|
Boiled Water posted:Switching companies isn't that weird. In my line of work it's usually done because it's easier to move up (both in title and payscale) than internal promotion. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Feb 12, 2025 17:53 |
|
JawnV6 posted:
yeah more than likely he finished up whatever he needed to do at AMD and then samsung showed him a giant pile of cash and marketable securities along with leading edge process tech and a huge profitable company backing him
|
![]() |
|
Malcolm XML posted:yeah more than likely he finished up whatever he needed to do at AMD and then samsung showed him a giant pile of cash and marketable securities along with leading edge process tech and a huge profitable company backing him
|
![]() |
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:That didn't work when Intel tried that That's because at Intel he'd have about 1/10th the autonomy/decision making ability.
|
![]() |
|
Is it possible that, since he was apparently so important at AMD, he might be bound by some kind of contract or other legal stuff that prohibits him from working for Intel?
|
![]() |
|
VostokProgram posted:Is it possible that, since he was apparently so important at AMD, he might be bound by some kind of contract or other legal stuff that prohibits him from working for Intel?
|
![]() |
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Nah. Non-compete agreements that try and tell you you can't go work for a competitor after you've quit don't hold up in court. People still try and draw up such agreements but there is plenty of precedent for courts deciding they are invalid/unenforcable. Durinia posted:That's because at Intel he'd have about 1/10th the autonomy/decision making ability.
|
![]() |
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Nah. Non-compete agreements that try and tell you you can't go work for a competitor after you've quit don't hold up in court. People still try and draw up such agreements but there is plenty of precedent for courts deciding they are invalid/unenforcable.
|
![]() |
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Nah. Non-compete agreements that try and tell you you can't go work for a competitor after you've quit don't hold up in court. People still try and draw up such agreements but there is plenty of precedent for courts deciding they are invalid/unenforcable. Depends a lot. First by state, second by just what the terms are. In my state, a non-compete is legally enforceable if and only if you're actually paid something for it. If they just put it in for nothing it's just to scare you, not that it stops anyone.
|
![]() |
|
Killer robot posted:Depends a lot. First by state, second by just what the terms are. In my state, a non-compete is legally enforceable if and only if you're actually paid something for it. If they just put it in for nothing it's just to scare you, not that it stops anyone. In California, non-complete clauses are invalid entirely (except for some very narrow cases that don't apply here). In most states, it seems they are generally enforcible.
|
![]() |
|
syzygy86 posted:In California, non-complete clauses are invalid entirely (except for some very narrow cases that don't apply here). In most states, it seems they are generally enforcible. It depends a lot. Really. In general, they're more enforceable the further east you go, but I wouldn't say they're "generally enforceable" in most states. It matters whether you acquired an advantage which you wouldn't have had without the job (client base, contact with company that poached, level of seniority/IP knowledge, etc)
|
![]() |
|
My ethics and law professor said it the best. A non compete is enforceable until it isn't.
|
![]() |
|
Someone is suing AMD over Bulldozer. http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510646458-amd-faces-suit-over-alleged-misrepresentation-of-new-cpu
|
![]() |
|
Ragingsheep posted:Someone is suing AMD over Bulldozer.
|
![]() |
|
Ragingsheep posted:Someone is suing AMD over Bulldozer. If the suit actually says "cannot perform eight instructions at once" then hoo boy, one AMD engineer explaining instruction-level parallelism throws this entire suit out. If it's over the whole "eight physical independently functioning cores are not present in Bulldozer octo-core chips" then yeah they're probably going to need to find something a bit more elaborate to weasel their way out of it.
|
![]() |
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:fishing for settlements It stemmed from crappy and terrible marketing gimmick so whatever
|
![]() |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlRWqqWay7c
|
![]() |
|
Kazinsal posted:If the suit actually says "cannot perform eight instructions at once" then hoo boy, one AMD engineer explaining instruction-level parallelism throws this entire suit out. No, it's even dumber I think quote:The suit alleges AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single “module.” That's not how they're made at all and AMD can pretty easily prove that. AMD is not stripping down and mashing two cores together, they specifically designed a core to behave like two physical cores.
