Personally I don't really care about suffixes, it's whatever the company decided to use, It's not like any make more sense than others, just like intel have their EE, AMD have their FX, nVidia have their Ultras and GTXs and ATi (AMD) have their XTXes (or whatever they are now, I can't actually remember).

50's and 70's?

Oh, the new number system. I guess that's good, but other companies, like Intel, use those to denote revisions. It's all very confusing, should just number them by speed, starting at one and going up continuously!

I will echo those sentiments. Nvidia are now using even more confusing conventions. Like the new 8800GT, which i believe is their fastest Card. GT being below GTS/GTX. I believe that is the order of merit, for want of a better term.
I guess it will not be of too much difficulty once having looked at the associated Archtecture and Chipset. I just think it is playground stuff and completely stupid. A suffix like FX is not too pretentious, but changing around levels!

Well the Ultra is officially the fastest, then GTX, GTS, GT, but in practise, the new GT architecture is around GTX levels in some cases, so it is very confusing. A new number system would be better for everyone, but I just live with it anyway. Reviews are more meaningful.

Ofc, the Ultra.

It was pretty clear cut until they actually started releasing new models with lower end names, which messed things up a bit.

Yeah, I had the Ultra. That wa a great card, but now extremely limited as Nvidia don't make the chips any more. The GTS is officially the fastest card right now, according to synthetic and gaming benchmarks, in some cases the GTS outperforms the 3870X2. Depends on the app.

From what I'd heard the GT outperforms the GTS, but that might just be people comparing it with the old GTS...

Yeah, it was in CPC....

http://www.custompc.co.uk/labs/159123/n ... 00-gt.html

http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/13805 ... 800gt.html

CPC also reviewed the aforementioned ATI. Basically it was no better, and sometimes worse than, the single. They did put this down to perhaps being a Dvr issue, but they did not sound too convinced of that. Basically it got caned by the 8800's in their benchmarking games.

The new GT outperforms an old GTS, but not a new GTS

I haven't actually seen the new GTSes reviewed that much, and everyone seems to love the GTs anyway, which I think may be better from a price point perspective.

I was put off by the loud fan on the GT.

Guys...

Some more information about Nehalem and Larrabee...

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 9&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 6&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 7&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 4&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=1

And some K10.5 Shanghai...

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 7&Itemid=1

Good site this. Ray Tracing article was interesting me the most. There is thought towards this Global illumination. Already two steps ahead of Graphics then.

Some interesting stuff there. Looks like we're going to see a huge jump up in cores and some interesting new graphics developments very soon.

Can't wait!

amd have put out new tri core processors but these get beat by intel's core2duo 2.8ghz processors. also amd's phenom x4 dont overclock as easy as intel's core2quad

And their new super-high end just about reaches the performance of the Q6600.

AMD are lame in the x86 area at the moment, but they're stonkingly good in their chipset and graphics areas.

Yeah, they've lagged a bit on the processors, that Core 2 architecture is just incredible. THey are releasing a 65W TDP quad core, though, which will be good for HTPCs.

are amd better in 64bit processors then?

Nah, all the Core 2s are 64bit. When AMD released the Athlon 64, they beat the Pentium into the ground, but that wasn't because of the 64bit, which was just a marketing gimmik - most wouldn't use 64bit, as 32bit OSes are generally better (64bit XP sucked and 64bit Vista is just about up to scratch now).

The reason the Athlon's had a big advantage over the Pentium's at the time were due to the high bandwidth memory controller and also the instructions per clock cycle up from 2 to 3.

so the generations of processors would be as follows

amd duron:intel dont know
amd sempron:intel celeron
amd athlon:intel pentium
amd athlon x2:core2duo
amd phenom x4:core2quad and core2extreme

what about core duo wherer does that fit in?

Duron is equivalent to the Pentium M (I think, might be the old desktop one).
Turion is equivalent to Core 2 mobile.
Athlon 64 is equivalent to late Pent4s.
Athlon 64 X2 is equivalent to Core Duo and Core 2 (Core1 was around for about a year till the revised it to Core 2)
Athlon XP is equivalent to early Pent4s.
Opteron is to Xeon.