94 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 16 February 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Just saying ethics is interesting, i mean after all is it ethical to release a 4 core CPU with an extra pipeline on each core and call it an 8 core cpu?

Depends, are we talking about hyperthreading or modules? In modules, we have two complete cores, although they share a scheduler, L2 cache, and a dual 128bit FPU that can act as a single 256bit FPU. We have three shared resources in modules, with two complete integer cores, whereas hyperthreading is that 'just a pipeline' approach that allows multiple threads to be used nearly simultaneously across the integer core.

As it stands, the operating system sees 4 physical threads, 4 logical threads on hyperthreading, however with modules it sees 8 physical threads- as you have eight physical integer core units.

Now if only AMD can fix the scheduler, gateway, and cache latency. XD

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 16 February 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

A bit of both actually kind of shows both companies up a little bit, but more so AMD.
Because in reality their top end chips are Quad cores with a unique twist in that each core has 2 Modules, but technically its not an 8 core chip.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 16 February 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

A bit of both actually kind of shows both companies up a little bit, but more so AMD.
Because in reality their top end chips are Quad cores with a unique twist in that each core has 2 Modules, but technically its not an 8 core chip.

Well, the OS sees 8 physical cores. And outside of 256bit FPU functions, each module is two complete cores with two 128bit FPU units. So outside of said FPU functions, they are complete cores.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 16 February 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well, the OS sees 8 physical cores. And outside of 256bit FPU functions, each module is two complete cores with two 128bit FPU units. So outside of said FPU functions, they are complete cores.

It does not have 8 physical cores, it has 4 each complete with 2 modules not cores.
Its a play on words, a half lie if you will but a good one i will give them.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 16 February 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

It does not have 8 physical cores, it has 4 each complete with 2 modules not cores.
Its a play on words, a half lie if you will but a good one i will give them.

it depends on what you define as a 'core' to be honest. Given the -original- meaning, regarding the integer point unit only, then yes it has 8 complete cores, as floating point units were not originally on the same die. By modern standards, where the floating point unit is on the same die, you could consider it as only 4 cores. But by this same definition, you could say that only AMD APUs are cores now, having the northbirdge, FPU, and integrated graphics on die.

[HeroicTofu]

Personally, I think at this point of the game with CPUs, they need to come up with new, less ambiguous terminology, or redefine existing terminology. I don't know if module is the word to hit it home... Maybe something as simple as Processing Unit, or P-Unit for short. I know that posting this here isn't exactly going to get Intel and AMD all riled up for new terminology, but somethings got to give. Sure, I'm sure a lot of us in this forum in particular fully understand the details of what is and what isn't a core... But it'd be nice if the average consumer that doesn't spend time going to places like Tom's Hardware and AnandTech on a daily basis knew what the hell was really going on with each CPU. Just my two cents.

In any case, I'd like to point out that the new 7750 and 7770 are interest video cards, maybe a bit disappointing on full on performance, but for the user that wants less power draw and more compute, they are very competitively priced. If just a gaming card, then they are very inappropriately priced. It's probably best to go with a 6850 or 6870 for gaming performance and they can be had quite cheaply at this point in time.

My own opinion is wait til it gets closer to MWO launching to see if nVidia brings any competition to help bring prices down.

[Vulpesveritas]

http://forwardthinki...em-architecture

AMD is ahead on you on the processing unit bit.

And eh, the 7700 xfires well, outperforming a 6970 in every regard at the moment for the most part. And the 7500 is very good for the 100ish price range.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 16 February 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[HeroicTofu]

Vulpesveritas, on 16 February 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

http://forwardthinki...em-architecture

AMD is ahead on you on the processing unit bit.

And eh, the 7700 xfires well, outperforming a 6970 in every regard at the moment for the most part. And the 7500 is very good for the 100ish price range.

After looking up more tests and benchmarks of the 7770s in a crossfire setup, for the most part, they are outperforming the 6970, quite admirable considering this is also cheaper, if only currently marginally so. I still argue that jumping the gun before the game comes out (where prices will undoubtedly be slashed to some extent) is unwise unless you have other games in mind already that can take advantage.