|
![]() |
|
We interrupt this little piece of bullshit idiocy from overly litigious dumbasses to bring you this good news: Glofo announces success with AMD on their FinFET process: http://www.globalfoundries.com/news...on-amd-products Thinks are looking up, gents. ![]() edit: Here's a TechReport article: http://techreport.com/news/29287/glofo-successfully-builds-amd-chips-on-14-nm-finfet-lpp-process SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Nov 5, 2015 |
![]() |
|
So AMD might have some mixed 16nm and 14nm products? I thought both were effectively 20nm but FinFet so what's the design advantage for choosing one over the other? Also Oh god the new default avatar is horrifying what the hell admins.
|
![]() |
|
FaustianQ posted:So AMD might have some mixed 16nm and 14nm products? I thought both were effectively 20nm but FinFet so what's the design advantage for choosing one over the other?
|
![]() |
|
FaustianQ posted:Also Oh god the new default avatar is horrifying what the hell admins. Oh so THAT's why I've been seeing multiple people around with bonzi buddy avatars. I assumed a bunch of people had all collectively pissed off one strange person who decided to spend three digits on passive-aggressive avatars but forgot to put in red text.
|
![]() |
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:from the apple a9 chip comparisons, 16nm tsmc is more efficient, 14nm can afford to run hotter and uses less die size Sounds like 16nm is better for K12, Zen mobile, and mobile GPU. 14nm sounds better for Zen desktop, desktop iGPU and dGPU. I mean there has to be a reason AMD is willing to tap into both TSMC and GoFlo for upcoming products. Maybe GoFlo 14nm will give Zen the overclocking headroom to make up IPC shortfall.
|
![]() |
|
FaustianQ posted:Sounds like 16nm is better for K12, Zen mobile, and mobile GPU. 14nm sounds better for Zen desktop, desktop iGPU and dGPU.
|
![]() |
|
Agreed, except that I'd couch that more in terms of 'not getting hosed by manufacturing issues' at either foundry.
|
![]() |
|
Wouldn't an A10-9870 TSMC perform differently from a A10-9870 from GloFlo though? Or is the difference minuscule enough that it won't come into play? If so won't two similar products with "different" lithographies needlessly confuse people, or I am I thinking to hard about this?
|
![]() |
|
I won't say that there's zero possibility. The process is not identical, there's always that chance. But the overall net effect seems to not have affected iphone 6 sales, (whose chips are also coming from split Samsung/TSMC) so ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Grain of NaCl, but http://wccftech.com/amd-next-gen-bristol-ridge-fx-9830p-soc-leaked/ It's possible this may be on a 14/16nm processes contrary to the safe but odd bet that it's on 28nm. If so Then we might be getting our first good look at AM4 boards and accompanying processors in 4 months, and I wouldn't say more than 6. Still hoping for some HBM on Bristol now the gen1 has no supply issues, otherwise it's so close to Carizzo that I don't get why they'd bother.
|
![]() |
|
FaustianQ posted:Wouldn't an A10-9870 TSMC perform differently from a A10-9870 from GloFlo though? FaustianQ posted:Still hoping for some HBM on Bristol now the gen1 has no supply issues, otherwise it's so close to Carizzo that I don't get why they'd bother. I think you're going to be waiting quite a while before you see a CPU or APU with HBM on it. 2017-ish still seems reasonable.
|
![]() |
|
I recently had an interesting experience with my 5 year old AMD FX 8350. I had been playing a lot of Far Cry 4 and everything would be fine unless I played for over an hour or so, when my system would abruptly crash. I updated drivers and everything like that, had a few shorter play sessions without issue, and then a week or two later had my next crash while running a fairly loaded VM and video encode batch. This build had been stable for years leading up to this, and there hadn't been any hardware changes since I added a Samsung 840 Pro SSD a while back, so I had the dreadful fear of random failing component set in. I decided to open up the case and have a looksy. I routinely change my case air filters, so there wasn't much dust build up anywhere, and all the components were well-seated. I turned the computer on with the case open, and to my utter flailing horror noticed that my CPU fan was completely dead. Motherboard didn't seem to notice or care. I had been operating with just a heatsink for who knows how long. The HSF is an ARCTIC Freezer 7 Pro Rev 2, which apparently couples a very well-designed heatsink with a gutter whore of a fan. I ordered a replacement 92mm fan and everything has been ![]() TLDR; 8350 @ 4ghz stock settings with aftermarket HSF survives operating with just the heatsink and does not complain about dead fan until pushed pretty hard.
