• 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) ***

humbug said:
WCCF posted the same slides, they are fake :)

Photoshop and last years dates.
Click to expand...

Typical, I don't understand what someone gets out of making fake junk like this. It'd make more sense if they took the time to actually do it right but no, not only are they wasting time making them they're also incapable of making them stand up to scrutiny which makes the whole thing pointless. :confused:

The phrase Get A Life comes to mind.
 
nashathedog said:
Typical, I don't understand what someone gets out of making fake junk like this. It'd make more sense if they took the time to actually do it right but no, not only are they wasting time making them they're also incapable of making them stand up to scrutiny which makes the whole thing pointless. :confused:

The phrase Get A Life comes to mind.
Click to expand...

More clicks and so the potential for more money from advertising revenue.
 
Drollic said:
More clicks and so the potential for more money from advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

I get why sites like WCCF report on them but I mean whoever is behind making them, You could be on to something though, I certainly wouldn't rule out whoever's behind New's outlets like WCCF being involved with the slides. Sites like that are the bottom feeders of the News industry. It's a shame they get so many readers.
 
humbug said:
You can photoshop any number of detail over any of last years slides it still doesn't make them any more real than last years slides photoshoped to make them look like this years slides, that is still what they are.
Click to expand...

Some of these slides are brand new. Unless you can show me a chipset comparison slide similar to the ones provided which detail the permutations of old vs new motherboards with new Ryzen 2xxx technologies. No one faking these slides will add this much detail, would only be more to get wrong.

Who would even bother adding details on advanced USB features or 2019 CEC energy requirements? I bet only people actually working on these or similar products would even know about the latter.
 
muon said:
Some of these slides are brand new. Unless you can show me a chipset comparison slide similar to the ones provided which detail the permutations of old vs new motherboards with new Ryzen 2xxx technologies. No one faking these slides will add this much detail, would only be more to get wrong.
Click to expand...

You're not that naive.

They are from the same source already called out as photoshoped fakes, all they did was make a bunch of new slides learning from past mistakes, don't tell me they now have you hock line and sinker because they made new better slides?
 
humbug said:
You're not that naive.

They are from the same source already called out as photoshoped fakes, all they did was make a bunch of new slides learning from past mistakes, don't tell me they now have you hock line and sinker because they made new better slides?
Click to expand...

I would be happy to bet money these are simply early versions of what will be the eventual slides. No way these are fake.

Only a corporate marketing team could dream up XFR2, XFR2 Enhanced and Precision Boost Overdrive all at the same time.

Similar to how XFR in 1xxx was really just boost but was presented in the media as something special.
 
muon said:
I would be happy to bet money these are simply early versions of what will be the eventual slides. No way these are fake.
Click to expand...

No way these are fake.
Click to expand...

Why? the last lot could not be more obviously fake, how is it that the same people have now convinced you so, i see nothing in them that makes them so convincing one would ignore the previous crap in the same vain the same people put out.

Want buy my horse? half price, its only very slightly dead.
 
Zartar117 said:
Not really, IPC generally means instructions per clock which is obviously related to instruction latency, though the way people generally (incorrectly) use it, it should be called IPS (instructions per second). I would view IPS as a mixture of instruction and cache latencies combined with the predict rate of the branch predictor since all this effects how many instructions will be executed in a given time frame. So it doesn't make sense to not place the emphasis on single core performance when referring to IPC (or IPS for that matter).
Click to expand...
This one bugs me a tiny bit. Not taking a stand as it's not worth it but... ipc is instructions per clock. Clock rate is frequency which already factors how much in a second. Ipc IS the correct term. Instructions per clock, clocks per second (hz/ghz).
 
muon said:
I would be happy to bet money these are simply early versions of what will be the eventual slides. No way these are fake.

Only a corporate marketing team could dream up XFR2, XFR2 Enhanced and Precision Boost Overdrive all at the same time.

Similar to how XFR in 1xxx was really just boost but was presented in the media as something special.
Click to expand...

But you've obviously not heard about precision over boost 2, have you? Or
XRF2 super augmented? Only a marketing team could dream up obvious logical extensions to what already exist and edit some photoshop slides with the same names taking care to not make the same mistakes that have already been pointed out.
 
