cM :: MORLEY|DIGITAL

Intel’s tick-tock strategy kicks butt.  First, a new architecture.  Follow that up with a tweak and then wash, rinse, repeat.  It started with the launch of Core 2 in the summer of 2006 (tock.)  They followed up with the “tick” late last year with the move to a 45nm process.  Now here comes the first follow up “tock” and it’s a doozy.  I think they should consider renaming their process “beat you into submission and then kick you when you’re down.”  The Core i7’s got some wicked fast processing power and it brings to the table features that, while have been used by AMD for a while now, serve to propel Intel’s new chip into the stratosphere.  Without going too far into it, the key features are: integrated triple-channel memory controller, monolithic quad-core, QPI (Intel’s answer to AMD’s HyperTransport), and the return of HyperThreading.  

Of course, with all these changes, a new chipset is in order.  Enter Intel’s X58.  That’s it.  Nothing from NVIDIA, and no mainstream variant from Intel.  The integrated memory controller and increased pin count make the new Core i7 understandably incompatible with previous platforms.

The interesting thing is that the X58 chipset, without the need for an integrated memory controller, is not as expensive to make as its predecessor.  In batch pricing the cost of an X58 chip is $52.  The X48 is $70.  In comparison, the mainstream, CrossFire-capable P45 chipset for today’s Core 2 lineup is $40.  

So now we have an affordable, performance-oriented chipset that is significantly cheaper that its predecessor, a completely new CPU core that starts under $300 in batches of 1000, so this should be a game changer, right?  

It’s not that black and white.  Intel’s venerable Core 2 lineup is still good.  VERY good in fact.  I’d argue that for most of the market, Core 2 is not only enough computing power, but more than some even need.  Heck, for gamers, we’re still GPU bound.  And Intel’s able to pump Core 2 chips out like crazy and at a healthy profit.  So why kill off a good thing?  If there were P and G variant 5x chipsets, allowing for motherboard manufacturers to make products for different price brands, OEMs would en masse run towards Core i7.  But as it stands all motherboards in the channel are full ATX, high-end parts that start around $249 and run north of $300!  And keep in mind you need to buy three sticks of DDR3 memory as well!  This puts it squarely in the 5% DIY and Enthusiast crowd.

Of course, Intel has plans to introduce lower cost chipsets and Core i7 variants that include integrated graphics and support for dual instead of triple channel memory.  But those are a ways off.  Intel, in the interim, plans on keeping Core 2 around for a while.  And for good reason.  It’s a great product, serves the mainstream market well, and allows them to amortize the cost of it for a bit longer.

So keep in mind that, while totally melt-your-face-off fast the Core i7 is, you can still find awesome deals on great Intel Core 2 hardware that will keep you and your wallet happy for quite a while.  (It sure is good to be a DIY guy right now, though.)

open source video
free video player
open source editor
video management
online video
video editor
video plugin

I gotta tell you what, on the heels of AMD annoucing they’ve sold 2,000,000 Radeon HD 4800 series graphics cards, this video is not only hysterical, but indicates a more confident AMD/ATI - a company that is having a personality disorder right now with their lopsided strengths in the CPU/GPU market.

This video, however, makes digs at NVIDIA in ways that only geeks understand.  Hinting at manufacturing processes and defaults, memory speeds, etc.  The reference to the X58 is dubious as NVIDIA has said publicly that they will certify BIOSs for native X58 SLI support without requiring motherboard manufacturers to license MCP 200 chips - that’s only necessary if you want maximum bandwidth on multiple x16 slots.  But like I’ve said, the value of multiple graphics cards these days are dubious at best.

These “viral” videos are great fun to watch.  But it’s preaching to the choir.  It’s not going to prompt consumer behavior.  It’s not going to drive consumers to ditch NVIDIA and go ATI.  And if your branding campaign only creates awareness and doesn’t deliver to the bottom line, you win a big bag of fail.