|
![]() |
|
lol http://hothardware.com/news/amd-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-deceptive-core-count-in-bulldozer-cpus I'm just starting to feel bad now
|
![]() |
|
I'm finding it hard to feel too bad for AMD regarding that lawsuit. I always thought it was too much of a stretch to call one bulldozer module two cores. They shoulda seen some form of blow-back coming from a mile away.
|
![]() |
|
Oh I agree, and it was by far the most important piece of marketing for them imo as far as CPUs went for the average person, but, drat... some timing.
|
![]() |
|
There's no legal meaning to "core" - Bulldozer does have 8 integer execution units, and the 286 had exactly 0 FPUs per integer core. Bulldozer can execute 8 completely separate threads at a time - as long as they're logical or integer operations, rather than a logically-blocking FPU load on every core. Intel "logical cores" aren't real cores either. You can't run 8 simultaneous full-core threads on a 4790K any more than an AMD Bulldozer. At some point you overload the shared units. At the end of the day there's no legal claim to be made, any more than there was to the old "performance equivalent" marketing ratings like Athlon XP 1800+ and so on. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Nov 9, 2015 |
![]() |
|
I may not know how to define a core, but I know it when I see it
|
![]() |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's no legal meaning to "core" - Bulldozer does have 8 integer execution units, and the 286 had exactly 0 FPUs per integer core. Bulldozer can execute 8 completely separate threads at a time - as long as they're logical or integer operations, rather than a logically-blocking FPU load on every core. Yeah but the difference is Intel specifically never called them cores. Well except for a real 8 core Intel of course that probably costs over $1000. I get it, I really do, and precisely from their standpoint of consumers (how many times do you hear the phrase "but this has 8 cores and is cheaper..." that made sales), but the timing is just lame. They have too many real problems.
|
![]() |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's no legal meaning to "core" - Bulldozer does have 8 integer execution units, and the 286 had exactly 0 FPUs per integer core. Bulldozer can execute 8 completely separate threads at a time - as long as they're logical or integer operations, rather than a logically-blocking FPU load on every core. Intel, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that hyperthreading is 2x cores. I don't think that this lawsuit has much of a chance of winning, but I personally think that AMD would have been more truthful if they had marketed their chips based on the number of modules rather than cores since they share more than just the FPU cores. They also shared the fetch, decode, and the L2 cache. Basically, the only things they have 2 of is the L1 chance and the integer units. In a lot of ways, it makes it more like hyperthreading unless it's 2 integer executions scheduled per module.
|
![]() |
|
Didn't AMD at one point consider marketing their APU as an additional core or module?
|
![]() |
|
Does the shared fetch/decode matter? I was under the impression those operations took so little time it will hardly effect CPU performance. Really, I can see this as two 1/2 or 3/4 cores. I guess it sucks if your doing a lot of floating point math, but it's a ridiculous lawsuit.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Feb 12, 2025 17:53 |
|
Crotch Fruit posted:Does the shared fetch/decode matter? I was under the impression those operations took so little time it will hardly effect CPU performance. Really, I can see this as two 1/2 or 3/4 cores. I guess it sucks if your doing a lot of floating point math, but it's a ridiculous lawsuit. The width of the floating point was also increased from Steamroller up so they behaved more like independent cores as well, IIRC. Will still get bogged down if there are two many floating point operations, but so won't an Intel CPU, the difference is degree. Really, I could see the biggest fallout from this case being a redefining of what counts as an x86-64 core, in which case it might open doors.
|
![]() |