zekrahminator
McLovin
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 9,066 (1.31/day)
- Location
- My house.
Processor | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane @ 2.8GHz (224x12.5, 1.425V) |
---|---|
Motherboard | Gigabyte sumthin-or-another, it's got an nForce 430 |
Cooling | Dual 120mm case fans front/rear, Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro, Zalman VF-900 on GPU |
Memory | 2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 |
Video Card(s) | Sapphire X850XT @ 580/600 |
Storage | WD 160 GB SATA hard drive. |
Display(s) | Hanns G 19" widescreen, 5ms response time, 1440x900 |
Case | Thermaltake Soprano (black with side window). |
Audio Device(s) | Soundblaster Live! 24 bit (paired with X-530 speakers). |
Power Supply | ThermalTake 430W TR2 |
Software | XP Home SP2, can't wait for Vista SP1. |
While NVIDIA may be quite successful in the upper graphics market, and AMD is doing well in the necessary middle niche, Intel is the king of graphics. The reason is simple: most people are fine with the integrated graphics that come with their OEM-built computer, which are almost always made by Intel. NVIDIA is hoping to take some of this budget market share from Intel, and do a good job at it, as well. They had sure better, after boldly proclaiming that 37% of video games will not work on an Intel graphics chipset, and 27% of games that do work will have problems on said Intel graphics chipsets. If NVIDIA does take the market share of budget graphics solutions from Intel, we may see a lot of low-cost computers that can play computer games.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
View at TechPowerUp Main Site