A good example of similar marketing that is successful would be the Apple I’m a Mac commercials.  They aren’t successful because they are funny or witty.  They are successful because they communicate the simple premise that Macs are fun, easy, and reliable, and PCs are boring, bloated, and broken.  Of course, I would argue that most I’m a Mac commercials are down right lies at worst, and I chuckle every time I watch them on my ultra-reliable, uber-cool Vista Media Center PC with digital cable tuners.  But the point is that Apple has effectively convinced a large segment of the mainstream market the fundamental idea that Mac = good and PC = bad.  Republicans and Democrats do this all the time.

open source video
free video player
open source editor
video management
online video
video editor
video plugin

But Apple is beginning to lose focus.  While the G4saurus video is cute and funny to people like me and most of you who read this blog, it’s really just AMD/ATI’s engineering group giving NVIDIA’s engineering group the metaphorical finger through their marketing department.  Apple has done basically the same thing with their latest I’m a Mac commercial - their marketing department is giving Microsoft’s marketing department the metaphorical finger after Microsoft’s relatively successful, relevant, and above all positive  response to the I’m a Mac commercials.  Of course you know I’m talking about the commercials where people from all walks of life state they are a PC and they are all different.  It’s simple, it’s relevant, and it’s positive.  It doesn’t stoop to Apple’s level and I think they’re quite enjoyable.  But it doesn’t prompt consumer action.  That’s where Mojave comes in.  Just check it out for yourself, I don’t need to expound upon it here.

My point is, while AMD has delivered the funniest viral video I’ve seen in this business, they need to come up with an effective campaign that not only creates awareness, but brings more customers to the table.  And that means they need a successful Phenom II launch, stay focused on the platform story, and continue to keep the channel happy.  Wait, where’d marketing fit into all that?  ;-)

The days of needing multiple graphics cards in your PC are officially over. While game engines have become more complex, and Crysis still confounds most people’s PCs, the fact is that we have reached a pixel density plateau when it comes to monitor sizes and the GPU battle grounds are being fought at 1680×1050 resolutions or lower¹. And the simple fact of the matter is that at that resolution nearly every game on the planet can be enjoyed by the mainstream gamer utilizing a single graphics card. The hardware side of the gaming industry has gotten that good.

But don’t tell that to AMD or NVIDIA or even Intel. Don’t tell that to the system builders, but would somebody please tell that to the tech journalists? The fact is that multi-card technology, not multiple GPUs on the same PCB, allows chipset manufacturers to stratify their offerings (read: charge more money), promising more performance and more “expandability” – but costing you more money.  The fact is that these technologies are aimed squarely at the 5% uber-enthusiast market and system builders who need to win synthetic benchmarks by 3% in order to pay their salaries that month. 

Expandability or upgradeability are the buzz words that these companies use to lure you to their higher end chipsets. They want you to think you need a second or third graphics card. But most effectively, they communicate to you that you are buying “future expandability” that will “future-proof” your PC. And they’ve effectively brainwashed the mainstream tech media into believing the same thing. It’s hard to find a review of a gaming system that doesn’t include the ability to add a second graphics card where the reviewer doesn’t “ding” the builder for it. 

But nobody has ever really studied the usage patterns and buying behaviors of customers who purchase multi-video card capable motherboards and SLI or CrossFire capable graphics cards. It is that question that intrigues me, and it is simple logic that leads me to the conclusion I have written in the opening sentence of this post. 

The main problem is, if you aren’t gaming at XHD resolutions that 24”+ monitors support, spending money on two high end graphics cards is a complete waste of money, and buying two mid-range graphics cards is pointless as a single high-end card that may feature two of the same GPU on one PCB can easily meet or beat it for around the same combined price. Factor in the total cost of ownership of forgoing a more expensive chipset designed for multi-video card support, and you really need to make sure you’re spending your money the right way.

Additionally, if you’ve spent your money on an XHD monitor, and only have a budget left over for a single high end graphics card, never mind the fact that you perhaps bought an unbalanced configuration, but the odds of a better single card solution being available by the time you can afford that second card are high. Why do you think EVGA offers a 90-day trade-up program? It’s essentially an insurance policy against the age-old truism that your system is obsolete the day you buy it. 

Don’t take my word for it. Kyle and Brent at [H]ard|OCP have been shoving the term “real world benchmarks” in our faces for so many years now that every piss-ant rag on the internet and in print uses the terminology without really understanding what it means. But if you really look at what [H] video card reviews show, you’ll find that at 1680×1050 resolutions and lower, my premise holds. From there it’s a simple matter of adding up the total cost of ownership to reach the playable settings (meaning a smooth gaming experience.) So be sure that you aren’t blindly buying a dual or triple-graphics capable motherboard for $200-$300 when a significantly cheaper, and perhaps a bit more boring, solution will suffice, allowing you to spend more money on a powerful, single video card that will better serve your needs. 

1. Source: Valve Steam Hardware survey, November 2008. 96% of players have resolutions set to 1680×1050 or lower. Sample size: ~1.7 million users.