Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 18, 2010.
Nice. Carry on then.
Competing at the top = better market exposure. I under stand fully about OEM, I just don't care. I buy top end, if they can't compete there, it's sort of a fail in my book.
Or you can just use what you have, since a new mobo wont really help your performance, and save more money for a second gen AM3+ mobo and chip. My point stands, you need a new mobo to use the chip, it's not any different.
hell, im running my memory at pc5300 (its orginally 1150 mhz 5-4-4-12) and a old PH II 940 @stock with 2x 5850CF.
No problemo's. start up lagg cause of i run my memory so slowly, but im too lazy....
Games run as good as any other rig, i rarely hit games i have issues with... more like never.
save some money and buy yourself a ssd and your better off then.
Videocards is more a often change than cpu's, i've been using this for two years, and many friends of mine just went away from 5600+'s, 2ghz core 2 duo's running with 5970, 5870CF and GTX460SLI, with those cpu's.
finally games taxed their old old cpu's.
Just saying, cpu's are overrated, so is memory alot of the time
Actually, few, if any people buy at the top. The concept of a "halo" brand is only to make people feel good about their purchases AFTER they have bought their product. Since more than 95% of the world does not buy top bin products, that concept never follows through.
Here is the proof. (please ignore this if you are one of the very few people that actually buys the $1000 desktop CPU.)
You have a choice between 2 CPUs.
Company 1 has the highest benchmark product, but it costs $1000. You can only afford $500. You have 2 processors in the $500 budget range:
Company 1 has one that scores 450 on the one benchmark that really matters to you.
Company 2 has one that scores 600 on the one benchmark that really matters to you.
A. Buy the slower CPU from company 1, even though you are getting less for your money
B. Buy the faster CPU from company 2
The problem with the idea of a halo brand is that 80%+ of the world is what the market calls "processor unaware." Ask 20 people at random and you find the vast majority don't know what kind of processor they have. So having that $1000 top score processor isn't helping sell to that market.
Of the 20% of the market that is "processor aware", they are smart enough to compare performance of the choices in their budget and buy the best one.
Trust me, people don't buy the chevy malibu because the corvette is the fastest car, they buy it because it has the best features for their budget.
Or they see that Mercedes and buy it because its a Mercedes, therefore it must be good. I completely understand what you mean, but I have seen a lot of people going like "I want Intel, because they are the best", and completely negating the other parts, value for money and other things. Just like girls going after the next fashion fad, they see the pros (or "stars") wearing X brand, then they buy X brand regardless of quality and other stuff.
So AMDs idea of competing is to assume what we want? I WANT a more powerful CPU because I am a video editor and I NEED the performance. I don't want to be sitting around waiting for preview files to render. I don't want to wait for hours while I encode 1080p at 10+Mbit/s.
You think it's better for me to get a lower end CPU and put up with it so you can satisfy the cheapskates? Intel have the SMART idea: 3 main processor lines: Low power, mainstream, and enthusiast. AMDs idea is: low power, cheapskate. I want the enthusiast grade, even if only to attempt to compete against Intel so I can get some lower prices on the enthusiast chips.
I am not telling anyone what to buy. I am just pointing out the reality of the market.
In what way is anyone or anything suggesting you get a lower end CPU? just like everyone else you will buy what suits your needs and budget, if anything you should stop being a cheapskate and shell out for an i7 970 or 980x (j/k)
I have to ask though, why are you using a CPU to encode video when you could be using your much faster GPU?
Probably because GPU encoding solutions still don't match the quality of CPU based solutions (by bitrate). I've tried things like Cyberlink MediaEspresso, and to get the same quality as x264 I have to use probably 3 times the bitrate. Of course, this is mainly relevant on final output rather than previews unless it's absolutely critical that you have full quality
In any case, JF-AMD is definitely right in that a very small part of the market buys at the top of the market. In addition, I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of people don't know what exact processor is in their systems. However, I would add that most people probably do know what brand of processor is in their system (especially on OEM systems that include the brand's shield stickers on the machine), and that the public perception of the brand is important.
Honestly, if AMD took control of the midrange CPU market, which probably covers most of the consumer market, that would probably get more attention than just topping the performance segment because the vast majority of people aren't building their own machines, and most also don't buy at the top of the line.
Quite honestly, with how I've been considering what hardware to do, I almost always look at what I call the low end of the high end. What I mean by this is that I look at the cheapest of the high performance line (e.g. the i7 920 when the i7's came out, and the Phenom II x6 1055 instead of the 1090). I don't care much about the other market segments besides the price points directly adjacent to what I am considering.
I had no idea, i have not encoded any form of video on a GPU and not on a CPU for years so i just assumed GPU accelerated programs had the same features including bit rate options.
Really that kind of makes GPU encoding pointless.
I just wish the desktop bulldozer cores would be out sooner so i could pick my CPU, motherboard and ram upgrade as i know I'm going to be very tempted by sandy bridge if the K versions are not to high priced.
Actually there is a point: Acceleration. If all you need is a quick output to give you a basic idea of what you have, GPU accelerated encoding is fine because it does output faster, and the size is more or less irrelevant because it's probably not sticking around. However, for a final output I would use a CPU based encoder until GPU acclerated encoders begin to catch up.
Also, this is just based of of my opinion from software available to me. For all I know there could be some super top secret industrial software that works just fine.
Again, I don't give a shit about the market. No top end = fail in my book.
But since you want to talk about the overall market:
Being able to claim the fastest cpu give you the ability to advertise as such, boosting sales of the lower parts thru brand recognition. Chevy advertising the Corvette ZR-1 or Camaro SS most certainly does bring people in the door for lower end vehicles. It generates a buzz and excitement, very useful selling tools. Or for a better example, Cadillac having the world's fastest production v8 sedan witht he CTS-V. Hell, most people I talk to don't know any Caddy models, but they sure as hell know about the CTS-V or Escalade, both top end "parts".
AMD has been feeding us the same spin you just got done feeding me for years. Sorry, but it's just plain horseshit. Having a strong top end does boost sales thru bolstering brand image.
CPU still produces the best quality. GPU encoders are great for encoding for portable devices tho, where absolute quality isn't necessary due to the limited displays.
Did you take any marketing classes, or graduate with a degree in marketing/advertising/public relations? Your argument is very good, and definitely spot on.
Intel has a great share of the market because of their advertising. I can't remember seeing an AMD commercial on the television in...ever. Maybe there have been, but honestly the way I heard about AMD was through the grapevine and online reviews.
Every person's budget is going to differentiate from one to the next. I do agree that AMD should compete with a big dog processor again because that can greatly increase competition and drive a nice price war like we see with graphics cards.
I don't think that applies to AMD as they don't advertise in mainstream media OK i admit i don't know if they do anymore but they never used to when i paid attention to mainstream media
Building my own computer a few years back has helped me understand how computers work. Then once I got into over clocking well that made me the junkie I am today. For the few years I have been building computers I have gained much knowledge in forums and trial and error. I now come to TPU all the time because there are many here that know their stuff. I have not had the chance to work with an Intel system. This is due to the pricing so I stuck with AMD. Now that I have had a good taste of what can be done all I care about is speed. With that being said I am waiting as some are to see what AMD comes up with this time. I was not willing to pay higher prices before but I want a faster overall system. I have been eyeing the I7's and for now am holding off if like some have stated to believe AMD will be a let down I will have my answer as to what system I will build next.
sounds like i'll happily be buying an AM3+ board to drop my 965 into, to last me until the X8 prices are reasonable.
ty, AMD, for the sensible (and fiscally intelligent) upgrade path.
That's a good point, i kept being tempted to get an AM3 board to put my 965 into but ended up deciding to wait for sandy bridge and bulldozer but i could just jump from AM2+ to AM3+ if bulldozer is worth it.... although by the time it comes out I'm sure i will be wanting a new CPU as well.
What exactly is wrong with holding the money in your hand until both the board(or even newer boards) and chip is out? Can you not control your spending urges?
To many people including me hardware upgrades are like a drug addiction, just getting a little hit even if it does not really do much is worth it
Well, sometimes the current mobo is crap or, for example, doesn't support CF, but you want more GPU power.
Usually you can find other reasons, why you should buy a new mobo.
another reason will be to wait untill a price drop instead of buying 1 day after
a product is released patience is a virtue!
GPU based render is the same set of instructions on Adobe that the CPU uses for lighting effects, saturation, hue, audio control, etc.... unless I am mistaken.
But still 24MBPS takes forever to render with three effects, why? Lazy companies promise and when they have sold their products have already moved on to their next set of promises they fully intend on breaking.
I'm downloading espresso 6 to try the GPU part again, the last time I tried it I had issues with video corruption.
yeah, hardcore acceleration.
Precisely. GPU based solutions are very dodgy. They work for one GPU and for the other they just do weird things. I have spent hours upon hours trying to get MediaEspresso to work on my 5870 and got nowhere. It simply left the GPU acceleration box greyed out. I tryed new drivers, installing Stream, reinstalling MediaEspresso, installing the latest Avivo... nothing. Eventually I figured there was no point seeing it can't do Premiere projects and that is what I care about.
Of course I would be using AMDs plugin that uses a Radeon to render your videos, but they had to be AMD instead of ATI and say you need an AMD CPU. I'd rather not get a slower CPU just for the sake of a GPU plugin which more than likely won't help me much.
Yeah they have all those nice features, but the feature I really want is Premiere project file support. Only Adobe can do that. Running it through the likes of MediaEspresso will only slow me down because I am running it through a second encoder, and it will also lose quality as a result. Less encodes = higher quality.
Exactly, I want full hardware support, not this occasional use of the GPU that amounts to a whole minute of savings on a 2 hour project.
ATI/AMD isn't cutting it, they promised this shit and fail to deliver, but if you listen to them they tell you all about this digital dream they have. It is more like a nightmare, buy this, buy that, buy this, buy that and oh wait, it only does this one type of file that is from 1998, doesn't work with this anymore, this driver breaks that, but if you buy this new thing everything will be great!!!
sactly +1, i shoulda read on
ps hillbeast nv are quite good for gpu encodeing have you considered a cheap gt240 just for encodeing its quick too and you could get some hybrid physx bonus points too then just disable ati encodeing and your off
I am held in awe by no Co, theyre all shit at times hence ive amd ati and intel playing v nicely in my pc today with some fairly stale abit shit lol
Separate names with a comma.