|
NihilismNow posted:Cargo culting Intel, is that where we stick Intel Inside and vPro stickers on our AMD boxes and pretend this will make it perform like it has a CPU that was actually made this decade? Intel won't let us. Says so right in their purchase agreement with OEM/Boxed procs. 
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Do we have any good info on the amount of cache consumer zen will have, and pcie lanes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
wipeout posted:Do we have any good info on the amount of cache consumer zen will have, and pcie lanes? This is about as detailed as it gets for Zen right now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
That blog is awesome, he just doesn't post very often. Still the best informed speculation I've seen on Zen anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
So, how about that stock price, huh? Sure it's given back about fifty cents relative to Friday, probably from people looking for a quick buck, but man. Watching that stock price go up almost brought a tear to my eye. Oh, and Zen should be sampling to customers in Q2, straight from Su's mouth during the Q1 earnings call. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Ya, seeing the stock price makes me happy. I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Believe more! I put this up in the GPU thread, but it does end talking about Zen: AdoredTV put up this pair of videos and it's really interesting stuff. I was anxiously awaiting the release of the second one. If you've got some time to kill, they're definitely worth watching: https://youtu.be/0ktLeS4Fwlw https://youtu.be/aSYBO1BrB1I I'm just hoping it really is going to be the AMD surge I've wanted for so many years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Heh, I just saw and watched those in the GPU thread. Cool. I am really hoping for Zen / Polaris, we need a two horse race for all this exciting VR stuff to get awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I just had the second video pop up in my Youtube feed. I'm a bit skeptical that anyone over at AMD actually planned any of this poo poo out. I think that tactically, absolutely AMD needed to take away Nvidia's driver advantage, and DX12/Vulkan is the fruition of that. Everything else just seems to be AMD having to rope-a-dope to buy themselves the time they needed, and rolling timely crits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I could see it going either way, but maybe after the ball started rolling, or when they were working on Vulkan, someone must have thought about them getting a significant advantage with these low level APIs. I don't like to speculate (I just fantasize about a gilded and goofy Team Red future), but after a certain point someone just have started putting all this together. What I find most interesting, though, is that a string of decade+ moves that have been regarded as missteps could possibly come together for a *compelling* case of AMD's success and not just a feasible one. I'm very excited to watch all this unfold and I really hope that they can pull this through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:Believe more! I put this up in the GPU thread, but it does end talking about Zen: Pretty sure everyone is hoping AMD can get their ducks in a row and be competitive in both CPU/GPU this time around. I was hardcore AMD for a long time and only went to Intel during the LGA1150 rollout because Bulldozer/Piledriver sucked so much and were too drat power hungry. I hate that competition stagnated for so long that it seems like Intel is resting on their laurels and believing AMD won't catch up or release anything significant. I want that CPU and GPU excitement again when each company was trying to make things cooler, less power hungry, more powerful and more efficient and it seemed like new, big changes were happening every year or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:I want that CPU and GPU excitement again when each company was trying to make things cooler, less power hungry, more powerful and more efficient and it seemed like new, big changes were happening every year or two. GPUs have exciting stuff on the horizon, but CPU gains look to be slow and incremental for a couple years at least. I'm rooting hard for AMD to make a return to server competitiveness and make Intel blink a little bit with Xeon pricing. The E5 and E7 chips look to be their fat moneymakers right now, and if AMD can make some 14-20 core haswell competitive chips and is able to find a way to sell them for ~$1k - $1500, they're in business. Edit: Just looked up E5 v4 Xeon list prices, my spitballing guess was way optimistic. AMD would be doing a huge undercut even at $2k per 16 core CPU. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
The profit margins in the server market are supposed to be pretty darn good so yeah if AMD can get some market share there they'll be doing muuuch better financially. They really need to get their HPC GPGPU products to sell though too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:GPUs have exciting stuff on the horizon, but CPU gains look to be slow and incremental for a couple years at least. I'm rooting hard for AMD to make a return to server competitiveness and make Intel blink a little bit with Xeon pricing. The E5 and E7 chips look to be their fat moneymakers right now, and if AMD can make some 14-20 core haswell competitive chips and is able to find a way to sell them for ~$1k - $1500, they're in business. Of course you are then competing against this deal, of 600$ shipped for 16 cores spread across two CPUs, 128GB RAM and a motherboard: http://www.natex.us/product-p/s2600cp-cpu-128gb-12800.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