[Catamount]

Vulpesveritas, on 16 February 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

http://forwardthinki...em-architecture

AMD is ahead on you on the processing unit bit.

And eh, the 7700 xfires well, outperforming a 6970 in every regard at the moment for the most part. And the 7500 is very good for the 100ish price range.

That AMD article is very interesting. It seems they have the best concept of the future so far out of anyone (especially Intel, who just has pipe dreams of never-ending shrinking).


The 7770, eh, I'd rather not crossfire midrange cards. I'm doing it right now and I'd rather not. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those prices are because of yield problems still (they're using TSMC primarily, aren't they?), so I bet they'll still come down.

They'd better come down, otherwise 28nm is just never going to happen (and anything smaller will never happen either). This problem bodes worse still for Nvidia, because their strategy for competing and AMD primarily revolves around making bigger chips.

Edited by Catamount, 17 February 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[Chas]

Catamount, on 10 February 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Vulpes is right. AMD has been ticking me off a bit with the mobile 7000 series rebrands, but other than that, they're a very clean, very honest company (for a company ).

Nvidia, on the other hand, is one of the worst.

You honestly never dealt with their HD series mobile driver issues have you? How they basically took a bunch of cash to build branded versions of their cards that their regular drivers didn't support. So if you're running one and the last driver version from the ISV is incompatible with one of your games, you're SOL right?

Sorry, but there's nobody in this industry that's "clean" nor "honest". There's too much money involved and no benefit to it.

[Chas]

Vulpesveritas, on 15 February 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

You actually do. It's called ethical business, and some people, like myself, refuse to buy from companies who are not ethical.

You don't buy much then do you?

[Fresh Meat]

lol, anyway the trailer has an nvidia trademark logo at the end. nvidia loves to bribe developers into making games run better on their cards. it may not make a difference vs newer AMDs but it might be something to consider if you having a hard time picking out a card. Also corporate ethics = null, when there are tangible items being produced.

[Catamount]

Fresh_Meat, on 01 March 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

lol, anyway the trailer has an nvidia trademark logo at the end. nvidia loves to bribe developers into making games run better on their cards. it may not make a difference vs newer AMDs but it might be something to consider if you having a hard time picking out a card. Also corporate ethics = null, when there are tangible items being produced.

Believe it or not, Nvidia is a case in point for saying ethics do matter, because these approaches have come back to haunt Nvidia.

Whereas AMD has relied on nothing but simply making the most efficient cards with the best tech available, and targeting them towards the everyday consumer, Nvidia spends vast quantities of money trying to hold the market back.

Look atwhere that approach has gotten them. They're behind on new die shrinks, behind on performance per watt (which matters big time these days), behind on adopting new APIs, and instead of making a feverish effort to nullify all that, they spend their time trying to compensate by playing dirty. When your approach is to try to hold the market back, instead of moving yourself forward, that just seems to be the consequence.


Besides, it could be argued that AMD's concern for the everyday consumer (which is competed with by Nvidia's downright contempt for consumers) is exactly what makes AMD able to target products at them so effectively, giving them their lucrative position in the market, which in turn gives them the profits to be more competitive than their peer. It's not something that necessarily follows, but I think the argument can certainly be made.

[Chas]

Catamount, on 01 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Believe it or not, Nvidia is a case in point for saying ethics do matter, because these approaches have come back to haunt Nvidia.

Whereas AMD has relied on nothing but simply making the most efficient cards with the best tech available,

*COUGH*HALF-LIFE 2*COUGH*
*COUGH*EIGHT*COUGH*MILLION*COUGH*DOLLAR*COUGH*"MARKETINGARRANGEMENT"*COUGH*

So please stop pretending that ATI/AMD is pristine.

Paying companies to incorporate proprietary tech into their games is as old as dirt.

And driver hacks are at LEAST as old as the "Quack" fiasco.

