Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #252702 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware
Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:17 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-19 16:04 +0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:11 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 06:27 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:55 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-19 22:55 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-20 03:30 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 09:32 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:05 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 15:57 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2016-01-31 00:28 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-31 02:24 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-20 23:47 +0100
AMD vs. Intel vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-20 23:21 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:48 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 19:30 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 14:51 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:18 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:30 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:42 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 07:15 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-22 08:48 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:24 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 23:34 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 01:58 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-23 01:47 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 11:24 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:23 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 18:37 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:23 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 23:23 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-25 05:04 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:49 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:06 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:05 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-26 08:02 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-24 19:06 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:14 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-24 15:38 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 15:59 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:25 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 08:11 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 10:55 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:07 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-26 01:58 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-26 02:05 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:17 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-27 21:58 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-26 19:55 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:20 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 10:13 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-22 11:57 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:27 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:37 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:28 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:29 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-23 13:06 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 06:59 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:30 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:25 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> - 2016-01-21 15:10 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:23 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:40 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:40 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-01-21 12:16 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:26 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 23:42 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 13:08 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:29 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 11:53 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:59 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-21 05:44 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-22 04:31 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:44 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 08:35 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-23 06:13 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-23 10:03 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-24 05:06 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-24 10:39 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-25 00:22 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 05:09 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-19 22:16 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Euclides Zoto <euclides_zoto@optimum.net> - 2016-01-18 18:20 -0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 13:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n80fab$qrn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253143 |
GreyCloud wrote:
> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring.
> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that
> didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That
> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up,
> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the
> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8
> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market.
Low power consumption is a side effect of the development process.
Even Intel, owning its own fab and having teams capable
of redefining transistor stacks multiple times over the years,
they still can't hit the power target they want, to compete with ARM.
They can only get "close". (Cheating with scenario design power
versus TDP, throttling when the chip gets hot and so on.)
Of course they "try to cut the power consumption",
every day when they come into work. But the work is
"hard". You can't wave a magic wand, and change your
position in the industry.
The architecture you select, defines "the gorilla you
drag around on your back". And as good as Intel is,
they'd can't squeeze enough advantage out of their fab,
to compensate for "X86/X64".
The fabs use equipment made by other companies. You
need lithography equipment. No silicon company tries
to make all the equipment in their production facility.
They need "nice machines" fully automated, ready for
unattended operation. All they can make in their own
labs, is spaghettio machines with wires and cables all
over the place, vacuum pumps, glass christmas trees,
stuff all over the place, and a team of PhDs adjusting
the knobs every day to keep it running. External companies
make the real production equipment. And the industry works
together to set the next process node, so you can actually
build and purchase the items you need to build a fab.
http://www.ibtimes.com/ibm-major-breakthrough-computer-chips-featuring-tiny-7-nanometer-transistors-2002277
"IBM said Thursday said it had successfully created
computer chips with microscopic 7-nanometer transistors,
a major breakthrough for the tech industry that should
allow hardware manufacturers to continue making faster
computers and smartphones over the next few years.
By creating tiny transistors of only 7 nm (1 nm equals
1 billionth of a meter) IBM is able to fit more transistors
onto its chips than possible with the current 22-nm and 14-nm
transistor chips.
"blah blah blah scaling to 7 nm and beyond," said Arvind Krishna,
senior vice president and director of IBM Research, in a statement.
"That’s why IBM has remained committed to an aggressive basic
research agenda that continually pushes the limits of semiconductor
technology."
For decades, transistors have gotten smaller, allowing for more
powerful computer chips to be created. This is known as Moore's Law,
but blah blah blah for at least a few more years.
To create the 7 nm transistors, IBM teamed up with other chipmakers,
including Samsung, and used a silicon-germanium mixture instead
of just silicon. It also had to develop new manufacturing processes
to achieve working transistors.
For IBM, the next challenge will be to figure out <----
a way to create these chips at a mass scale so
they can be commercially viable.
"
So the last paragraph is key. Yes, they made a breakthrough.
These don't happen every day. And someone needs to make
the equipment, refine the process, so that they can
build even a single football field sized fab to do it.
Even with the example photo of a test chip (perhaps done
with an E-beam), the rest of the industry will work to
make the production method cheap enough to actually
build a fab with. So if the chairman of IBM said
"make me a low power PowerPC", the fab guy would
say "not until we have production facilities
to do it". Making single wafers in your basement
with the PhDs, is not a production facility.
So IBM solved the problem of what to make substrates
or wafers out of. But how the transistors get transferred
to masks, for all those process steps that take 12 weeks
to complete, others are still working on this. It appears
they might still be using optical techniques in the
ultraviolet.
http://semiengineering.com/eda-races-to-7nm-despite-litho-uncertainties/
See, fun stuff. Still using optical methods
after all these years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning
IBM can use much more expensive (lab prototype)
methods, like an E-beam writer, to make their test
chip. But whatever method they used, might be
too slow or too expensive for production purposes.
A lot of teamwork goes into this stuff. Even though
the companies compete, they can only keep the lithography
machine company in business, if he makes the same
equipment for everybody.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n831tg$796$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253207 |
On 01/23/16 11:06, Paul wrote: > GreyCloud wrote: > >> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. >> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot >> that didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That >> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, >> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the >> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 >> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market. > > Low power consumption is a side effect of the development process. > > Even Intel, owning its own fab and having teams capable > of redefining transistor stacks multiple times over the years, > they still can't hit the power target they want, to compete with ARM. > They can only get "close". (Cheating with scenario design power > versus TDP, throttling when the chip gets hot and so on.) > > Of course they "try to cut the power consumption", > every day when they come into work. But the work is > "hard". You can't wave a magic wand, and change your > position in the industry. > > The architecture you select, defines "the gorilla you > drag around on your back". And as good as Intel is, > they'd can't squeeze enough advantage out of their fab, > to compensate for "X86/X64". > > The fabs use equipment made by other companies. You > need lithography equipment. No silicon company tries > to make all the equipment in their production facility. > They need "nice machines" fully automated, ready for > unattended operation. All they can make in their own > labs, is spaghettio machines with wires and cables all > over the place, vacuum pumps, glass christmas trees, > stuff all over the place, and a team of PhDs adjusting > the knobs every day to keep it running. External companies > make the real production equipment. And the industry works > together to set the next process node, so you can actually > build and purchase the items you need to build a fab. I know, I live down the street from a company that was bought out for the expertise that the locals had brought to the company. It is a business unto itself and is very successful. > > http://www.ibtimes.com/ibm-major-breakthrough-computer-chips-featuring-tiny-7-nanometer-transistors-2002277 > > > "IBM said Thursday said it had successfully created > computer chips with microscopic 7-nanometer transistors, > a major breakthrough for the tech industry that should > allow hardware manufacturers to continue making faster > computers and smartphones over the next few years. > > By creating tiny transistors of only 7 nm (1 nm equals > 1 billionth of a meter) IBM is able to fit more transistors > onto its chips than possible with the current 22-nm and 14-nm > transistor chips. > > "blah blah blah scaling to 7 nm and beyond," said Arvind Krishna, > senior vice president and director of IBM Research, in a statement. > "That’s why IBM has remained committed to an aggressive basic > research agenda that continually pushes the limits of semiconductor > technology." > > For decades, transistors have gotten smaller, allowing for more > powerful computer chips to be created. This is known as Moore's Law, > but blah blah blah for at least a few more years. > > To create the 7 nm transistors, IBM teamed up with other chipmakers, > including Samsung, and used a silicon-germanium mixture instead > of just silicon. It also had to develop new manufacturing processes > to achieve working transistors. > > For IBM, the next challenge will be to figure out <---- > a way to create these chips at a mass scale so > they can be commercially viable. > " It always boils down to production problems. Once those are solved, they may be able to lift their profits off the deck, as long as someone else doesn't beat them to the punch. > > So the last paragraph is key. Yes, they made a breakthrough. > These don't happen every day. And someone needs to make > the equipment, refine the process, so that they can > build even a single football field sized fab to do it. > > Even with the example photo of a test chip (perhaps done > with an E-beam), the rest of the industry will work to > make the production method cheap enough to actually > build a fab with. So if the chairman of IBM said > "make me a low power PowerPC", the fab guy would > say "not until we have production facilities > to do it". Making single wafers in your basement > with the PhDs, is not a production facility. > That is true, but IBM should have told Apple what they were asking for. Intel beat IBM to the punch and most likely was the straw that broke the camels back. > So IBM solved the problem of what to make substrates > or wafers out of. But how the transistors get transferred > to masks, for all those process steps that take 12 weeks > to complete, others are still working on this. It appears > they might still be using optical techniques in the > ultraviolet. > > http://semiengineering.com/eda-races-to-7nm-despite-litho-uncertainties/ > > See, fun stuff. Still using optical methods > after all these years. Isn't X-ray lithography a bit better? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning > > IBM can use much more expensive (lab prototype) > methods, like an E-beam writer, to make their test > chip. But whatever method they used, might be > too slow or too expensive for production purposes. > > A lot of teamwork goes into this stuff. Even though > the companies compete, they can only keep the lithography > machine company in business, if he makes the same > equipment for everybody. Grant you, it is a very big interdependent industry. > > Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 06:59 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <od94abl87kah5depbdsfrh3oek7lgnmffd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #253004 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > slime wrote: >> >> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >> marketplace. Another possibility is that you'll someday buy a fscking clue, and also stop being a lying shit. But I doubt it. > ARM is big contender not PowerPC... Leave it that worthless troll to spew such nonsense. -- "Vinyl is technically better (than CD)" - "Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 15:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n7uaec$t4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253064 |
On 01/22/16 05:59, chrisv wrote: > Melzzzzz wrote: > >> slime wrote: >>> >>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>> marketplace. > > Another possibility is that you'll someday buy a fscking clue, and > also stop being a lying shit. > > But I doubt it. > >> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > > Leave it that worthless troll to spew such nonsense. > You have no clue, shit-fer-brains.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 07:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <9ma4ab5deo27jho74kiemv0rs0ljgeobtv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #253004 |
> "Slimer" wrote: >> >> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >> marketplace. x86-64 has been quite affordable for years already. Even if Intel gains a monopoly and improvements price/performance slow, it will never will never be "too expensive to buy into". Also the desktop PC market is in decine. At this point there is no room for another competitor. -- "Have you ever met an advocate who wasn't repulsive? Look at pictures of the people in here. (Advocate's name redacted) looks like a serial rapist and (advocate's name redacted) looks like he has a collection of child pornography on his computer. No sane person would approach these people." - "Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 15:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <71c2ablcahcc9u01f12evh4ctc9k27euuf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #252935 |
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:48:49 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >It would be a shame to lose that competition in the desktop CPU >market. > >At least AMD was there during those years when personal computing >equaled x86 computing. With the rise of Android and iOS running on >ARM processors, it won't be quite so tragic if Intel becomes a >monopoly in the x86 space. I've little use for other than XXX86 OpCodes, nor, vaguely, an idea of what resources an "ARM" based computation platform might entail for such as a Google and cloud services, extensibly, than a Dick Tracy computer wristwatch. Other than a new Celeron D, the rarer exception Intel positioned against AMD, and some very decently used Intel processors I've acquired from Ebay, any more direct Intel price structuring is one I personally find suspect and apt to be less viable than similar, somewhat lacking AMD offerings;- AMD, besides, what residuals might affect its present and ill-advised state of affairs, presently is more attuned to a wider sense of backwards comparability (accounting chip models last I looked at), for older computational options, including a residual market on limited, but new, MBs available with packaged Windows XP drivers included;- and though they be 125-watt AMD processors, withstanding our age of greenish melting polar icecaps, subserviently, no doubt in likelihood and diffidence to an updated on more cores than my increasingly dated AMD quadcore, at 80-watts, I presently attend, more than adequate by any foreseeable needs I need exert, really, past these modest past "standards," (by and far from Windows 10), which might seem increasingly but a matter ploys and control contrive incessantly to exercise through means serving industrialized if not ulterior political programmes. Past exceeding a 2T HDD limitation is there indeed much endowed substance more appealing than an "eye-candy" factor to UEFI BIOS I'm possibly missing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 21:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <20160121212329.5340eac1@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #252894 |
On 20 Jan 2016 23:21:49 GMT vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > > Then you add in the fact that though AMD's Bulldozer architecture > allegedly had "8 real cores", there was the recent scandal where we > discovered that they have 4 FPU's per processor. This was no secret. Problem is that shops sell these CPU's as 8 core, while they are really not. Then again question is : what is core? > > Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be > cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors. Zen is around the corner I hear. > > (Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.) > AMD has open sourced their GPU hardware which means much better drivers for their cards. I might shift to AMD when such drivers appear, I hope very soon. AMD could be preferred choice on Linux....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 17:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n7rmk2$2un$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253005 |
On 2016-01-21 3:23 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 20 Jan 2016 23:21:49 GMT > vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >> >> Then you add in the fact that though AMD's Bulldozer architecture >> allegedly had "8 real cores", there was the recent scandal where we >> discovered that they have 4 FPU's per processor. > > This was no secret. Problem is that shops sell these CPU's as 8 core, > while they are really not. Then again question is : what is core? > >> >> Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be >> cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors. > > Zen is around the corner I hear. > >> >> (Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.) >> > > AMD has open sourced their GPU hardware which means much better drivers > for their cards. I might shift to AMD when such drivers appear, I hope > very soon. AMD could be preferred choice on Linux.... Open-sourcing the drivers won't mean shit. They'll still underperform and cause crashes because the people who will be working on "improving" them are so incompetent that they might as well be cleaning Joseph "7" Michael out of toilets alongside Wideload Porkster. Five years from now, even afer this change, AMD's GNU/Linux drivers will still be awful and games will STILL require NVIDIA first. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter "Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims "Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7qtva$tu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #252893 |
"Jeremy Bentham" <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote in message news:7cc3ac0cc41ea4325ef6dcc848bacd0a@anemone.mooo.com... > In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me> > "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me... >> > On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: >> >> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> >> >> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >> >>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> >> >>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake >> >>>>>> well, >> >>>>>> and the >> >>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such >> >>>>>> heavy load >> >>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. >> >>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my >> >>>>> memory >> >>>>> serves.... >> >>>> >> >>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical >> >>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important >> >>>> enough. >> >>>> >> >>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter >> >>> errata >> >>> sheets than Intel. >> >> >> >> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" >> >> >> >> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf >> >> >> >> 136 "No fix" in this one. >> >> >> >> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they >> >> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written >> >> for AMD. >> >> >> >> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf >> > >> > Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is >> > the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their >> > processors >> > are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile >> > chip >> > with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent >> > performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a >> > desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500 >> > rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800. >> > >> > Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems >> > that nobody wants them. >> > >> >> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and >> the >> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's >> roughly >> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes. >> >> "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% >> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year" >> >> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, >> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes >> around. > > They need to make the smaller processors more powerful. That is > why they are not selling. It is purely a performance issue. > That pretty much sums up the objective for any processor. Small and powerful along with being power efficient. The problem as I see it for AMD is that they're in a no-mans land with their processors. Intel dominates the x86 market for PCs and servers and ARM processors own the mobile market. So what's left for AMD? There's video (ATI) but I'm not sure how big this is. For most people who don't use their PCs for gaming the built-in graphics chipset is more than adequate. It does leave AMD in a difficult position. One possibility is if VR (virtual reality) takes off at all then perhaps they can use their GPUs to drive some of that. -- >Problem with Chromebooks in the enterprise - when IBM, HP, eBay, >Citi Bank, etc writes an email, internal document or spreadsheet >they don't want Google to see each and every word they write? Didn't think you had the brains that God gave a cockroach, fsckwit. How about encrypting things that they don't want others to see? turdv "thinks" that encryption will magically provide privacy on the docs and spreadsheets you edit, calculate and spell-check online. Google can spell-check your document but if it's encrypted they won't be able to read what they're spell-checking. Message-ID: <gh8rf81ca9gjjjrt1pghah4tc41t41068l@4ax.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PAS <abc@doremi.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7r3jm$lqv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #252960 |
On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Ezekiel wrote: > "Jeremy Bentham" <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote in message > news:7cc3ac0cc41ea4325ef6dcc848bacd0a@anemone.mooo.com... >> In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me> >> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: >>>>> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> >>>>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >>>>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake >>>>>>>>> well, >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such >>>>>>>>> heavy load >>>>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. >>>>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. >>>>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my >>>>>>>> memory >>>>>>>> serves.... >>>>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical >>>>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important >>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter >>>>>> errata >>>>>> sheets than Intel. >>>>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" >>>>> >>>>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf >>>>> >>>>> 136 "No fix" in this one. >>>>> >>>>> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they >>>>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written >>>>> for AMD. >>>>> >>>>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf >>>> Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is >>>> the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their >>>> processors >>>> are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile >>>> chip >>>> with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent >>>> performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a >>>> desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500 >>>> rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800. >>>> >>>> Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems >>>> that nobody wants them. >>>> >>> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and >>> the >>> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's >>> roughly >>> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes. >>> >>> "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% >>> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year" >>> >>> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, >>> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes >>> around. >> They need to make the smaller processors more powerful. That is >> why they are not selling. It is purely a performance issue. >> > That pretty much sums up the objective for any processor. Small and powerful > along with being power efficient. > > The problem as I see it for AMD is that they're in a no-mans land with their > processors. Intel dominates the x86 market for PCs and servers and ARM > processors own the mobile market. > > So what's left for AMD? There's video (ATI) but I'm not sure how big this > is. For most people who don't use their PCs for gaming the built-in graphics > chipset is more than adequate. > > It does leave AMD in a difficult position. One possibility is if VR (virtual > reality) takes off at all then perhaps they can use their GPUs to drive some > of that. > Being the CPU supplier to Microsoft And Sony for the Xbox and Playstation helps AMD but I wonder to what extent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t252ab50qo1aio1pjojinp4hhf41chan9b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #252975 |
PAS wrote: >Being the CPU supplier to Microsoft And Sony for the Xbox and >Playstation helps AMD but I wonder to what extent. Does AMD still build their own fabs, or do they outsource the chip manufacturing, now? -- "There's no other way of saying it: GNU/Linux users are parasites." - "Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t952ab1o9g1jr0dtkp8h3tfb55fvshf8u0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #252976 |
chrisv wrote: >PAS wrote: > >>Being the CPU supplier to Microsoft And Sony for the Xbox and >>Playstation helps AMD but I wonder to what extent. > >Does AMD still build their own fabs, or do they outsource the chip >manufacturing, now? For their CPU's, that is. I'm pretty certain the GPU manufacturing has always been outsourced. -- "What's wrong with it?" - "DFS", regarding the use of a #pragma to disable 17 different types of compiler warnings
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 23:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5f2fa7921ad6b4f96881cc46983e9b3f@hoi-polloi.org> |
| In reply to | #252976 |
In article <t252ab50qo1aio1pjojinp4hhf41chan9b@4ax.com> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > PAS wrote: > > >Being the CPU supplier to Microsoft And Sony for the Xbox and > >Playstation helps AMD but I wonder to what extent. > > Does AMD still build their own fabs, or do they outsource the chip > manufacturing, now? They outsource to Global Foundries now just like ARM does. They kept the test and assembly facilities. The ATI acquisition was a financial disaster, then they sold off profitable parts of their business to Broadcom and Qualcomm. The good thing is that three chip designers who left AMD for Apple have returned to AMD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7r6md$3hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #252975 |
On 2016-01-21 12:16 PM, PAS wrote: > On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >> "Jeremy Bentham" <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote in message >> news:7cc3ac0cc41ea4325ef6dcc848bacd0a@anemone.mooo.com... >>> In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me> >>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: >>>>>> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> >>>>>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >>>>>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake >>>>>>>>>> well, >>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such >>>>>>>>>> heavy load >>>>>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. >>>>>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. >>>>>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my >>>>>>>>> memory >>>>>>>>> serves.... >>>>>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical >>>>>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important >>>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter >>>>>>> errata >>>>>>> sheets than Intel. >>>>>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" >>>>>> >>>>>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> 136 "No fix" in this one. >>>>>> >>>>>> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they >>>>>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written >>>>>> for AMD. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf >>>>> Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is >>>>> the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their >>>>> processors >>>>> are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile >>>>> chip >>>>> with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent >>>>> performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a >>>>> desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500 >>>>> rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800. >>>>> >>>>> Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems >>>>> that nobody wants them. >>>>> >>>> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter >>>> and >>>> the >>>> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's >>>> roughly >>>> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes. >>>> >>>> "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% >>>> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year" >>>> >>>> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they >>>> have, >>>> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes >>>> around. >>> They need to make the smaller processors more powerful. That is >>> why they are not selling. It is purely a performance issue. >>> >> That pretty much sums up the objective for any processor. Small and >> powerful >> along with being power efficient. >> >> The problem as I see it for AMD is that they're in a no-mans land with >> their >> processors. Intel dominates the x86 market for PCs and servers and ARM >> processors own the mobile market. >> >> So what's left for AMD? There's video (ATI) but I'm not sure how big this >> is. For most people who don't use their PCs for gaming the built-in >> graphics >> chipset is more than adequate. >> >> It does leave AMD in a difficult position. One possibility is if VR >> (virtual >> reality) takes off at all then perhaps they can use their GPUs to >> drive some >> of that. >> > > Being the CPU supplier to Microsoft And Sony for the Xbox and > Playstation helps AMD but I wonder to what extent. Tell yourself that the Xbox 360 was supplied by IBM's PowerPC chips... it should answer your question. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter "Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims "Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a84c4d3c51c98648260118023ad69bfd@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #252960 |
In article <n7qtva$tu3$1@dont-email.me> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > > > "Jeremy Bentham" <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote in message > news:7cc3ac0cc41ea4325ef6dcc848bacd0a@anemone.mooo.com... > > In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me> > > "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me... > >> > On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > >> >> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> > >> >> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > >> >>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> > >> >>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake > >> >>>>>> well, > >> >>>>>> and the > >> >>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such > >> >>>>>> heavy load > >> >>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. > >> >>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my > >> >>>>> memory > >> >>>>> serves.... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical > >> >>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important > >> >>>> enough. > >> >>>> > >> >>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter > >> >>> errata > >> >>> sheets than Intel. > >> >> > >> >> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" > >> >> > >> >> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf > >> >> > >> >> 136 "No fix" in this one. > >> >> > >> >> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they > >> >> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written > >> >> for AMD. > >> >> > >> >> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf > >> > > >> > Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is > >> > the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their > >> > processors > >> > are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile > >> > chip > >> > with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent > >> > performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a > >> > desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500 > >> > rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800. > >> > > >> > Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems > >> > that nobody wants them. > >> > > >> > >> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and > >> the > >> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's > >> roughly > >> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes. > >> > >> "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% > >> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year" > >> > >> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, > >> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes > >> around. > > > > They need to make the smaller processors more powerful. That is > > why they are not selling. It is purely a performance issue. > > > > That pretty much sums up the objective for any processor. Small and powerful > along with being power efficient. > > The problem as I see it for AMD is that they're in a no-mans land with their > processors. Intel dominates the x86 market for PCs and servers and ARM > processors own the mobile market. > > So what's left for AMD? There's video (ATI) but I'm not sure how big this > is. For most people who don't use their PCs for gaming the built-in graphics > chipset is more than adequate. The APUs are selling well. > It does leave AMD in a difficult position. One possibility is if VR (virtual > reality) takes off at all then perhaps they can use their GPUs to drive some > of that. They lost a chunk of the server market because of opterons. Not that they were bad, Intel was just a bit better. Unless virtual computing is involved, the processing power isn't all that critical, I/O performance is. Saddle a good processor with bad I/O performance and the wrong component gets blamed. I like AMD CPUs. Been running them for years. If I was running transaction processing in a production environment, I'd have to go with Intel for the optimal performance. I think Lisa Su can position AMD to survive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <80856c1fcd667675f14ad3f60c9fe8ea@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #252841 |
In article <n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> > > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > >>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> > >>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the > >>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load > >>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. > >>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. > >>>> > >>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory > >>>> serves.... > >>> > >>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical > >>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important > >>> enough. > >>> > >> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata > >> sheets than Intel. > > > > Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" > > > > http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf > > > > 136 "No fix" in this one. > > > > AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they > > brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written > > for AMD. > > > > http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf > > Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is > the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors > are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip > with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent > performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a > desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500 > rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800. > > Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems > that nobody wants them. A10 desktop CPUs are out of stock in a lot of places. Sold out. These are usually good runners unless you get a shitty board (BIOS) deliberately neutered by HP, Lenovo or Sony to run slower than an off the shelf MB. That is criminal what they do for Intel. Maybe M$ did everyone a favor with the new policy. Lawyers will be exposing the cozy relationships Intel has traditionally leveraged to manipulate the CPU market. AMD screwed up their laptop market with the E 350. It's good for battery life, I/O is pretty good, but woefully short on cache/CPU performance. Intel solves CPU performance issues by building in some bigger cache. AMD doesn't do that and the result is highly disappointing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n7okun$95m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #252819 |
On 01/19/16 19:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: > In article<n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> >> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> >>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the >>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load >>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. >>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. >>>> >>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory >>>> serves.... >>> >>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical >>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important >>> enough. >>> >> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata >> sheets than Intel. > > Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" > > http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf > > 136 "No fix" in this one. > > AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they > brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written > for AMD. > > http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf > I've been seeing a lot of vendors go down hill for the last decade or so. Too bad mips didn't produce a faster processor. I liked their risc paradigm of guaranteeing 1 clock cycle per instruction. Some of their more expensive cpus were multicore. Now all SGI is using are Intel chips and linux on server machines only... their desktops disappeared quite some time ago. I should have grabbed one good SGI desktop on ebay a few years ago as it still had Irix on it... I think it was an Indigo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <baf2c3d706c949f476dbe83efb9f76c2@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #252866 |
In article <n7okun$95m$1@dont-email.me> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > > On 01/19/16 19:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > In article<n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> > > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > >>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> > >>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the > >>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load > >>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. > >>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. > >>>> > >>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory > >>>> serves.... > >>> > >>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical > >>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important > >>> enough. > >>> > >> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata > >> sheets than Intel. > > > > Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" > > > > http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf > > > > 136 "No fix" in this one. > > > > AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they > > brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written > > for AMD. > > > > http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf > > > > I've been seeing a lot of vendors go down hill for the last decade or so. > Too bad mips didn't produce a faster processor. I liked their risc > paradigm of guaranteeing 1 clock cycle per instruction. Some of their > more expensive cpus were multicore. Now all SGI is using are Intel > chips and linux on server machines only... their desktops disappeared > quite some time ago. I should have grabbed one good SGI desktop on ebay > a few years ago as it still had Irix on it... I think it was an Indigo. Would serve no purpose unless you are building a scrap museum. I donated my Alpha machines last fall and will clean the garage of all single core processors soon. They are of no use now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n7ou3p$fou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #252888 |
