AMD vs. Intel Processor Discussion

[Redeeman]

that "bad joke" is whats been said on this forum by a freedesktop dev and bridgman..

[Kano]

Pure theory. Maybe in a few years.

[Melcar]

That must be a bad joke you have fallen into i guess, because even the best current oss drivers are not feature complete. Like in most cases GLSL is not supported which is for example a requirement when you want to play Zero Ballistics. Maybe you can play some opensource engine games - as they are usually based on 5-10 year old Quake engines which can be played even with the cheapest card (Quake 1 even runs fast enough with Software rendering if needed!).

Agree. Ever try Nexuiz on a oss driver? Not pretty. And no, they are not "fast"; they're slow, making any form of heavy 3D gaming a waste. I doubt they will ever reach the "80-90% performance" crown (50-70% seems more likely).

[Redeeman]

well do keep in mind, that all the cards previously having open drivers have been either very slow (to use such a word about intel stuff for example), or without proper documentation, which we are getting now..

[Melcar]

They're still slow, for 3D. I just don't see the OSS drivers useful for anything besides basic 3D (and good 2D). Don't get me wrong, I still think that having some 3D is better than nothing. Being able to enjoy 2D/3D acceleration from the get go without having to mess around with binaries is always a plus. I just think that for more advanced stuff (in 3D), the OSS drivers are not an end all solution... for now that is.

[Redeeman]

exactly what are still slow? the free drivers developed with the documentation (is all docs even released yet?) are not finished, it doesent even have all features yet or anything..

[Max Spain]

Just on observation

I find it interesting how processor centric remarks from a thread about video performance were moved into a new thread about processors that has been taken over by people talking about video performance

[Melcar]

I find it interesting how processor centric remarks from a thread about video performance were moved into a new thread about processors that has been taken over by people talking about video performance

Funny how that happened .

Anyway, a Nexuiz run I did on my laptop (200M) and desktop (x800gto). I know it's not the latest code (except for the 200M which I need for working 3D), but I'm just looking at current performance. In the near future, maybe the drivers will get better, but that's speculation.

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/index.php?k=profile&u=melcar-16732-14360-5380

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/index.php?k=profile&u=melcar-31921-23141-15376

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/index.php?k=profile&u=melcar-28501-16933-14679

I know that games aren't the only use for 3D. For the average user having good 2D acceleration and basic 3D support is "enough" to run a full featured desktop/laptop. For these people having a good OSS driver is a very good thing. However, for the more advanced stuff, the OSS driver just doesn't cut it right now. In the near future maybe, but as I said, that's all speculation at best.

...
re: power consumption, my understanding is that it depends on what you measure, since current Intel CPUs have the (power hungry) memory controller in a separate chip while we have it on the CPU. If you just measure "CPU" power consumption the Intel parts look lower, but if you measure "full system" consumption then the AMD parts tend to draw lower power.

There are so many core/speed/power combinations that it's pretty easy to prove anything with a bit of effort

Agree. Many hardware reviewers fail to take into consideration the entire platform when they deal with power consumption. As far as I know, AMD mobo chips use far less juice than the Intel and nvidia ones. I think that as far as power consumption, things tend to even out at the end between the platforms (AMD vs. Intel).

[alexforcefive]

Sooooo... not to derail this interesting debate about graphics drivers, but does anyone have any thoughts about processors? I've been out of the loop for a while, but I've been reading up and it seems like the intel core2 duo e8500 gives the best bang for my buck. Would that be a fair assessment? It seems to still outperform triple- and quad-core processors, but how long will that last? Are multi-core optimised applications/games going to be really common any time soon? If I was to go with more cores, which would you suggest?

Is bridgman right about AMD vs Intel power consumption?

[deanjo]

Sooooo... not to derail this interesting debate about graphics drivers, but does anyone have any thoughts about processors? I've been out of the loop for a while, but I've been reading up and it seems like the intel core2 duo e8500 gives the best bang for my buck. Would that be a fair assessment? It seems to still outperform triple- and quad-core processors, but how long will that last? Are multi-core optimised applications/games going to be really common any time soon? If I was to go with more cores, which would you suggest?

Is bridgman right about AMD vs Intel power consumption?

Newer games are being being optimized to take advantage of the multiple cores. This will continue to be the trend as the cpu manufacturers are no longer chasing the Ghz. Your graphics card becomes a far more limiting factor over when dealing with single threaded games. Games such as World in Conflict for example benifit from more cores and greater graphics then a cpu with limited threads and high clock speeds.