|
HalloKitty posted:They also introduced the first 1GHz consumer CPU.. ...and that directly led to Intel's MORE JIGGAHERTZ AT ALL COSTS Pentium 4s.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
KillHour posted:i3's don't cost $650+. What the gently caress is AMD smoking? Bought a pair of decent core i3 Dell desktops in October for $370 each, work perfectly well as replacements for the 6 year old Pentium 4s they replaced and I doubt an AMD system of the same performance would cost significantly less. ~Coxy posted:It's a bit worrying at the high end that the advantage to the AMD CPUs is merely "more cores". That's not a particularly useful drawcard for most enthusiasts, I would imagine. MORE CORES!* *less floating point units
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
You know I suppose for "System Price" they're including the cost of a monitor, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Well yeah but beating "mobile" Pentium 4s is like beating a guy with a broken leg in a race. 
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I'm thinking the FPU design backfired - the half-as-many-as-cores, double-wide, bifurcating thing just doesn't sound like it would really hold up to the floating-point-strong Intel Core processors I have to say I agree with this, it just never made sense to me to do it. Not having an FPU was bad on single core CPUs back in the 90s - why would we make sure that a design in the 2010s lacked an FPU for half the cores? Especially since it seems like it was kinda supposed to be the AMD version of hyperthreading.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:In other words, you'll be at the mercy of developers providing a binary. And what that means is Windows on ARM will barely have any software.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:If it's the same OS and the same APIs, isn't it just a question of some guy (possibly at Microsoft) writing and selling an ARM compiler to set as a target alongside the x86 compiler? Ask yourself: how many programs were ported to Itanium Windows? How many programs were ported to PowerPC Windows NT (when that existed)? There's no particular reason to expect people to take the effort to compile ARM binaries. Edit: Almost forgot: remember when there were like 4 different processor architectures for Windows CE 2.x/3.x? Remember how most programs would only be compiled for one architecture and the others ignored by the developer?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Alereon posted:To be fair, both of those architectures failed because of the lack of compelling benefits versus x86/x64. Imagine if Itanium had been fast enough to justify rewriting code for it, for example. These days though, we're going to see people porting apps to JavaScript webapps, not recompiling them for ARM on Windows. ARM has no compelling benefits other than low power usage, which comes at the cost of performance. Noone's going to be replacing full laptops or desktops with ARM based ones because the high-speed ARM CPUS that start to approach 2 generation old x86/x64 chips also use as much power as those used. The only thing slower than x86 apps in an emulation layer on ARM is Javascript replicating a full x86 app on ARM.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The thing is, even four 1Ghz Cortex A9 cores is enough to provide a pretty effective computing experience when combined with the capable hardware acceleration you find on modern ARM SoCs. No one's talking about beating Intel Core processors, but Atoms don't have effective hardware acceleration so are brought to their knees by video. It's pretty easy for ARM CPUs to take market share in any market with processors like Atom. If you think of the way most people use small computing devices like that, we're talking web browsing, Youtube, and Facebook games, not complex native applications. The problem is that if you want to get a lot of people bothering to port things to work on the platform, knowing it will be restricted to tablets and netbooks is a disincentive. If ARM was actually capable of providing a robust experience at a good pricepoint on full laptops and desktops, then there'd be a lot more push to actually port apps to work on ARM windows. Also ARM devices do provide a good experience now - but your iPad or Android device sure as poo poo ain't stuck running Javascript based programs. Edit: And seriously, for something that's meant to be a netbook? If all you want to do is beat the Atom there's the AMD Zacate or whatever it is netbooks. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Plus developers are already used to linux/BSD where you're targeting 10+ architectures or OSX where there was a long period of having both PPC and x86. Both systems with a vastly smaller software ecosystem than Windows, genius. evensevenone posted:But people don't develop that way anymore. If you're using Java or a .NET language it's going to require no effort at all to port. You might have some QA issues just to sort out weird differences between the VMs. Same for most of the modern high-level languages, they're basically cross platform already. Did you just learn about .,net and Java or something? How naive 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Are you seriously arguing that win32 is as portable as .net? That's kind of what it sounds like. Have you tried porting .NET to a different platform ever? It really sounds like you haven't. evensevenone posted:You're right, it it is just as difficult to write cross platform software as it was in 1998 when PPC NT was last relevant. No Windows that isn't x86/x64 based will ever be relevant buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I was under the impression Microsoft was going to handle porting .NET and all relevant libraries to ARM. Like it might be an issue if you are writing using mono gtk, or in like Iron Ruby, but in theory C#/Visual Basic apps using whatever the rumored WPF replacement is should run fine. In theory a lot of things are true. In practice... But seriously there are other .net platforms already - most notably .NET for WIndows on Itanium.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2011 08:37
