"Benchmarks conducted by a variety of sites, including Anandtech, Techspot, PC World, and Maximum PC all point to the same thing: EMA works, scaling can reach as high as 70 percent when adding a second GPU, and yes, AMD and Nvidia cards play nicely together."
If it only wasn't tied to the Win X OS we would all be smiling.....what does The Tek forums think?
I'm not sure about purposely mixing Nvidia and AMD graphics cards, but I did see somewhere that Nvidia cards that were in dual gpu mode (not in SLI) actually performed better than when in SLI. I thought that was pretty interesting.
@todhaseo amd(gpu's) are superior in technology over nvidia. Their architecture is far more advanced, which gives them the edge in many things. Few of the best of 290x's are still able to compete with newer cards like 980 (non-ti) - sometimes even beat them. [speaking of overclocked top models of sapphire, powercolor, msi le] There was a nice article explaining why it happens, that article was mainly on that gameworks based racing game and amd performance in it.
Seems like Nvidia cards have improved in that CrossFire bridgeless style, as this was before so that AMD cards leveraged how well cards work, and I thought it amusing like in future you'd get one "Fury" as the main and three "980's" workers.
Still we need second game to see how is it.
For AMD it'd be great if their card would be the main boss card, because Titan-nutballz who obviously have the money would then buy that one AMD card even if it would lose in single card performance.
i think it has more to do with finances than anything else... nvidia can afford to release a new card when its time that smashes AMD, whilst maintaining competitiveness now with their current gen,..... amd will not be able to do that.... hence they built theirs to last longer...
not really true, nvidia is simply following different release model.
AMD like Intel is creating their hardware to last, they both follow tick and tock release model. (they are both ibm consortium companies after all)
Nvidia on the other hand is not following that model. Like releasing new series next year, hurting their own customer by bad practices and mostly their GPU's are simply refreshes same architecture with new code
(now don't take that amd didn't do that either - they do, but always their top of the line follows tick and tock, older gpu's are also updated with new code so that they can last.)
A smart consumer should always buy a gpu that can last the test of time, not gpu that presents to do best today but tomorrow will be garbage. There's a lot of bias in nv and amd; and people whom should be putting those out - are only deepening the rift between them... while thats all there is...
(and in time i wouldn't be surprised to see 290x/390x beat down 980ti in next 2-3years)
You know what would be really cool to see in the future regarding these two companies? People stop complaining who is better and which company is better and just accept the fact that both companies make great products......oh wait that's common sense. Crap guess I can't use logic on the Internet.
Yes, but the reasons Nvidia can do that is due to finances.... (market share etc)
yes.... due to finances.... can afford to do that, intel and amd cannot - intel due to competition in mobile sector and iot etc is struggliung and can't hemorrhage (and their tick tock has been off the last few gens tbh anyways)
never commented on that, and that's obvious.
next two to 3 years is irrelevant because by then nvidia has already massively outsold and moved on to new gen (most of the cards sold will come from second hand as people who have them now offload to upgrade) and most people that buy those will have already upgraded... (finances and market share/planned obsolescence etc)... the point is nvidia can afford to release a newer gen later whereas amd cannot (barring some massive investment)
intel has much more cash than any of based around pc's companies... it has no competition. It appears to be sluggish because there's no need to do anything - just research new technologies... FinFET, 3D Transistors etc... they keep around tick-tock and it hasn't been off. Sandy-Ivy, Haswell-Skylake. So not sure what you mean here...
amd hasn't been on timetable with their ticktock but its also there in a way...
