Well, if "not doing anything" is what your PC does a long part of the day, idle power consumption can be of some importance. That does not necessarily redeem AMD cpus, but it is worth mentioning in my opinion. Obviously, you seem to think that all discussion should be limited to "AMD sucks". Even if true, this does not make for a very interesting read.

Well, in idle, which is what most processors do in typical user workloads, the 7800 is comparable to intel processors. Total energy to accomplish a task obviously varies, but the 7800 uses 30-50% more energy than intel processors for the same task. However, the 7 series APUs are clearly more efficient than the 6 series Richland APUs that they replace. Peak power consumption is around 100W for a complete system with 7800, which is not a huge thermal load.

In the end, what I'm saying is that AMD improved power efficiency way more than absolute performance, something that is more important in the portable space. You're looking at maybe 10% faster than Richland at the CPU side but with 20% less energy. Obviously, they could have chosen different power/performance tradeoffs, if they wanted to compete on the desktop.

For some numbers, you can have a look at Techreport or Anandtech (http://techreport.com/review/26845/amd-a10-7800-processor-reviewed/3). I am not aware of any tests concerning the laptop variants, but they should appear soon.

Benchmarks from the smaller 7600 only show a modest performance hit from going to 45W, approximately 10%. Isis Pro is a brute force solution to the problem (huge on-chip RAM) and is likely to stay quite expensive for a while because of die-size and limited production. A discrete GPU is probably the better option at that price point (ie replace the cheapest $450 Iris pro with $450 cpu + GPU), unless if low power consumption is an absolute priority.

Affordable on-chip graphics RAM may become standard in future AMD and intel processors but I wouldn't hold my breath...

They will probably make some version for the server market, but it will certainly be on another socket. The socket AM3+ does support ECC (if you choose the right motherboard, ASUS usually do...) but the upgrade path is probably stuck forever at the FX8350. It isn't a bad chip, actually quite good for multithreaded loads, but it's getting old... If you want ECC for cheap you could buy a lower-end socket AM3+ processor like the FX4350, otherwise Xeon is clearly the better choice.

What most people don't realize is that the desktop version is basically an afterthought. The chip has been optimized for laptops, where it does make some sense (adding a discrete GPU is not an option after purchase and laptops with discrete GPUs are quite more expensive, so the comparative advantage is more important). AMD knows they can't win on the desktop, which is why they didn't bother with extreme caches, 4-module (8-core) versions and cherry-picked chips with crazy TDPs. Personally, I'm much more excited with the laptop version of Kaveri, such as the 7350B in the HP EliteBook 745 G2.

Anyway, for the price it makes a really great casual gaming PC, especially for people who are price sensitive and can't afford a +$100 discrete GPU (in some places this is a decent chunk of a month's salary...).

I don't really see the need for gaming on the go, and if such a need exists, isn't it sufficiently covered by existing gadgets (smartphone or non-gaming tablet)? Furthermore, are the current tablet games worth buying hardware specifically for the job? What would be the point of Angry Birds at 120fps?

Anyway, the hardware looks cool, but the fact that no other manufacturer bothered to use the nvidia hardware is a bit disconcerting. If it were the best thing since sliced bread, many designs would have flooded the market.

Although a definite cure would be nice, simply improving the quality of glycemic control would be a revolution. Optimal glycemic control can be very complicated, especially for patients who do not have the courage to follow strict dietary and healthstyle recommendations. Being able to treat a complicated disease with a single daily injection sounds nice. I know it would simplify my job as an MD...

I am not a great cook but I do enjoy cooking and I can't think of a texture that you can't achieve with good materials and decent cooking technique. Healthy food really doesn't have to have a bad texture I think. Maybe an investment in a few cooking books and some classes would help you?

AMD recently presented HSA-enabled jpeg decoding. That would also be an interesting addition. Make these shaders work a little...

http://developer.amd.com/resou...

Who is "we"? Judging from your attitude you probably weren't even born at the time. But anyway, I wanted to point out that several "private" networks exist for the military, big companies etc. When we say the Internet, we implicitly assume that it can be used to to send email to anyone, browse anything and use all kinds of services. Any big private network cannot be a substitute. So, if you need to come out of your walled garden to post messages in Slashdot, order stuff from Amazon and read your gmail account, maybe your new internet is not much more than a data exchange mechanism. Which is great, really, but you can't call it "Internet 2" because it seems to me that it is missing some key functionality.

Thank you for this informative post. I was under the impression that at least the Linux network stack and, most probably, the Win 7-8 network stack are fully IPv6 compatible. I know my router is IPv6 compatible and I had used IPv6 briefly in the past (via tunneling) out of curiosity. So, why is everyone so pessimistic? How hard can it be to just enable IPv6 if everything is ready at the user side?

Do you realize that in the graph you linked no card dips below 50fps at any time? In fact, if you count the occasional peaks crossing the (ridiculously low) 15ms/66fps threshold, the Titan Z shows 6 frames slower than 15ms and the 295X2 shows 4 frames at more than 15ms (if I count correctly). You really can't argue that the Titan Z is smoother. All cards are extremely smooth.

I would just like to point out that the 295X2 has superior absolute gaming performance and superior fp32 performance but, just like most gaming NVidia products, the fp64 is crippled at 1/8 fp32 rate at configuration in order to create a profit margin for the costlier "pro" products. The hardware itself is capable of 1/2 fp64 rate and should be superior to the Titan Z if AMD decides to offer "pro-level support".

As proof, consider the fp64 rate of the single-chip AMD W9100, sold at ~$4000, which is 2.6 TFlops (http://www.amd.com/Documents/FirePro_W9100_Data_Sheet.pdf), versus the 2.7 TFlops of the Titan Z (1/3 fp32 rate, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...). AMD could unlock the 295X2 at its full potential 5.2 double precision TFlops and release it any day if they want, crushing the Titan Z.

Honestly, instead of the Titan Z, I'd rather buy the AMD W9100 for $4000 and get equivalent double precision compute rate, better perf/W and, most importanty, certification for pro applications and ECC memory. That is certainly worth the extra $1000 in this product segment.

The adoption of measures protecting privacy depends on user demand. Online commerce has been considered safe enough for years yet exchanging an email or having any online activity is completely unprotected. I was always surprised by lack of interest from users. Maybe the younger users, if they are not yet addicted to making all their life public on facebook et al would put some pressure for simple technical solutions that guarantee a basic level of privacy. Obviously, I don't expect complete protection against three-letter agencies; that's not the point. In that sense, this looks like a step in a desireable direction, even if it is done for the wrong reasons. As a potential customer, I appreciate this effort.

I understand that the private sector can be more efficient for certain things, but these are not gifts nor scholarships. I have applied for EU finding and I can tell you that there is a lot of work that goes into proving that they got their money's worth. You have progress reports to do, intermediate results to publish and paperwork to fill in order to keep the funding. Getting the money without doing any research (=stealing) is not that easy and, in my limited experience, does not occur that often.

That's a philosophical viewpoint that, in my opinion, produces short-sighted research of the kind that will give you incremental iPhone updates but no major breakthrough. I cannot convince you of the validity of this claim, but true science is a high-risk and long-term endeavor of the kind that does not appear favorably in quarterly financial statements. The private sector revolves around the next yearly bonus, not about a project that can pay off 10 or 20 years later. Also, don't forget that private "research" is locked under patents and any useful results do not necessarily benefit the society as a whole (at least for 10+ years). So, even if you assume that research by private organisations compares favorably, it is not truly equivalent.

How about you try to get that "easy" money. Have a look at the requirements for application in the Horizon 2020 EU research program. You need several AAA laboratories (ideally, with multiple Nature/Cell/Science publications) in order to stand a chance. Now, if you feel that basic research is not "productive", I'm probably wasting my time. At least consider the possibility that big research projects produce side effects that are beneficial but difficult to measure (say, WWW was invented initially for use in CERN).