Ed Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:
Well, my current computer is a few generations behind (680 GTX) and I have not had any problems with the drivers and neither have any of my friends who have newer NVIDIA cards.
So you don't have an AMD card for comparison:
"There is no doubt that the HD 7970 with its 3GB of vRAM, is a generally faster GPU for todays games than the 2GB vRAM-equipped GTX 680 although they are still competing in the same class."
http://www.babeltech...13-revisited/3/
pcgameshardware: 35 Radeon- und Geforce-GPUs
So you can only write for example that Nvidia is good enough for you, but don't spread false information like: "Nvidia always ends up with the better video card and best driver support".
Todays Nvidia drivers don't destroy GPUs anymore, but they are spyware.
Ed Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:
The First computer I built myself had an AMD 133Mhz CPU and that was pretty much around the time when AMD first started selling consumer-level CPUs. It was a decent CPU considering what I paid for it, but Intel had just come out with their MMX CPUs and people I knew who had those could run stuff that I was not able to.
That was the purpose of MMX.
"Intel therefore turned to other tactics to minimize AMD’s gains in x86 market share. Intel’s most targeted approach to address its performance disadvantage was to provide software developers with a compiler that would optimize their code to perform better on Intel microprocessors. In itself, the Intel compiler was a fair way for Intel to increase its products’ computational performance: Intel was simply lending its resources to help developers squeeze more performance out of their programs. But Intel made the compiler compatible with AMD processors as well, thereby encouraging widespread adoption of its compiler and effectively planting a
Trojan horse in the software industry. A common method to optimize code for a microprocessor is to exploit the microprocessor’s performance-enhancing features and special instructions, called “extensions.” Since the 1995 settlement, Intel had introduced several extensions to the x86 instruction set to expand its multimedia capabilities, of which many were also supported by AMD. Naturally, if the Intel compiler was compatible with AMD microprocessors, one would expect it to take advantage of the multimedia extensions in any microprocessor that supported them, be it Intel or AMD.
However, Intel designed the compiler to first check the vendor ID found in a computer’s microprocessor, and only enabled the extensions if it was an Intel chip. Since many software vendors would compile their programs just once with the Intel compiler, their applications performed better on Intel chips, but only because the multimedia features were artificially disabled for AMD chips. But AMD’s performance lead was often too great to be overcome by compiler optimizations, and so Intel also turned to leveraging its immense bargaining power against computer manufacturers to maintain its leadership position."
http://jolt.law.harv...gal-perspective
Ed Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:
Plus the only time that I remember AMD processors out performing Intel was when the Athlons first came out and Intel pretty much had reached the point where they could not make the Pentium 4 any faster because they ran too damned hot. I agree that Pentium 4s were pretty bad and Intel did not take the lead again until they switched to multicore x86 processors with the Pentiums.
At that time Intel was bribing and blackmailing OEM like Dell into not selling any AMD CPUs to cause billions of damage against AMD and to become a monopoly which is harmful for all customers.
"Note that Intel isn’t just threatening to withhold payment — it’s telling Dell it’ll take the MCP money the company would’ve gotten, and give it to Dell’s competitors.
...
In its original antitrust filing, AMD noted that it tried to give HP a million free processors at one point, only to be told that HP was so dependent on Intel rebates, it couldn’t afford to take them.
...
Note that beginning in 2005, when AMD launched dual-core Athlon 64 processors and was seriously hammering Prescott, Intel’s payments sharply increased."
https://www.extremet...ces-against-amd