about budget and balance.

For general use, AMD Fusion Llano goes up against the i3/i5 CPUs quite well, not a small feat.

These new FX chips MUST be equal to SB in performance, if not better as well as proper price target. An 8X CPU is useless if its still slower than a quad-core SB. And besides gaming, the rendering power of the new CPUs better be good too.

The new Bulldozer CPUs are supposed to easily be faster than AMD's current top tech... with room for even greater performance. Thats all we need.

PS: But obvious, TOP performance isn't everything. The market of low-powered yet powerful CPUs to allow people to check their mail and simple gaming is whats selling like hot-cakes... not $1000 chips.

PS2: AMD's new box art looks HOT. But we need those in our hands today.


RE: Process technology ?
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 4:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
1000$ chips as in thats what they were charging for them. Not that they were worth the 1000$.

When c2 came out the fx line pretty much vanished. I want to say the fx-74 was the last one? And up until atleast the fx-60 amd was charging 1000$ per cpu , never mind a 200$ one oced to fx levels easily.

Otherwise i agree with you in general.


RE: Process technology ?
By Targon on 6/7/2011 4:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
What many have missed is that Bulldozer has a new core design, while Llano still uses the K10.5 design used by the current Phenom 2 processors. That is still decent performance for those who would be using an APU with the built-in GPU.

AMD has really been acting as a platform company for a long time now, where the overall performance of CPU+GPU+chipset is more important than having the best in any one area and having garbage for the rest of the system. Low end Intel systems tend to have a LOT of annoying minor problems that you don't see on comparably priced AMD systems, even if the Intel systems are faster at certain tasks.


RE: Process technology ?
By EricMartello on 6/7/2011 11:56:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Gaming wise the 990 is currently beaten by the 2600k. So whatever is replacing the 990 is most likely what it is targeted at and the current 2600k.


I have a 980X, and I've had it for a while now. The 2600K and even the 2400 will outperform it in certain benchmarks, however it's worth noting that the difference is not substantial. There are also benchmarks where the 980X still outperforms the newer CPU...to say "beaten" isn't really accurate. It's more like "contending with". If you use your computer to do anything other than gaming, the 980X would still be a better choice for the money, and you can OC it to the 4GHz realm reliably to squeeze more life out of it if need be.

quote:
That being said i'm betting sandy and ivy will still be faster than amd. But all amd needs to do is get within 10-15% of sandy and ivy realisticly and then keep the prices reasonable and they will have an easy win with thier more flexible setups.


No, I would say that they need to be equal to or better than Intel's offerings to compete. Once you cross a certain price point - the price point where you're really just interested in performance and not 'bang for the buck' - most people are going to go for the platform that offers the best performance.

AMD's prior success was due to them being able to match or exceed Intel's performance while offering a less expensive price point.


RE: Process technology ?
By shompa on 6/8/2011 8:07:23 AM , Rating: 1
The fun thing with X980/intel Extreme editions CPUs are that you don't need to overclock them. Just set Turbo to 4.4ghz on all cores. This is a very elegant solution since when people overclock, they use more energy and produce more heat.

With the turbo solution, the extra heat/energy is only used when it is needed.

BTW. How many are using 100% CPU time with a 4+ ghz CPU? The only windows program I have used that maxed out my cores are video encoding/rendering. (and even with video encoding: most programs only use 2-8 threads. Not a single program was faster when I switched from 4core/8thread intel to a 6core/12thread intel)


RE: Process technology ?
By EricMartello on 6/8/2011 7:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fun thing with X980/intel Extreme editions CPUs are that you don't need to overclock them. Just set Turbo to 4.4ghz on all cores. This is a very elegant solution since when people overclock, they use more energy and produce more heat.


That's what I do and it works great.

quote:
BTW. How many are using 100% CPU time with a 4+ ghz CPU? The only windows program I have used that maxed out my cores are video encoding/rendering. (and even with video encoding: most programs only use 2-8 threads. Not a single program was faster when I switched from 4core/8thread intel to a 6core/12thread intel)


Since most multicore chips are 2 cores / 4 threads (for intel chips with HT), I'd guess that software developers optimize threaded software for the most widely deployed platform. I know that 3DSMax or other high end rendering software can and does utilize all available cores. Studios will often customize the code of 3DSMax for their custom setup...but that is a far stretch from the typical home user.

