|
JawnV6 posted:Having a hard time believing AMD has somehow churned through their current headcount plus Global Foundries 5 times over. Yeah, me too, I have no idea where I got that number. Re-reading, it was 10% of their 2011 workforce. Granted, they had been hiring throughout the year before, but even so - some kind of hosed up game of telephone in my head turned 10% of their workforce into 70,000 people. Search me as to why. Still, bunch of people might not be able to feed their kids all of a sudden because A PROCESSOR SUCKED lol lookit these AMD nerds, ha ha very funny, right?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
I think more than a few of us are in with you on this one. I tried to stay on the bright side by focusing on AMD's price/performance ratio, but with certain retailers and my budding ability to actually shop for a deal
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Still, bunch of people might not be able to feed their kids all of a sudden because A PROCESSOR SUCKED lol lookit these AMD nerds, ha ha very funny, right? Most of the ex-AMD folks I know are doing quite well. The ARM ecosystem is hot and anyone worth their salt can easily make the jump. If there's some reason they won't work for Intel, that is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Oh. Well, that's kinda nice. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Most of the ex-AMD folks I know are doing quite well. The ARM ecosystem is hot and anyone worth their salt can easily make the jump. If there's some reason they won't work for Intel, that is. I'm glad to hear that the ones you know of have found jobs, that's good news. But I don't think there's any positive spin that can be put on the company hiring a bunch of people in 2010-2011 and then firing 10% of them in November of 2011. I am not trying to be argumentative, here, but finding another job after getting fired doesn't take away the part about getting fired or make it a good thing that it happened in the first place. A company that applied competitive pressure in the x86 market basically had to give it up and still haven't been able to produce a competitive product in any of the metrics that count. In the process a tenth of their workforce was cut. They lost a great CTO who oversaw many, highly competitive graphics generations in that department. 2011/2012 sucked for AMD. Granted, they've got the consoles hook, line and sinker, and we'll see what comes of that. But why bother trying to put a positive spin on a bunch of people getting shitcanned because of a poorly performing line of products? Edit: I guess I'll be eating my words if it turns out the console win leverages the GCN architecture into the kind of long-term product they had hoped for with Bulldozer, but still. Also,  the title change. Well, at least now it's appropriate.
Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Reading your posts, I think you're severely overestimating the impact TSX is going to have, especially on consumer parts. TSX isn't magically going to turn single threaded code into multi threaded code, it's just going to make dealing with the headaches of shared state a lot easier, and hopefully bring a conceptually easier memory model to higher level languages. It also does almost nothing for parallel jobs, which actually is a very large percentage of what people use their cores for today. TSX will never take off because Intel still wants to play market segmentation games by removing it mainstream and entry level chips in a shrinking PC consumer market instead of thinking about long term adoption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
I have a dream; a dream that when the time comes to replace my 3570 there will be a solid alternative from AMD. Sadly, this is only a dream.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I have a dream; a dream that when the time comes to replace my 3570 there will be a solid alternative from AMD. Graphics cards are still pretty solid from AMD last I looked. A little power hungry but not at all bad for the price. I'd like to replace my 4850 but $2-300 to make my handful of games a little prettier and smoother? It's a little hard to justify when the 4850 still runs everything I want so well. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
I'm still running a Phenom II X4 3.6Ghz (overclocked a little) with a HD 5770. Still serving me pretty well, though it'll be time for an upgrade soon I'm guessing. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I was running basically the same thing over a year ago... Use it until it's too slow, but you'll want to upgrade both processor and gpu because they are both pretty old now. The system is still plenty usful for a casual or HTPC so you can consider selling it for a few bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Jago posted:I was running basically the same thing over a year ago... Use it until it's too slow, but you'll want to upgrade both processor and gpu because they are both pretty old now. The system is still plenty usful for a casual or HTPC so you can consider selling it for a few bucks. I'm still pretty happy with it. I'm not a real frame rate junkie, 20 fps is enough for me. Having said that, I'm sure that'll change within a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:Graphics cards are still pretty solid from AMD last I looked. A little power hungry but not at all bad for the price. I'd like to replace my 4850 but $2-300 to make my handful of games a little prettier and smoother? It's a little hard to justify when the 4850 still runs everything I want so well. the GPU side of things is doing much better, though they'll need an answer to the 700 series in the not-too distant future. And a fix for crossfire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:I'm still pretty happy with it. I'm not a real frame rate junkie, 20 fps is enough for me. Having said that, I'm sure that'll change within a couple years. I meant that when the time comes you'll want to/have to replace both cpu and gpu. 20 fps is totes lame, fyi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
