|
Ideally I'm hoping that any money sunk into AMD, regardless of source, helps them out with their new CPU/GPU architecture. Even some kind of resource sharing would be beneficial like fabrication that's actually reliable with good yields. I'm sure even Intel would welcome the competition because let's face it, back when both companies were duking it out in the Athlon XP/64 days, they were kicking rear end and pushing each other to perform better and find new ways to make their tech more efficient and powerful. Hopefully Zen and their new Polaris stuff can at least put them back on the map, and ideally be parts that can get a decent overclock without turning into a small, slowly melting space heater.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Which means like 7% server market share, 15% in mobile and laptop, 30% in desktop. AMD runs in the black forever but isn't a real threat. They'd prefer those numbers lower and AMD to date a larger amount of the GPU market of course. Is AMD really this high in Desktops? How and why? I don't see many around at all, and frequently even the absolute cheapest desktops have an Intel G4400 or similar, you'd have to go out of your way to choose an AMD desktop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Is AMD really this high in Desktops? How and why? I don't see many around at all, and frequently even the absolute cheapest desktops have an Intel G4400 or similar, you'd have to go out of your way to choose an AMD desktop. Read my post again, I'm talking about what Intel would be okay with as an upper bound on AMDs market share.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:I'm sure even Intel would welcome the competition because let's face it, back when both companies were duking it out in the Athlon XP/64 days, they were kicking rear end and pushing each other to perform better and find new ways to make their tech more efficient and powerful. Why do you think Intel values 'making better tech' over 'making fat stacks'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Does *anyone* value making better tech over fat stacks? I can count the number of people who maybe do that on one hand. Carmack is like, the only one. I'm iffy on Musk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
People make stupid assumptions like Intel is just sitting on their laurels because AMD is in the shitter and Intel hasn't given them $35 processors that can be overclocked to 10ghz
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Why do you think Intel values 'making better tech' over 'making fat stacks'? It's possible to do both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:It's possible to do both. It's possible to do both, but one is always in service of the other, and not the other way around. That's why :shareholders:. The entire purpose of a business is to make money. Money that is then used to do other things. Usually things that, in turn, make money. Or if not make money, then decrease the amount of money that needs to be expended. Because if they weren't in pursuit of pure profit, then they'd be a non-profit. In fact, corporations are actually COMPELLED (maybe even falsely so) to pursue profit above all else. See: "Shareholder Primacy", and Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (Now, pardon me as I go off on a tangent, here. I should note that not all is that bleak where corporations are involved that operate purely on a if(+profit)then(action) and the non-profit's begging for operating funds to stay in business. Recently, within the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation) edit: Wording, this is not 2015 anymore. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
go3 posted:People make stupid assumptions like Intel is just sitting on their laurels because AMD is in the shitter and Intel hasn't given them $35 processors that can be overclocked to 10ghz Skylake isn't really any faster than Sandy Bridge in most tasks. Let that sink in: CPUs have gotten no faster in five years. It's not that Intel is secretly hoarding 10ghz processors in a bank vault or something, but there has just been no competition to force serious improvement in the desktop segment. IBM (POWER) and the ARM crowd are making serious inroads, though, so the research has been focusing on low-power stuff for datacenter/HPC and the mobile market. AMD does compete in the APU market somewhat so better iGPUs have been a focus too. Now - one thing that is being held in a bank vault is the Xeon featureset. Intel actually stripped Virtualization support out of most of their Core lineup, and only puts it on the K-series processors now. Hyperthreading should just be standard at this point, too. And all AM3+ processors will support ECC RAM if the motherboard supports it. Most AMD processors are unlocked for overclocking, too. There's a lot of market segmentation that is happening here that AMD doesn't have the luxury of, and neither would Intel if AMD was really competing. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Skylake isn't really any faster than Sandy Bridge in most tasks. Let that sink in: CPUs have gotten no faster in five years. Skylake is faster than Sandy Bridge, clock for clock. But it is probably 10-20% in most cases. Intel's biggest gains in the last 5 years have been in lowering power and increasing graphics performance. Tablets, cell phones, and laptops are a much bigger business than desktops. And lets be honest, there really isn't a big need for faster chips on the desktop anymore. Gaming doesn't see big gains from faster CPUs anymore. So unless you are doing poo poo loads of video encoding or compiling software, you probably aren't going to notice the difference in any day to day apps either. Also, consider that if bigger processor speed increases did make a difference in gaming and day to day apps, Intel would still benefit from improving. After all, even with out AMD, they want to sell Sandy Bridge owners new shiney CPUs. That says to me, they may not be capable of making CPUs much more powerful than they have, currently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Gaming *might* see better gains from faster CPUs again. Again, this assumes that Microsoft unfucks UWP and lets DX12 run free, and if not, then Vulkan at least is built from the ground up for multithreading. But you're correct that the majority of people that use their CPUs will not see any benefit from the kinds of improvements that gamers desire. There's a reason why, for 90% of the worldwide population, you can give them a NUC, and they wouldn't know that they're missing out on anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Lowen SoDium posted:Skylake is faster than Sandy Bridge, clock for clock. But it is probably 10-20% in most cases. 10-20% over 5 years is pitiful. In 5 years we went from Pentium IIs to second-generation Athlon XPs. In 5 years we went from Athlon XPs to Athlon 64 X2s and Core2s. quote:Intel's biggest gains in the last 5 years have been in lowering power and increasing graphics performance. Tablets, cell phones, and laptops are a much bigger business than desktops. I... said as much?  Not only bigger business - but a much more competitive one. As you note above, you get like a 10-20% bump in performance at best from upgrading a 5-year-old desktop processor. But you can easily triple your battery life or triple your iGPU performance by upgrading your laptop. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, nobody upgrades their desktop chips because there's no improvement to be had from upgrading. quote:And lets be honest, there really isn't a big need for faster chips on the desktop anymore. Gaming doesn't see big gains from faster CPUs anymore. So unless you are doing poo poo loads of video encoding or compiling software, you probably aren't going to notice the difference in any day to day apps either. Faster CPUs definitely make a huge difference. Take your stock 2600k and clock it up to 4.4 GHz and try to pretend it doesn't make a difference. I think the mistake you're making is that we don't see performance improvements from CPUs, but that's because CPUs haven't gotten noticeably faster in 5 years. On any given architecture you can see performance scaling quite readily. The CPU has to finish running its update loop and make its draw calls before the GPU can start rendering. So T(Frame) = T(CPU) + T(GPU). In most situations, T(CPU) is non-negligible, so you still see performance scaling from CPUs. We are in the world of 144Hz and 165Hz monitors nowadays. You cannot have a weak link in your system and reliably hit fast refresh rates. Even if you have SLI 980 Tis or something, you still need the CPU to get out of the way as fast as possible. quote:Also, consider that if bigger processor speed increases did make a difference in gaming and day to day apps, Intel would still benefit from improving. After all, even with out AMD, they want to sell Sandy Bridge owners new shiney CPUs. That says to me, they may not be capable of making CPUs much more powerful than they have, currently. Weren't you just saying that gamers were too small of a market to cater to? You can clearly still improve on products like Skylake. We're finally in a world where multithreaded games are around. The big-chip X99 products are noticeably better at that, and have a much better platform. Start touting multi-socket as a consumer product. Put HBM on-package. Start opening up Thunderbolt and giving us more PCIe lanes. Etc. And I imagine there's still some IPC gains to be had. There's just not a lot of impetus to find them, given that AMD is maybe hoping to catch up to Ivy Bridge in their next processor. Like I said, it's not like Intel has a bank vault where they're keeping all the super awesome chips - they're just not doing the research to keep pushing IPC forward, and they're pushing their releases backwards quite regularly. We were supposed to have Cannonlake by the end of the year. Phoning it in doesn't really matter when AMD spends 4 years dicking around and just trying to get back to the performance of a Phenom II. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:10-20% over 5 years is pitiful. In 5 years we went from Pentium IIs to second-generation Athlon XPs. In 5 years we went from Athlon XPs to Athlon 64 X2s and Core2s. You said that they hadn't gotten faster in 5 years. They have gotten faster, just not as fast as you want. Paul MaudDib posted:
