AMD is just as bad. It only looks better, because it doesn’t have the resources to pull of all the crazy shit that Nvidia does.
And so is Intel. There’s no good choice when it comes to dekstop CPUs and GPUs, unfortunately.
AMD is just as bad. It only looks better, because it doesn’t have the resources to pull of all the crazy shit that Nvidia does.
And so is Intel. There’s no good choice when it comes to dekstop CPUs and GPUs, unfortunately.
Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
ofc they aren’t good,but i mean they are much better then Nvidia. (ig?)
and it would be cool if we got RISC-V
DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s the dream, but both Intel and AMD will spend all of their money on ensuring it doesn’t happen.
In this regard Nvidia is actually the least bad of the three. It’s already manufacturing ARM SOCs, and isn’t opposed to RISC-V either, since it’d be theoretically more profitable than ARM. No ARM royalties => more money for Jensen.
Especially with the recent RTX Spark announcement. Nvidia is perfectly willing to invest a lot of resources into ARM, while Intel and AMD are both investing resources into sabotaging it.
ARM isn’t RISC-V of course, but close enough. Many companies investing into ARM invest into RISC-V as well, including ARM giants like Qualcomm, because it only makes sense.
If it wasn’t for the AI bubble, I could consider Nvidia to be better than Intel or AMD overall. I’d still probably buy AMD’s desktop GPUs over Nvidia’s though.
Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
i mean Nvidia never made their own architecture and AMD/intel are investing into x86_64(Intel created x86 and AMD created x86_64 more