Mercutio said:
But you've obviously not heard about precision over boost 2, have you? Or
XRF2 super augmented? Only a marketing team could dream up obvious logical extensions to what already exist and edit some photoshop slides with the same names taking care to not make the same mistakes that have already been pointed out.
Click to expand...

Yet what you've come up with is instantly not believable and you would be silly to include them in any slides you were making.
 
muon said:
Yet what you've come up with is instantly not believable and you would be silly to include them in any slides you were making.
Click to expand...

Like other fake slides mayhaps? So they have xfr... I wonder what a reasonable sounding name for the second version of it might be? Come on dude, this ("the slides support my bias so they must be real!") is very low grade trolling or there's some sense lacking.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
Like other fake slides mayhaps? So they have xfr... I wonder what a reasonable sounding name for the second version of it might be? Come on dude, this (the slides support my bias so they must be real!) is very low grade trolling or there's some sense lacking.
Click to expand...

I suggest you don't get your hopes up.
 
AMD On Track to Return to Athlon64 Market Share Levels https://www.techpowerup.com/242318/amd-on-track-to-return-to-athlon64-market-share-levels

Yesterday AMD held their "One Year Ryzen Anniversary" call which reiterated the company's success introducing Ryzen products and also provided insight into what's planned for 2018 and beyond.

When asked about market share status and goals, Jim Anderson, SVP and GM of Computing and Graphics at AMD, mentioned that their near-term goal is reaching levels that the company enjoyed during their early-2000s market-leadership that they had thanks to the Athlon64 processors, which were strong competitors to what Intel offered at the time. Specifically, Jim said "I don't see any reason we can't get back to historical share levels that AMD has enjoyed in the past." Back in the 2000s the company boomed on a market share above 20% for desktop and slightly below 20% for notebook, also thanks to Intel's weakness in driving technology forward.

AMD hopes that they can repeat that success, by providing more cores for less money with Ryzen, while also gaining technology leadership, like the integrated Vega graphics in the new APUs. While 2017 was more focused on introducing Ryzen to the desktop space, 2018 will be the year AMD makes a push for Ryzen-based notebooks. Over the course of 2017, Ryzen desktop increased AMD's desktop CPU market share by 50% year-over-year; from 8% to 12% (Q4 2016 vs Q4 2017). In Q1 2018, 50% of the company's client compute revenue came from Ryzen, a solid increase over 40% in Q4 2017. At some (enthusiast focused) retailers the company is even seeing 40-50% CPU sales share.

The company expects 60 new Ryzen-based platforms from OEMs in 2018, with the majority being mobile designs across the whole size and performance spectrum: from ultra-portable to gaming. This will open up a $10 billion market for the company to grow in, in addition to the $9 billion desktop CPU market. Additional focus is put on Ryzen Pro (both desktop and mobile), which is targeted at enterprise and government customers through additional security and management features.



 
So there is some report up about Meltdown/Spectre like vulnerabilities in Ryzen chips.... except it's dodgy as hell.

A site called AMDflaws.com, with no ownership information, who put up a youtube video with comments disabled, a site that is a couple of weeks old, based in Israel (a strong Intel area with Intel investing billions there) have published a report about supposed Spectre like vulnerabilities. In these situations the standard industry procedure is to wait at least 90 days between telling a company about security risks and disclosing them publicly, Spectre/Meltdown was given closer to 7-8 months, this site published this report 24 hours after giving it to AMD.

On the idea that it's 'Spectre like' which is a hardware vulnerability that can't be fully fixed and could be exploited via things like Javascript in a browser, these potential vulnerabilities even under their suggestion is something that requires a bios flash on site to take advantage of so it's not anywhere near the same level of vulnerability as Spectre/Meltdown, not even close.

That this comes from 'Intel country', on a dodgy website with no names involved, standard security procedure completely ignored, this all screams of fake of rehashing the explained vulnerabilities in the security chip that have been previously patched in a more dramatic way. The thing to me is this sounds like way way too late to fight back against Meltdown/Spectre, is something new coming to hit Intel shortly and this is a Intel hatchet job trying to lessen another massive security hit they are going to take shortly?

Everything about this story screams hatchet job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom