Nope not a problem at all, that would be fine... I was just initially responding to someone's claims of a January release, which I don't see happening. Paper release and full PR marketing blitz yes, but not product in hands.
-
Competitor rules
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.
*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Nope not a problem at all, that would be fine... I was just initially responding to someone's claims of a January release, which I don't see happening. Paper release and full PR marketing blitz yes, but not product in hands.
Caporegime
A few things I should reply to. On reddit, he said he didn't ask/doesn't know about launch, so don't take anything he says about it.
Also, about him just quoting someone. He knows. He's under NDA. So when he chooses one of the hundreds of speculation posts and says 'take this guys word', we all know what's really happening. As he said so himself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5lnlpi/some_interesting_info_regarding_zen/dbx4ojm/?context=3
Also, about him just quoting someone. He knows. He's under NDA. So when he chooses one of the hundreds of speculation posts and says 'take this guys word', we all know what's really happening. As he said so himself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5lnlpi/some_interesting_info_regarding_zen/dbx4ojm/?context=3
Soldato
Exciting times 
What about motherboard leaks that come from motherboard manufacturers? No reason to believe Intel models would be more likely to leak than AMD models.
Soldato
It seems odd to me to block DrunkenMaster. Trolls, yes. People who just post nonsense, yes. But DM posts sporadically and always supports their point.
Anyway, back on topic, I really don't get people whose sole goal with AMD is that they should drive down Intel prices. If AMD are competitive, then consider buying them.
Anyway, back on topic, I really don't get people whose sole goal with AMD is that they should drive down Intel prices. If AMD are competitive, then consider buying them.
Yeah, because DX12 and Vulkan* totally weren't in progress before Mantle arrived
*Yes I know the final version of Vulkan derives a lot of Mantle design aspects but it didn't originally (back when it was called OpenGL Next).
Caporegime
Yeah, because DX12 and Vulkan* totally weren't in progress before Mantle arrived
*Yes I know the final version of Vulkan derives a lot of Mantle design aspects but it didn't originally (back when it was called OpenGL Next).
The Khronos group themselves said Vulkan is not OGLNext it is in-fact Mantle.
Also, Before Mantle Microsoft Said there would be no DX12, As for DX12 it has a lot of Mantle code in it.
Strange as they also said the name was changing from OGLNext to Vulkan (when they thanked AMD for assistance in development).
They hadn't announced it but were working on it (which should really be obvious to anybody as you can't just instantly magic a major API out of thin air, especially when it's the biggest change in generations).
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2016
- Posts
- 58
Legend as I have said, CES AMD will together with ASUS,MSI etc showcase their motherboards, the Canard PC was using a prototype motherboard and all the leakers have prototype motherboards, the chip is done, it is finished and taped out long AGO even companies that produce CPU coolers for the AM3 socket have promised adapters for their coolers for AM4, do not forget it comes with the wraith cooler as well.
Caporegime
I miss mantle.
Vulkan has gone no where bar like one game?
And DX12 is meh.
Great.
Vulkan has gone no where bar like one game?
And DX12 is meh.
Great.
Caporegime
No, they said Vulkan is not OpenGL.
When asked about XBox One development and DX12 MS were asked if DX12 would come to Desktop, they said no.
Then Mantle happened.....
Mantle was the API that was meant to ship with the XBox One but AMD added a caveat; that it would also come to Desktop in the form of DX12, MS refused because there is no profit in PC gaming and a good Desktop gaming API would harm their very profitable XBox Live service given that PC gamers don't need to pay that.
Its why the XBox One shipped with DX11 and was generally a bit crap.
In anycase AMD released it for Desktop on their own in the form of Mantle, MS reacted to that, quite childishly prancing around on stage with Nvidia saying DX12 was an exclusive partnership with them and had been in development for 5 years.
Riiight, so the XBox One was launched without its own API because that's a smart move.
AMD developed a low level API in half the time Miscrosoft and Nvidia could manage.
The Mantle cloned code and reference material in DX12 is just a really strange coincidence.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2016
- Posts
- 58
DX 12= 60%+ Mantle, Vulkan = 100% Mantle.
The documentation is the same for Mantle and Vulkan.
Caporegime
Thats probably about right, well....
DX 12= 60%+ Mantle.
Vulkan = 95% Mantle.
DX12 is a watered down version of Mantle, for a start its limited to 4 Draw Call threads, Mantle has 16, as does Vulkan.
I completely agree that CES will give us a truck load of new info and eye candy, I have no doubt that. I am only pouring cold water on the speculation from some that they will have a Ryzen CPU in their hands in January.
I very much doubt it's that much, they may have made some design changes due to Mantle but DX12 was in development before we ever heard of Mantle (these things aren't made overnight).
I'm not disputing this, my point was that prior to Mantle, Khronos were already working on a successor to OpenGL 4.0 called OpenGL Next, and when AMD gave them Mantle on a silver platter they scrapped most of their development and announced OpenGL Next would now be called Vulkan (while thanking AMD for the big assist).
I was replying to the assertion made in the post I quoted, that if it hadn't been for Mantle we would still be stuck with DX11 which is blatantly untrue. We would still have DX12 and Vulkan/OpenGL Next, they just wouldn't be the same or as good.
Caporegime
Funny you should say "DX12 was in development before we ever heard of Mantle" DX12 was not heard of before Mantle, other than "Will there ever be such a thing?" to which the answer from MS was "no"
When you are the Hardware vendor for your products at the very least you assist in the software for said hardware.
The XBox One didn't ship with its own API, instead it shipped with DX11, because MS didn't play ball AMD didn't give it to them, instead they released it forcing MS to accept AMD's terms, and...... the XBox One gets a new API, surprisingly.
AMD having achieved their objective with Mantle they gave it to the Khronos Group to provide MS with much needed competition.
The lack of that being the reason for MS arrogance in first place.
When you are the Hardware vendor for your products at the very least you assist in the software for said hardware.
The XBox One didn't ship with its own API, instead it shipped with DX11, because MS didn't play ball AMD didn't give it to them, instead they released it forcing MS to accept AMD's terms, and...... the XBox One gets a new API, surprisingly.
AMD having achieved their objective with Mantle they gave it to the Khronos Group to provide MS with much needed competition.
The lack of that being the reason for MS arrogance in first place.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
GLnext went into development AFTER Mantle and DX12 as a result of those existing, it was always Mantle, it was renamed Vulkan when they came closer to being finished because that is how things go. They start off with a project name and came up with a final name for it.
When people don't know how to make arguments they put people on ignore and then say none of it was relevant if it's brought up.
His post was that quad core pricing is stable and that is normal like it's always been.
The entire post was showing that stagnant prices on chips has NEVER been the case until recently and only with Intel, there was nothing off point in the whole post.
As for the rest, he ignores pricing, which is all he was banging on about for pages about how Intel pricing isn't going up(it is) and how it's normal to get the same prices on the same rough cpu performance (it's not), when pointed out and shown how completely wrong he is he's now moved from pricing to how the chips alone have stagnated and moved to the "do we need more power" argument... which is in actual fact irrelevant to his initial point.
Regardless of if you need more than an Intel quad core, that doesn't mean the price of an Intel quad core should stay the same, so it has no bearing on the discussion at all. The price of 99.9% of products, and always CPUs up till recently, depended on the production cost... not the users need for such a product.
Of course product pricing depends on production cost but that isn't the be-all end-all. If it was, perfume would cost £5 a bottle instead of £50. You sell your products for what people will pay.
I actually think what's happened in the CPU market over the last 7ish years is a classic example of what happens when there is no competition. There are two issues at play here - the lack of progress in terms of raw performance, and the lack of cheaper products. There is an argument that innovation isn't as necessary any more because software requirements aren't increasing as much as they used to. Thus, they've taken a different approach, which is to move into markets where big gains can still be had (and therefore new products can actually be sold and people can actually be convinced to upgrade more often), e.g. low power and mobile spaces. Alos bare in mind that the server space is much more welcoming of "moar cores" than workstations and desktops.
Having said that, it is surely possible for Intel to offer their 4 core chips for less than they did nearly a decade ago, but they don't because there is no need to. As long as people still buy them, why lower the price? Despite the relative lack of need for more raw CPU horsepower, if AMD had a competitive high-end CPU offering all this time there is absolutely no way Intel's line-up would exist as it does now (at least for the prices that currently exist). That's where the competition element is needed - even if neither company can actually improve things beyond "5% IPC per year", prices would at least drop and new innovations would appear because there is a need to grab (and keep) market share from the other company.