Catalyst 12.1a driver lays groundwork for Rage update

There’s a new Catalyst graphics driver out, but judging by the release notes, it’s probably not much use to folks who aren’t planning to play Rage again soon. According to AMD, today’s Catalyst 12.1a preview driver includes all of the enhancements of last month’s 12.1 preview release, but with added optimizations for an upcoming Rage update:

  • Resolves some new texture corruption issues introduced by the latest version of the game
  • Improved performance ~5%
  • Smoother game play and reduces multicore sync points
  • Fixed mapbuffer failures when switching maps on 32-bit systems.
  • Fixed a game crash when switching maps back and forth on 32 and 64bit systems

I don’t believe I’ve seen id Software announce either the Rage update AMD talks about or a release schedule for it. That said, id technical guru John Carmack did reveal that the next Rage patch would introduce a "bicubic-upsample+detail texture option" that would "help alleviate the blurry textures" in the game.

For the time being, you can download the new Catalyst driver right here from AMD’s support knowledge base site.

Comments closed
    • --k
    • 8 years ago

    What happened to Carmack? He was a god amongst men last time I remember him (Quake, Doom). When he spoke, people paid attention. Now that his shipping out mediocre games, and no one really cares. How times have changed.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      That’s not what I read in Game Informer.

    • deb0
    • 8 years ago

    Still trying to get Rage to be what it should have been months ago…..

    Worse game I ever got fooled into buying. ID software is garbage now.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      Right, nothing to do with AMD. AMD’s drivers are 100% the responsibility of id software. Carmack should have programmed AMD’s driver along with the game. Meanwhile, let’s ignore the nvidia users that had a blast with the game. /sarcasm Sure there are issues being a console port, but drivers aren’t one of them. Putting that aside, the game was fun and most reviewers thought so too.

        • travbrad
        • 8 years ago

        I’m a “nvidia user” and I thought the game was mediocre (worst one I played in 2011). It didn’t have any major bugs (other than some blurry textures), but the game was completely generic and boring. Its 6-7 hour length was actually a blessing in disguise.

        A lot of reviewers seem to give every “AAA” game high ratings because they want more free copies in the future. I think user ratings are more relevant, since they are the ones actually buying the game (and not buying the next one probably).

    • NeelyCam
    • 8 years ago

    AMD doing nasty, dishonest rebadging again:

    [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5291/amd-quietly-releases-the-oemonly-radeon-hd-7670-turks-rides-again[/url<] Sad, pathetic and evil. Intel would never do this.

      • can-a-tuna
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah, yeah, you keep trolling that to every AMD related thread (like that HD7970 review). Like nvidia hasn’t been doing that for ages. Some OEM only low end cards are rebadged because retailers demand it that way. Go wank your intel processor.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        So, AMD names a 5000-series chip as 7000-series chip, cheats the customer out of his money, and somehow it’s not AMD’s fault? Fail.

        NVidia has done that as well, and it’s Sad, Pathetic and Evil. But somehow AMD fanbois seem to think that AMD has higher moral standing than NVidia. It doesn’t. This is yet another proof of it. And I don’t even wanna mention the outright lies AMD spit out on BD performance expectations..

        AMD is out to screw the consumers. We should all boycott AMD products.

      • Zkal
      • 8 years ago

      When has Intel been in the market for discrete graphics card? It’s kinda different between CPU’s and GPU’s as one might imagine…

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        That seems to be the case…

        Although in CPUs, calling BD an “FX” (resurrecting the brand name that was always associated with superior performance) is pretty shady, considering it loses to previous-gen X6 Phenoms in performance.

      • raddude9
      • 8 years ago

      Yes, I saw you trolling with the same comment in other threads as well.

      By my reckoning Intel is the most evil company company in the world, the fine that the EU slapped on Intel for illegally abusing their monoply and harming consumers was almost $1.5 billion. In case your math isn’t up to it, this is almost 3 times bigger than the fine that the EU imposed on microsoft. Which makes them 3 times more evil than microsoft by my reckoning! If only the US Justice dept. wasn’t so toothless.

      Don’t talk to me about Sad, Pathetic and Evil, Intel has cornered that market!

