sharms.org— Dear AMD, in light of you losing $600M for Q4, I am still left wondering how you can ignore quality Linux drivers...
Apr 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
@thomasYou are clearly wrong. I work in an IT department for the government and try lots of software. Some of it is not any good, but the software that we use is extremely good and flexible. It can be rewritten with changes that make it possible to so stuff that is impossible with static binaries with no source. Those companies have gotten donations and I never forget the software makers/people/organizations that made it possible.You are obviously in a narrow minded model of thinking where there has to be an exchange of product/cash for the system to work.The Microsoft servers that I maintain have been OK and held together but they are nowhere near the flexibility and stability of Linux systems that I have put together.
I think you are wrong about dual core and quad core, AMD was first with reference designs on both. Where Intel pulled ahead was the introduction of the new CPU design going into Core 2, that offeredbetter performance partly due to Intel starting earlier on their 65 to 45nm manufacturing process. To think that is a sign of AMD being complacent is to ignore the other areas of the industry that AMD and Intel both do business in outside of the obvious gaming benchmarks. Intel had to prioritize on building a new CPU design in the first place to catch up with the advancements AMD had been holding relatively unchallenged for quite a while, and are trying to maintain that lead now that they recognize AMD as legitimate competition. Looking at your summary points:Long story short, make better products that:-Directly competes with the others or beats themAMD will lose in a direct competition against Intels much larger manufacturing base. Some of their best product ideas (AMD64, Hypertransport, bundling the memory controller with the CPU) were lateral moves into areas where they could build a clear lead and performance benefits that Intel was not addressing. -Retake the bargain binBoth companies lose money on the bargain bin, they need to be able to deliver consistent value in their product shipments with a low enough margin to make it affordable for the big box makers and third party OEMs to buy their chips in large quantities for later sale or to build into other products. -Keep the other guys guessing and beat them to the punc How can you keep the other guys guessing when everyone in the industry already knows what future problems they face in balancing performance, energy efficiency, and chip complexity/size... all while trying to maintain the current rate of Moore's Law? They can't keep the other guys completely in the dark, they can only hope to take advantage of new ideas, discoveries, and innovations faster than Intel and Nvidia in the hope that another bold move like AMD64 will force the other companies to follow their lead.
@ Count ZUhmmm I didn't make any comment under this post.If you ever come to my house, remind me not to let you use my toilet. Your aim is a little off. :-p
@EmailAddress:> hmmm... I'd say:> Dear AMD,> Since Intel is kicking your ass left and right, go back to the old AMD days of selling processors for dirt cheap,> not a $30-$50 discount. I'm talking about $100s so that the best AMD cpu costs at most $200-300. Then I'll> consider an AMD cpu.> Not only is Intel kicking your ass in Ghz, but also in lower WATT usage.Really? Because last weekend when I was researching CPUs for a new machine I'm building I picked 64-Bit dual core CPUs that are in the same ball park, and the AMD one was quoted at 60W, and had a 75W peak, while the Intel was nominally 95W and peaked at around 130W. Now, I'm not a scientist, but last time I checked the range from 60 to 75W was was lower than 95-130W. Futher GHz hasn't meant nearly as much recently as it used to. Back when both processors did basically the same thing at different speeds it was useful, but now they spend more time worrying about how much can be done each cycle rather than how many cycles can be performed in a given time.I'm not saying AMD is better than Intel (nor vice versa), just that, at least in the cases I was looking at the AMDs were using alot less power.
This thread has givin me an idea. What if we as diggers "digg" a resturant chain?I think we should all go to IHOP tonight and complain about AMD/ATI to our waiters/waitresses. See if we can make frontpage :-P
I have bought two new computers in the last 6 months, and both of them are AMD cpus with Nvidia logic and video.The only reason I insisted on Nvidia was driver support. I have not had a good experience with ATI drivers since the Rage II days.AMD, your ATI appendage will atrophy and die if you don't stay with the program. I can get accelerated drivers for my nvidia graphics for Solaris even!Do I need to move to Richmond Hill and light some fires? I know where you guys are..
wacerApr 22, 2007
@thomasYou are clearly wrong. I work in an IT department for the government and try lots of software. Some of it is not any good, but the software that we use is extremely good and flexible. It can be rewritten with changes that make it possible to so stuff that is impossible with static binaries with no source. Those companies have gotten donations and I never forget the software makers/people/organizations that made it possible.You are obviously in a narrow minded model of thinking where there has to be an exchange of product/cash for the system to work.The Microsoft servers that I maintain have been OK and held together but they are nowhere near the flexibility and stability of Linux systems that I have put together.
cquinndApr 22, 2007
I think you are wrong about dual core and quad core, AMD was first with reference designs on both. Where Intel pulled ahead was the introduction of the new CPU design going into Core 2, that offeredbetter performance partly due to Intel starting earlier on their 65 to 45nm manufacturing process. To think that is a sign of AMD being complacent is to ignore the other areas of the industry that AMD and Intel both do business in outside of the obvious gaming benchmarks. Intel had to prioritize on building a new CPU design in the first place to catch up with the advancements AMD had been holding relatively unchallenged for quite a while, and are trying to maintain that lead now that they recognize AMD as legitimate competition. Looking at your summary points:Long story short, make better products that:-Directly competes with the others or beats themAMD will lose in a direct competition against Intels much larger manufacturing base. Some of their best product ideas (AMD64, Hypertransport, bundling the memory controller with the CPU) were lateral moves into areas where they could build a clear lead and performance benefits that Intel was not addressing. -Retake the bargain binBoth companies lose money on the bargain bin, they need to be able to deliver consistent value in their product shipments with a low enough margin to make it affordable for the big box makers and third party OEMs to buy their chips in large quantities for later sale or to build into other products. -Keep the other guys guessing and beat them to the punc How can you keep the other guys guessing when everyone in the industry already knows what future problems they face in balancing performance, energy efficiency, and chip complexity/size... all while trying to maintain the current rate of Moore's Law? They can't keep the other guys completely in the dark, they can only hope to take advantage of new ideas, discoveries, and innovations faster than Intel and Nvidia in the hope that another bold move like AMD64 will force the other companies to follow their lead.
surfingApr 22, 2007
It's spelled "iHop" and they should sue Apple
fordiApr 23, 2007
And it has been continuously and increasingly true over that 10 years. We're presently seeing the upward swing in the S-curve in adoption.
rattelerApr 23, 2007
@ Count ZUhmmm I didn't make any comment under this post.If you ever come to my house, remind me not to let you use my toilet. Your aim is a little off. :-p
dacheetahApr 23, 2007
@EmailAddress:> hmmm... I'd say:> Dear AMD,> Since Intel is kicking your ass left and right, go back to the old AMD days of selling processors for dirt cheap,> not a $30-$50 discount. I'm talking about $100s so that the best AMD cpu costs at most $200-300. Then I'll> consider an AMD cpu.> Not only is Intel kicking your ass in Ghz, but also in lower WATT usage.Really? Because last weekend when I was researching CPUs for a new machine I'm building I picked 64-Bit dual core CPUs that are in the same ball park, and the AMD one was quoted at 60W, and had a 75W peak, while the Intel was nominally 95W and peaked at around 130W. Now, I'm not a scientist, but last time I checked the range from 60 to 75W was was lower than 95-130W. Futher GHz hasn't meant nearly as much recently as it used to. Back when both processors did basically the same thing at different speeds it was useful, but now they spend more time worrying about how much can be done each cycle rather than how many cycles can be performed in a given time.I'm not saying AMD is better than Intel (nor vice versa), just that, at least in the cases I was looking at the AMDs were using alot less power.
spr0k3tApr 23, 2007
Yeah is fsking sucks don't it? Being all up in the Unix/Linux section to boot.
edlesmannApr 23, 2007
This thread has givin me an idea. What if we as diggers "digg" a resturant chain?I think we should all go to IHOP tonight and complain about AMD/ATI to our waiters/waitresses. See if we can make frontpage :-P
itomatoApr 23, 2007
I have bought two new computers in the last 6 months, and both of them are AMD cpus with Nvidia logic and video.The only reason I insisted on Nvidia was driver support. I have not had a good experience with ATI drivers since the Rage II days.AMD, your ATI appendage will atrophy and die if you don't stay with the program. I can get accelerated drivers for my nvidia graphics for Solaris even!Do I need to move to Richmond Hill and light some fires? I know where you guys are..
rethcirApr 23, 2007
.. because there's no money in it?