Get a better video card, and you should be able to get 30fps or better in games. My OC'd 7850 does pretty well even though I'm still on a Q6600@3ghz. Your Phenom x4 @3.6 can do better than 20fps, you just need some more video horsepower.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Mad_Lion posted:Get a better video card, and you should be able to get 30fps or better in games. My OC'd 7850 does pretty well even though I'm still on a Q6600@3ghz. Your Phenom x4 @3.6 can do better than 20fps, you just need some more video horsepower. Really depends on the game. Have you ever tried to play a starcraft II 4x4 game on a phenom II x4? I wouldn't even try to describe that poo poo as a slideshow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Have any Temash or Kabini tablets been announced yet? Any idea when the first products might be shown? I'm really interested to see what form factors and price points they can hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
I figure the 4850 is starting to show its age when even Skyrim gets appreciable frame rate improvements from lowering details. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:I figure the 4850 is starting to show its age when even Skyrim gets appreciable frame rate improvements from lowering details. It's also really old, and haven't they officially discontinued support for it some time back? As part of their driver strategy to be quicker on the ball when it comes to reaching the current market, deprecating older products as items of concern? Might need to try to find a source on that but I recall some degree of upset after an announcement to that effect. Could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
That's right, AMD did move pre-DX11 products to legacy status and don't do regular driver updates. I had to install a beta legacy driver to fix graphical corruption around text on my grandma's box with integrated Radeon HD 4000-series after a Windows 7 platform update. A 1GB 4850 is probably still quite a usable card in most games even with all that, though a 512MB model is right out if you want to play at 1080p. New games being completely unplayable north of 720p on my R4850 512MB is what finally pushed me to buy a new card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Alereon posted:a 512MB model is right out if you want to play at 1080p. Funny, mine runs pretty well at 1080p. It's only Skyrim that seems to really want a bigger framebuffer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:Funny, mine runs pretty well at 1080p. It's only Skyrim that seems to really want a bigger framebuffer. I had to go back and check if you were the gent who mentioned that 20fps is a-okay, because this is a bit of a brain-teaser for me. There is no way, no way at all, that modern games apart from Skyrim run that well on a 512MB 4850. So you must be fine with either turning settings down a lot, or rendering at a lower resolution internally, or just taking the FPS hit in stride and not letting it get you down. Skyrim is EXTREMELY I/O limited when texture swapping but it is hardly the only game that will easily top out 512MB at 1080p. poo poo, Dead Space (the first) uses more VRAM than that on my 1080p setup. Okay, I force 2x2 SSAA and ambient occlusion but STILL, gosh. Or maybe you play mostly indie titles that aren't all about shiny poo poo and stuff, that would explain it too? That furry anime game that came out on steam a few days ago is pretty good if you can get over the fact that it's a furry anime game and just enjoy the gameplay and pretty art and cool combat - it sticks my card in 2D mode with every setting maxed and comes in under 512MB at 1080p, and I'd say it's a high VRAM usage condition compared to most indie titles. Like, for real, can that run Crysis 1 decently? Let alone 2 or 3, I am genuinely curious how you're holding up with a card that has to swap really often in any game made after the year in which it was released
Agreed fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
This seems as good a place to ask as any: What is the "AMD Dual Core Optimizer" I see running in my tasks list? I have an Intel chip and NVidia GPU, and have never had AMD anything in this particular system or installation of Windows 8. Googling is telling me that it was probably installed with a Steam game, and isn't needed on modern hardware or operating systems. Can I delete it? Should I leave it? I don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:This seems as good a place to ask as any:
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Back when AMD was doing all kinds of cool poo poo  The good old days, man. Well, the consoles are pretty cool, and that's custom silicon. Makin' moves, doin' stuff. Maybe "Platform discussion" is a little less applicable. I just still feel like there's some fight left in 'em, and I don't really even know why, but they were always the littler company that could, and I hope they can again!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