Anyway, the main reason I bought a 980X is not only because I want the best performance I can get, but also for longevity. I like having a reliable system and each time I upgrade I do it from a "clean" install, so I have to reinstall all my programs and it's a pain in the ass...so if I can get by upgrading once every 2-3 years all the while having a high-performing system I'll take it.

Also, even if software is only using 4 of the 6 cores, that means you can still have a responsive system while rending something in the background...without compromising the speed at which it renders.


RE: Process technology ?
By stimudent on 6/8/2011 12:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
All that matters is that these processors will be on sale on Tiger Direct for $39.99 by early next year.


RE: Process technology ?
By Pitbull0669 on 6/8/2011 9:36:11 AM , Rating: 1
They posted the prices a ways back. The Highest end Octa core is only going to be this.. I CAN NOT WAIT myself. I am useing a 980X and am just about sick of Intel Price Gouging! SUCH dickheads.NOT to mention how STUPIDLY PRICED THE MOBOS ARE!.. I have always been a Intel Guy BUT Times are a changeing!

Here are the first figures made public of the market prices of AMD's upcoming two lines of desktop processors. AMD will approach the desktop PC market with two platforms, the A-Series "Llano" accelerated processing units (APUs), and the FX-series "Zambezi" processors (CPUs). APUs are functionally similar to Intel's Sandy Bridge processors, in having processor cores, a graphics processor, memory controller, and PCI-Express switch packed into a single piece of silicon. AMD is apparently relying on its powerful GPU architecture to make Llano a more wholesome product. Zambezi functionally resembles Intel Westmere/Bloomfield, in having a number of processing cores, a high-bandwidth memory controller, and a large cache packed into a single die, making up for a performance part. By mid-June, AMD will launch the FX-Series with two a 4-core, a 6-core, and two 8-core parts. The series will be led by eight-core AMD FX-8130P priced at US $320, trailed by FX-8130 at US $290. The former probably is a "unlocked" part. Next up is the six-core FX-6110, priced at $240. Lastly there's the quad-core FX-4110, going for $220. You will notice that the price per core isn't as linear as it was in the previous generation.


just another numbers game
By Tunnah on 6/7/2011 4:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
I understand the need for AMD to bring something new to the table but they need to focus more on architecture power rather than power by numbers.

This whole thing seems to be aimed at gamers but what game makes use of the cores ? barely any game stresses my 4 core..I read something a while ago, can't remember where think hardOCP, that stated most games run on 2 or 3 cores, only a few use all 4 cores.




RE: just another numbers game
By Targon on 6/7/2011 7:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Any game or application that makes good use of multi-threading will use a LOT of threads. AI...how many enemies are there on the field of battle, or NPCs wandering around? If every one had a different thread, then games could potentially make use of HUNDREDS of cores. The problem is that many games and applications are not coded to really make the best use of multiple cores. First person shooters where it is just arena type stuff with a bunch of human players wouldn't have a use for it, but AI...there's your application.


RE: just another numbers game
By UnauthorisedAccess on 6/8/2011 3:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
Simple test for the Windows users at home. Open Windows Task Manager, go to the processes tab, click 'View' in the menu, select 'Select Columns...', select 'Threads'.

Now look how thread happy some processes are. Firefox, VirtualBox and explorer are all using 27+ threads each on my machine.

Threading happens more than most users relise/notice. Bring on the relatively inexpensive octo-cores I say!


By superstition on 6/9/2011 4:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
Windows doesn't scale well to eight cores, the last time I checked. Having a lot of threads is one thing; making those threads work simultaneously on eight cores is another.


Amateur mistake
By B3an on 6/7/2011 4:23:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
With eight physical cores, Scorpius will arguably have the edge over single-socket Intel designs, though, which currently only feature four cores (eight threads). Intel will bump its core count to six cores in the near future


......So i guess the 6-core 12 thread 980X Intel CPU that i've been using for well over a year now was just me imagining things Jason?

Intel also make 10 core Xeons, obviously for servers, but still single socket.




RE: Amateur mistake
By riottime on 6/7/2011 5:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
he's referring to the sandy bridge hexa cores not gulftown's. the sd hexa cores aren't plan to be released until 4th quarter.


RE: Amateur mistake
By DandDAddict on 6/7/2011 5:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness to him, i think hes thinking of the 1155 compared to am3/am3+ since the costs for the overall platform should be comparable. Youre right in the server segment they have had single packages with 10-12 cores for awhile now.


SAME SOCKET!!!
By makius on 6/8/2011 6:31:18 AM , Rating: 3
At least you know they won't be changing the MOTHER F_CKING socket every 2 months!




RE: SAME SOCKET!!!
By PitViper007 on 6/8/2011 12:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I was just thinking that the AM3 socket was getting a bit long in the tooth. Believe me, I love that I can keep my motherboard and (hopefully) with a BIOS update, drop in the new chip, but at what point do they need to increase the pinout to increase performance?


By Roy2001 on 6/8/2011 12:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
I am surprised no one mention the spider platform. AMD officially annouced that Barcelona would outperform Intel glued quad-core by 50% but later on they found fastest Barcelona would be way slower than slowest Intel quad core, the Q6600, they put Barcelona with HD3800 video card together and announce the SPIDER platform.

History is repeating!




Where's the beef??
By frozentundra123456 on 6/8/2011 6:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Just get the chips to the market. All the delays and no performance leaks makes me think that they are having problems getting sufficient performance. I cant imagine AMD not bragging and shooting off their mouth if Bulldozer was going to beat Sandy Bridge, much less Ivy. They even bragged up Phenom I and we all know how that turned out.

And "octa-core" sounds impressive, but few games can take advantage of more than 4 cores, much less 8. Seems to me like AMD is making up for a lack of good architecture by just slapping on more cores, kind of like Intel did in the P4 days by trying to keep increasing clockspeed.

And I am not an Intel fanboy. I would love for AMD to become competitive again instead of just a low-end provider. I just am getting tired of AMD and their fans talking up such a good game without any hardware or benchmarks to back it up. Just get the hardware out already!!!




Franzia
By SuckRaven on 6/8/2011 7:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously tho...Why did they copy the design from cheap-ass box wine Franzia? C'mon AMD......

Just look:

http://www.google.com/search?q=franzia&hl=en&safe=...




picture used on article
By jrrfoto77 on 6/9/2011 2:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
wouldn't scorpius from Farscape be a better image? Just a though :)

http://images.wikia.com/farscape/images/3/35/Scorp...




what the hey
By arturus on 6/9/2011 3:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
so some of you are declaring the sandy bridge faster then the 990? since when do you compare a cpu to a mobo?




For the love of competition
By faster on 6/10/2011 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
I certainly hope this new AMD offering is competitive with Intel.
If AMD can pull this off at those prices, it would force Intel to scale back on their price gouging. $320 for the high end chip? That would be great.




Eh? What a comment...
By navair2 on 6/11/2011 1:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
Another reporter apparently jumping on the bandwagon of bashing the PC? "...powerful new hardware that will delight PC gamers and enthusiasts -- few as they may be, these days."

I mean, if that statement is true, I guess all this hype is for naught...evidently, there's barely a market anymore for PC gamers and enthusiasts. Sure, we might be considerably smaller in size than the console peeps... but, hey, we're still alive and going strong.

These days there are quite a few people who own consoles comparatively speaking, but there are FAR more PC's floating around than 10-15 years ago as well.

If there wasn't money to be made in this market, both Intel and AMD wouldn't be spending time developing hardware for it...so do yourself a favor and quit "hastening" its supposed demise...;)

Thx.




Hardly something people care about..
By imaheadcase on 6/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hardly something people care about..
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/7/2011 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
AMD claims over 400 current and upcoming titles support the 3D gaming tech, including, Eidos Montreal's upcoming "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", Bioware's "Dragon Age II", Creative Assembly's "SHOGUN 2: Total War", and Codemasters' "DiRT 3.""

Let go, its over. Hardly anyone cares about it.

Multimonitor setup's are for work not play, unless you can magically make that bezel disappear from the displays, it will always be a niche market.

Also, just because the game "supports" it, does not mean it takes advantage of it. Simply allowing the display to take advantage is pointless..now if you made it take advantage of the game FEATURES that would be something to consider if you like a certain game a lot.

3 monitiors, good graphics card you might as well just buy one big monitor instead without the drawbacks.

In certain online games I've heard it can provide an advantage -- particularly online games. My information comes largely from a friend of mine who was very passionate about EVE Online, and had a couple allies who swore by multimonitor setups, bezel and all...

Granted I've never tried it myself. Too busy doing real work... :)


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Drag0nFire on 6/7/2011 4:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maximum PC did an article recently about multi-monitor gaming.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/multiscr...

