Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:AMD takes care of its customers? (Score 1) 138 138

It's not too late for a single CPU/GPU package to completely change the playing field.

I think Intel say something like their integrated graphics is like 75 times more capable than their first one or whatever.

(I'm not comparing Intel and AMD here. Just stating how things have moved. There's of course the fact that Nvidia invest into Nvidia Grid, cloud rendering and streaming even games to consumers instead.)

It's all about what you need though. Integrated stuff is enough for many. But not for everyone. And streaming games will likely be the same.

But yeah. Who knows how many purchase graphics cards in the future.

Comment: Re:Precisely. (Score 1) 138 138

The problem is, following this logic they should have used Nvidia GPU parts as well. This showcases AMD's weaknesses more than anything else. Its confirmation of what everyone already knows, AMD cant make low heat parts.

The Fury X is quicker than the GTX 980 and in half of the games seem to be quicker than the Titan X it seems:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

So why the fuck would they use an Nvidia card if they got as quick card themselves?

I know it may not support feature level 12.1 of Direct X but that's it. One advantage is that it will allow you to get a cheaper FreeSync monitor.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 138 138

I guess nobody here at /. took the Nokia lesson. No matter how badly your product sucks, you never, ever admit that to the market. It doesn't matter if you got less credibility than the Iraqi information minister, it's still better than the alternative. Do you know how much ridicule they're going to get for this with funny fake ads with the "Intel inside" logo and jingle? It's brand suicide. The only plausible explanation is that AMD is in "screw tomorrow, we need sales NOW" mode. It's not a shocker if the market pairs an Intel CPU with an AMD dGPU if that makes sense, but if I was head of marketing at AMD I'd rather resign than have this to my name.

Maybe.

Their Piledriver processors was mostly released in 2012-2014. It's three years old by now.

Zen won't be here until 2016.

I have no idea whatever they intend to do the SMT ("hyper-threading") with the same number of cores or not but the IPC / clock is supposed to be 40% quicker.

If you take one of their 8 core chips and make it 40% quicker and then added SMT on top of that maybe it would be somewhat competitive.

Skylake which Intel releases real soon is supposed to be 15% faster / clock than current Haswell. And that's supposed to be a large step.

They had Cannondale in 10 nm planned for the next year but it won't happen then.

So yeah, 6700K will be slightly better than 4790K and by 2016 Intel will do another tock for a tick-tock-tock but AMD may be competitive.

Also the FX-8350 and such isn't all too bad relative the 4790K. _BUT IT IS FOR GAMING_.

I assume part of that is due to not multi-threaded well enough games and maybe to a higher degree that DirectX and OpenGL had the CPU overhead it has and don't spread over the CPU cores. When it does. Which is next month. The AMD processors will likely gain some relative Intel for DX12 titles.

So yeah. Just because they aren't competitive for gaming now doesn't mean that will always be the case.

Seem like the plan is for AMD to go 14 nm in 2016. That's not 10. But then again as said Intel won't reach 10 nm in 2016 either.

The text I read seemed to even question whatever they would do it in 2017.

Comment: Re:Why not just kill them all? (Score 1) 150 150

Oh well.

Guess some humans consider their value as dangerous, powerful, exotic and amazing species so high they are worth to keep around even though they are dangerous to us =P

Being unique and diversification is also values :)

Oh well. I'd rather get rid of lots of humans ;D

Comment: Re:Why not just kill them all? (Score 1) 150 150

Mosquitoes are genuinely useless.

I'm sure the world feels the same about you too.

On a subjective scale from all the species of the planet if they where well-informed enough I think we'd be considered the worst for lots of them.
Not rats and possibly dogs =P

Comment: Re:Why not just kill them all? (Score 1) 150 150

Bees.

Only if you assume the loss of something is worth anything.

Various bees polinate various flowers and trees but remove one and even if some flowers and tress wouldn't be polinated others would take advantage of the loss.

But I guess it's correct in the way if finite consequences for others. Maybe no species depend on mosquitos only. What about the diseases they spread? But I guess that's what one usually want to stop anyway.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!

Working...