If you ask me, both sides are acting like a bunch of capricious kids, running around, yelling, beating each other silly and spreading the sour smell of FUD all over the place.
I can understand Intel (to some extent), but Nvidia ?! What the hell were they thinking ? At least Intel has some "graphics" of its own (IGPs and a discrete solution on the way), but what does Nvidia have on to hope for on the CPU side ?
For my line of work, the CPU is much more important (3D, video). Not to dismiss the relevance of graphics in the equation, but you just can't compare the two. What about the "silent majority", people who don't play games, or better yet people who don't do anything demanding on their machines ? An Intel IGP is great as far as they're concerned. Not sure they would enjoy working on a machine with no CPU and a 9800GX2 though...
you're getting it wrong , i were a nVIDIA fan since my old and beloved TNT till the 7th series of Geforce i didn't liked they're marketing startegy and rebranding and so on so i left nvidia camp for ATI lol, but i like the nVIDIA point of view , what nVIDIA says is quite logical ,if you go from an Intel E8500 to 2 * QX9770 which will cost you about 15 times more
, you won't even gain twice the performance in games , but if you go from an Intel G33 to even the cheapest nVIDIA or ATI graphics which is 8400 GS/ 2400 pro you'll end up paying three times the money and gaining at least 5 times in performance it's quite logical , the price of CPU's doesn't scale logically , there shouldn't be so much differ in price of two identical processor with difference in just i don't know 333 MHz clock pulse , for instance the differ between Q6600 and QX6800 , for 600 MHz you have to pay four times the price , and gain less than 25% boost in speed , in graphics card market it's not like that , you pay 130 $ for 9600, when you're paying about 250-60 $ for 8800 GTS you'll pay about 200% the price but at least you're gaining 50% more performance , i believe those Extreme edition processors are bullshit !!! , i remember the nice days of gold fingers , intel FCPGA Celerons AMD thunderbirds , XP's and even mighty Opteron 144 ,146 processors , ATI X800 Pro and so on , those days were days of overclocking not now , the terms of overclocking was to buy cheap components and squeeze them as much as you can , now a days they're just telling you , common buy this CPU for 3 times of the price that it worth , we've underclocked it !!!
you can increase the clock speed by just clicking on a button on you're mouse , no skill required , all you need is just to buy a book which is called overclocking for dummies !!!!
you can overclock this processor at least by one gigahertz !!! , you've got the money , so common !!!
at least nVIDIA/DAAMIT are not underclocking their own GPGPU's more over i was just reading this article :" http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36436/118/1/1/
" and Sweeney just mentioned some interesting idea's (i don't remember in which part) , he predicted that we might someday see a running linux kernel on NVIDIA GPU .
there are two things which i don't understand: the first is why nVIDIA's losing it's value while it have launched so many successful products lately , and secondly , why DAAMIT's not backing up nVIDIA anymore .
anyhow , i believe nVIDIA's right , all Intel's doing is to put more transistors (in form of cache or more cores) on it's CPU's and call it innovation !!! while application's aren't ready for that sort of multi-threading they're not improving IPC/Performance/GHz ratio at all , i believe that the future lies in hands of GPGPU , I hope Intel's wrong , just like it was wrong with netburst , and tried to prove to people that more GHz means more performance !!! i believe multi-core war will get an end soon !!!