I am planning a long overdue CPU/MOBO/RAM overhaul around tax return time (February). I was hoping that steamroller FX would be out by then, because it's possible that it would be quite competitive with Haswell. Unfortunately, I think it's been delayed until 3rd or 4th quarter 2014, and that just won't fly. I hate having no option but Haswell. My first custom build was an Athlon Thunderbird 1.4ghz, and at the time, that was pretty much the fastest x86 processor on the planet earth. It screamed with 512MB DDR and a Radeon 8500. I was topping leaderboards in Folding@home, too. I still use AMD GPUs, but I'd really love an all AMD system again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I had to go back and check if you were the gent who mentioned that 20fps is a-okay, because this is a bit of a brain-teaser for me. There is no way, no way at all, that modern games apart from Skyrim run that well on a 512MB 4850. So you must be fine with either turning settings down a lot, or rendering at a lower resolution internally, or just taking the FPS hit in stride and not letting it get you down. Skyrim is EXTREMELY I/O limited when texture swapping but it is hardly the only game that will easily top out 512MB at 1080p. poo poo, Dead Space (the first) uses more VRAM than that on my 1080p setup. Okay, I force 2x2 SSAA and ambient occlusion but STILL, gosh. I think it ran Crysis OK. I really don't remember. I mostly play Skyrim, Dark Souls (with DSFix), Super Street Fighter IV, and (lately) Sonic All Stars Transformed. OK none of them are machine raping cutting edge but Sonic has a metric ton of poo poo going on in it. All of them are running native resolution. GTA 4 struggles a bit more but it's usually 25-30 FPS. People shortchange this card a lot but that's just because they've never actually used one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:I think it ran Crysis OK. I really don't remember. I had a 4870X2, and I have a computer that's still chugging along on a GTX 280 (that replaced the 4870X2). The GTX 280 is about the same level of performance or better, and it HAS a gig of VRAM (though GDDR3, so definite performance trade-offs there if as I recall that was when ATI was running GDDR5... nVidia has a long history of lovely memory controller design, Kepler is a big step forward for them in that regard, shipping GDDR5 1750MHz on the GTX 770 is a pretty neat feat, but I digress) - Edit: Hold up, the 4850 used GDDR3! This makes no sense  At any resolution higher than 1248x1024 it craps out in modern games. AMD has explicitly discontinued support for the card. I'm not saying it's bad or that you're bad, I'm just saying it's old and that it definitely isn't capable of keeping up with modern engines' requirements for smooth gameplay. If it still tickles your pickle, all the better, save money and hang onto it - but 512MB of VRAM is really, really low for modern games. I think this is just going to end up being us having different standards for performance. Mine isn't better than yours, it's certainly cost me more money than yours, just different. Agreed fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Well I was going to say if 30 FPS at medium detail levels is "unplayable" for you (I know people who feel this way) than maybe it's not so hot. FOr the games I play - again, nothing crazy - it works quote well. Sure higher detail and frame rates are nice but spending money on it...eh. If you want to know how long I wait between video cards this card's predecessor was a GeForce 6800.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Yeah, we're just very different in our performance expectations for games and what kind of games we play, man. No beef about it, but take a look at an old chart that looks at the confusing generational mishmash of the 9800 GTX+ and GT-200 cards plus RV770 (the 4000-series) and you'll see what I mean; the GTX 280 that I wouldn't game on unless I absolutely had to got around its DDR3 limitation by using a 512-bit memory bus to hit a high memory bandwidth target and get closer to the theoretical performance of the architecture, leading to fairly dramatically higher framerates than the card you're saying is keeping up. I did use a 4870x2 at the time, which used GDDR5 and ran it in parallel and was a pretty damned fast card but boy howdy was it loud and hot-running. Dangerously hot running. Replacing it with the GTX 280 was a cost-cutting move because it had just seen the price drop from $600+ to about $440, while the 4870x2 was still sitting at over $500. Hit the GPU thread or the parts picking thread if you want my opinion on modern graphics cards, while I try to offer sensible advice, I don't practice what I preach and I'm pretty much the epitome of without going totally beyond the pale and triple-SLIing Titans or something like that. So, yeah, we're different folks, and as the saying goes, different strokes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
The 7850 2GB is an unbeatable value right. You can get one for 150 shipped, and mine overclocks like crazy. Runs modern games on ultra settings at 1080p.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Mad_Lion posted:I am planning a long overdue CPU/MOBO/RAM overhaul around tax return time (February). I was hoping that steamroller FX would be out by then, because it's possible that it would be quite competitive with Haswell. Unfortunately, I think it's been delayed until 3rd or 4th quarter 2014, and that just won't fly. I hate having no option but Haswell. My first custom build was an Athlon Thunderbird 1.4ghz, and at the time, that was pretty much the fastest x86 processor on the planet earth. It screamed with 512MB DDR and a Radeon 8500. I was topping leaderboards in Folding@home, too. I still use AMD GPUs, but I'd really love an all AMD system again. I really wouldn't trust anything that didn't come verbatim out of an AMD timetable if I were you. There's nothing out there besides rumors for when the next FX-series will be baked. We only have the chart with Steamroller APUs being slated for the end of -this- year, with no specific SKUs in sight--who knows, AMD might consider an APU with more than two modules/four threads on the CPU side?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
