Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253231

Re: AMD vs. Intel

From Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
References (15 earlier) <n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> <n7tgpn$ljv$1@dont-email.me> <n7ua94$t4$1@dont-email.me> <n8032p$b4a$1@dont-email.me> <n80d4f$ia1$1@dont-email.me>
Subject Re: AMD vs. Intel
Message-ID <dc952f5d02586c5fc15b196074fc4e16@dizum.com> (permalink)
Date 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100
Newsgroups alt.comp.freeware, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.hacker, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.os.linux.advocacy
Organization dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <n80d4f$ia1$1@dont-email.me>
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/23/16 07:37, Slimer wrote:
> > On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> >> On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote:
> >>> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote:
> >>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500
> >>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s>    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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now
> >>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for
> >>>> servers.
> >>>
> >>> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive
> >>> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips
> >>> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a
> >>> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the
> >>> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines
> >>> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the
> >>> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL
> >>> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 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.
> >
> > It all depends on whether IBM is interested in getting back in the game
> > which made them a household name or whether they want to continue to
> > deny that they are essentially dying and that it is just a matter of
> > time before they are forgotten entirely. Intel WILL get arrogant and
> > WILL make mistakes which WILL alienate customers. Those customers MIGHT
> > go to AMD and pay for less expensive processors (I know that's what *I*
> > did for a time) but they might also be ready for an entirely different
> > experience without GNU/Linux or Windows. It would just be nice to see
> > IBM try to take advantage of the arrogance to sell a new platform
> > (debatably a better platform) with an entirely different operating
> > environment. It's unlikely, but it's fairly exciting to consider.
> >
> If IBM doesn't wake up and realize just how close to the precipice they
> are, then it will be only a matter of time for their demise. They're
> already losing money.  Their first attempt was to ditch Linux.  As I've
> said before, Linux branding is the kiss of death to a product line.

IBM's arrogance is a heavy cross to drag around.  The major 
stupid thing they did was engage India to do development and 
support as a cost cutting measure.  More like a throat cutting 
measure.  India had to turn around and engage Americans to 
support IBM's India folly - on IBM's dime.

Customers HATE India support with a passion.  Really hate them.  
Won't even talk to them, let the company computing resources 
take a total shit and lose data kind of hate.

> I don't know what IBM thinks they can do with going to Apple and buying
> their machines, after they arrogantly ignored Steve Jobs recommendation
> to lower the power consumption of their cpus.

IBM is still inventing water cooled technology to compete in 
markets where a generic Intel box has 48 cores.  We can easily 
put ten of those in a rack and have 480 cores at our disposal - 
without water involved.

> AMD can get out of the doldrums if they utilized some of the design
> paradigms of the DEC Alpha team used.  After all, when DEC was around
> the Alphas were on top.

AMD did.  They used EV6, then in a stroke of genius, dumped it 
for NUMA.

Back to alt.comp.freeware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web