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        EU cannot be trusted to make impartial decisions – they were heavily lobbied by AMD Germany, and Intel wasn’t allowed to defend itself. Remember how EU’s own ombudsman said the whole case was a joke? Anyway, Europe doesn’t even matter anymore – Europe is such a mess.

        Intel is hardly Sad and Pathetic. They are taking over the whole PC market with superior products, and next the smartphone/tablet market with – you guessed it – superior products. Evil is more controversial, as every company is evil. But, Intel is no more evil than the other companies.

          • raddude9
          • 8 years ago

          I’d trust the EU sooner than the US Justice Dept, with it’s extremly timid enforcement of monopoly law. microsoft were all set to get broken up before the next week minded administration came in and put a stop to everything, the very opposite of impartiality methinks.

          Intel is pretty sad I believe, they have been talking about mobile phone processors for years, ever since they sold their strongArm line to Marvell, but with no result. I think you are the only person left who believes that they will do it. In my view they will never be able to achieve the revenue they want from a mobile phone chip, despite their crazy-insane fabrication process (Which everybody else seems to manage a year or so later anyway).

          Intel’s most pathetic enterprise is of course the Itanium, which they are still trying to flog, why, nobody knows any more, nobody wanted it to start with. Then with the nerve that only an arrogant monopolist can have, intel told us that in order to have 64bit software we had to use Itanium, and that they had no plans to make x86 a 64bit chip… until AMD forced them to.

          And despite their “superior products” there is no evidence that they are “taking over the whole PC market” as you say, their market share has remaind quite stagnant, mostly because of pricing, they price their chips like any blood sucking monopoly would. Why the f*** can’t they make a cheap and cheerful true quad core (“because they have a monopoly and they don’t need to” is the correct answer). Also, if the EU is irrelevant, then who is going to buy Intel’s chips, not the emerging markets, they are more interested in “superior prices”, which AMD and ARM based chips can provide. In other words “superior products” don’t mean jack when the people you try to sell them to can’t afford them, and any moves by Intel to break into emerging/low cost markets is going to hurt their ability to sell high-priced products to first world markets. In this balancing act Intel is going to side with where they make the most money, and leave the low end to prosper… hopefully.

          Now on to Evil. Intel are more evil than most companies, maybe it’s because they are bigger than most, but that does not excuse it, my favourite Intel-Is-Evil reasons are:
          For paying Companies Not to use AMD chips:
          [url<]http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091112_354928.htm[/url<] The general consensus is that Dirk Meyer got kick out of AMD for dropping this case for just $1.25 billion, they should have gotten a lot more. For actively crippling the performance of AMD chips with it's compiler, not just pasively ignoring them, but going out of their way to make AMD chips look worse: [url<]http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_[/url<] Then they do everything they can to make people use the Intel compiler. For trying to sink the OLPC with their classmate PC just because they moved away from Intel chips: [url<]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/21/olpc_vs_intel/[/url<] That's just my list of Intel pet-peeves, but everybody is entitled to their own.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]I'd trust the EU sooner than the US Justice Dept, with it's extremly timid enforcement of monopoly law.[/quote<] You're probably talking about Delaware there, but point taken. However, the EU fine was not decided by a court - it was decided by an internal regulatory body that intentionally ignored evidence that was in Intel's favor because 1) AMD Germany told them to, and 2) fining Intel makes EU bureaucracies money, regardless of if it's justified or not. EU's own ombudsman pointed out this corrupt behavior: [url<]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10305693-64.html[/url<] [quote<]Intel is pretty sad I believe, they have been talking about mobile phone processors for years, ever since they sold their strongArm line to Marvell, but with no result.[/quote<] These things really take time. Intel chips were going to be in phones last year, but Microsoft started a hostile, undercover takeover of Nokia squeezing Intel out. Open your eyes, look at the rumors, benchies, CES pre-announcements etc. This is happening right now. I know you don't like it (although you should, since competition is good), but it's inevitable. Try to quantify why Intel can't do it... whatever excuses you come up with can't be supported with strong evidence. History is not enough - things change. Note that people have been talking about ARM notebooks for years as well, and it hasn't really gone anywhere. These things take time. ARM will break into low-end notebooks in 2015, but until then it's nothing but a trickle. [quote<]crazy-insane fabrication process (Which everybody else seems to manage a year or so later anyway).[/quote<] Intel hasn't leveraged their crazy-insane fabrication process for Atoms, and I really don't know why... (internal politics?). But the recent announcements state that they'll accelerate the Atom process node migration rate (2012:32nm, 2013:22nm, 2014:15nm) to get to the standard tick-tock cadence desktop CPUs have enjoyed. BTW, no - everybody else don't manage to get to a similar process node one year later... it's closer to two years. And performance-wise, Intel's lead is increasing even beyond the standard shrink advantage at 22nm because of trigate (which others won't have until 14/15nm). [quote<]Intel's most pathetic enterprise is of course the Itanium[/quote<] Agreed - I have nothing good to say about Itanic. Intel also had Viiv which was pretty sad. But by and large, I wouldn't characterize Intel as pathetic overall. [quote<]And despite their "superior products" there is no evidence that they are "taking over the whole PC market" as you say, their market share has remaind quite stagnant, mostly because of pricing, they price their chips like any blood sucking monopoly would.[/quote<] They pretty much already has - I consider market share of over 80% to be "taking over". In servers they have even more of the market. And Intel and AMD chips are both priced pretty much equally in terms of performance/price. You can only blame AMD for not making better chips. Note also that CPU prices have gone down a lot over the last five years or so while performance has grown hugely. Intel's CPUs are continously getting cheaper and cheaper for what they offer. How is that sucking blood/money from consumers? Intel has been making CPUs cheaper even when AMD stopped being competitive in performance (since Core2... Remember how much the first quad-cores cost?). [quote<]Also, if the EU is irrelevant, then who is going to buy Intel's chips, not the emerging markets, they are more interested in "superior prices", which AMD and ARM based chips can provide[/quote<] You're opinion isn't backed by data. Emerging markets are [b<]the[/b<] reason why Intel has been able to grow their revenues and profits (and even margins) as explained in Intel's quarterly reports, even when analysts are saying PC market is dead (pointing to USA and Europe). I think you underestimate what emerging markets can afford and are wiling to spend. Don't forget, Intel has its cheap Pentium line that is quite competitive with AMD's cheaper stuff. ARM is not competition to Intel in PC space. ARM performance is way below what people expect from a PC. Those links you added as "proof" how Intel is evil are not proof. In every case it's "one guy says one thing, the other guy says the other thing", but in every case you side with whoever is against Intel, and cite it as proof. No - that's not how it works. AMD saying "Intel did wrong" and Intel saying "No we didn't" is not proof that AMD is right. Negroponte saying "Intel sold below cost" and Intel saying "No we didn't" is not proof Intel sold below cost. And AMD is more than welcome to develop their own complier that's fully optimized for their CPUs and unoptimized for Intel's. They don't have a right to demand Intel develops a compiler fully optimized for AMD chips. I mean, that sounds completely ridiculous! But your pro-AMD anti-Intel bias makes you blindly side with any and all accusations against Intel. That's your prerogative, of course, but I rather side with logic.

            • raddude9
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Note that people have been talking about ARM notebooks for years as well[/quote<] I Note that you used the word "people" here, ARM have not been talking up their netbook chances, whereas Intel have been talking up their phone chips, with no end result in sight, and don't blame microsoft for Intel's lack of progress, if intel were putting all their eggs in the Meego basket then it's their own stupid fault. [quote<]I know you don't like it (although you should, since competition is good)[/quote<] Close, but you are not quite there. Fair Competition is good. Intel's version of competition is far from fair. And it's not just some he-said-she-said thing here, Intel have admitted their wrong-doing by paying out $1.25 to AMD (along with a number of consessions), in order to get them to drop their (what must have been a rather strong) case. [quote<]Try to quantify why Intel can't do it... whatever excuses you come up with can't be supported with strong evidence. History is not enough - things change.[/quote<] Yes, things change, but haven't you noticed that intel does not like change, or at least they do not like to change their prices, they are in fact very afraid of upsetting their profitable apple-cart. Intel is at least half of the reason why you can't just walk into a high-street shop and pick up a $50 computer. I imagine they probably have a team of people working out how to combat the "Raspberry Pi" threat right now. [quote<]Note also that CPU prices have gone down a lot over the last five years or so while performance has grown hugely. Intel's CPUs are continously getting cheaper and cheaper for what they offer. How is that sucking blood/money from consumers?[/quote<] Huh you kidding me right? And where is your evidence for this? Performance may have increased, but prices have barely moved in over a decade. Look it up, do some research. And the prices don't get continuously cheaper, an individual intel chip might get a price cut or two, but that's it, it will then be discontinued. If they got continuously cheaper, then we would have $50 3.0Ghz core 2 Quads by now, but where are they? all those people with compatible motherboards would be able to upgrade easily, but no, they have to toss out their whole rig just to get a new chip. It's just not in Intels interest to make computers last longer, or make them cheaper. [quote<]And AMD is more than welcome to develop their own complier that's fully optimized for their CPUs and unoptimized for Intel's. They don't have a right to demand Intel develops a compiler fully optimized for AMD chips. [/quote<] Who would use AMD's compiler if it intentionally crippled the performance of 80% of computers out there. In case you havn't noticed, Intel used illegal tactics to gain this 80% share, and these dirty compiler tricks are yet another way they defend their illegally gained monopoly. [quote<]And Intel and AMD chips are both priced pretty much equally in terms of performance/price. You can only blame AMD for not making better chips[/quote<] You can blame intel as well, if it wasn't for their illegal monopolistic practices who know where the chip market would be today, AMD might be in a stronger position and we would have real competition. [quote<]Intel hasn't leveraged their crazy-insane fabrication process for Atoms, and I really don't know why... (internal politics?)[/quote<] What, you have such faith in intel that you can't even speculate that intel is afraid to hurt their profitable chip lines by producing cheaper chips that are good enough for the average Joe? And You think I look at only one side of things. [quote<]But your pro-AMD anti-Intel bias makes you blindly side with any and all accusations against Intel.[/quote<] The various accusations against intel have different merit for me, some of these accusations have been proven true, and these are the ones I base my feelings about intel on, e.g.: Intel handing over $1.25 to AMD (along with other consessions) to get them to drop their case. The FTC case against intel, even though the settlement conditions were a bit on the weak side they still imposed restrictions and oversite on intel because of intels wrongdoing. The EU case against intel, and regardless of what you may think, it's not logical to throw out the whole case because the ombudsman came up with some technical problems, overall the case had merit, something which you seem to be blind to. [quote<]That's your prerogative, of course, but I rather side with logic.[/quote<] Really, you believe things like intels propaganda about becomming a force in phone chips, when historical evidence says otherwise. Think about it, that's not logic, that's blind dogmatic faith, you believe them just because they say it. BTW, I'm not really pro-AMD, I'm not even anti-Intel, I'm just Anti-consumer-Harming-Monopoly

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Intel have admitted their wrong-doing by paying out $1.25 to AMD[/quote<] No - Intel [i<]did not[/i<] admit any wrong-doing. You don't seem to understand what a settlement means. [quote<][quote<]Note also that CPU prices have gone down a lot over the last five years or so while performance has grown hugely. Intel's CPUs are continously getting cheaper and cheaper for what they offer. How is that sucking blood/money from consumers?[/quote<] Huh you kidding me right? And where is your evidence for this? Performance may have increased, but prices have barely moved in over a decade. Look it up, do some research.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.techspot.com/review/36-intel-core2-quad-q6600/[/url<] "Today Intel is releasing a second quad core processor called the Core 2 Quad Q6600. This new entry that comes clocked at 2.40GHz does not belong to the Extreme family of processors and will begin life at $851, making it a slightly more affordable alternative than the QX6700." Now, you can get a quad-core i5-2400 for less than $200. [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115074[/url<] Maybe [i<]you[/i<] should do some research before you put a foot in your mouth. [quote<]If they got continuously cheaper, then we would have $50 3.0Ghz core 2 Quads by now, but where are they?[/quote<] So the fact that the quad-core price has dropped by 75% in five years is not enough for you - you demand it drops by 95% before you consider it to be a price drop? I mean, seriously dude!??! [quote<]You can blame intel as well, if it wasn't for their illegal monopolistic practices who know where the chip market would be today, AMD might be in a stronger position and we would have real competition.[/quote<] Always this BS fanboi argument... Wake up. AMD is mucking up all by itself. Did you miss Barcelona? Bulldozer? Stop making excuses for them. [quote<]accusations have been proven true[/quote<] No - nothing has been proven true. [quote<]The FTC case against intel, even though the settlement conditions were a bit on the weak side they still imposed restrictions and oversite on intel because of intels wrongdoing.[/quote<] No - they imposed restrictions and oversight to clearly define what is illegal and what is not. Intel was following the law that was unclearly defined. Intel is following a law that's defined more clearly now. [quote<]The EU case against intel, and regardless of what you may think, it's not logical to throw out the whole case because the ombudsman came up with some technical problems, overall the case had merit, something which you seem to be blind to.[/quote<] The case definitely shouldn't be thrown out, but it should be revisited fairly and without bias. Throwing out evidence because it affects EU's case against Intel negatively isn't a technicality - it's a questionable, if not downright illegal measure. Note that Intel has appealed the ruling. [quote<]Really, you believe things like intels propaganda about becomming a force in phone chips, when historical evidence says otherwise.[/quote<] So, you think things can't ever change? You're ignoring continuous improvements on Atom to say that it's impossible Intel will ever make it to cell phones? You ignore Intel's process advantage? You ignore Intel's R&D resources? Who's the blind one...?