Quote

Look atwhere that approach has gotten them. They're behind on new die shrinks, behind on performance per watt (which matters big time these days), behind on adopting new APIs, and instead of making a feverish effort to nullify all that, they spend their time trying to compensate by playing dirty. When your approach is to try to hold the market back, instead of moving yourself forward, that just seems to be the consequence.

Yeah, AMD has pushed die shrinks and tech before.
Sometimes it gets them traction (x86-64 computing, multi-core, etc).
Generally what it gets them a lot of is late and paper launches.

Quote

Besides, it could be argued that AMD's concern for the everyday consumer (which is competed with by Nvidia's downright contempt for consumers) is exactly what makes AMD able to target products at them so effectively, giving them their lucrative position in the market, which in turn gives them the profits to be more competitive than their peer. It's not something that necessarily follows, but I think the argument can certainly be made.

Okay. I think someone forgot to mention to you.

AMD is a CORPORATION. They don't care about you unless you have the resources to raise a truly huge stick over maltreatment. They care about the cash you give them. You're not a person to them. You're a potential sale.

Trying to turn them into some white knight bastion of purity and honor in the graphics/CPU realm is utterly ludicrous.

Let's just say that I'm personally familiar with people on both sides of the red-green divide. Both companies have scumbags onboard. And they also have numerous people who simply want to put out a decent product.

If you want to wave your brand-fanatic flag, that's fine. But don't resort the blatant falsehood and misleading innuendo.

[Vulpesveritas]

Chas, on 01 March 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

[/i]

*COUGH*HALF-LIFE 2*COUGH*
*COUGH*EIGHT*COUGH*MILLION*COUGH*DOLLAR*COUGH*"MARKETINGARRANGEMENT"*COUGH*

So please stop pretending that ATI/AMD is pristine.

Paying companies to incorporate proprietary tech into their games is as old as dirt.

And driver hacks are at LEAST as old as the "Quack" fiasco.



Yeah, AMD has pushed die shrinks and tech before.
Sometimes it gets them traction (x86-64 computing, multi-core, etc).
Generally what it gets them a lot of is late and paper launches.




Okay. I think someone forgot to mention to you.

AMD is a CORPORATION. They don't care about you unless you have the resources to raise a truly huge stick over maltreatment. They care about the cash you give them. You're not a person to them. You're a potential sale.

Trying to turn them into some white knight bastion of purity and honor in the graphics/CPU realm is utterly ludicrous.

Let's just say that I'm personally familiar with people on both sides of the red-green divide. Both companies have scumbags onboard. And they also have numerous people who simply want to put out a decent product.

If you want to wave your brand-fanatic flag, that's fine. But don't resort the blatant falsehood and misleading innuendo.

well lets see, AMD is on the top 20 ethical corporations. Which I am fairly certain they get business incentives and a niche market for being so, like people like me and catamont. So no they don't care about being ethical for just the sake of it. But that does't change that they are more ethical in the first place than Intel or nvidea.

[Catamount]

Anyone who thinks I'm an AMD fanboy clearly hasn't spent more than five minutes on these forums to actually bother to get to know the posters here before making assumptions about them.

On the other hand, it's not nearly as silly as trying to draw equivalence between Nvidia and AMD. Honestly, the Quake Ati driver flag from back in the RADEON 8500 days (!!) is the best thing someone can come up with, it speaks volumes to how little equivalence there is between these two companies.

Nvidia's shameless branding of multiple GPUs under the same name to confuse customers (like the GTX 460, a designation that literally refers to four different video cards), the campaigns against DX10.1 and DX11, and let's not forget the Assassin's Creed debacle (where multiple reviewers failed to find the supposed technical issue that Ubisoft claimed caused them to patch out DX10.1, that is, beyond AMD cards having a performance edge). Nvidia has effected harm upon the market more times, just in the last few years, than I can count (these are just some of the more egregious recent examples).