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:If AMD ever got to the point where bankruptcy was a real possibility Intel would probably throw them a indirect lifeline similar to how Microsoft purchased Apple stock in the 90s simply because they are the only thing that keeps an antitrust inquiry from gaining traction. Not to mention they can't afford to have patents go to another party who may not be as flexible when it comes to agreements. It should be noted that Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit itself is still the largest third party developer for the Macintosh, in revenue as well as employees.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Is there a reason Desktop never adopted SO-DIMM Couldn't you do vertical SO-DIMM and double the space for RAM on a board, or is there a limitation I'm not thinking of? I thought it was always cheaper and faster to come out to fit a new capacity of RAM on full size sticksversus SO-DIMM size? The SO-DIMM always catches up in capacity of course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Ars technica is reporting it as well. Basically from here on out Microsoft will only support a new CPU on whatever the most recent version of windows is when that CPU comes out. It seems to me to be aimed more at preventing people from putting old versions of windows on new PCs. Er, you realize they already never provided support for CPUs substantially newer than an OS was intended for? There's almost never been updated setup environments made available for an already existing OS. I'm not sure how you're expecting such support to even exist, beyond "if the new CPU is compatible with a CPU from when the old version came out, the software runs", which is how it already works! You can still run MS-DOS 6 and Windows 3.1 on a brand spanking new computer if you really want. You'll only be able to use one of the cores, either 256 or 512 MB of its RAM, and so on, but it'll "work".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:The point according to the article is that they are going to explicitly stop providing updates, including most security updates to people with newer CPUs even if the operating system is still within its support period. There is exactly one Windows version still in its mainstream support period (the period where they do more than just critical patches) by the time the announcement takes effect, and that's 8.1, and 8.1 is already in a weird curtailed place for support. In effect, absolutely nothing will change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
dissss posted:They're not committing to continue with critical security patches either - that is the problem. They are though. They explicitly said nothing but critical security patches!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
dissss posted:That 'if' qualifier is important. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:I assume this: That's the sort of boilerplate you see a lot. It's hard to imagine a way you could actually patch a security flaw that runs correctly on CPU X and causes problems on CPUs Y, Q and E that were around 10 years ago or whatever. And then to further have it so that you did patch the security flaw on CPUs Y, Q and E and the patch doesn't work on new CPU X.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
dissss posted:Regardless Microsoft is giving themselves an out It's the same out they've had since forever. Nothing's changing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
dissss posted:It isn't though - this is the first time they've said something like this. They've always had provisions that fixes won't happen if they'll break things on more computers than they fix on - basic cover-your-rear end lawyertalk. They've always dropped everything but critical security patches for older operating systems after a certain point - and incidentally by the time this announcement takes effect, everything but Windows 8.1 will have had all other updates beyond critical security long canceled. Essentially, what they've done is to revise the time that Windows 8.1 will be fully supported (i.e. Mainstream Support in Microsoft lingo) from the original plan of January 9, 2018 to August 1, 2017. Between August 1, 2017 and January 9, 2018 there might be a really weird bug that won't be fixed in 8.1 on some processors, but it owuldn't have been fixed anyway after January 9, 2018 under the original lifecycle plan. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
dissss posted:No one gives a drat about mainstream support (or Windows 8.1 for that matter), the important bit is extended support end for Windows 7 which has essentially been pushed back two years for new hardware. It has not been pushed back, what don't you get here? Microsoft is sticking to the same schedule for Windows 7 updates they always have! Mainstream support is already over, it's already on critical security patches only, and they already avoid releasing patches that only work on certain CPUs and not others. The only OS that actually has a change is 8.1,which very few corporate customers or any customers in general are on. And it really only scoots up the end of mainstream support by 6 months or so. Anime Schoolgirl posted:you'd think there would be a nonzero amount of money in up-porting software drivers for scientific equipment that requires the use of operating systems whose extended support period has passed 10 years ago With scientific hardware, the problem is usually lack of drivers for some ancient but important piece of hardware, rather than the regular software.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
dissss posted:They haven't explicitly said this before. They've also never explicitly said "oh yeah we'll support any CPU that comes out for any OS we have". And as things turns out, they haven't done so, even without saying so. So I have no idea why you think they ever did, which is what would be required for this to change anything besides the one thing it does change: moving up the timeline that Windows 8.1 becomes minimally supported by about 6 months.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
dissss posted:Exactly, this is a new thing not business as usual as fishmech suggested This is not a new thing. They've never ever guaranteed patches will work on all generations of CPUs! Why aren't you getting this? All they've done is made explicit a policy they already had. The only time they guarantee such things are for companies who sign massively expensive support contracts, where Microsoft will set aside workers just to backport relevant patches from supported operating systems and work on unique patches for problems only in old and otherwise unsupported OSes. And that's not taken away by this announcement either. Sir Unimaginative posted:It means that even if a security patch is desperately needed, if making it work on Skylake/HBM makes it not work on older chips, it's going to be made for the older chips and in Microsoft's collective mind you deserve what you get for not pushing your Skylake/HBM box to 10 already. And I'll note that it seems extremely unlikely that any such patch would ever exist, because the processors simply haven't changed that much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
dissss posted:It's you that isn't getting it. Show where they ever in the past declared they would support all CPUs released until the extended support period ends then. This should be easy if they were making a real change besides moving up the end of mainstream support for 8.1.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
dissss posted:Show me where they've ever said otherwise Uh, dude, you need to show where they said otherwise, to show that what they're doing is changing things. Windows 7 is already in extended support and has been since January 2015. That means it already only gets critical security patches, so the announcement changed nothing for Windows 7. And it's hardly "early" to move off Windows 7, 8 years after it came out, when the new directive takes effect! Ozz81 posted:Basically MS made it clear that (I think) starting with Vista/7, they were going to be more aggressive about rolling updates and releasing new OS versions. We won't see anything like in the 95/98/XP days where an OS is supported for a decade or more and can handle whatever hardware or software happens to be new and exciting at the time. I mean if you think about it, MS has released 3 major OS revisions since July 2009 when Windows 7 first came out, versus when XP came out in 2001 and the next OS was Vista in 2007. Do keep in mind that XP was never meant to last that long. Microsoft originally wanted Vista to come out in 2004, when XP SP2 came out in actuality. But they kinda hosed up their process for Vista and had to pull a bunch of people off of Vista to work on all the changes needed to patch XP SP0/SP1's many security issues. Also XP didn't exactly handle new hardware that well. 32 bit XP obviously couldn't handle 64 bit processors or a lot of RAM. And 64 bit x86-64 XP was a rushjob based off of the Windows Server 2003 SP1 64 bit release, and limited compatibility with many things. Remember that Microsoft's original plan for 64 bit XP for the non-server market was Itanium processors Microsoft had a fairly steady 2 to 3 year release cycle before XP for consumer-facing OSes: 1985 Windows 1.0 1987 Windows 2.0 1990 Windows 3.0 1992 Windows 3.1 1995 Windows 95 1998 Windows 98 2000 Windows ME (though that was a stop-gap) 2001 Windows XP And then: 2006 Windows Vista 2009 Windows 7 2012 Windows 8 2015 Windows 10 Also for what changed? Nothing changed. They have never promised full support for every CPU that happens to be released before they cut off all updates to an OS, unless you had a hefty millions of dollars contract with them to explicitly support it! Really the only OS that's meaningfully affected by this is 8.1 due to having its period of mainstream support shortened by 6 months, effectively. But even that would rely on the weird circumstance of a routine patch for earlier processors for some reason not running on newer ones, which would be pretty unprecedented.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:They're abandoning their commitment to even that where new architectures are concerned. Doesn't mean they're directly spiting environments involving new architectures and old versions of Windows, but if it's just a new architecture issue, or if fixing the new architecture issue means compromising the OS for old architectures, upgrade or deal with it. The thing is, again, they've never explicitly supported all future CPUs during the period updates are available in Windows in the past. All they're doing is making their existing policy clearer. Like again, there's all sorts of stuff that's barely supported in XP when it got up to around 2009/2010, which would be a similar time period for Windows 7 when this stuff goes into place in 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Sure, maybe the jobs you've worked for. But the majority of large corps do NOT migrate OSes in any timely manner for any numbers of reasons. And how many companies that don't migrate OSes in a timely manner are really diligent about buying brand new CPUs constantly, again?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:See my comments in the GPU thread and an interesting response from Durinia. Question: is heterogeneous chips meant to refer to CPUs with GPUs onboard, or CPUs with related but lower power CPUs on board? Because at least for the latter, results in phones have not been promising.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:But the AMD microtop has an SSD...what? Like if we're doing thin clients and using cloud computing who gives a poo poo if it has a 500GB HDD, I'm going to get way more out of that SSD. Man, Zen can't come quick enough :| Uh, what exactly are you going to get out of an SSD on something that runs 99% of everything off the network and the rest out of RAM?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Faster response times and more fluid operation? If anything needs to be done or stored directly with the client the SSD is going to be superior and the higher capacity HDD isn't going to do anything for you. But it's being used as a thin client, so none of those matter. You get faster response times with better network and server hardware, not the client hardware.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:If USB-C is capable of feeding full-fat video cards NOW, what possible incentive is there to make new video cards PCI Express exclusives? Available, even primary, sure; PCI Express is on most workstation form factor computers and USB-C is on at most five percent of them. But backward-thinking at a time when onboard's aiming at the gaming market seems like suicide. Because most uses do not have need of an easily detachable video card? And putting a usb-c socket inside the case to handle the video card sounds kinda insane? Unless you're also making it so that the video cards themselves can be made much smaller, there's no point in saving a minuscule amount of board space with the port - if you're really cramped for space you can use the smaller pci-express slots and restrict your choice in video cards a little. Plus I'm pretty sure you do need to do a non-trivial amount of extra engineering to ensure that your video card chipset will adequately function on both PCI Express and USB-C connection methods, as well as extra work for the drivers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I'm not so sure about that - notebooks and tablets are the future (and the present honestly) as far as the bulk of computer sales go; and discreet graphics cards in laptops have always meant major sacrifices in battery and portability - the demand is there for powerful iGPUs. I'm sure Apple in particular would be very keen to have access to such a thing. But simultaneously, the gross power requirements for the CPUs attached to AMD iGPUs means they can't be competitive in the same market.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I think Apple's best year for regular computer sales was recently and they'd sold a grand total of 16 million iMacs, macbooks, etc through that year. It simply doesn't compare to their other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:AMD's balance sheet would salivate at moving 16 million of anything honestly. There's been about 60 million AMD chipsets sold for the PS4 and Xbox One so far, hasn't really seemed to help AMD.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I am willing to admit that as I live in the SF Bay Area, I live in a disproportionately tech- and startup-heavy part of the world. Stereotypically so. But the security people I know have moved to Macbooks, and the "engineers" -and sometimes I use that term VERY loosely- at the startups I meet with for design consultations predominantly have, you guessed it, Macbooks. There's about as many iPhones sold last year as Macs of all forms sold since the 1984 launch. And all Macs sold since 1984 adds up to about 69% of the computers sold last year - and that's with last year being a slow year for computers! That total of all Macs sold? It's approximately 200 million. The amount in active use is a lot less, very few people are still using pre-Intel and even less are using pre-PowerPC ones. Estimates put total Windows machines in use at well over 2 billion, with easily another billion plus that had been sold in the past and are no longer in use. Huge differences in penetration.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
japtor posted:Yeah, Macs have been selling the best they've ever been, but they're still small relative to the whole PC market. They do make a decent amount on it though, over $5B revenue the last few quarters...which comes out to about 10% (or less!) of their total revenue cause iPhone money is ridiculous. Eh, they were selling a bit better proportionately to the market back in the late 80s. But in terms of sheer numbers sold, yeah now's about as much as they've ever sold. 2015 saw them enter the top 5 PC manufacturers for the first time in a long time - 7.2% of the market. For comparison the other 4 were Lenovo at 19.8%, HP at 18.2%, Dell at 13.6%, Asus at 7.3%. All other manufacturers total to 33.9%
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:And that was just the US, wasn't it? Did they actually break top 5 globally? All of these numbers are globally. Their numbers are slightly better for the US, around 10%, which might have them up to #4.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Hoo boy if you think ATI/AMD drivers are mediocre now, then understand that the sheer broken-ness of their drivers pre-R300 is something else. Let's be fair, every driver was loving insane back then.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:I'm having trouble imagining a "mainstream" use for either of those things. A core 2 duo is still good enough for 80% of people that (still) own PCs. A Core 2 Duo, really? They absolutely aren't, unless you think the average person also overclocks and has a very good video card. I'm typing this on a Core 2 Duo I keep around because I'm weird like that and it'll have issues just playing vines or webms, let alone browsing a picture heavy page on facebook. There's people around here who game and think they're still fine with their Core 2 Quads but they have very nice GPUs that take a lot of the brunt for games and even modern browsers (thanks to video decode and 3d acceleration they have these days) on top of their overclocking and double the cores. A core 2 duo is at minimum an 8 year old part and even those last ones were just upclocked 8.5 year old parts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 04:02
|
|