Finances have nothing to do here. NV is pretty much shooting themselves in the foot here, because of their actions more and more people think bad about them. (and at this point (never thought i'd say it), nvidia drivers suck)
which is worrying for intel and why they are sinking massive amounts into new processes/fabrication etc
absolute bullshit... you fail to realise the shifts occuring in the market.... why they are making less high end pc based chips - think moves to mobile and cloud computing making PC processers less relevant Intel mobile market and long term: you don't understand the dynamics, it's not the capital now they are concerned about, but the long term:
so essentially it cannot afford to hemorrhage funds in a market that is becoming weaker.... it's about finances....
people think bad about them because it's true, but they are able to do what they do because of lack of competition, strong market position, and having high levels of technology (r and D and ability to catchup to things they didn't invent quicker than the competition) relative to it's closest competitors which is all due to sound market strat and finances.... all the things you list are enabled DUE TO their finances. Never made a comment on whether i agreed with their actions, merely pointed out that the plan and actions are a result of their strong fiscal position relative to their closest competitors... hence why the can (and do) act the way they do.
Edit: i just linked the few articles that appeared when i google searched, not much free time at the moment (will revisit to put proper links at a later time - but decent start point?)
1) intel is bullshitting if they speak about end of moore law - they did try to break it many times in past etc... Or maybe its those articles that knows little to none.
2) kaby lake doesn't break tick-tock. or ends moore's law. - its not the first time something is little behind expectation or ahead of it.
3) even apple layed off some people... are they doing bad? No. They don't have cash? Again a no, they have plenty. 4) those articles are of very low quality... - bypassing that two of listed '14nm' broadwell's are targeted to different markets... no normal desktop pc. - its like comparing nahalem-ex to your normal cpu at that time. - you completly ignore the fact intel released 2 branches of consumer cpu's same year only months apart... (oh no no other company than nvidia can allow itself to do that...) -- broadwell consumer cpu's for desktops were released in Q1-Q2 of 2015, while skylake was released in Q3. - tick tock, doesn't mean the lithography will change... Tock represent improving on existing technology. - if I were you i'd do actual research before posting propaganda stock market articles.
5) Intel did slow down, but ages ago... when Ivy Bridge came out; only because AMD didn't challenge their markets. Thus due to lack of competition they could do whatever they want... (and they did).
Now lets jump to nvidia The architectural differences of die's. Kepler [full chip] 600 series Fermi [full chip] 400 series
yea nvidia is doing a lot of redesigns... they must have plenty of cash... oh boi... 700 series and 900 litography looks the same...
so my premise was 1. that nvidias market position allows them to make the moves in the market that they do, and still remain on top because of their fiscal/market position (especially relative to their competition).
to which you responded;
how was it untrue?
to which i responded - not really relevant and doesn't refute my point
proves my point does not refute, and uses a fallacy to attempt to refute my point ie saying that it is not due to finances because of this, whilst ignoring that AMD does the same thing - which ignores the fact that they do have similarities as you even acknowledge meaning that the main point of differentiation is the fiscal positions.
if they both do it, whats your point? you're saying they are different because a but they are the same because a?
the fact is Nvidia can AFFORD to pursue this model and AMD CANNOT... nor can intel... despite their current position, finance is a long term plan by ALL successful companies - apple got rid of staff because they are reaching saturation point where their business model must change, intel, because they face a big challenge over the next decade.
edit; also don't confuse liquidity with finances - liquidity is part of finance not IT.... finances encompasses much more than liquidity...
and this was my point, i said it has been off the last few yrs - 2011 onward's(?) were different to prior, i was merely talking about your point in regards to their model relative to nvidia - models change and fluctuate depending upon variables.. in the last few years tick-tock was different to the preceding 10 years.. i think we were talking at cross purposes on this point. ie im comparing the cycles 2010-2016 with 2000-2010 not year to year/cycle to cycle between 2010-2016 like you were (I think) Micro doesn't work here, you want macro...
look as i said, don't have time at the moment, can respond at a later time with more in depth details, the fact remains that nothing you said refutes the statement i made; that nvidia can do what it does and retain its position due to the state of the market and its fiscal position. it can keep rebuilding from the ground up because it has the finances and no real challenge now or (from the looks of it, froim the outside) near future.....
amd cannot, intel cannot, apple cannot - look more into mobile sector, decline of pc sector realignment of numerous companies to focus on the other sectors think iot - 1 trillion more devices by 2030....... thats a MASSIVE threat to intel and apple alike, as the mobile sector has seen massive expansion since 07 that has seen numerous new companies gain market share- think apple? vs microsoft...... same has been happening with the companies that produce the tech that these rely on and the software too - EA/nintendo (etc - going to produce/making a shit load on the mobile market.....
rant aside, they are following a model because they are in a position to do so, the articles - which i specifically pointed out as not in depth articles, but that does also not mean they are inaccurate.... yes i concur some explanations were lacking, but that does not refute the entirety of their claims (and it's why i pointed that out). your talking about stuff that is irrelevant to my original comment in an attempt to validate your comments.
ps - moores law has a defined finish within it.... and it necessitates transitions to other tech which ends moores law... moores law will end, and it's not BS... and you just saying it will not is not evidence of it being so.
1) i don't dispute behavior of nvidia, but gpu release wise both companies do release in same frame of time. (700 series - 200 series, 900 series - 300 series) (though amd was late releasing 300 series, and its fury -- it was caused by stupid management -- they have gpu's but they are waiting for shits and loosing money - like nokia did...; being late caused them to loose money, and new market) as people who were looking for upgrade, upgraded to newest gpu at the time nvidia.
2) this was explanation of amd release model. 3) If that was true, then nvidia would release their pascal with hbmv2, and it would release first with 14nm FinFET; reality check? They'll release pascal in Q4 2016 or Q1-2 2017 and it will use GDDR5x (maybe next titan will use hbm) So far Nvidia failed to secure any real HBM deal with either Samsung or Hynix. They also had quite the struggle securing stock, and process of their new cards, doing 16nm at TSMC will be expensive - since no1 will do any significat orders with TSMC in this process, making it more expensive. Intel uses its own foundries and global foundries, amd uses samsung and global foundries.
4) AMD's Polaris was already shown working,(will start releasing in Q2 2016, and Q3 for their best pascal card) companies like Samsung and Global Foundries responded with a good yield and ready to meet high demand for AMD cards - its already paid for... Fujitsu, Hynix share their workforce with AMD - making it even cheaper for AMD to produce polaris cards. AMD is the one inventing actual technology, nvidia on the other hand invests into new gameworks for dx12 (as their gameworks do not work with dx12 - unreal engine confirmed that those can be used but amd can use their effects without restrictions).
So amd is releasing another gpu after 7-8 months, while nvidia released their 900 series in Q3 2014, making it 2-3 years for their new pascal. This shows amd can and so can intel...
5) there's this funny thing, - about companies (all of them) some appear strong but are in debts (and they hide it) until the shit goes down. (because they would have no way to pay off if they've shown, so investors are going easy and confidential about it)
decline of PC, there were so many so called 'declines' of pc... well look we're still here. The decline is there because people have laptops and pc's; and now new thing appeared on markets tablets - mobiles. Don't worry mobile phones are in decline already - people already have them... iphones do not sell that well anymore, samsung's galaxy isn't selling as well as it used to... does it mean the end of mobiles? does it mean that you cannot make profit on it anymore? and that it will die? No..., people are currently into arm based devices like watches etc... (actually they are already dying as no1 buys them), same thing was with consoles ... PC will be there because it fills something those devices do not; and there is no easy replacement for PC's... mobile devices will have more performance, thats how technology works... but PC will have always more performance than a mobile processor. At this moment arm mobile processors are about as good as pentium 2/3 processors (even though they might have higher clocks than those pentiums - performance is pretty much same)
here's something for your bs about moore law...
oh my moore law my ass.. its just prediction sometimes cpu's are far above or far below with their improvements. and it was shown many times over higher transistor count doesn't dictate performance. So yeah Kaby will be little below expected transistor count oh noes moore law is broken its the end of moore law... u dumb? imagine pentium 2-3 being below predictions... while they were really good cpu's, especially pentium 3.
here, ill follow a diff tactic for you; Why does nvidia have a larger market share than amd, and why does it continue in it's current trend, if not for finances? you are missing my points here, again talking at cross purposes, and i don't have time to educate you on it at the moment, give me a week and ill come back.
miss my point here, and misunderstand my statement (again) don't make the mistake of using past patterns as proof of future patterns - ie in this case not completly relevant as there are other variables - like decreased cost/power consumption/cloud type computing/cost = increased perfomance = less relevance of the pc to the average person than ever before - this will only ever increase.......
and btw; moores law = "The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented."
""Moore's law" should be considered an observation or projection and obviously not a physical or natural law. Although the rate held steady from 1975 until around 2012, the rate was faster during the first decade. In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future. For example, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, predicted that growth would slow around 2013, and Gordon Moore in 2015 foresaw that the rate of progress would reach saturation: "I see Moore’s law dying here in the next decade or so.""
agree with what you said, but again, i was commenting on your statement (which was erroneous to the conversation to start with) to highlight in a subtle manner (imply) that you invoked it in an incorrect manner..... it relates specifically to transistors per inch - I don't deny that cpu performance will/can increase in other ways, but as i specifically stated - thats due to other advancements outside of moore's law....
soooooo..... back to my original comment that you disagreed with,
i have explained why nvidia has greater market share for you. There's more to it, but 2-4 years can do it to you.
i have simple response to this... learn from you history to not make same mistakes in the future... if you do not care about your history then you do not deserve your future. (i couldn't put it nicely to fit the purpose)
oh and quote wiki...
going back to original comment going to go over it again in points: 1) it has nothing to do with finances. 2) companies are allowed to do whatever they wish... nvidia is sometimes left behind, and thats where they loose market (history, patterns, again) Nvidia has to strive to be best always - and it would be in their interests to release pascal before amd can. ~ but their technology is not there yet.
if you think nvidia has advantage to in finances so thus they can wait with release of pascal, look at point 1. My posts were meant to show you that release of products do not depend on finances. Yet you clearly, and in a stubborn way stayed in a point that it does and nvidia can but no1 else can. If you think i'm lying just read through your own posts again. and again read point 1.
why? just list in dot point for me, and relate it to why it currently has nothing to do with stronger finances?
no - it has to just be better than the competition
agree - but they can absorb and compensate for this, and it is also in their interest to keep some competition going on the same hand too it has it's pros and cons
the release of products has everything to do with finances - r and d - product development etc is all reliant on it.... without it you are severly limited.
i will repeat my original statement which was;
it is to the benefit of nvidia not to produce something with a long life cycle now, and to do so once the competition has produced something better as it costs them less and they have to spend less to innovate - they may release something at the same time or just after, regardless people will wait to see (the vast majority of the market) as they are ahead in market share...
this is fiscally, a sound strategy, technology is not the singular indicator for success - but market control/strategy distribution/brand loyalty/etc etc etc etc
which point 1?
what does this prove? it ignores all the other reasons people went to it also, it ignores that now, they are fiscally much stronger than before, it ignores that a lot changes between now and release date (and btw, i thought Nvidia had secured the HBM process now? being produced now? for late 2016? thats just from memory though. so don't quote me on that...
your point one is essentially
people only went to nvidia because AMD held back on their product when they should of released it? so it means they are in a stronger position now? even if that was the case (which ignores everything else), doesn't mean that it is the case this time (because it's not) amd cannot afford another fail, if they do...... i don't like their chances - Samsung should buy them.... :P
my statement was - nvidia can afford to produce something now tat makes them a lot of money and costs little because they are in a stronger position than AMD financially (liquidity/market share/control/product development of current gen) this will make them money until the new things are released where they can release something new and match AMD or beat it by just a little bit like they have done in the past (one of the benefits of waiting until amd releases their stuff is that they know by "how much" they should beat it without showing all their cards right away, if they release something first that is 10 times more powerful or 1 times or not as powerful they lose in the long run. this is what i mean, and your statement goers to no lengths to adress this point.