6 ms·

AMD will be releasing a new architecture in 2016 and will use 14nm process. Hopefully Jim Keller's team will close the gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(

AMD will be releasing a new architecture in 2016 and will use 14nm process. Hopefully Jim Keller's team will close the gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)

rasz_pl 11y ago
and their new Fury GPU will be fastest on the market!!1 enabling smooth 4K gameplay .... oh wait AMD is great on paper, almost never delivers. Every time they managed to deliver something good (K6, K7, R700) it was sudden and without much PR, you could even say it was a total surprise. If anything AMD has a long history of sitting quiet when they actually have the goods, and producing nice slide decks before usual flops.
- low_battery 11y ago
  Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Looks like they are rushed to market, but still gives a run to gigantic nvidia titan cards a run for its money. I remind you that It was AMD who created 64 bit x86. This is why it is originally called (and still sometimes rightfully called) AMD64. I mentioned Jim Keller because he is the co author of x86-64 instruction set specification and lead architect of K8 (opteron) processors. He went back to AMD and working on the new Architecture since 2012. It is true that last 8 years was mostly disastrous for AMD, but I wouldn't count them off so fast, especially if they can ramp up on 14nm with a high IPC design. Time will tell.
  - hga 11y ago
    Doesn't deny his thesis, though? K7 out-of-order was great when Intel went on their P4 "Marketecture" boondoggle, AMD64 was great, K8 + Hypertransport plus on chip memory controllers blew Intel out of the water in pretty much every way, IA-64 couldn't compete. But they took their eyes off the ball, bought ATI, took 4 and a half years to update their microarchtecture, and the first shipped K10h chips had a bad TLB, requiring them to stop shipping until the next stepping fixed that 6 months later. I really liked them in that heyday, and, oh, back in the 486 DX4 days, but given their many decades losing corporate DNA (I'm sure it's still true they haven't in the long run made money for their shareholders), and their having to sell their foundries, it's doubtful they'll again be a big player.
    - alexvoica 11y ago
      I think a lot of people forget that 64-bit MIPS has been around for more than two decades - much longer than Intel, AMD or ARM. For example, the Nintendo N64 game console had a MIPS64 CPU.
      - hga 11y ago
        It was probably overshadowed in most people's minds by the DEC Alpha, which was also introduced in 1992.
      - SixSigma 11y ago
        But what's your point ? People don't buy CPUs based on the age of the brand.
        alexvoica 11y ago
        I'm not talking about buying, I'm talking about engineering expertise.
    - makomk 11y ago
      AMD blew Intel out of the water in every possible way, except sales. They had trouble selling chips to mainstream OEMs because the OEMs had questionably-legal deals with Intel that penalized them for buying processors from anyone else. In some cases AMD literally couldn't give them away. And in the long run that killed them - without the income they simply couldn't keep up.
      - hga 11y ago
        Note, when I say "blew Intel out of the water", I'm talking only about AMD64 K8. As I understand it, this was true for "Big Iron" AMD64 sales, for one thing, AMD had a whole year's head start where they were the only ones selling it, and then Intel played catch up for a long time. For multi-chip machines, not until Intel had their own version of the Hypertransport + local memory controller architecture. I believe what you're talking about only happened in consumer grade chips, although I know HP for instance found a way to sell AMD based consumer systems, my parents bought one in 2004-5.
  - creshal 11y ago
    > Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Comparable performance to the GTX 970 at merely twice the price? Meh.™
    - low_battery 11y ago
      Well, I don't think so. Lets see when reputable sites release their benchmarks next week.
- ewindisch 11y ago
  The ATI (AMD) graphics are already better than Nvidia for 4k graphics, especially from a price/performance ratio with the 290x2 and 390x cards. The issue is that none of the cards from either ATI nor Nvidia can do 60fps on high quality settings with any of the games that are currently benchmarked. The ATI cards do worse at all resolutions up to 4k, which markably benefits by higher memory bandwidth. The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Instead, with current-generation cards, players will rather use a lower resolution and higher settings.
  - cartoonfoxes 11y ago
    > The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Playing as a marksman in Verdun (http://www.verdungame.com http://www.verdungame.com) is amazing in 4K.

rasz_pl 11y ago

and their new Fury GPU will be fastest on the market!!1 enabling smooth 4K gameplay .... oh wait AMD is great on paper, almost never delivers. Every time they managed to deliver something good (K6, K7, R700) it was sudden and without much PR, you could even say it was a total surprise. If anything AMD has a long history of sitting quiet when they actually have the goods, and producing nice slide decks before usual flops.

low_battery 11y ago
Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Looks like they are rushed to market, but still gives a run to gigantic nvidia titan cards a run for its money. I remind you that It was AMD who created 64 bit x86. This is why it is originally called (and still sometimes rightfully called) AMD64. I mentioned Jim Keller because he is the co author of x86-64 instruction set specification and lead architect of K8 (opteron) processors. He went back to AMD and working on the new Architecture since 2012. It is true that last 8 years was mostly disastrous for AMD, but I wouldn't count them off so fast, especially if they can ramp up on 14nm with a high IPC design. Time will tell.
- hga 11y ago
  Doesn't deny his thesis, though? K7 out-of-order was great when Intel went on their P4 "Marketecture" boondoggle, AMD64 was great, K8 + Hypertransport plus on chip memory controllers blew Intel out of the water in pretty much every way, IA-64 couldn't compete. But they took their eyes off the ball, bought ATI, took 4 and a half years to update their microarchtecture, and the first shipped K10h chips had a bad TLB, requiring them to stop shipping until the next stepping fixed that 6 months later. I really liked them in that heyday, and, oh, back in the 486 DX4 days, but given their many decades losing corporate DNA (I'm sure it's still true they haven't in the long run made money for their shareholders), and their having to sell their foundries, it's doubtful they'll again be a big player.
  - alexvoica 11y ago
    I think a lot of people forget that 64-bit MIPS has been around for more than two decades - much longer than Intel, AMD or ARM. For example, the Nintendo N64 game console had a MIPS64 CPU.
    - hga 11y ago
      It was probably overshadowed in most people's minds by the DEC Alpha, which was also introduced in 1992.
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      But what's your point ? People don't buy CPUs based on the age of the brand.
      - alexvoica 11y ago
        I'm not talking about buying, I'm talking about engineering expertise.
  - makomk 11y ago
    AMD blew Intel out of the water in every possible way, except sales. They had trouble selling chips to mainstream OEMs because the OEMs had questionably-legal deals with Intel that penalized them for buying processors from anyone else. In some cases AMD literally couldn't give them away. And in the long run that killed them - without the income they simply couldn't keep up.
    - hga 11y ago
      Note, when I say "blew Intel out of the water", I'm talking only about AMD64 K8. As I understand it, this was true for "Big Iron" AMD64 sales, for one thing, AMD had a whole year's head start where they were the only ones selling it, and then Intel played catch up for a long time. For multi-chip machines, not until Intel had their own version of the Hypertransport + local memory controller architecture. I believe what you're talking about only happened in consumer grade chips, although I know HP for instance found a way to sell AMD based consumer systems, my parents bought one in 2004-5.
- creshal 11y ago
  > Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Comparable performance to the GTX 970 at merely twice the price? Meh.™
  - low_battery 11y ago
    Well, I don't think so. Lets see when reputable sites release their benchmarks next week.
ewindisch 11y ago
The ATI (AMD) graphics are already better than Nvidia for 4k graphics, especially from a price/performance ratio with the 290x2 and 390x cards. The issue is that none of the cards from either ATI nor Nvidia can do 60fps on high quality settings with any of the games that are currently benchmarked. The ATI cards do worse at all resolutions up to 4k, which markably benefits by higher memory bandwidth. The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Instead, with current-generation cards, players will rather use a lower resolution and higher settings.
- cartoonfoxes 11y ago
  > The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Playing as a marksman in Verdun (http://www.verdungame.com http://www.verdungame.com) is amazing in 4K.