EVEN NOW, right now, as we speak, they're using dirty tricks to try to harm Radeon HD 7000 series sales

http://www.hardocp.c...arketing_shills

Edited by Catamount, 02 March 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Chas]

Vulpesveritas, on 01 March 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

well lets see, AMD is on the top 20 ethical corporations. Which I am fairly certain they get business incentives and a niche market for being so, like people like me and catamont. So no they don't care about being ethical for just the sake of it. But that does't change that they are more ethical in the first place than Intel or nvidea.

*Facepalm*

[Catamount]

Chas, on 02 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

*Facepalm*

So the worst things you can point to for AMD are two different instances of things that:

A.) Consist of one example of one thing done a decade ago, and another that isn't even dishonest (both companies package games with cards all the time, and Nvidia logos appear in VASTLY more games than AMD or Ati logos, or have you forgotten their marketing arrangements?)

B.) Were not even done by AMD, but were rather business decisions under the management of Ati as a completely separate and unrelated company

In other words, the best you could come up with is absolutely nothing.

Then, when it's pointed out that you have nothing, that Nvidia has a much dirtier history, that actually is recent, significant, and consists of thing that were actually done by the company in question, and it's pointed out that AMD actually does have a history of decent business ethics (not that that was needed, since you already demonstrated that for us by not being able to find a decent example to the contrary), your sole argument back is "*Facepalm*"?

You don't have to like AMD, or their products, but if you're going to go after someone's point of view and declare it invalid, you should have something to back yourself up with.

I think Nvidia is a very dirty company. I'll still buy products from them if they're massively better, but just the same, they are dirty. Not every company shares that. AMD has been doing a few things recently that I haven't liked, and I freely criticize them for it, such as the mobile 7000 series rebranding, but they don't compare to Nvidia in that department (for the record, Nvidia has been rebranding in this fashion far longer, and more ubiquitously within their lines of mobile cards)

Edited by Catamount, 02 March 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Chas]

Catamount, on 02 March 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

So the worst things you can point to for AMD are two different instances of things that:

No. I'm simply saying that trying to hold up one company over the other as some bastion of purity and goodness is simply brand loyalty run amok. And that's what's going on here. Not a comparison of performance or features or technical excellence. It's like trying to talk to a frothing Mac-fanatic, convinced using screaming as loudly and pointlessly as they can to assuage some vague feeling of buyer's remorse.

Please read back over your and Vulp's posts in the last couple pages and tell me I'm wrong.

This sort of behavior and thinking (well, emotional reaction really, no thought required) is simply dumb.

If you want to argue one company over the other, do so based on technical merit. Stop trying to lie to yourself about whether one compay "really and truly cares for you".

Edited by Chas, 02 March 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[Catamount]

Chas, on 02 March 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

No. I'm simply saying that trying to hold up one company over the other as some bastion of purity and goodness is simply brand loyalty run amok. And that's what's going on here. Not a comparison of performance or features or technical excellence. It's like trying to talk to a frothing Mac-fanatic, convinced using screaming as loudly and pointlessly as they can to assuage some vague feeling of buyer's remorse.

Please read back over your and Vulp's posts in the last couple pages and tell me I'm wrong.

This sort of behavior and thinking (well, emotional reaction really, no thought required) is simply dumb.

If you want to argue one company over the other, do so based on technical merit. Stop trying to lie to yourself about whether one compay "really and truly cares for you".

Maybe I could take this position seriously if you could actually offer some kind of supporting argument to show that it has any kind of merit, but since you apparently can't, I can't.


If you actually bothered to spend a few minutes going through some of the discussions we've had here before making wild assumptions about the two -arguably- most active posters on this board, you'd see that the vast majority of the time we do compare based on performance, price, and power consumption, and nothing else.


In this particular thread, the subject of ethics came up, and we addressed it, and you have absolutely no argument against our statements besides "well it's stupid because I say so", which isn't an argument.


So can you come up with an actual counter-argument, to demonstrate that our statements are wrong, or can't you? If you can't, then why not go find something productive to do on these forums?

Edited by Catamount, 02 March 2012 - 06:19 PM.