Soldato
RTG and AMD are separate entities essentially; and different marketing.
What RTG should do is employ the AMD CPU division's marketing team to do all their work.
Fair comment.
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
RTG and AMD are separate entities essentially; and different marketing.
What RTG should do is employ the AMD CPU division's marketing team to do all their work.
RTG and AMD are separate entities essentially; and different marketing.
What RTG should do is employ the AMD CPU division's marketing team to do all their work.
Yep, they only mentioned the Broadwell architecture by name.Yep used the word "competitor" which is polite showing dignity and respect.
Yep, 2.1-3.5 GHz is their optimum range in terms of performance per watt, so almost all of their chips are within this region. Only really the R7 1800X sits outside of this range, aside from boost clocks.I know we're on an enthusiast's forum, but if we ignore performance desktop, the process is actually really, really good for the two biggest markets namely servers and APUs where the efficiency at around 3.0GHz is actually almost ideal. Yes, the process was designed for ARM SOCs but with a good efficiency curve up to around 3.0GHz it is actually very good for server chips as well.
(from The Stilt's Strictly technical thread over on AT).
Will be interesting how the 7nm process works out (those rumours of 5GHz+), but if the higher clock damage the efficiency a lot, AMD may have to do two designs for Zen+ one for servers and APUs and one for desktop and HEDT. Hopefully, by then they will have a bit more cash and volume to be able to afford this and for it to make sense.
It was a good explanation of what they were aiming to do,and without trying any cheap shots like Intel apparently are doing. The fact Intel are doing it seems to indicate they are worried.
AMD managed not only to bring a competitive product but also happily for AMD it came to market at pretty much the worst possible moment in the product cycle for Intel meaning Intel has to either go to massive expense and write off a lot of hardware or delay in response (or both). Hence resorting to dirty tactics.
Complacency has pretty much bitten Intel in the rear.
(from The Stilt's Strictly technical thread over on AT).
Will be interesting how the 7nm process works out (those rumours of 5GHz+), but if the higher clock damage the efficiency a lot, AMD may have to do two designs for Zen+ one for servers and APUs and one for desktop and HEDT. Hopefully, by then they will have a bit more cash and volume to be able to afford this and for it to make sense.
Seems more like ignorance to me in terms of xerox.Complacency. What killed Xerox also
Seems more like ignorance to me in terms of xerox.
However judging by the Xeon product stack, it seems the something is happening to Intel.
Sounds like arrogance goes hand in hand with complacency.It was a very large dose of both if my memory is working properly. I think though that a much better match for what is happening to Intel is what happened to Eastman Kodak. A monolith in the photographic world and in real terms at the time, much bigger than Intel is now. They, just like Intel, ignored the competition (Fuji in Kodak's case) believing that Kodak's customer base would never shift. It did shift and it shifted very fast. Even when that shift was as clear as daylight to anyone, they still did next to nothing to counter it. Even the move Kodak made into digital photography was 6 or 7 years too late.
A lesson that Intel would do well to learn.
Sounds like arrogance goes hand in hand with complacency.
It's more about the corporate attitude, that we are looking at.Film and image a little different from CPU's and a completely different approach to CPU design . It's interesting times that's for sure. Remains to be seen if there are any downsides to the infinity fabric approach especially as the core count increases which we'll be seeing soon. I wouldn't write off Intel - their chips are still mighty good just that their approach means high manufacturing costs for more cores.
It's more about the corporate attitude, that we are looking at.
Film and image a little different from CPU's and a completely different approach to CPU design . It's interesting times that's for sure. Remains to be seen if there are any downsides to the infinity fabric approach especially as the core count increases which we'll be seeing soon. I wouldn't write off Intel - their chips are still mighty good just that their approach means high manufacturing costs for more cores.
The only drawback for Infinity Fabric, is that we are still stuck on DDR4 after gazillion years, and have to wait 2018-9 for DDR5. Which will greatly improve the speeds and performance of such design due to the double speed of the ram, than now. So what we see here today, is AMD being ahead 4-5 years.
And still Infinity Fabric has many unknown factors. For example how it will behave with a RX Vega GPU in the same system, sharing the HBM2 as fast cache? (as per Raja's video)
How would react with 2 Vega cards, all CPU & GPU interconnected with Infinity fabric, sharing 16GB of HBM2 cache?
Is not the bandwidth, is the speed because the parts communicate between each other at 50% the ram speed.I though the current latency problem with Ryzen wasn't caused by being bandwidth limited.
Is not the bandwidth, is the speed.
https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings
have a look here
Just checking bandwidth is how much data you can move. Speed is how fast that data moves?
Whats the name for the combination of both speed and bandwidth?
Just checking bandwidth is how much data you can move. Speed is how fast that data moves?
Whats the name for the combination of both speed and bandwidth?