61–70 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but only because Intel hit the wall first. The still have tons of money and spend more time breaking that wall. Good for us anyway. Don't mind getting my Intel CPUs cheaper.
> Yes but only because Intel hit the wall first. I fail to see how that's relevant. What matters is what products are available in the market and how much they cost, and AMD's offering is both cheaper and more performant than anything Intel managed to put together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just abusive pricing. If you're stuck with Apple software then I guess you have no choice. I have a 10-core 128GB ram workstation that's two years old now, it cost me half as much as a MacBook Pro. I need a new laptop soon, but the difference between the i9 Dell and the i9 MacBook is $800 CAD. Plus the Dell is for sure going to work better with a Linux install, in terms of drivers, which is better for me for w…
He made that number up. The most expensive possible iMac Pro is ~$13.5K (see here: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro/3.2ghz-1tb ). Note that most price comparisons show that the iMac Pro is actually quite the deal.
[update]Sorry he said $20,000. SO you are right
At the end of the day we still have the third party me_cleaner to disable the proprietary secret coprocessor on Intel chips while AMD chips still have their equivalent PSP With no first or third party means to disable it. Until such a time I can get the equivalent tool to stop the hardware spyware built into the CPU I can have no enthusiasm or motivation to buy AMD chips. Not to say I want to buy Intel parts - they h…
The best outcome would be to have AMD provide a first-party, auditable option to disable it, otherwise the community will have to do it themselves, which will probably take longer if there's less people using them. Until then, the main focus would be the buy the best performing product, because that's the only real differentiator.
That pricing is actually more reasonable than I was expecting. I might get myself a 32 core quad GPU workstation. Unthinkable even just a year ago.
Good god! Why on earth you need 32 core quad GPU workstation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is time to give AMD a chance. Intel is plagued by problems with the 10nm process technology resulting in no significant innovation on their CPUs' performance or power consumption for over two years now. And just recently they pushed their 10nm products even further back to the second half of 2019. AMD might have the first 7nm CPUs out by then. Of course process technologies are not easily comparable between fabs b…
> It is time to give AMD a chance. Intel is plagued by problems with the 10nm process technology resulting in no significant innovation on their CPUs' performance or power consumption for over two years now. The difference between 14nm and 14nm+++ is pretty close to a full node step... > And just recently they pushed their 10nm products even further back to the second half of 2019. AMD might have the first 7nm CPUs o…
No, Intel's 10nm is worse than TSMC's 7nm in every metric. Not significantly so, but it is so.
It also seems to be viable whereas Intel's hasn't been proven yet (the only released product is a mobile chip with the iGPU disabled due to defects and low yields).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD has always had great OC performance but my impression is that they have been power hogs. Is that incorrect or has it changed?
They had their ups and downs. The athlon 64 was a masterpiece in both performance and power consumption, in part because they made power management an integral part of the platform not just for laptops. At the time it was released Intel was busy pushing the pentium 4 to its limits, making it a great replacement for central heating during winter. Then Intel was on top of the game again with the core architecture and w…
Funny thing is that Core, AFAIK, came from a separate laptop chip branch. For 64 bits Intel was betting on Itanium, which crashed and burned like iAPX-432 did before. And so Intel once again was forced to stay on the 8080 treadmill ...
It may be of no concern to many, but 3D artists constantly express problems with filling DIMM slots when using Threadrippers. Supposedly, 128 GB RAM is only reliable on a couple of motherboards. I just constantly read these stories on forums. (And to be sure, these aren’t situations where users were mixing RAM sets)
The solution, of course, is to name them. Can you share which motherboards you've seen people complaining about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is time to give AMD a chance. Intel is plagued by problems with the 10nm process technology resulting in no significant innovation on their CPUs' performance or power consumption for over two years now. The difference between 14nm and 14nm+++ is pretty close to a full node step... > And just recently they pushed their 10nm products even further back to the second half of 2019. AMD might have the first 7nm CPUs o…
> Intel's 10nm process is expected to be similarly comparable to other fabs 7nm No, Intel's 10nm is worse than TSMC's 7nm in every metric. Not significantly so, but it is so. It also seems to be viable whereas Intel's hasn't been proven yet (the only released product is a mobile chip with the iGPU disabled due to defects and low yields).
Does anyone in here know if Zen2 is going to implement AVX properly? Threadripper2 will not, all AVX2 instructions will operate at ~SSE speeds, as on past AMD chips.