211–218 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vista brought a lot of migration to Linux indeed. And the Mac being incapable of playing games is a factor for quite some people. But until recently, gaming on Linux was limited. No one said everyone though.
Yeah otherwise it would be even less than 1% nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re overestimating the role of the architecture. X86 is just fine, and is perfectly competitive at comparable node generations. Don’t believe everything Apple tells you. ;)
That every x86 CPU in Ultrabooks thottles itself into the ground while M1 on MacBook pro is almost impossible to throttle determined this is a lie.
Hint: TSMC's new 5nm process is being used in a laptop CPU by exactly one company at the moment.
As TFA rightly points out, unless something drastically changes in the next ~6mo, Intel is going to launch into the most favorable market situation we've seen in our lifetimes. Previously, the expectation is that they needed to introduce something that was competitive with the top end cards from nVidia and AMD. With basically all GPU's out of stock currently they really just need to introduce something competitive wi…
Yup; three other points I'd add: 1) I hate to say "year of desktop Linux" like every year, but with the Steam Deck release later this year, and Valve's commitment to continue investing and collaborating on Proton to ensure wide-range game support; Linux gaming is going to grow substantially throughout 2022, if only due to the new devices added by Steam Decks. Intel has always had fantastic Linux video driver support.…
I'm expecting China-Taiwan-US tensions to increase, and all these outsourcing profit seeking traitors will finally eat crow. As if "just getting rich" wasn't enough for them.
My stock bets and opinions don't have to necessarily be pro-American (certainly wouldn't buy anything outright anti-American). But I love it when they align like today.
Looking forward to picking up an Intel Arc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That every x86 CPU in Ultrabooks thottles itself into the ground while M1 on MacBook pro is almost impossible to throttle determined this is a lie.
Can you think of any differences in those two CPUs, other than architecture, that may be responsible for that? Hint: TSMC's new 5nm process is being used in a laptop CPU by exactly one company at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel sells expensive CPUs which are becoming useless thanks to ARM - as much in consumer devices as they are in datacenters, with big players designing their own ARM chips. GPUs are their lifeboat. Three GPU players is better than two, but I don't see much of a reason to be long Intel.
IMO, the long position on Intel is basically a bet on China invading Taiwan, or the US gov't subsidizing Intel. Both are certainly extreme events, but given Chinese military expansion and US increase in gov't spending, it doesn't seem impossible.
I'm going to add this to the Intel GPU graveyard in advance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.oneapi.io/
Currently only supported by Intel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ROCm supports Vega, Vega 7nm, and CDNA just fine. yeah, but that's exactly what OP said - Vega is three generations old at this point, and that is the last consumer GPU (apart from VII which is a rebranded compute card) that ROCm supports. On the NVIDIA side, you can run at least basic tensorflow/pytorch/etc on a consumer GPU, and that option is not available on the AMD side, you have to spend $5k to get a GPU that…
I really don't think people appreciate the fact enough that for developers to care to learn about building software for your platform, you need to make it accessible for them to run that software. That means "run on the hardware they will already have". AMD really need to push to get ROCm compiling for RDNA based chips.
Also, just flat-out using your own developers to write the basic code for libraries and frameworks and so on. There are tons of basic libraries like CuRAND and CUB (Cuda UnBound) and I'm sure tons of others that NVIDIA wrote not because a customer wanted that, but because it was building blocks that others could leverage into products that would sell NVIDIA hardware. In contrast AMD has fallen behind in that area, and has further fragmented their development work across a bunch of "flavor of the week" frameworks and implementations that usually get discarded within a couple years (remember HIP? remember Bolt? etc)