[url=http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39009-amd-loses-top-brain-to-nvidia]FUDZILLA.COM[/url]
[quote]
[B]AMD loses top brain to Nvidia[/B]
[img]http://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/d1067c000a05113713ddb118e696940a_XL.jpg[/img]
Phil Rogers defects
AMD is reeling after the high profile exit of one its top CPU brains Phil to rival Nvidia.
The outfit has been going through hell lately. Last month AMD ace CPU architect Jim Keller stepped away from the company after completing his work on Zen.
[B]Rogers was one of AMD's high-ranking technology and engineering corporate fellows, and been responsible for helping to develop the software ecosystem behind AMD's heterogeneous computing products and the Heterogeneous System Architecture.[/B]
He was a public figure for AMD and active on the software development and evangelism side, frequently presenting the latest HSA tech and announcements for AMD at keynotes and conferences.
While he is not the only person working on the software side of HSA at AMD, Rogers' role in its development is important. Rogers was a major contributor to the HSA Foundation, helping to initially found it in 2012. He served as the Foundation's president until he left AMD.
It seems his defection was kept secret, and took place sometime this quarter and did not manage to leak.
[/quote]
So, this won't anyhow directly influence their GPUs as the guy worked on compute stuff (computing supercomputer hardware) but it still doesn't sound well for AMD if top ranks like this guy just leave for the competition.
Let's just hope Zen turns out to be an Intel-slapping success
how long till AMD finally bankrupts or/and gets bought?
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48917261]Let's just hope Zen turns out to be an Intel-slapping success[/QUOTE]
i kinda doubt it will.
I just hope some company will compete with intel in the future. Monopolies are not nice.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;48917286]how long till AMD finally bankrupts or/and gets bought?
i kinda doubt it will.[/QUOTE]
amnd then nVidia will have an monopoly
I'm hoping Elon musk decides to buy out amd and destroy Intel.
High hopes, i know.
In recent months AMD seems to be focusing their attention on their CPU division in terms of resources. Only thing holding them back right now is GlobalFoundries.
I quite like AMD's graphics cards despite their flaws.
I'll be really sad if they kick the bucket and I'll have to dish up $500 for the card that takes the 970's place.
I support invidia so I am all good, at least invidia doesn't make the video cards for console, they know who the master race is, unlike amd =D I support any company thatsupports PC gaming
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48917261]Let's just hope Zen turns out to be an Intel-slapping success[/QUOTE]
it won't
[QUOTE=vrej;48918431]I support invidia so I am all good, at least invidia doesn't make the video cards for console, they know who the master race is, unlike amd =D I support any company thatsupports PC gaming[/QUOTE]
This is a really idiotic post. I don't even like AMD's graphics cards myself and have had literally nothing but bad experiences with them but this is still a bad thing for the industry as a whole. More competition is better for the customer and this is basically the exact opposite.
I'm not a fan of AMD but I really don't like nVidia. the world is coming to an end!
Remember when I was getting mad about Flex and PhysX and I got dumbed?
That kind of shit gives an easy access API to developers who will lazily just plaster things into it which sink AMD cards.
Like, most Ubisoft games in general. I'm equally as annoyed with AMD related optimizations versus nVidia
You got dumbed because you essentially blamed tripwire for "selling out", yet the game works pretty damn great on all kinds of hardware.
Having a tantrum cause you can't see flying intestines wiggle on the ground afterward and a gout of literal red jello spill down the steps is straight up fetish-whining.
Ubi$oft's issues are another matter entirely, and it again has shit to do with nVidia, and everything to do with greed, and a straight unwillingness to pay for aftermarket support for a title. Ubi's title run shit on PC in general, not just on AMD hardware, and they refuse to pay the people who can fix it. That's their problem, not anyone else's.
I have both an AMD card and an nVidia card. I 'd prefer to use the AMD card, but nope, AMD wants you to spend money again on a fucking active DP adapter just to use 3 monitors.
[QUOTE=FrankPetrov;48920455]I have both an AMD card and an nVidia card. I 'd prefer to use the AMD card, but nope, AMD wants you to spend money again on a fucking active DP adapter just to use 3 monitors.[/QUOTE]
How old is your card? IIRC that stopped being a thing for the 79xx series and later. Plus nvidia had similar shit.
[QUOTE=Levelog;48920482]How old is your card? IIRC that stopped being a thing for the 79xx series and later. Plus nvidia had similar shit.[/QUOTE]
I have a 660 that allows 3 monitors but a 270x that won't. I heard they started allowing it in the 290 though?
[QUOTE=FrankPetrov;48920506]I have a 660 that allows 3 monitors but a 270x that won't. I heard they started allowing it in the 290 though?[/QUOTE]
The 270x is a 7870. The 79xx+ series (or 280+) allows all the ports to be active. It was a bus issue. Nvidia had this limited as well. My 680 originally could not have 3 non DP monitors active, but it was an artificial limitation that they later removed.
What is even going to happen if nVidia and Intel end up being the only manufacturers? It's not like anyone else can even step up and compete and I really doubt the FTC would split them up like they did to AT&T in the '90s
[QUOTE=Alice3173;48918500]This is a really idiotic post. I don't even like AMD's graphics cards myself and have had literally nothing but bad experiences with them but this is still a bad thing for the industry as a whole. More competition is better for the customer and this is basically the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]
What I mean is that AMD should have stayed true to PC Gamers, if they didn't sell their stuff to console. Consoles would have had a hard time getting a proper graphics card, and so the PC would have taken over, but AMD decided to stay with consoles, this is what they get. but at the same time we do need some kind of competition, or else we will end up in a monopoly.
do people not realize that monopolies are illegal in the US?
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
like, it can't actually happen
[QUOTE=vrej;48920817]What I mean is that AMD should have stayed true to PC Gamers, if they didn't sell their stuff to console. Consoles would have had a hard time getting a proper graphics card, and so the PC would have taken over, but AMD decided to stay with consoles, this is what they get. but at the same time we do need some kind of competition, or else we will end up in a monopoly.[/QUOTE]In that case Nvidia didn't stay true to PC gamers with the original xbox and ps3.
ATI was supplying graphics chips to consoles before AMD took over.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48920821]do people not realize that monopolies are illegal in the US?
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
like, it can't actually happen[/QUOTE]
Depends.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48921211]Depends.[/QUOTE]
elaborate
it's an unrealistic and silly thought
There are some systems in the US like the patent system that can cause things like a monopoly to emerge, especially in the medical industry it can be difficult to bring competitor products to market because there is strong regulation.
Stable monopolies are probably unlikely but I think its false to say that monopolies cant happen.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;48920609]What is even going to happen if nVidia and Intel end up being the only manufacturers? It's not like anyone else can even step up and compete and I really doubt the FTC would split them up like they did to AT&T in the '90s[/QUOTE]
You can already see what happened. Intel is charging nominal+ prices for 10% increases in speed and throughput.
[quote] can't happen [/quote]
GE and SiriusXM would like a word with you.
[QUOTE=vrej;48920817]What I mean is that AMD should have stayed true to PC Gamers, if they didn't sell their stuff to console. Consoles would have had a hard time getting a proper graphics card, and so the PC would have taken over, but AMD decided to stay with consoles, this is what they get. but at the same time we do need some kind of competition, or else we will end up in a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
If AMD didn't get the console deals it probably already would have gone bankrupt.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48920821]do people not realize that monopolies are illegal in the US?
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
like, it can't actually happen[/QUOTE]
Not true. My town and almost state of Indiana is ran on Duke Energy
[QUOTE=vrej;48920817]What I mean is that AMD should have stayed true to PC Gamers, if they didn't sell their stuff to console. Consoles would have had a hard time getting a proper graphics card, and so the PC would have taken over, but AMD decided to stay with consoles, this is what they get. but at the same time we do need some kind of competition, or else we will end up in a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
What are you even going on about? Consoles would have done just fine regardless of whether AMD provided the graphics cards for them. The only difference would have been that AMD would have made less money off of it.
I think you're confusing one portion of an industry (pc gaming) with the entirety of the industry which is quite a bit larger.
[QUOTE=27X;48921651]You can already see what happened. Intel is charging nominal+ prices for 10% increases in speed and throughput.
GE and SiriusXM would like a word with you.[/QUOTE]
aren't siriusXM not as big as intel/nvidia/amd though? and there are still non satellite radio out there that easily count as competition. It'd be more like if you could only get radio from sirius. There's no competition against intel/nvidia, except maybe quadcomm, but they're not for PC's
GE though, I don't know enough about that to talk about it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
