• AMD Throws in the Towel: No More CPUs (APUs and GPUs Only)
    192 replies, posted
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43068885]oh not intel please no. Intel: Underpowered and Overpriced. AMD have a 5ghz processor for a quater of the price of a TOTR i7 fuck.[/QUOTE] There is alot more to CPU performance than core count and clock frequency. That's why intels quad core chips demolish AMDs lineup while running at a lower frequency.
[QUOTE=archangel125;43065192]Isn't the Nvidia overheating joke wearing a little thin? I've never had a problem with those cards, and I never understood where the stereotype came from. Though one time during a power surge my OCZ PSU literally caught fire.[/QUOTE] I had a 7600GT that literally caught fire, it was the funniest thing. I then bought a 8800GT.
So they're still making CPU's just calling them APUs? Just processors with integrated graphics, the same as intel does now. What exactly is changing?
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;43071972]So they're still making CPU's just calling them APUs? Just processors with integrated graphics, the same as intel does now. What exactly is changing?[/QUOTE] They're not making any lines without integrated GPUs, Intel still does at the lower end (and Intel even has the P prefix, for i series CPUs that don't have GPUs (though they're probably just binned)).
[QUOTE=pentium;43063051]Intel and AMD are the last CPU producers for desktops. IBM left in the 80's, NexGen was absorbed by AMD, Cyrix went out of business in the 90's.[/QUOTE] I thought IBM and Motorola did PowerPC up until 2005?
[QUOTE=Dr. Flame;43073118]I thought IBM and Motorola did PowerPC up until 2005?[/QUOTE] Not really a true competitor for x86. Obviously they touted their benefits over x86 to try and go PowerPC, but that doesn't really count since they are two entirely incompatible platforms.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43063790]They're physical cores, not logical ones. It gets more complicated than that, but they are all basically cores. [t]http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Bulldozer-Architecture.png[/t] If you understand that, you'll understand what I mean.[/QUOTE]With regards to me understanding that, I'm going to say; sort of. I can see that's it's different to how Xeons work: [IMG]http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/xeon-processor-5.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Karmah;43062725]Great, now Intel will have a monopoly[/QUOTE] intel is pushing APUs as well. What else do you think hd3000 and other graphics are. The main difference is that these tend to be on the same chip die now.
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43068885]oh not intel please no. Intel: Underpowered and Overpriced. AMD have a 5ghz processor for a quater of the price of a TOTR i7 fuck.[/QUOTE] GHZ=/=performance
[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;43069717']There is alot more to CPU performance than core count and clock frequency. That's why intels quad core chips demolish AMDs lineup while running at a lower frequency.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the 5GHz CPU actually runs at 4.7GHz and can turbo to 5 using only 2-4 cores. While drawing about 300W.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;43065697] Intel makes great chips, but if they decide to abuse the fact that they run virtually unopposed, they will eventually fall out of touch with what their customers want and someone else will do what they do better/cheaper than them.[/QUOTE] No, they won't. There's nobody else that can compete with them. You apparently have no idea how astronomical the barrier of entry to that industry is. VEEEERY few companies are in a position to even [i]consider[/i] taking AMD's place. It's nigh on impossible to just randomly pop in and go "Hey Intel, we're your new competition now!". Intel will abuse the living fuck out of their monopoly. They'll take it as far as the law allows them to. They already charge absurd amounts for their chips simply because they can, with AMD out of the market entirely there's nothing keeping them from charging $300 for a bargain basement quad core anymore.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43080510]No, they won't. There's nobody else that can compete with them. You apparently have no idea how astronomical the barrier of entry to that industry is. VEEEERY few companies are in a position to even [i]consider[/i] taking AMD's place. It's nigh on impossible to just randomly pop in and go "Hey Intel, we're your new competition now!". Intel will abuse the living fuck out of their monopoly. They'll take it as far as the law allows them to. They already charge absurd amounts for their chips simply because they can, with AMD out of the market entirely there's nothing keeping them from charging $300 for a bargain basement quad core anymore.[/QUOTE] But AMD is still making processors. Just not dedicated CPU's.
[QUOTE=Demache;43080715]But AMD is still making processors. Just not dedicated CPU's.[/QUOTE] Intel is also drifting away from making dedicated CPU's, except for servers.
[QUOTE=Van-man;43081125]Intel is also drifting away from making dedicated CPU's, except for servers.[/QUOTE] Mac OS X 11.5: Back on PowerPC.
[QUOTE=Dr. Flame;43083140]Mac OS X 11.5: Back on PowerPC.[/QUOTE] A lot of the Macbooks use Intel's iGPU. They have 0 reasons to use PowerPC.
[QUOTE=danharibo;43083182]A lot of the Macbooks use Intel's iGPU. They have 0 reasons to use PowerPC.[/QUOTE] They would for desktops. Even high end MBP's have dedicated GPUs, it's a fucking bonehead move to just go "welp guys only integrated gpus then" considering a large Mac userbase is stuff like Photoshop and Video Work.
[QUOTE=Dr. Flame;43083215]They would for desktops. Even high end MBP's have dedicated GPUs, it's a fucking bonehead move to just go "welp guys only integrated gpus then" considering a large Mac userbase is stuff like Photoshop and Video Work.[/QUOTE] Who said anything about going back to only integrated GPU's? All CPU's are just going to have GPU on the die now. :v:
[QUOTE=Dr. Flame;43083215]They would for desktops. Even high end MBP's have dedicated GPUs, it's a fucking bonehead move to just go "welp guys only integrated gpus then" considering a large Mac userbase is stuff like Photoshop and Video Work.[/QUOTE] They use the integrated gpu when in [I]"powersave"[/I] mode, and the dedicated in [I]"performance"[/I] mode. Even my HP does something like that, although in a typically shitty HP fashion.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43062779]Intel are better anyway..[/QUOTE] Who cares. Intel has at least a 1.2x markup in their specs:price ratio. I'd buy AMD CPUs for lower budget systems because they give you a lot more bang for your buck.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;43064154]Nvidia just got the biggest opening they've been waiting for. It's no secret they want a slice of the processor pie, but as a GPU + CPU hybrid.[/QUOTE] IN THEORY if I'm right it'd be amazing because you could have a computer with 2 CPU's working together along with the gpu, and 3 cpu's + 2 gpu's if only games just had a flip switch "My pc is better with CPU, my PC is better with GPU" though
Just wanted to say this because I keep seeing people mentioning how AMD going to APU's is like Intel's integrated cards and crap: Intel's new HD4000 integrated cards (Basically an APU in my book) are fricken awesome. Under certain circumstances it runs better then my brother's dedicated GPU. (Doesn't help his case that I have 8GB of ram to share between processing and the (integrated) GPU.)
[QUOTE=Karmah;43062725]Great, now Intel will have a monopoly[/QUOTE] Without a doubt prices will rise and some people will see their hardware hard to upgrade. They won't be able to put whatever price they want though. If there's enough capital around and some brains willing to do the work, by all means a new company will appear. That, or anti-trust/monopoly laws. [QUOTE]I'd buy AMD CPUs for lower budget systems because they give you a lot more bang for your buck.[/QUOTE] Jesus, do you remember when the 5000's came out? Those GPUs were the best bang for your buck thing I have ever seen. I even felt shame when buying the 5770 :suicide:
Might I ask howcome Intel chips are overpriced? Processors aren't cheap shit made by 12 year olds in a sweatshop in China, there's a lot of time, effort, technology and science involved behind making them. Yes, AMD chips were cheaper, but also more inferior.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;43092513]Just wanted to say this because I keep seeing people mentioning how AMD going to APU's is like Intel's integrated cards and crap: Intel's new HD4000 integrated cards (Basically an APU in my book) are fricken awesome. Under certain circumstances it runs better then my brother's dedicated GPU. (Doesn't help his case that I have 8GB of ram to share between processing and the (integrated) GPU.)[/QUOTE] My HD4000 in my Mac mini is surprisingly nice, and I'm just on 4GB of Ram.
Time for x86 to die then, as it should have 15 years ago
[QUOTE=Tobba;43092939]Time for x86 to die then, as it should have 15 years ago[/QUOTE] Do you mean in favor of X64 or the whole architecture? What else would we use, ARM?
[QUOTE=Tobba;43092939]Time for x86 to die then, as it should have 15 years ago[/QUOTE] Most of the processors from the last 10 years are x64. 32-bit only processors are rare these days. (Assuming you thought processors were X86 only. Doesn't really make much sense otherwise because for most the issue is the OS)
I mean the entirety of the x86 family, including AMD64/x86-64, the current ISA and design is a fucking crime against computing, lots of heat and complexity in Intel cores is generated from how simply hard and how much you have to "cheat" to have it executed at reasonable speeds [editline]6th December 2013[/editline] I vote in favor of IA-64, which is also an Intel thing, but its way simpler to implement
well that's just fucking great, looks like I can forget getting an I7 for a reasonable price after the holidays. this is so annoying.
An 17? Do you mean an i7?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.