            • raddude9
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]No - Intel did not admit any wrong-doing. You don't seem to understand what a settlement means.[/quote<] Right, so Intel forked over over a billion because AMDs case had no merit? They would be sued by every one of their shareholders if that was the case. [quote<]Intel was following the law that was unclearly defined. Intel is following a law that's defined more clearly now.[/quote<] Always this BS fanboi argument... Wake up. Intel knew they had strayed onto the illegal side of monopoly law, hence the payouts. [quote<]So the fact that the quad-core price has dropped by 75% in five years is not enough for you - you demand it drops by 95% before you consider it to be a price drop? I mean, seriously dude!??![/quote<] That's pretty biased, Intels "Extreme Editions" are called that for a reason. Anyway, you're not looking broadly enough, An individual intel chip get's a bit cheaper, and then it gets replaced, sometimes they have cheap-ish chips, but these are usually very limited or have glaring drawbacks, sometimes they have slow-ish chips, but these are priced higher because they are deemed "low-power". Entire computers are cheaper than they were back in 2000, but the price decrease is not due to cheaper processors, CPU's are the only components to have held their value since then, the price of every other component has dropped dramatically, sure, you're rallying cry is "but the cpu's are more powerful", but Moores law is well capable of giving us both faster and cheaper chips, Intel only allows us the former, never the latter. There was a glimmer of hope with the Atom, but Intel crippled it, they didn't allow computer-builders to put more than 1 gig of ram or a screen with a resolution higher than 1024x600 on any laptop with an Atom chip. That's BS and you know it. They use their massive influence to bully other companies into doing their bidding. That's not consumer friendly. [quote<]How is that sucking blood/money from consumers?[/quote<] Ramp an Atom style chip up to 3Ghz, give it 4GB of fast Ram and a decent 13inch screen and you would have a computer that costs the same as a cheap netbook but would be good enough for 95% of consumers. Can you get such a machine. No. Therefore Consumers are being bled dry by Intel. Maybe you are never going to understand this, and I'm getting tired trying to explain it, but I'll give it one more go. You yourself said [quote<]So, you think things can't ever change?"[/quote<] Well, things have changed, but maybe you missed it, maybe that's because Intel is missing it. 95% of people don't need a quad-core i5-2400 for $200. Like it or not, we have entered the era of so-called "good-enough" computing. It's easy not to see that if you spend you life living on benchmark heavy sites like this one. A cheap but decent $50 dollar chip should be enough for most people, but you can't get one, mostly because of Intel, both their strategy and their influence. This is why I don't see Intel doing well on mobile platforms, the window for Intel to produce a $100 cell-phone chip has closed, and will never re-open. Cell-phone makers are a different breed to computer makers and they will have learned from the mistakes of the computer makers and will not be so eager to put themselves in the same position. Also, Intels R&D resources and process advantage is not something that has suddenly emerged Intel have had these for the past 5 years and they have made no progress, why do you expect them to succeed this time? To succeed in the cell-phone market, intel will have to dramatically change their attitude to pricing, this will be the biggest challenge to intel in this market. Anyway, it's not an insurmountable challenge, history is definitely against them, but there is a chance they could succeed. Hmm, if they ever made a powerful and cheap Windows 8 cell-phone chip, what would that do to their profitable laptop chips I wonder?

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Right, so Intel forked over over a billion because AMDs case had no merit? They would be sued by every one of their shareholders if that was the case. Always this BS fanboi argument... Wake up. Intel knew they had strayed onto the illegal side of monopoly law, hence the payouts.[/quote<] Intel had strayed onto the gray area of monopoly law, and juries are unpredictable - hence the settlement. Intel can still argue that they didn't do anything illegal. AMD agreed to a settlement that many thought was too low because they, too, knew that Intel didn't do anything indisputably illegal, AMD's case had weak spots, and juries are unpredictable. [quote<]That's pretty biased, Intels "Extreme Editions" are called that for a reason.[/quote<] Now you put your second foot in your mouth;' Q6600 is not Extreme Edition. Maybe you are never going to understand this, and I'm getting tired trying to explain it, but I'll give it one more go: [quote<]A cheap but decent $50 dollar chip should be enough for most people, but you can't get one, mostly because of Intel, both their strategy and their influence.[/quote<] Not true. Here's a $52 dual-core 2.4GHz Sandy Bridge chip: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116409[/url<] You can't claim that this isn't good enough for most people. Undeniably CPU prices have come down significantly since 2000 - both high-end and low-end. Back in 2000 you had no chance of buying a CPU for $50. Now you can, from both AMD and Intel. You need to stop repeating your incorrect argument that CPU prices haven't moved anywhere. [quote<]There was a glimmer of hope with the Atom, but Intel crippled it, they didn't allow computer-builders to put more than 1 gig of ram or a screen with a resolution higher than 1024x600 on any laptop with an Atom chip. That's BS and you know it. [/quote<] It's artificial market segmentation, and it sucks for consumers, but I understand why Intel is doing it - to make money. Everybody does it. AMD does it by not unlocking all their chips. Microsoft did it by only allowing Win7 Starter on netbooks. Companies do his to protect their high-end products from low-end cannibalization. [quote<]Also, Intels R&D resources and process advantage is not something that has suddenly emerged Intel have had these for the past 5 years and they have made no progress, why do you expect them to succeed this time? [/quote<] They have made plenty of progress - Menlow to Moorestown to Medfield. Why do you keep insisting on claims that are clearly incorrect? I could just as easily make a silly argument that because ARM hasn't made it to laptops yet it never will. ARM has made plenty of progress as well, A8 -> A9 -> A15, and even though they haven't made it to mainstream laptops yet, they eventually will. You are also delusional if you think Intel doesn't understand that they can't sell x86 cell phone chips for $100 each. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea how much ARM chips cost, and since they are trying to break into a new market, they will have to offer a much better value proposition (better performance at a lower price) than their ARM competition. I would actually argue that Intel is better positioned to compete with price than Qualcomm, NVidia et al. because Intel can also give up manufacturing margin to bring the price down. Qualcomm, NVidia et al. will always have to pay extra for TSMC's margins (and, of course, the ARM royalties).

            • raddude9
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Intel had strayed onto the gray area of monopoly law[/quote<] Grey area my ass, if 40% of Dells profits come from intel rebates (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/after_the_dell_settlement/) you know something is deeply wrong, or at least you should.

            [quote<]Now you put your second foot in your mouth;' Q6600 is not Extreme Edition.[/quote<] Oh no! you got me on a technicality and now my whole argument is useless 🙁 ...Wait... when I mentioned Extreme Edition I was referring to the QX6700 [quote<]Not true. Here's a $52 dual-core 2.4GHz Sandy Bridge chip[/quote<] Now I got you, I said you can't get a decent $50 chip and that is $52, a clear $2 over what I said, thus rendering your whole argument useless..... Childish isn't it. Point taken though, there are a few reasonablish cheapie chips out there, even if they are artificially hobbled by intel (disabling features it really doesn't have to, but that's a different discussion) and you are forced to pair them up with intel chipsets these days (I'm sure they're making a tidy profit on these as well). [quote<]Undeniably CPU prices have come down significantly since 2000 - both high-end and low-end. Back in 2000 you had no chance of buying a CPU for $50.[/quote<] Are you 12? Because that's the only reaon I can think of why somebody would say that. Now, it's hard to find the prices of older chips way back in 2000, but with a little bit of googling, here's where you can see the release prices of some chips back in 2000: [url<]http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp2000.htm[/url<] See that brand new AMD K6-2 being brought onto the market in June 2000 for the unbelievable price of $85. Still a few dollars away, but the prices of these chips dropped. How about this article from Anandtech back in 2000: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/647/16[/url<] This one mentions $60 k6-3 chips. And It should be pretty obvious that if you can get a new chip for $60 to $85 I'm pretty sure some of the older chips were in the $50 range. So, The upshot of all this history is to show that back in 2000 x86 cpus cost in the $60 to $800 range, which is very close to the same range that they are in today. [quote<]You need to stop repeating your incorrect argument that CPU prices haven't moved anywhere.[/quote<] You are the one who needs to stop repeating your incorrect argument. I have shown here that the prices have barely budged, and this is despite 12 years of Moores law progress. So I'll say it again as I think I have earned that right: CPU prices haven't moved anywhere in 12 years. [quote<]It's artificial market segmentation, and it sucks for consumers, but I understand why Intel is doing it - to make money. Everybody does it.[/quote<] Not quite there again with your "Everybody does it", Lots of companies may try it, by only monopolies get away with it. The only computer-essentials that have not come down in price are the O/S and the CPU, every other computer part you can name has plummeted in prices, only monopolies can keep their prices up like that in the face of so many technical advancements. [quote<][quote<]Also, Intels R&D resources and process advantage is not something that has suddenly emerged Intel have had these for the past 5 years and they have made no progress, why do you expect them to succeed this time?[/quote<] They have made plenty of progress - Menlow to Moorestown to Medfield. Why do you keep insisting on claims that are clearly incorrect?[/quote<] I meant that have made no progress in getting their cpus into actual mobile phones, something even you will have to conceed. This is despite 5 years of talking about it and 5 years of having deep pockets and a process advantage. [quote<]You are also delusional if you think Intel doesn't understand that they can't sell x86 cell phone chips for $100 each.[/quote<] I didn't say that intel would try to sell a phone cpu for $100. I was making the point that there might have been a market for such a phone cpu 5 years ago, but now everybody from phone makers to telecoms companies are quite settled with their $20-ish SOC CPU's and they will be very slow to adopt higher price CPU's. Because of this intel are now trying to break into a market where the profit margins are an order of magnitude lower than what they are used to, where they have no history of producing chips with idle power requirements low enough and where they have no established software drivers suitable for the operating systems used. [quote<]Qualcomm, NVidia et al. will always have to pay extra for TSMC's margins[/quote<] Incorrect use of the word "always" there, Nvidia et al. will only pay TSMC's margins as long as they are the lowest, when they're not they will switch to Samsung, UMC, GloFlo etc.. So they can shop around and guarantee that the prices for the same chips will continually drop. Maybe intel will be able to buy their way into the phones of a 2nd tier phone maker, I just can't see any of the top-tier phone makers willingly giving away that amount of control of their platform away to a company with intels track record, they'll never get that control back (probably why they are staying away from microsoft OS's as well).

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 8 years ago

      Haha, I think this must be sarcasm. Intel does this all the time. Most anything Pentium has at one time or another been a rebadge of a previous generation. nVidia does it. AMD does it.

      Do you know why they do it? Because everyone else is doing it. And consumers eat it up. Like biscuits and gravy. Gravy that’s dripping off the chins of every consumer between here and Cleveland and beyond. Consumers want to believe they’re getting cutting edge tech when they buy their computer. They don’t want to think they’re buying ancient tech in a brand new, just released computer. The computer makers don’t want people waiting for the new tech to be released.

      Thus, they have the component manufacturers do a little tweaking to the model name to help comfort the sods who won’t bother to do the research. If you think this is the only time someone is lied to and is too ignorant to see it, I think you should look more closely at the way all corporations work…

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Intel doesn’t take 2500K and call it 3100k a year later. Intel does relegate some chips to the “Pentium” status later, but that’s a perfectly honest move, as Pentium is the lower-tier chip. Meanwhile, going from 5000-series to 6000-series and then 7000-series clearly implies moving to higher tier which, obviously, wasn’t the case.

        That’s dishonest marketing, and AMD needs to be punished for it.

        Yes, NVidia does it too, and needs to be punished for it.

        Intel does not, at least I don’t remember Intel ever doing that. If you can show me one clear example, I’ll take it back.

      • defacer
      • 8 years ago

      And this is relevant how exactly?

      I ‘m not expecting an answer. Keep trolling mate!

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 8 years ago

    My 470 delivered a nice, enjoyable, bug-free rage experience. I don’t see what warrants all this hullabaloo. Has AMD still not released working dirvers? Hmm, yeah keep blaming it on the game. Actually, I think AMD wants you to buy their new 7970 with PRT support to be able to run the game.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 8 years ago

      I think that AMD had its driver teams working on the new GCN architecture optimization instead of working on the older tech that still represented their top of the line last year. They were more worried about 7970 working well than all the 69xx and 58xx they have out there. Those cards are already sold. They want the newer cards to sell at the higher prices, so they gots to get the drivers up to snuff and certainly they don’t have time for both. If anything, AMD’s proven their driver teams are very limited.

      The choice between supporting the customers they could have or the customers they DO have is no choice at all, I guess. Hence all the new releases that came out with limited or no drivers from AMD. Just makes you want to go out and buy their next card, doesn’t it? Oh wait, no it doesn’t.

    • link626
    • 8 years ago

    i don’t think anyone has given a crap about Rage since day 1

      • odizzido
      • 8 years ago

      I give a very small crap. Perhaps a newborn mouse turd. Anyways I imagine I will play this game sometime in 2013.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Too little, too late.

    Next AMD’ll announce their next driver version will update to improve performance for cutting edge games like Tribes 2, Doom 2, Swiv 3d, Unreal Tournament 2k4, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, and King’s Quest VI.

      • LovermanOwens
      • 8 years ago

      At first I was going to give you a “Thumbs Down” for the negative attitude, but then I got to the part where you said King’s Quest VI and chuckled a bit. Well done sir(I am assuming you are a gent).

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 8 years ago

        Magic schmap, hiccup.

      • Forge
      • 8 years ago

      So you would have them release updated drivers BEFORE the game hits? See article above comments. They are doing EXACTLY that.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 8 years ago

        I would have had them release updated drivers when the game mattered.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    Magic filter wont improve shotty textures.

      • Firestarter
      • 8 years ago

      upsample + ‘detail’ (read: noise) != higher resolution

    • bcronce
    • 8 years ago

    “Smoother game play and reduces multicore sync points”

    Does this apply to all games?

    edit: I guess I’m asking if this is a general benefit to the drivers or only to the code path Rage uses.

      • zimpdagreene
      • 8 years ago

      I would like to know also.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    OOooooo I can finally buy RAGE soon?

      • TravelMug
      • 8 years ago

      I’ll wait a bit longer. Once the drivers are actually confirmed working and by that time there’s a better chance of another low price sale somewhere.

      • PenGun
      • 8 years ago

      Don’t bother. I wasted my $60 so you don’t have to.

      • can-a-tuna
      • 8 years ago

      Wait till it hit’s below $20. No point to encourage ID software buying their buggy game at full price. When they start thinking PC gamers again, I might consider purchasing games at full price if they are good.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 8 years ago

      Not yet. It hasn’t hit $5 during a Steamsale yet. I’m sure it’ll finally hit “release” ($5) this year. I imagine by then AMD’ll have released a driver that doesn’t just get rid of “some texture corruption,” but all of it.

    • Dashak
    • 8 years ago

    These driver updates and game patches were needed at launch.

    [i<]Stop releasing unfinished games![/i<]

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      Stop buying them. Problem solved.

        • Dashak
        • 8 years ago

        I didn’t.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 8 years ago

        Hence why Rage flopped in sales. If people keep it up, we can get this game down to $5-ish and then all buy it to make a point that games shouldn’t cost $60 if they’re going to suck this bad.

      • bittermann
      • 8 years ago

      I bought a copy during the Steam Xmas sale..I can stomach $15 a lot better than the $60 release day asking price for that buggy mess. One more patch and latest drivers I should be good to go!

        • tay
        • 8 years ago

        Did the same. Played a few hours and will wait for the update. It is a good game IMO. Fun and looks incredible other than 20% of the textures that are shitty.

      • burntham77
      • 8 years ago

      Except for Diablo III. Just release the goddamned thing already.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      I want dragons to fly sideways.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This