![]() Enjoy access to quite a few nice free games, and online multiplayer. Get a PS+ Yearly subscription on special. Now, for the short-term, the better choice/budget would be to get a PS4 Pro when it goes on special. There's even more that I can say, but the positives are long already. However, you just can't deny that its a very attractive proposition with the choice of many GamePads, Keyboard, Mice, Free Online Multiplayer, Unlimited Backwards Compatibility, Lots of Mods, Better visual flair, More responsive actions, and freedom to double as a personal computer. And PC Games lack local multiplayer / party games, and some certain console exclusives. A PC Gaming is more complex, so it might not look as good. For instance, a console experience is very minimalistic: just pick up and play. Why? You get a better experience for a longer period, and, in the long-run its actually cheaper. Even with the higher price, the expensive SSD, expensive RAM, and expensive GPUs. If I was to be objective, then the answer is PC Gaming. This is a tricky question, as the answer is "it depends". Obviously I've given you the extreme cases, so the probable outcome is likely to be a factor of all three, and something more in-between/balanced. So there's three factors there: AMD's progress or plateau, Intel's regression, or Intel's re-dominance. This might mean even Ryzen v2.0 will look slow and inefficient when it launches against Intel's next-gen chipset, meaning AMD will crawl back into the shadow as Intel continues to dominate the market. It's entirely possible they could make another generational leap (eg Pentium-D to Core2Duo) (eg, or Core2Quad to Core i-Sandy Bridge). Intel's next big microarchitecture might arrive soon. So while Ryzen v1.0 seems quite competitive to Broadwell and Kaby Lake. It's possible that Intel sat on the technology on purpose, anticipating Zen. And perhaps they have a next-gen microarchitecture that has been cooked up several years ago. Or third point, its possible that Intel is actually innovative. They might even sell their wafer fabrication to someone like GlobalFoundaries, and relegate to being a patent licenser. It's shares would take a massive hit, and they might sell off certain divisions. We could potentially see a reversal of roles, where AMD might dominate the market in terms of performance AND efficiency for 5-10 years as Intel gets reduced to a laughing stock. In particular, Intel has been wasting and bleeding money on nonsense for a while, and hasn't been innovating. If AMD produces a Ryzen v2.0 chip that's 55% more efficient in 2018 then Intel will be in a bind. so the new revenue will allow AMD to spend better on R&D and actually innovate. Or one could say, AMD will become profitable again in the server, graphics, desktop, and laptop markets in 2017. as it becomes more expensive, slow, and harder to manufacture smaller lithography wafers AND because they might not have the expertise to improve the microarchitecture further. ![]() After that, they could hit a snag or a plateau if you will. So its very possible we might see a Ryzen v2.0 that's between 20% - 55% more efficient in 2018-2019. However, even if AMD makes modest improvements to Ryzen (eg 10% increased efficiency), when it transitions to a smaller node, for instance, a Ryzen v2.0 on 10nm Finfet (maybe in 2018) that could boost efficiency by another 40% on-chip. Some might think Ryzen was a one hit wonder, and that AMD will not be able to make much improvements, especially without a head designer like Jim Keller. But I can break it down to several quick points for you. So it's really hard to see where the market will go. Something like Qualcomm or Nvidia should absolutely not be able to compete with Intel, but they do, and their designs are arguably more intelligent. The fact that Intel cannot compete with a much smaller designer like ARM lends a lot of credibility to this concept. They've potentially done Trillions of dollars worth of damaged, and gleefully accepted to pay small fines for their actions. ![]() On top of this, Intel has broken the law several times, and tried to muscle out all competition from the market. As they usually fail to design their own chips, and instead they resort to acquiring other businesses on the cheap, to take their experts and designs and slap an Intel logo on it. ![]() One can also make the argument that Intel is NOT innovative at all. So for good reason, there are a lot of fans of Intel. One can make an argument that Intel is innovative, they did dominate the performance AND efficiency market for 10 years straight: early 2006's Conroe to late 2016's Kaby Lake. Here's a lengthy detailed post for you:ฤก) The PC market is very interesting. AnonD-695347, Holy gawd i like the way you ultra-bake your comments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |