eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
- Status
WyomingKnott
Legenda in Aeternum
- Aug 29, 2006
- 13,249
- 3
- 51,960
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]madooo12[/nom]actually 30 years ago, they were working on 1.5um = 1500nm, not 450nmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.5_%C2%B5m_processactually, MS would produce no SPs because they are free, or at least charge people for them[/citation]
Thank you, Captain Pedantic
...
If you have to explain a joke it just aint funny anymore
Thank you, Captain Pedantic
...
If you have to explain a joke it just aint funny anymore
sinfulpotato
Distinguished
- Dec 4, 2008
- 204
- 0
- 18,690
[citation][nom]demarest[/nom]For five minutes. Then the battery dies and the Ivy Bridge user laughs as he continues to play Skyrim at 3 FPS less for a couple hours longer.[/citation]
Who plays games on battery? ...and a couple hours?
Who plays games on battery? ...and a couple hours?
edgewood112358
Honorable
- Mar 13, 2012
- 107
- 0
- 10,710
[citation][nom]Microsoft$ucks[/nom]Zanny, where did you get that info on Trinity? According to Anandtech, Trinity isn't in the stratosphere of Ivy... except in integrated graphics where it's about 15% faster. CPU speed is still about a 1/3 to 1/2 slower than Ivy.[/citation]
Trinity actually isn't that bad when compared to comparably priced Intel processors. For gaming, the A10-4600M beats an Ivy Bridge i7 3720 by 21% average (you also have to remember the i7 is a much more expensive processor). When you compare the Trinity APU to a comparably priced Intel CPU (the one used in the article was a Sandy Bridge i5) the Intel CPU wins by about 25% in general CPU tasks. An Ivy bridge CPU (with the approx. 8% IPC improvement over Sandy) would be better by about 1/3, like you said. However, for most computer users, the thing that's going to be holding them back most of the time is the GPU (unless you're doing lots of video encoding or code compilation all the time). I would take a system with a 33% slower CPU and 21% faster GPU anytime. It also has to be considered that Intel puts worse integrated graphics on their lower end processors that will be competing with trinity. That means that the 21% gap we see between trinity and an i7 will probably increase as we move toward a similar priced Intel part (probably a mid-range i5). So while Trinity is outgunned on the CPU side, Ivy Bridge isn't too hot graphics wise. Neither are far superior to the other, (unlike in the desktop market) it just depends on which you value more, graphics or raw CPU horsepower. Sandy is an entire 80% behind Trinity GPU wise, which is just sad (however, it is impressive Intel managed to gain that much performance in a single generation).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/
After writing all this, I realize it's not relevant to the article whatsoever. It is cool that Intel is willing to invest so much money in R&D, helping to push the entire CPU market forward. Now if only AMD would provide some good, higher end competition in the desktop market...
Trinity actually isn't that bad when compared to comparably priced Intel processors. For gaming, the A10-4600M beats an Ivy Bridge i7 3720 by 21% average (you also have to remember the i7 is a much more expensive processor). When you compare the Trinity APU to a comparably priced Intel CPU (the one used in the article was a Sandy Bridge i5) the Intel CPU wins by about 25% in general CPU tasks. An Ivy bridge CPU (with the approx. 8% IPC improvement over Sandy) would be better by about 1/3, like you said. However, for most computer users, the thing that's going to be holding them back most of the time is the GPU (unless you're doing lots of video encoding or code compilation all the time). I would take a system with a 33% slower CPU and 21% faster GPU anytime. It also has to be considered that Intel puts worse integrated graphics on their lower end processors that will be competing with trinity. That means that the 21% gap we see between trinity and an i7 will probably increase as we move toward a similar priced Intel part (probably a mid-range i5). So while Trinity is outgunned on the CPU side, Ivy Bridge isn't too hot graphics wise. Neither are far superior to the other, (unlike in the desktop market) it just depends on which you value more, graphics or raw CPU horsepower. Sandy is an entire 80% behind Trinity GPU wise, which is just sad (however, it is impressive Intel managed to gain that much performance in a single generation).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/
After writing all this, I realize it's not relevant to the article whatsoever. It is cool that Intel is willing to invest so much money in R&D, helping to push the entire CPU market forward. Now if only AMD would provide some good, higher end competition in the desktop market...
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,963
- 76
- 45,290
freggo
Distinguished
- Nov 22, 2008
- 2,019
- 0
- 19,780
[citation][nom]WyomingKnott[/nom]Why is he holding that wafer by a fork stuck in it?[/citation]
Hehe, looks like it but if you look at the zoomed version (yes, THG actually has a really large version this time) you see it is some kind of tool to hold wafers.
Hehe, looks like it but if you look at the zoomed version (yes, THG actually has a really large version this time) you see it is some kind of tool to hold wafers.
catfishtx
Honorable
- May 15, 2012
- 145
- 0
- 10,690
[citation][nom]WyomingKnott[/nom]Why is he holding that wafer by a fork stuck in it?[/citation]
It's called a vacuum wand. It is what you use to handle single wafers. The ones I used looked like flattened spoons, so I guess they are spreading the work around in the cutlery drawer
It's called a vacuum wand. It is what you use to handle single wafers. The ones I used looked like flattened spoons, so I guess they are spreading the work around in the cutlery drawer
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]AMD can't compete...they will go bankrupt before you know it[/citation]
Ignorant statement from ignorant troll. A simple search on earnings shows that AMD has been profitable the past 3 years, earning approximately half a billion each year net. Just because they aren't raping the high end gaming market in your myopic little world view doesn't mean they are anywhere close to going bankrupt..
Also considering that they have 18% market share and intel has 80%. So AMD can get 1/5 the market share being 1/54th the size tells me they are doing quite well.
Ignorant statement from ignorant troll. A simple search on earnings shows that AMD has been profitable the past 3 years, earning approximately half a billion each year net. Just because they aren't raping the high end gaming market in your myopic little world view doesn't mean they are anywhere close to going bankrupt..
Also considering that they have 18% market share and intel has 80%. So AMD can get 1/5 the market share being 1/54th the size tells me they are doing quite well.
The fact remains that unless you are an Intel fan (please don't take that the wrong way} AMD is the most cost effective way to build a PC. People argue that Video editing is what defines a CPU's power but doesn't the FX-8150 excel at that task? People argue that the I7 2600K or more recently the I7 3770K are much better gaming CPUs than the AMD Phenom2 series but for the cost of 1 of those CPUs I could buy an AMD965BE and a ATI Radeon 7770 and have way better gaming performance vs the Intel CPU alone. I live in Canada and can't remember the last time I saw an AMD commercial on the idiot box.
youssef 2010
Distinguished
- Jan 1, 2009
- 1,263
- 0
- 19,360
[citation][nom]darkavenger123[/nom]This news like a final sword in the coffin for AMD. Make sure they'll never get up...NEVER,[/citation]
And then Intel has the field all to itself........NO thanks. We've already had enough of that with Microsoft
And then Intel has the field all to itself........NO thanks. We've already had enough of that with Microsoft
I think this new tech should be shared, I don't like the idea of Intel getting an exclusive arraignment.
If AMD designed chips were produced on the same scale as Intel's I bet they would whip their butts. I would like to see some of the bright boys at Toms do a model projecting this.
If you like AMD, then buy some of their stock.
If AMD designed chips were produced on the same scale as Intel's I bet they would whip their butts. I would like to see some of the bright boys at Toms do a model projecting this.
If you like AMD, then buy some of their stock.
beetlejuicegr
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2011
- 350
- 1
- 18,815
I wonder if they will have to go back on transistors/ nms and go 3d built chips (sorry if my words are not the exact ) or they will go even more dense on transistor/nms
catfishtx
Honorable
- May 15, 2012
- 145
- 0
- 10,690
cats_Paw :
Call me stupid, but why make bigger waffles and smaller transistors?
Shouldnt they do smaller waffles for smaller chips?
.
Shouldnt they do smaller waffles for smaller chips?
.
Simple economics. Bigger wafers produce more chips than smaller wafers and take a similar amount of time. If you had to mow a five acre field, would you want a 20-inch mower or 60-inch wide tractor?
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram