Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?
-
I have an AMD with the Vega. No issues, but, not that glamorous either.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
In what market though? Surely not the consumer market. And most servers I've at least seen are always Intel. Perhaps the east coast is different?
The ENTIRE market.
I'm very happy to see AMD catching up. https://marketrealist.com/2019/05/amd-is-set-to-gain-cpu-unit-market-share-from-intel-in-2019/
They finally will a vastly significant part of the market share within two years. -
Intel CPUs are also significantly better for mobile devices and generate less heat.
Ugh I'm starting to sound like a fan boy, I'm certainly not. I don't care which I use, but I do care which to buy depending on purpose. -
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
I'm not surprised again.
Though what did Radeon have at that time period...If you take your exact machine and compare that to an equally specced AMD machine, the intel will perform better graphically, guaranteed. -
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
I'm not surprised again.
Though what did Radeon have at that time period...If you take your exact machine and compare that to an equally specced AMD machine, the intel will perform better graphically, guaranteed.wow - just not a fan of ATI I take it?
I loved ATI over nVidea back when I used to build Gaming PCs in the early 2000's.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
I'm not surprised again.
Though what did Radeon have at that time period...If you take your exact machine and compare that to an equally specced AMD machine, the intel will perform better graphically, guaranteed.That's quite recent. Like maybe three years old. AMD had some pretty good stuff at that point.
-
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
I'm not surprised again.
Though what did Radeon have at that time period...If you take your exact machine and compare that to an equally specced AMD machine, the intel will perform better graphically, guaranteed.wow - just not a fan of ATI I take it?
I loved ATI over nVidea back when I used to build Gaming PCs in the early 2000's.
OH ATI was KING!!!! But not any longer.
But no, I like both companies, actually, I like AMD much more. I want them to succeed over Intel.
I've been waiting patiently, but still don't see it. But hey, they just came out with Hyperthreading in what, 2017? Yay!
SMT I believe is their version.
Someday, I hope to see AMD dominate servers all over. -
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games.
It CAN run them, but not in the ballpark of an AMD or Nvidia. I have it and it breaks everything. So buggy and slow.
Yeah.........On a 2012 machine......I'm not surprised. There has been significant improvements in Intels onboard graphics. I've tested it on a Surface Pro 5 (Well the spiritual five when they skipped adding a number. Technically SP5 but.......not or something? Microsoft is so weird sometimes...)
No, that's a separate discussion. I have an Intel i7 Sixth Gen machine and the Intel graphics on that are so bad, but I can't disable them. Totally buggy and cause endless problems. It's bad enough that it makes the CPU itself problematic because it's unstable because of the software GPU that is forced on you.
I'm not surprised again.
Though what did Radeon have at that time period...If you take your exact machine and compare that to an equally specced AMD machine, the intel will perform better graphically, guaranteed.wow - just not a fan of ATI I take it?
I loved ATI over nVidea back when I used to build Gaming PCs in the early 2000's.
Early 2000s, pre-AMD ATI was doing really well. Nvidia has just really upped the game recently, though.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
But hey, they just came out with Hyperthreading in what, 2017? Yay!
SMT I believe is their version.HT is an industry term, but an implementation. So it is HT with AMD, too. Same as with IBM, Oracle, and others.
HT can be good, or bad. It's only good if your processor has a deep pipeline.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
But hey, they just came out with Hyperthreading in what, 2017? Yay!
SMT I believe is their version.HT is an industry term, but an implementation. So it is HT with AMD, too. Same as with IBM, Oracle, and others.
HT can be good, or bad. It's only good if your processor has a deep pipeline.
Well you mentioned threads earlier, aren't threads insignificant without HT?
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
Someday, I hope to see AMD dominate servers all over.
They did for a long time, and I think that they still do outside of the Windows world. Windows and SMB licensing with their low cost count thing is really the only thing keeping Intel procs in the server game. If you are running a non-Windows workload, Intel procs make essentially no sense unless you have a very special purpose machine.
And in those special cases, Power tends to be the answer rather than Intel.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
And in those special cases, Power tends to be the answer rather than Intel.
What do you mean by that?
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
But hey, they just came out with Hyperthreading in what, 2017? Yay!
SMT I believe is their version.HT is an industry term, but an implementation. So it is HT with AMD, too. Same as with IBM, Oracle, and others.
HT can be good, or bad. It's only good if your processor has a deep pipeline.
Well you mentioned threads earlier, aren't threads insignificant without HT?
No, not at all. HT is a way to get more "visible threads" out of fewer "real threads". HT threads are weaker (sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot) than true threads. We often disable them because they can cause performance problems.
Threading on its own is super important for performance. HT is one of many methods to attempt to increase performance for certain workloads for a given processor design. True threading is actually more useful without HT, but no one makes HT without also doing threading. But they used to.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
But hey, they just came out with Hyperthreading in what, 2017? Yay!
SMT I believe is their version.HT is an industry term, but an implementation. So it is HT with AMD, too. Same as with IBM, Oracle, and others.
HT can be good, or bad. It's only good if your processor has a deep pipeline.
Well you mentioned threads earlier, aren't threads insignificant without HT?
No, not at all. HT is a way to get more "visible threads" out of fewer "real threads". HT threads are weaker (sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot) than true threads. We often disable them because they can cause performance problems.
Threading on its own is super important for performance. HT is one of many methods to attempt to increase performance for certain workloads for a given processor design. True threading is actually more useful without HT, but no one makes HT without also doing threading. But they used to.
Ohhhh wow, interesting
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
And in those special cases, Power tends to be the answer rather than Intel.
What do you mean by that?
Cases where Intel tends to really stand out above its key competitors like AMD and ARM for servers, it tends to be crushed by Power. Single threaded performance has always been Power's key strong point. No one comes close to it. For huge thread performance, ARM tends to be best (RISK-V is going to come after it, though.) AMD, Intel and Sparc are all "middle ground, blended performance" choices.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
And in those special cases, Power tends to be the answer rather than Intel.
What do you mean by that?
Cases where Intel tends to really stand out above its key competitors like AMD and ARM for servers, it tends to be crushed by Power. Single threaded performance has always been Power's key strong point. No one comes close to it. For huge thread performance, ARM tends to be best (RISK-V is going to come after it, though.) AMD, Intel and Sparc are all "middle ground, blended performance" choices.
Hmmm, never heard of Power.
I mean other than Power PC, which I presume is way past dead. -
Now Windows doesn't run on Power. So if you have a workload that needs huge single threaded performance (say, a really big math engine doing crazy calculations that can't be split up), and it has to run on Windows, then Intel is the obvious choice.
But if you can run on something other than Windows... nearly everything else runs on Power. So Power is the more obvious choice whether you want to use Linux, BSD, AIX, System i, System z, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller OH DUH....IBM right???
