4 ms·

You don't get the bleeding edge tech for practicality or reasonableness. You don't buy a Bugatti Veyron for cargo space and gas mileage. You get silly tech for

by pie42000 5y ago

You don't get the bleeding edge tech for practicality or reasonableness. You don't buy a Bugatti Veyron for cargo space and gas mileage. You get silly tech for insane performance at massive cost. Eventually this tech is refined, optimized and made reasonable. It's what humans do. We don't cross the Pacific on a tiki raft or fly to the moon in a tin bucket because our destination is nicer than where we are currently, we do it because we can and because it's awesome.

gambiting 5y ago
I think that's an extremely poor comparison, because this isn't some weird one-off extra special product that is meant to push us forward ahead in computing power. This is just a regular competition for AMD at this point. To stick with the car comparison, let's use Mercedes C class and BMW 3 series as direct competitors, right? They offer broadly the same features, cost the same amount of money, look similar-ish, you get my point. So now imagine that one year, BMW releases a new 3 series with revolutionary new engine that makes it go faster by few percent than the C class on average, but at the cost of double fuel consumption. I'm sure you'd go - what are you doing BMW. You aren't Lamborghini, you aren't pushing the envelope here - you are just pushing your existing framework to the absolute max to beat the competition at a huge cost. This isn't progress, and this isn't a bugatti veyron equivalent. This is just technological dick waving with no regard to power consumption whatsoever.
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  Your example is actually very good. The AMG and ///M models don't ever get compared on mileage, and almost noone who buys them cares in the slightest. They want to know about the performance, full stop.
  - leshow 5y ago
    "almost noone" is doing a lot of work for you here.
    - CobaltFire 5y ago
      I’m curious why you think that? Generally if running costs are compared it’s with a laugh. I’m in a position to mentor young people with large amounts of disposable income who disproportionately spend it on cars (I was one of them once) and I’m about the only person I know who would give them actual running costs to consider. Very few ever heeded me.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Sure, but this isn't a Core Extreme model(remember those?), This is a c220d using twice as much fuel as a 320d, just to be 0.1s faster to a 100. If that's a good trade off for you, then sure, but I stand by my opinion that this isn't progress and this isn't some incredible humanity pushing achievement - this is just allowing the CPUs to run at crazy power just to beat the competition ever so slightly, because intel still hasn't sorted out their manufacturing nodes.
    - CobaltFire 5y ago
      I think you misunderstand me; I agree with you on this being stupid. I should have worded it better, as having owned quite fast cars when I was younger the running costs (both to my wallet and the environment) were something I eventually realized were more important than the performance.

gambiting 5y ago

I think that's an extremely poor comparison, because this isn't some weird one-off extra special product that is meant to push us forward ahead in computing power. This is just a regular competition for AMD at this point. To stick with the car comparison, let's use Mercedes C class and BMW 3 series as direct competitors, right? They offer broadly the same features, cost the same amount of money, look similar-ish, you get my point. So now imagine that one year, BMW releases a new 3 series with revolutionary new engine that makes it go faster by few percent than the C class on average, but at the cost of double fuel consumption. I'm sure you'd go - what are you doing BMW. You aren't Lamborghini, you aren't pushing the envelope here - you are just pushing your existing framework to the absolute max to beat the competition at a huge cost. This isn't progress, and this isn't a bugatti veyron equivalent. This is just technological dick waving with no regard to power consumption whatsoever.

CobaltFire 5y ago
Your example is actually very good. The AMG and ///M models don't ever get compared on mileage, and almost noone who buys them cares in the slightest. They want to know about the performance, full stop.
- leshow 5y ago
  "almost noone" is doing a lot of work for you here.
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    I’m curious why you think that? Generally if running costs are compared it’s with a laugh. I’m in a position to mentor young people with large amounts of disposable income who disproportionately spend it on cars (I was one of them once) and I’m about the only person I know who would give them actual running costs to consider. Very few ever heeded me.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Sure, but this isn't a Core Extreme model(remember those?), This is a c220d using twice as much fuel as a 320d, just to be 0.1s faster to a 100. If that's a good trade off for you, then sure, but I stand by my opinion that this isn't progress and this isn't some incredible humanity pushing achievement - this is just allowing the CPUs to run at crazy power just to beat the competition ever so slightly, because intel still hasn't sorted out their manufacturing nodes.
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    I think you misunderstand me; I agree with you on this being stupid. I should have worded it better, as having owned quite fast cars when I was younger the running costs (both to my wallet and the environment) were something I eventually realized were more important than the performance.