Well, their most recent map DOES show Steamroller APUs coming out at the end of this year, but their server refresh (on which the FX series has been based) is not getting the steamroller upgrade. It's the enchanced piledriver core that these 5ghz chips are using. If they're not going to make a server steamroller anytime soon, chances are very good they won't be making a steamroller FX anytime soon. I think they've pushed it back simply because it hasn't sold, whereas the APUs and their low power chips are the big sellers. They're also betting on ARM servers, which is a good idea, but I'm afraid the FX line just isn't their priority in the coming few quarters. I'd love to have an FX chip as an option by Feb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Yeah, we're just very different in our performance expectations for games and what kind of games we play, man. No beef about it, but take a look at an old chart that looks at the confusing generational mishmash of the 9800 GTX+ and GT-200 cards plus RV770 (the 4000-series) and you'll see what I mean; the GTX 280 that I wouldn't game on unless I absolutely had to got around its DDR3 limitation by using a 512-bit memory bus to hit a high memory bandwidth target and get closer to the theoretical performance of the architecture, leading to fairly dramatically higher framerates than the card you're saying is keeping up. I did use a 4870x2 at the time, which used GDDR5 and ran it in parallel and was a pretty damned fast card but boy howdy was it loud and hot-running. Dangerously hot running. Replacing it with the GTX 280 was a cost-cutting move because it had just seen the price drop from $600+ to about $440, while the 4870x2 was still sitting at over $500. Yeah it's all good. Don't get me wrong though, I'm ready to upgrade because I hate the hitching that comes with the memory swapping when I've pushed the frame buffer too hard. My system handles it gracefully enough but still...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:Yeah it's all good. Don't get me wrong though, I'm ready to upgrade because I hate the hitching that comes with the memory swapping when I've pushed the frame buffer too hard. My system handles it gracefully enough but still... Given your performance requirements, once AMD's 8000 series actually hits and 7000-series cards start coming down in price, you'd probably do well to check out a 7850; I could see it hitting $200 pretty quick and when overclocked it performs about as well as a GTX 580 at stock settings - though thinking about it, I just sold a 580 in very good condition to another poster, and we're only now at a point where nVidia has made a single-GPU card that can offer twice the performance of Fermi. So go back to the 400-series and do the math, it takes a long time to come up with a coherent way to stick 7.1 billion transistors together to do vidyagame stuff The 580 was a pretty good overclocker itself, clock for clock superior in rote GPU performance compared to Kepler's GK104, the GTX 680; about as nice as a 7970, though it'd never reach the kinds of clocks a 7970 can hit. That thing flies. But you'd be side-grading if you went with the lowest of the gaming-recommended cards, the 7750; anything above that would be a noticeable upgrade, and you'd appreciate the VRAM benefit. I just feel that the 7850 is likely to hit a real price:performance sweet spot in the upcoming refresh, so keep an eye out if you're keen on upgrading. Watch out for used cards, ATI's wider/more highly parallel GCN architecture is better for bitcoin mining than nVidia's architecture, and people have been known to use very questionable BIOSes on them that downclock the memory tremendously and run huge voltage through the GPU/shaders to do the simple parallel math bitcoin mining is based around that much more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
The FX 9000 series chips have made their way into the wild, though only via system integrators for now. Buying a $3000 luxury system with an FX-8350? An FX-9590 is a mere $700 upgrade.  E: Actually, it's on Newegg, too. $700 upgrade from an 8350 is actually in keeping with the retail cost. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:E: Actually, it's on Newegg, too. $700 upgrade from an 8350 is actually in keeping with the retail cost. I wonder if the price is that high because they only have 2 chips per 1000 that can clock that high, even with the 220W TDP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Bought an AMD product... A trinity A8 based ASUS laptop. It was a refurb and with a mail in rebate it was $280. I am excited to see what it can do. I know richland is out, but I didn't see anything really compelling to justify paying 30-40% more for a 7% performance gain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
If its like the A8 in my HTPC build it will game fine at medium/high details at low resolution (720P), but no amount of sacrificing fidelity seems to get decent 1920x1080 frame-rates in any games. Obviously for desktop/media tasks its sufficient/overkill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Bought an AMD product... A trinity A8 based ASUS laptop. It was a refurb and with a mail in rebate it was $280. I am excited to see what it can do. I know richland is out, but I didn't see anything really compelling to justify paying 30-40% more for a 7% performance gain. I have an A8-4500M in my laptop, and a 7640G with DDR3 1333, it plays CS:GO fairly well at 1920x1080 no AA medium txt no shadows, much better at the 1366x768 screen resolution. Dues EX:HR at 1366x768 medium low and is pretty playable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The FX 9000 series chips have made their way into the wild, though only via system integrators for now. Well AMD you tried, I guess. Better luck next time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 00:39
|
|