BF2S Forums AMD kills the ATi brand, new GPUs to be branded "AMD Radeon & Firepro"

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

I've allways had Intel CPU's and I think it would take a significant difference in speed/cost to make me go AMD

As for GPU's though, I get what is the best price/performance in my chosen price-range...



You don't know about Quattro's and FirePro's?


?

I think Sonder meant you're retarded for spending 5€ on a cheese sandwich.

Cheese sandwich???

Yeah I mean 5€ for a friggin sandwich?

5€ for a sandwich?

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

It is quadro btw.

And they are everything but cheap....

hnng.. Quadro *

sry...

And as for the price.. depends on your needs... I built a PC for Jacob Jensen Design they needed for 3D design...

PNY NVIDIA Quadro FX 580 (512 MB)
Slapped this thing in it, It was way better than the equally priced ATi at the time, and was the latest model then...
~£150

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-08-30 14:56:59)

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

That is some real POS Quadro and still manages to cost same as GTX 460.

Cheap wouldn't be first thing I thought about that...

That is all you need for basic 3D design

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

finray if you were playing computer games more than 3 years ago you'd know that AMD actually were better than intel for quite a long time-- for most of the dx8 era, in fact. almost all of the computers that i saw given away at professional LAN/competitions had AMD-64 processors in them, back when Intel only did 32-bit processors for the most part. single-core days. i remember i had my s939 3500+ for ages intel were better on the number-crunching, but AMD were better for game-applications. it was still a fairly minor difference, though. and it may have just been 'industry brand' awareness; AMD were known for gaming builds. intel jumped ahead with quad-core, sure enough... but the PC industry has been around longer than you've had your pissy little tech-team badge.

also, i thought quadro's were nvidia's benchmark chip for extreme high-performance graphics rendering? since when were they cheap POS- as floppy said?

as i said, im not sure whether it was based in technical fact or simply brand-awareness... but AMD were the 'leading' brand for gaming-processors back then, and intel were the neglected and looked-down-upon cores. for all consideration, the reverse of that has happened now in the gaming-market with intel quad-core and AMD's competing efforts.

Uzique wrote:

as i said, im not sure whether it was based in technical fact or simply brand-awareness... but AMD were the 'leading' brand for gaming-processors back then, and intel were the neglected and looked-down-upon cores. for all consideration, the reverse of that has happened now in the gaming-market with intel quad-core and AMD's competing efforts.

Not to mention they can OC better and were a lot cheaper than competing intel builds. Intel only caught up when core 2 duo was released.

Uzique wrote:

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

finray if you were playing computer games more than 3 years ago you'd know that AMD actually were better than intel for quite a long time-- for most of the dx8 era, in fact. almost all of the computers that i saw given away at professional LAN/competitions had AMD-64 processors in them, back when Intel only did 32-bit processors for the most part. single-core days. i remember i had my s939 3500+ for ages intel were better on the number-crunching, but AMD were better for game-applications. it was still a fairly minor difference, though. and it may have just been 'industry brand' awareness; AMD were known for gaming builds. intel jumped ahead with quad-core, sure enough... but the PC industry has been around longer than you've had your pissy little tech-team badge.

also, i thought quadro's were nvidia's benchmark chip for extreme high-performance graphics rendering? since when were they cheap POS- as floppy said?

Protip: Panz called it a POS, I called them cheap.. And I was referring to the basic ones...

Uzique wrote:

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

finray if you were playing computer games more than 3 years ago you'd know that AMD actually were better than intel for quite a long time-- for most of the dx8 era, in fact. almost all of the computers that i saw given away at professional LAN/competitions had AMD-64 processors in them, back when Intel only did 32-bit processors for the most part. single-core days. i remember i had my s939 3500+ for ages intel were better on the number-crunching, but AMD were better for game-applications. it was still a fairly minor difference, though. and it may have just been 'industry brand' awareness; AMD were known for gaming builds. intel jumped ahead with quad-core, sure enough... but the PC industry has been around longer than you've had your pissy little tech-team badge.

also, i thought quadro's were nvidia's benchmark chip for extreme high-performance graphics rendering? since when were they cheap POS- as floppy said?

I think you misunderstood

Jenspm wrote:

Even when Intel were massively better on the CPU front

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

They still are massively better on the CPU front.

Last edited by Finray (2010-08-31 04:42:55)

Finray wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

finray if you were playing computer games more than 3 years ago you'd know that AMD actually were better than intel for quite a long time-- for most of the dx8 era, in fact. almost all of the computers that i saw given away at professional LAN/competitions had AMD-64 processors in them, back when Intel only did 32-bit processors for the most part. single-core days. i remember i had my s939 3500+ for ages intel were better on the number-crunching, but AMD were better for game-applications. it was still a fairly minor difference, though. and it may have just been 'industry brand' awareness; AMD were known for gaming builds. intel jumped ahead with quad-core, sure enough... but the PC industry has been around longer than you've had your pissy little tech-team badge.

also, i thought quadro's were nvidia's benchmark chip for extreme high-performance graphics rendering? since when were they cheap POS- as floppy said?

I think you misunderstood

Jenspm wrote:

Even when Intel were massively better on the CPU front

Finray wrote:

What do you mean when, Jenspm?

They still are massively better on the CPU front.

you misunderstood my post entirely... and i made it very obvious and easy to understand.

you stating "when?", as if intel have always been the absolute clear-choice, is what i disagree with.

if you weren't such an eager young noobie you'd know that only a year or two before you started gaming yourself, everybody on gaming forums was 'speccing builds' with AMD 64 processors in them. that's my only point. intel haven't held an everlasting hold on the performance-processor market; AMD were for a long time the default choice for gamers and as-such, as panzer mentioned, AMD builds almost became synonymous with the 'tech savvy', 'game geek' market. intel didn't have a peep in that matter until they released their own dual/quad core processors, years later.

It was never ending race for years, especially the P4/Athlon XP era when pretty much every model managed to grab the performance crown away from the competitor, for couple weeks.

Didn't make much difference what you bought for end user, AMD was notorious among DIY ppl from day one, thats not to say a lot Intel PCs weren't done DIY too but that little better bang for buck (AMDs year after year losses tho) did sound nice for consumer with adequate PC skills.   

One major part why AMD got that status was that Intel reigned the business uncontested, AMD had real trouble getting to the prebuilt market where the big money is.

AMD parts from Athlon and Athlon XP and before didn't really perform any better in games compared to Intels (google some benchies, rougly same) but they where cheaper.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-08-31 05:47:36)

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Quadro FX580 is POS in every possiple way, I did not say all Quadro are POS. You people sure like to make up things from your own minds and claim someone said it even when they didn't. Chill ffs.

I hope you are referring to Uzique

Because:

FloppY_ wrote:

Protip: Panz called it a POS, I called them cheap.. And I was referring to the basic ones...

I hope you realise calling them cheap is nonsensical. A really old shit one costs that much, new ones cost thousands. I just feel sorry for the poor person you advised to get an old shitty quaddro instead of a less dated gpu that would have cost less and performed better.

Uzique wrote:

Finray wrote:

No, no, no, no. You're missing the point, completely. I wrote "when?" because not only did Intel used to be the better CPU - admittedly only since about Core2Duo, not before that - but because they still ARE the better CPU.

I do infact know that AMD used to be better for gaming. I was simply stating that AMD don't hold a light to Intel, like Jenspm insinuated.

jesus christ, finray, you just don't get something SO simple.

all im saying is that your timeline is fucking TINY and shows your AGE

you admit that intel "only since core2duo" USED to be the better cpu

i am saying that BEFORE c2d-era AMD was the best.

therefore jenspm's insinuation makes PERFECT SENSE- you just can't see it because you're so fucking NEW.

i cannot believe it has taken 3 posts to spell it this very simple and rather irrelevant point...

You shouldn't be too hard on him because your guilty of the same thing. AMD only had a brief stint being a better option than Intel. Pre k6 AMD were behind Intel.