On 01/20/16 13:59, Anonymous wrote: > In article<n7okun$95m$1@dont-email.me> > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> >> On 01/19/16 19:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: >>> In article<n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> >>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> >>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the >>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load >>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. >>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory >>>>>> serves.... >>>>> >>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical >>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important >>>>> enough. >>>>> >>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata >>>> sheets than Intel. >>> >>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" >>> >>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf >>> >>> 136 "No fix" in this one. >>> >>> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they >>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written >>> for AMD. >>> >>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf >>> >> >> I've been seeing a lot of vendors go down hill for the last decade or so. >> Too bad mips didn't produce a faster processor. I liked their risc >> paradigm of guaranteeing 1 clock cycle per instruction. Some of their >> more expensive cpus were multicore. Now all SGI is using are Intel >> chips and linux on server machines only... their desktops disappeared >> quite some time ago. I should have grabbed one good SGI desktop on ebay >> a few years ago as it still had Irix on it... I think it was an Indigo. > > Would serve no purpose unless you are building a scrap museum. > I donated my Alpha machines last fall and will clean the garage > of all single core processors soon. They are of no use now. > Thats true. Just like to work with the older machines for a while. I've got two vax4000 vlcs sitting on the shelf with vms 6.3 on them. I still like to get them down and fire them up tho, and that is sometimes fun. But like another poster said, the novelty has worn off a long time ago. All I see is a stagnant market. I wonder if Bill Joys' comment on "it's too late to save the industry" had some insight into this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 05:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b7262fd9dca0455412005eac0a3947ce@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #252890 |
In article <n7ou3p$fou$1@dont-email.me> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > > On 01/20/16 13:59, Anonymous wrote: > > In article<n7okun$95m$1@dont-email.me> > > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 01/19/16 19:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: > >>> In article<n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me> > >>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > >>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me> > >>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the > >>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load > >>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel. > >>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory > >>>>>> serves.... > >>>>> > >>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs. Most are not critical > >>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important > >>>>> enough. > >>>>> > >>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata > >>>> sheets than Intel. > >>> > >>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features" > >>> > >>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf > >>> > >>> 136 "No fix" in this one. > >>> > >>> AMD had a shitwad too. Really disappointed in AMD. When they > >>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written > >>> for AMD. > >>> > >>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf > >>> > >> > >> I've been seeing a lot of vendors go down hill for the last decade or so. > >> Too bad mips didn't produce a faster processor. I liked their risc > >> paradigm of guaranteeing 1 clock cycle per instruction. Some of their > >> more expensive cpus were multicore. Now all SGI is using are Intel > >> chips and linux on server machines only... their desktops disappeared > >> quite some time ago. I should have grabbed one good SGI desktop on ebay > >> a few years ago as it still had Irix on it... I think it was an Indigo. > > > > Would serve no purpose unless you are building a scrap museum. > > I donated my Alpha machines last fall and will clean the garage > > of all single core processors soon. They are of no use now. > > > > Thats true. Just like to work with the older machines for a while. > I've got two vax4000 vlcs sitting on the shelf with vms 6.3 on them. > I still like to get them down and fire them up tho, and that is > sometimes fun. But like another poster said, the novelty has worn off a > long time ago. All I see is a stagnant market. I wonder if Bill Joys' > comment on "it's too late to save the industry" had some insight into this. I run all my PDP/11, VAX and Alpha OSes on emulators now. You hasn't lived until you've run RSTS/E or VMS.. Grabbed the Charon Alpha emulator that was free for personal use. It is not there on the site anymore, but you can go back in time and get it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware
csiph-web