If anything at this point, I'm excited about Vulkan/DX12 improving threading performance in gaming, as well as the fact that Intel has acknowledged enthusiast gaming as a growth market that they intend to focus on. I think that performance may slope upwards a little faster in real-world applications, if not in pure number-crunching benchmarks.No Gravitas posted:Of course you are then competing against this deal, of 600$ shipped for 16 cores spread across two CPUs, 128GB RAM and a motherboard: http://www.natex.us/product-p/s2600cp-cpu-128gb-12800.htm True, but all other things equal rack density does matter. Cramming in 40 cores on the same board Intel puts 16 on would be an overall win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:True, but all other things equal rack density does matter. Cramming in 40 cores on the same board Intel puts 16 on would be an overall win. Yeah, and over time the cost of power consumption and the accompanying cooling will also add up. The CapEx might look really good on a system with a pair of 8-core Sandy Bridge E5-2670s, but by the time you factor in OpEx to run it for a few years it might make more sense to buy a new system with a single 16-core Broadwell E5-2697A v4 even if the sticker price is thousands of dollars higher. If AMD can beat the performance per watt of the former system and the high cost of hardware on the latter then they might be able to carve out a niche somewhere. Of course, performance per watt has not really been AMD's strong point at all in their high-end consumer processors recently. I don't know what the Opteron lineup looks like though. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
I'm actually super excited about the performance of the new iGPU. Combined with a freesync monitor the thing would own for certain segments of the market including me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Of course, performance per watt has not really been AMD's strong point at all in their high-end consumer processors recently. I don't know what the Opteron lineup looks like though. AMD threw in the towel a couple years ago and just stopped updating Opteron hardware because it was so far behind on performance per watt, hence my hope that Zen will be a triumphant return that's in the Ivy Bridge or Haswell range performance per watt, and willing to fight with Intel on price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
when vishera opteron was released perf/watt was actually comparative with sandy bridge then half a year later ivy bridge-EP came out and AMD stopped making big dies
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Give me a Haswell class 6 or 8 core chip that can overclock to 5 GHz, please AMD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
God, I wish. In the end, though, I expect 5 GHz is probably too much to ask out of cobbled-together silicon. I fully expect AMD to start building server and larger enthusiast CPUs piecemeal as well as their trajectory with GPUs. Popping out cores from wafers instead of whole CPUs, then all sewn together with an interposer, upon which reside the memory controller, Hypertransport, cache, and so forth. I always hope to be pleasantly surprised, though. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Apple is probably ready to throw money at AMD if Zen and Raven Ridge are any good, just so they can threaten for lower prices on Intel's better processors. Why would they especially care all that much when the majority of the chips Apple sells are their own? (In iphones, pods, pads, watches, TVs, etc). Wishing for a magic comeback in a shrinking market is a little silly, even by our own navel gazing standards on this forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Because increasing sales is not the only way to increase profit. Profit = revenue - costs. Drive the costs down on your high-margin products like macbooks, whether by sourcing a cheaper alternative or negotiating better pricing, and you reap more profit, even if you don't meaningfully change the components.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Because increasing sales is not the only way to increase profit. Macbooks are probably both Apple's lowest margin product line, and a pretty small part of their overall revenue. Apple's been primarily a phone company for years now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
I think Apple's best year for regular computer sales was recently and they'd sold a grand total of 16 million iMacs, macbooks, etc through that year. It simply doesn't compare to their other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
AMD's balance sheet would salivate at moving 16 million of anything honestly. It'd be cool to see Raven Ridge in a phone, but Apple's pretty insistent on using it's ARM chips instead. You think Apple would ever dump PowerVR if AMD had a compelling GPU they could attach to those ARM cores?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:AMD's balance sheet would salivate at moving 16 million of anything honestly. There's been about 60 million AMD chipsets sold for the PS4 and Xbox One so far, hasn't really seemed to help AMD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Macbooks are probably both Apple's lowest margin product line, and a pretty small part of their overall revenue. Apple's been primarily a phone company for years now. I am willing to admit that as I live in the SF Bay Area, I live in a disproportionately tech- and startup-heavy part of the world. Stereotypically so. But the security people I know have moved to Macbooks, and the "engineers" -and sometimes I use that term VERY loosely- at the startups I meet with for design consultations predominantly have, you guessed it, Macbooks. As such, it *seems* to me that you're selling that product line a bit short.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I am willing to admit that as I live in the SF Bay Area, I live in a disproportionately tech- and startup-heavy part of the world. Stereotypically so. But the security people I know have moved to Macbooks, and the "engineers" -and sometimes I use that term VERY loosely- at the startups I meet with for design consultations predominantly have, you guessed it, Macbooks. There's about as many iPhones sold last year as Macs of all forms sold since the 1984 launch. And all Macs sold since 1984 adds up to about 69% of the computers sold last year - and that's with last year being a slow year for computers! That total of all Macs sold? It's approximately 200 million. The amount in active use is a lot less, very few people are still using pre-Intel and even less are using pre-PowerPC ones. Estimates put total Windows machines in use at well over 2 billion, with easily another billion plus that had been sold in the past and are no longer in use. Huge differences in penetration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's been about 60 million AMD chipsets sold for the PS4 and Xbox One so far, hasn't really seemed to help AMD. Yeah, they're not making much on those; only way they could get the contracts, likely. I think Intel probably gives a pretty good price to Apple; if AMD got strong enough to get put into Macs, I guarantee we'd see other laptop makers start to take AMD seriously again (as opposed to relegating them to the ends of product listings) and Intel would lose at least a few points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's about as many iPhones sold last year as Macs of all forms sold since the 1984 launch. And all Macs sold since 1984 adds up to about 69% of the computers sold last year - and that's with last year being a slow year for computers! Welp, can't argue with those numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I am willing to admit that as I live in the SF Bay Area, I live in a disproportionately tech- and startup-heavy part of the world. Stereotypically so. But the security people I know have moved to Macbooks, and the "engineers" -and sometimes I use that term VERY loosely- at the startups I meet with for design consultations predominantly have, you guessed it, Macbooks. I understand the security people (after all, all they need is facebook), but the engineers ... I used a Macbook once for half a year at work, had to give it back. The UI of OSX was an extremely frustrating experience. Hardware-wise though, very good, I must admit. I would buy one myself, if I would know for sure that I can remove OSX and install linux without any hiccups. For now though, a 4 year old Lenovo T420 with a SSD works like a charm for $300.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:AMD's balance sheet would salivate at moving 16 million of anything honestly. It'd be cool to see Raven Ridge in a phone, but Apple's pretty insistent on using it's ARM chips instead. You think Apple would ever dump PowerVR if AMD had a compelling GPU they could attach to those ARM cores? mediaphage posted:Yeah, they're not making much on those; only way they could get the contracts, likely. SwissArmyDruid posted:Welp, can't argue with those numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I understand the security people (after all, all they need is facebook), but the engineers ... I used a Macbook once for half a year at work, had to give it back. The UI of OSX was an extremely frustrating experience. Hardware-wise though, very good, I must admit. I would buy one myself, if I would know for sure that I can remove OSX and install linux without any hiccups. For now though, a 4 year old Lenovo T420 with a SSD works like a charm for $300. I work with a bunch of network engineers who have a choice between Thinkpads and MBPs as work machines, and in my experience both get chosen with similar frequency. OSX has a lot of the Unix command line utilities that people come to expect if they've done a lot of their work on such systems, and the hardware and build quality is quite nice. Windows generally has the edge on having support from needed software vendors, and a lot of people have never used anything else. I personally chose a MBP the last time it was my turn to get a new system, because the only things I seriously miss from Windows are MTPutty, Visio and the vSphere client and at the time our Macs were up to Haswell but Thinkpads were still on Ivy Bridge models. I had never used OSX at the time, but figured that with its reputation for usability I would be alright. I still prefer the Windows UI, but for the most part I find that either allows me to do my job. I bought a Windows desktop for all of the things that won't run on OSX and just Remote Desktop into it when I need to use one, and this has the added benefit that if I run a telnet/SSH session from there it won't break when my laptop roams to a new AP. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:GPUs have exciting stuff on the horizon, but CPU gains look to be slow and incremental for a couple years at least. I'm rooting hard for AMD to make a return to server competitiveness and make Intel blink a little bit with Xeon pricing. The E5 and E7 chips look to be their fat moneymakers right now, and if AMD can make some 14-20 core haswell competitive chips and is able to find a way to sell them for ~$1k - $1500, they're in business. Too bad microsoft is changing licensing with Server 2016 for by the core not by the socket. Minimum 8 cores per socket, and a license comes with 16 cores, and a server must be licensed for at least 16 cores. I guess if you are going single socket AMD could make sense with a 16 core that is better than a 10 core Intel. But considering the cost for a copy of windows at 2 10-12 core CPUs just make no sense, and if you need 2 windows licenses to make use of 2 16 core AMDs compared to 2 8 core Intels, you're going to have a hard time actually saving money. This changes for Linux but that's a smaller market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
japtor posted:Yeah, Macs have been selling the best they've ever been, but they're still small relative to the whole PC market. They do make a decent amount on it though, over $5B revenue the last few quarters...which comes out to about 10% (or less!) of their total revenue cause iPhone money is ridiculous. Eh, they were selling a bit better proportionately to the market back in the late 80s. But in terms of sheer numbers sold, yeah now's about as much as they've ever sold. 2015 saw them enter the top 5 PC manufacturers for the first time in a long time - 7.2% of the market. For comparison the other 4 were Lenovo at 19.8%, HP at 18.2%, Dell at 13.6%, Asus at 7.3%. All other manufacturers total to 33.9%
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Eh, they were selling a bit better proportionately to the market back in the late 80s. But in terms of sheer numbers sold, yeah now's about as much as they've ever sold. 2015 saw them enter the top 5 PC manufacturers for the first time in a long time - 7.2% of the market. And that was just the US, wasn't it? Did they actually break top 5 globally?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:And that was just the US, wasn't it? Did they actually break top 5 globally? All of these numbers are globally. Their numbers are slightly better for the US, around 10%, which might have them up to #4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:All of these numbers are globally. Their numbers are slightly better for the US, around 10%, which might have them up to #4. Ah, I must have misremembered. Frankly, that's quite a bit better than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Theyve been in the 10-15% range in the US for a while, usually #3 or 4 I think, with HP and Dell over 50% together. Compared to any one PC company it's sizable enough, but for the Mac as an OS it's still tiny cause Windows is pretty much everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:32
|
|