Once again, CPUs have gotten faster in 5 years. 20% is measurable faster. But we have passed a point of diminishing returns. You can clock up a Sandy Bridge or a Skylake as much as you want, and the fact of that matter is that most work loads only see an improvement that can be measured with benchmarks. The user experience doesn't improve much if any for most applications. But most applications for most people these days is web browsers. You can say gaming, but I don't think that brings in the big bucks for intel. Cite source if I am wrong. Paul MaudDib posted:
Apparently Intel feels portables are a more lucrative market to cater to than people who are concerned about weak links that might be holding up their 165Hz monitors. Paul MaudDib posted:
I would have liked to see more direct CPU connected PCIe lanes like the E chips have, especially with M.2, Sata express, thunderbolt and USB 3.1. But at least the PCH has more bandwidth, both to the CPU and to connected devices. Look, all I am saying is that I keep seeing people online complaining about the lack of big improvements Intel has made and blaming it on Intel being lazy due to lack of competition, as if they had made another Netburst. I seriously have my doubts that Intel is going to come out with some massive increase in IPC if AMD has a chip that is reasonably close in performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Obviously we live in the best of all possible worlds, surely the fact that Intel didn't do a thing means that it physically cannot be done, right? Businesses are known for altruistically doing the right thing even when basic science is expensive and difficult, after all. Especially monopolies, because they have a greater moral responsibility to the public. That's why Intel is open-sourcing x86 and opening up its fabs for contract production. Right? 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Obviously we live in the best of all possible worlds, surely the fact that Intel didn't do a thing means that it physically cannot be done, right? Businesses are known for altruistically doing the right thing even when basic science is expensive and difficult, after all. Especially monopolies, because they have a greater moral responsibility to the public. That's why Intel is open-sourcing x86 and opening up its fabs for contract production. Right? Exactly, because that is what I said. You have taken the words out of my mouth and printed them here for the world to see without an ounce of hyperbole. And of course increasing IPC is possible. I am sure that AMD will just turn the IPC knob on their chip making machine to a higher number and then Intel will have no choice but to turn up the knob on their chip making machine. I mean, why didn't those stupid fuckers turn it up higher in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Lowen SoDium posted:And lets be honest, there really isn't a big need for faster chips on the desktop anymore. Gaming doesn't see big gains from faster CPUs anymore. I just upgraded from a Llano build from 2011 to Skylake. I really don't see a significant increase in usability. The biggest net gain I've seen in my computer performance in the last 5 years is the HDD to SATAIII SSD to PCIe x4 lane SSD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Even the mobile market is at the point of diminishing returns/good enough who cares. Tablet performance has been fine for people for some time and there aren't a ton of people clamoring to upgrade their for better performance except for those weirdos that buy Nvidia Shield stuff. Even phone CPU performance is something people seem to be caring less about in relation to other things. If the average 2 year old phone wasn't a cracked, beat to crap looking thing a bunch of people probably wouldn't even care to upgrade
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Skylake isn't really any faster than Sandy Bridge in most tasks. Let that sink in: CPUs have gotten no faster in five years. Or, y'know, Moores Law is dying, as we always knew it would. We see only small improvements now because we've pushed the physics about as far as it can go. A healthier AMD might push prices down but it wouldnt make speeds shoot up again because, again, physics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Lowen SoDium posted:You can clock up a Sandy Bridge or a Skylake as much as you want, and the fact of that matter is that most work loads only see an improvement that can be measured with benchmarks. The user experience doesn't improve much if any for most applications. But most applications for most people these days is web browsers. IPC improvements would be easy if that's what mattered. Make everything fatter or wider, burn a shitload of power on the 0.01% chance it'll help. Forget "gamers," nobody wants a tablet that's imperceptibly faster when compute limited if it only lasts an hour. Intel stopped chasing that class of IPC improvements around the Core 2 timeframe, here's a presentation that describes the focus on "cool" features.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:because we've pushed the physics about as far as it can go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:I just upgraded from a Llano build from 2011 to Skylake. I really don't see a significant increase in usability. The biggest net gain I've seen in my computer performance in the last 5 years is the HDD to SATAIII SSD to PCIe x4 lane SSD. At work we have some i5-2400's and i7-4790's. I can absolutely tell the difference in performance but the difference is negligable when comparing it to if the PC has a SSD or not. Spindle drive PC's are pretty much unusable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:At work we have some i5-2400's and i7-4790's. I can absolutely tell the difference in performance but the difference is negligable when comparing it to if the .PC has a SSD or not. Spindle drive PC's are pretty much unusable. The very small business I work for just purchased $8k in Carrizo laptops, and got a great deal on 'em too. That low cost, better-than-average displays, the 125GB SATAIII SSD's and the HSA support for Libre Office were the major contributors for picking these over the i3 4100u's at the same price point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
the pricing on mobile i3s for getting so much less than i5s is absolutely comical (i3-6100U costs exactly the same as the i5-6200U from Intel, and a couple bucks less on ShopBLT) and if anything's an easy target for AMD, it's the i3 mobile series. OEMs and purchasers of equipment have to be the first to turn that situation around though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the pricing on mobile i3s for getting so much less than i5s is absolutely comical (i3-6100U costs exactly the same as the i5-6200U from Intel, and a couple bucks less on ShopBLT) and if anything's an easy target for AMD, it's the i3 mobile series. OEMs and purchasers of equipment have to be the first to turn that situation around though. When the small businesses begin to understand the "cloud" isn't just a buzzword, and move the office suites to the web browser, it is going to be hard to justify anything but thin clients for new hardware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:When the small businesses begin to understand the "cloud" isn't just a buzzword, and move the office suites to the web browser, it is going to be hard to justify anything but thin clients for new hardware. Which AMD controls a very large portion of the market. Maybe with thier new software initiatives, AMD can offer an out of the box, minimum setup environment for their thin clients?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Which AMD controls a very large portion of the market. Maybe with thier new software initiatives, AMD can offer an out of the box, minimum setup environment for their thin clients? From HP, I can purchase (for the same cost) a microtop with an i5 6500T, or a microtop with a FX-8800P Carrizo. The tiny one from AMD has a SSD at 120GB, but the tiny one from Intel has a 500GB HDD and DDR4. A small business will make their decision on the numbers (bigger is better, DDR4-2133 > DDR3-1600) and pay $20 more for the Intel microtop. They won't understand the benefits from AMD because iCore marketing, and the big HP and Dells of the world don't educate the customer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:From HP, I can purchase (for the same cost) a microtop with an i5 6500T, or a microtop with a FX-8800P Carrizo. The tiny one from AMD has a SSD at 120GB, but the tiny one from Intel has a 500GB HDD and DDR4. A small business will make their decision on the numbers (bigger is better, DDR4-2133 > DDR3-1600) and pay $20 more for the Intel microtop. But the AMD microtop has an SSD...what? Like if we're doing thin clients and using cloud computing who gives a poo poo if it has a 500GB HDD, I'm going to get way more out of that SSD. Man, Zen can't come quick enough :|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:But the AMD microtop has an SSD...what? Like if we're doing thin clients and using cloud computing who gives a poo poo if it has a 500GB HDD, I'm going to get way more out of that SSD. Man, Zen can't come quick enough :| Uh, what exactly are you going to get out of an SSD on something that runs 99% of everything off the network and the rest out of RAM?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Uh, what exactly are you going to get out of an SSD on something that runs 99% of everything off the network and the rest out of RAM? Faster response times and more fluid operation? If anything needs to be done or stored directly with the client the SSD is going to be superior and the higher capacity HDD isn't going to do anything for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Faster response times and more fluid operation? If anything needs to be done or stored directly with the client the SSD is going to be superior and the higher capacity HDD isn't going to do anything for you. But it's being used as a thin client, so none of those matter. You get faster response times with better network and server hardware, not the client hardware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:At work we have some i5-2400's and i7-4790's. I can absolutely tell the difference in performance but the difference is negligable when comparing it to if the PC has a SSD or not. Spindle drive PC's are pretty much unusable. At my workplace you either have a laptop or a desktop but not both, and lately we've just been issuing laptops. I approved the specs for the last batch of laptops for our devs. The processors are garbage i3s but I at least got them to put SSDs in there. Even so it's literally a factor of 2-3x slower than my 4770 desktop. Starting Tomcat+Hibernate goes from 5-6 seconds to 15-20 seconds. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But it's being used as a thin client, so none of those matter. You get faster response times with better network and server hardware, not the client hardware. With the caveat that I have never used one or looked seriously at the issue: I would assume that in a Chromebook-like OS it's used for cold storage of applications and a cold cache for when you are doing offline editing. So a SSD could improve application startup times and battery life. But yeah, most Chromebooks I've seen are specified at like 4-16 GB of disk space (usually eMMC) and it wouldn't matter at all to a true thin-client where you're simply running an RDP/VNC session or a HTML5 app. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:But the AMD microtop has an SSD...what? Like if we're doing thin clients and using cloud computing who gives a poo poo if it has a 500GB HDD, I'm going to get way more out of that SSD. Man, Zen can't come quick enough :| They're not technically thin clients. These machines are marketed the same way as Intel is marketing their m3 and m5 Compute sticks (at $500, so the exact same price point) - you attach it to your monitor, put it on the network, add Windows 7 Pro, and use your webapps + maybe a bit of legacy software like your Access DB and QuickBooks. They're the new better way to go than buying Dell Vostros towers or those god drat awful "All In Ones." Actual thin clients make little sense for small businesses as they still cost around $350 to $400; these companies are 40-80 people, local or perhaps regional, $0.8-2 mil in revenue, who won't be investing into a ProLient or Cisco budget server, but relying more on cloud office suites, Outlook and other legacy software. EDIT: The example above was from a recent business shopping experience. We were looking at both EliteDesk 705s (AMD) and EliteDesk 800's (Intel). They're practically the same exact thing except AMD units are around $640 with a SSD, while the 800's are hovering around $662 for a HDD. A Bad King fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I recently found out our IT pays more to buy hdd rather than ssd laptops for everyone because our backup system is emergency hard drive recovery and they don't have an ssd story for that
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:I recently found out our IT pays more to buy hdd rather than ssd laptops for everyone because our backup system is emergency hard drive recovery and they don't have an ssd story for that I don't really understand, but it sounds very retarded vv Oh, right, I guess I just didn't even consider that a possibility, so I didn't even read the post correctly. I assumed it was just the guy had more experience with HDDs or something. That's just jaw-droppingly stupid. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
They don't have backups at all and some hdd failure modes allow you to recover some data, which is what they use as their retarded safety net, whereas this is a lot less likely to be possible with ssds because they tend to crap out suddenly and entirely without warning. Is what I took from that. e: also, in case of total failure, a specialist data recovery firm can get something back from platters, where they probably won't from a busted ssd. Flipperwaldt fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:e: also, in case of total failure, a specialist data recovery firm can get something back from platters, where they probably won't from a busted ssd. For the rough cost of 300 all-in-one backup solutions. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Sounds like they don't like their data at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:They don't have backups at all and some hdd failure modes allow you to recover some data, which is what they use as their retarded safety net, whereas this is a lot less likely to be possible with ssds because they tend to crap out suddenly and entirely without warning. Is what I took from that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:They don't have backups at all and some hdd failure modes allow you to recover some data, which is what they use as their retarded safety net, whereas this is a lot less likely to be possible with ssds because they tend to crap out suddenly and entirely without warning. Is what I took from that. Yes, this. Also we only get like 500 mb of network drive storage. And it's not even an IT guy. We're a multinational corporation with 28,000 employees
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:29
|
|