They tested some pretty wild set ups (3 x 42in TV anyone?) but the conclusion was interesting: For most games, it's a distraction. But for racing games, it was glorious.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Mitch101 on 6/7/2011 4:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
For first person shooters its a must have. You can detect someone sneaking up from the side just like your natural peripheral vision. Its not perfect but its damn good.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By imaheadcase on 6/8/2011 9:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. You should read up on eye trails. The more space you have the more you have to move eyes. It does not increase more you see, it increases screen space.

Oh and yes you do notice the bezels on the monitors when playing.


By Mitch101 on 6/8/2011 10:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
I play everything I can in triple screens its fine. If your not your missing out.


By kattanna on 6/7/2011 4:33:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My information comes largely from a friend of mine who was very passionate about EVE Online, and had a couple allies who swore by multimonitor setups, bezel and all...


thats because in EVE online, your playing multiple accounts at once

;>)

one account is flying an orca, while the other 2 accounts are flying hulks. it makes for a one person belt stripper LOL

also, flying 2 battleships at once for mission running.. 3 was just too much LOL


By imaheadcase on 6/8/2011 9:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
But with the games that support other things in gameplay, you can also do with a separate monitor. No need for any "tech" just plug and play.

AMD is pretty much just making it seem like you need it for other things.

Supreme commander you could watch map on one monitor and game on 2nd. That is useful. Now if more games did that..multimonitor gaming would be mainstream.

P.S you might as well remove the "voting" for comments. It really serves no purpose.



By navair2 on 6/11/2011 1:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
Heh...if you can put up with the griefers and @sshats in the game, Eve Online is a graphics fiesta that has only gotten better looking over its 8 years of run-time.

I no longer play, but it's definitely something to be viewed over multi displays...;)

"Booster Terrik"


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By jackstar7 on 6/7/2011 2:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
With the right games, the bezels do disappear. It's immersive and enjoyable. Sorry if your experiences were weak, but my setup brings me a lot of enjoyment.

It's almost like YMMV! *gasp*


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Mitch101 on 6/7/2011 4:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Im with your Its awesome and significantly more enjoyable and immersible. Its also significantly improved my gameplay ability.

Triple Monitor widescreen gaming is NOT the same as a single Big screen. With Triple screen gaming you have a much wider field of view. With a large single screen its like wearing binders with a limited field of view.

Multiple monitors are more natural like peripheral vision.

I overlap the monitor bezels to minimize it but overall there is no missing information behind the bezels its not like a car where the divider between the windshield and side widow can cover an area.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Targon on 6/7/2011 7:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can combine these ideas if you could get a single display that had the super high resolutions that Eyefinity 3 or 6 monitor can provide. The real problem is that 1920x1080 is 1920x1080, no matter how large the screen is.


By Mitch101 on 6/8/2011 10:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
I play at 5760x1080. You need an ATI card with 3 or more monitors connected for you game to provide you with the higher resolution options.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Assimilator87 on 6/7/2011 2:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you don't use it doesn't mean other people don't. Can't stand bezels? Use projectors, problem solved. Also, Eyefinity allows 24x the pixels of a single display, so unless you know of some magic uber display, that's not a substitute.


By MrTeal on 6/7/2011 2:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Use projectors, problem solved. Also, Eyefinity allows 24x the pixels of a single display, so unless you know of some magic uber display, that's not a substitute.


How do you figure?


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Digimonkey on 6/7/2011 2:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Eyefinity's max resolutino is 7680x3200, which equates to 24 megapixels. Is that what you were thinking of?


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By therealnickdanger on 6/7/2011 3:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably what he meant to say. The vast majority of displays in use around the world are in the 720p range, at least that's the most commonly USED resolution.

My only experience with multi-monitor gaming was a 3-way setup. Odd numbers seem to be the only way to go, at least for shooters, as losing the reticule is simply not an option. Personally, I'm just fine with a single monitor with super high resolution.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Targon on 6/7/2011 4:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
That "super high resolution" is the problem. Displays that go over 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 tend to be VERY expensive, so the less expensive solution is to go with Eyefinity. With one main display in front, and the two angled on the left and right, you get the super high resolution. Since these 23 inch displays take up the center of your field of view, you have a natural edge to your vision. Peripheral vision will let those two side displays do the job they are there for, giving you a greater field of view.

The second row of displays(above) is where many won't see much value in from a gaming perspective, though there may be games/situations that would make that useful as well.

I'd prefer to see large displays with higher resolutions, but three 1920x1080 displays is less expensive than one display that provides a 5760x1080(if one were ever made).


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By ddownes on 6/7/2011 5:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The second row of displays(above) is where many won't see much value in from a gaming perspective, though there may be games/situations that would make that useful as well.


dogfights


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Captain Orgazmo on 6/7/2011 6:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Track IR and 1 big monitor beats any multi setup for flight sim games... if only they would make some decent ones nowadays.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By Hyperion1400 on 6/8/2011 4:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody hasn't played Wings of Prey ;)


By Captain Orgazmo on 6/9/2011 8:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have, 10 minutes at a time between connection losses or game crashes ;)


By ClownPuncher on 6/7/2011 2:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
The bezel doesn't make it a niche product, the expense does. You definitely don't notice the bezel when gaming.

The drawback of 1 monitor would be the lower resolution.

There are plenty who care about it, otherwise there would be no WSGF or [H].


By Granseth on 6/7/2011 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to see you are living up to your name.

If you read it again you will see that there are over 400 titles that supports 3D gaming, and that if you somehow have 6 3D monitors you can even use the 3d with eyefinity.

So this is mostly about 3D, not about multiple monitors.


RE: Hardly something people care about..
By icemansims on 6/7/2011 2:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the best game I've played with multi-monitor was EVE online. The real estate provided by 5760 x 1080 gives you lots of room for menus, readouts, etc. without impairing your view of your surroundings nearly as much. The bezels are there, yes, but it's like the door posts in a car. One monitor is the equivalent of a windshield, the two ancillary ones like your side windows. Or, if you prefer, looking through a large window or sliding glass door.


By cokbun on 6/7/2011 10:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
whay cant just someone make a single monitor with double or triple width for gaming, you hear that samsung,dell,lg ??


Doesn't Make a lot of Sense
By BSMonitor on 6/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't Make a lot of Sense
By 85 on 6/7/2011 3:51:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
All top end Phenom II's be it x6 or x4 are 125W parts. So in making this an APU, they add 2 more CPU cores when very little takes advantage of 6 cores. Two more cores plus an ATI GPU all on the CPU die? Either these will be 140-150W monsters or be clocked incredibly lower than they should be. Regardless, K10 cores no matter how many cannot compete against the current Core i cores.


um no... they are 32nm


RE: Doesn't Make a lot of Sense
By BSMonitor on 6/7/11, Rating: -1
By mufdvr3669 on 6/7/2011 6:12:31 PM , Rating: 4
He's talking about the new processors with the APU integrated. You know the ones you were talking about here.

"So in making this an APU, they add 2 more CPU cores when very little takes advantage of 6 cores. Two more cores plus an ATI GPU all on the CPU die? Either these will be 140-150W monsters or be clocked incredibly lower than they should be."

It even says in this article they are 32nm. 45nm is the old ones without the APU, 32nm is the new ones with the APU and 8 core or whatever they are coming out with.


By lamerz4391 on 6/7/2011 4:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
These are not the same cores in Phenom II. This is a new architecture. So it'll be 32nm already, and we don't yet know how power hungry Bulldozer is going to be. Seems like you are jumping to conclusions there, pal.


RE: Doesn't Make a lot of Sense
By Targon on 6/7/2011 4:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are distorting the facts here. AMD measures maximum power, and the current Phenom 2 processors are using a 40nm process. There is a good reason Llano was delayed, and that was the need for 32nm to keep the power/heat under control.

I expect the top end Bulldozer chips will be 125W parts, with most being 95W or lower. Still, that is a socket designation, not a pure "how much power does this chip draw". If a motherboard can support 125 watt chips, THAT is what is required. Intel markets things differently, which is why you never know if the new Intel chip you just bought will work in your old motherboard without doing some research.


RE: Doesn't Make a lot of Sense
By BSMonitor on 6/7/11, Rating: -1
By smitty3268 on 6/7/2011 10:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a Phenom II or a K10. It's a bulldozer core, which we know nothing about how efficient it will be.

Also, it's likely that when they say 8-core what they actually mean is 4 cores each with a duplicated integer pipeline in it. That's probably more like 6 cores in terms of power needed.

At this point, no one really knows what the final clock speeds, power usage, or performance of bulldozer will be like.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki