Published on 5th July 2011 by
Originally Posted by NexxoIt's overcomplicating things. Why not simply ask:
But can it run Crysis? :p
Originally Posted by Tulatin"But can it run Crysis?"
Congratulations, you're responsible for making the 4,877,921,204th post containing this joke. Unfortunately, it's now less funny than "lolcats". You could have at least wasted your comment by partaking in Internet tradition, spewing "First!" meaninglessly into the world.
If only we could have a time when people contribute meaningful discussion to articles, perhaps wondering if Intel influences Bapco's habit of only focusing on a tiny sliver of the real world?
Originally Posted by Pete JAs pointed out by the article, it's unsurprising that Nvidia and AMD walked out because *puts on whinny voice* 'it doesn't represent GPGPU usage'.
What is typical PC usage? Most of the time I'm using an internet browser with about 10 pages open, outlook, three or so word documents, a few PDFs, an excel spreadsheet with perhaps only 300 cells being used and a couple of paint files. Do I need the latest and greatest hardware to do this? Of course I bloody don't!
Originally Posted by DbDThis is the same benchmark that Intel has had the same say in for many years. It's one that AMD championed for much of that time - making it the standard for government purchasing orders in America. Why did they do that? - because the A64 was a great cpu, it did well in BABCO and hence AMD could win some deals over Intel despite it being the smaller player.
So why are now are they really pulling out?
The strong suspicion is because bulldozer is weak, because if those same government dept's that keep using BABCO AMD will sell nothing. Hence it's not really to do with break down, or gpu compute or any of that it's to do with selling bulldozer. AMD need to minimise use of BABCO for competitive benchmarks of Xeon/SB vs bulldozer. It's all smoke, mirrors and marketing.
Originally Posted by Telltale BoySays the guy with tri-sli 580s. :p
Originally Posted by SexyHydeand nvidia and via walked out, just to show amd some support. buttom line is tech is changing with more cores/threads and some software does run better on gpgpu FACTS and benchmarks should reflect that. why did amd champion it before? because they had better cpus? yes, but everything ran on the cpu back then.
Originally Posted by DbDQuote:Originally Posted by SexyHydeand nvidia and via walked out, just to show amd some support. buttom line is tech is changing with more cores/threads and some software does run better on gpgpu FACTS and benchmarks should reflect that. why did amd champion it before? because they had better cpus? yes, but everything ran on the cpu back then.
Bulldozer doesn't have a gpu.
’When was the last time you completed a 35,000 row spreadsheet?’
a knowledge worker who mainly spends their time processing email, creating spreadsheets, presentations and other similar documents, as well as web browsing, social networking and viewing YouTube videos
optical character recognition (OCR) and file compression activities − things an average user will rarely if ever do.
After all, many businesses are still using Internet Explorer 6, let alone version 8 or 9, and you could also argue that not many people are using GPGPU acceleration on a regular basis yet
The same applies to spreadsheets: how many people run massive calculations on a daily basis?
Originally Posted by r3loadedHere's an idea - how about task-specific benchmarks, with their own individual scores? Interested in video editing? Run a test of VideoMark. Are you running complex financial calculations in Excel or Matlab? Run CalcMark. Do a lot of editing in Photoshop/Lightroom? PhotoMark will help you decide. You get the idea. :)
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden