Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (121123)	12/8/2000 1:22:17 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tenchusatsu, But AGP was also designed for high-speed texture downloading from main memory to local graphics memory. And it has succeeded in that aspect. When you are transfering textures over AGP, you have already lost the performance war. The performance of textures loaded in local graphics memory is several orders of magnitude faster. The bandwidth of graphics memory on fast cards is approaching an order of magnitude advantage over AGP. The card manufacturers know it, and that is why they place the amount of memory on their cards that is well in excess of the requirement for the screen buffers. If AGP ever succeeded at anything, it was at running AGP related tests, nothing of significance in real world. Microsoft should get it right the first time. Unlike the PC, console platforms are meant to stay rather constant throughout its lifetime. That's true, but so much of the technology business depends on the endless upgrade cycle, and I see no reason for X-Box to provide the current owners the next greatest thing 2 years after the first one. And like on PC, even the existing games may look and perform better on newer hardware. There is no reason to design newer versions in a way that would not make them downward compatible. You saw me arguing before how this fact screams for a faster processor. In PC gaming, high resolution means the graphics subsystem becomes the bottleneck (pixel fill rate). Low resolution means the CPU becomes the bottleneck (polygon count). OK, so this is oversimplifying things, but it can't hurt for Microsoft to switch to a faster processor right from the beginning. No argument from me. Especially considering what processors will be the mainstream in September 2001. 1 GHz to 1.2 GHz will be the low end, and below 1 GHz will be nothing, except maybe Via (and Macintosh). Joe