Thread: RIP AMD PC's

Oh good, Wikipedia (I know...) has the listed die size comparison. I was trying to find a picture demonstrating the point, but I can't seem to find one.

Ivybridge's large die is 160mm^2 (1.4 billion transistors)
Sandybridge's similar die is 294mm^2 (1.27 billion transistors)

So you can only imagine how much smaller the wiring and the gates themselves would have to be in Ivybridge. All these gates packed into a smaller area with a MUCH smaller surface area to diffuse the heat leads to a necessity to keep clock speeds lower and also prevents a higher level of overclocking.

Originally Posted by QuickLightning

Oh good, Wikipedia (I know...) has the listed die size comparison. I was trying to find a picture demonstrating the point, but I can't seem to find one.

Ivybridge's large die is 160mm^2 (1.4 billion transistors)
Sandybridge's similar die is 294mm^2 (1.27 billion transistors)

So you can only imagine how much smaller the wiring and the gates themselves would have to be in Ivybridge. All these gates packed into a smaller area with a MUCH smaller surface area to diffuse the heat leads to a necessity to keep clock speeds lower and also prevents a higher level of overclocking.

Hehehe. I was talking to Anira about this in the car a few days ago. Bored her to tears I think. She must love me to listen so well hehe.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Hehehe. I was talking to Anira about this in the car a few days ago. Bored her to tears I think. She must love me to listen so well hehe.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

I could sit around and talk about this stuff for hours... and do!

Originally Posted by Alundil

Hehehe. I was talking to Anira about this in the car a few days ago. Bored her to tears I think. She must love me to listen so well hehe.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Or you're good in the sack

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Going the core route was definitely the right thing to do, I completely agree. And I already know why they did it and how everything works. We were talking about R&D here though and how AMD needs to find a different way of doing things in order to keep competitive. I'm just saying I think this is something they should put SOME, not all, SOME research into.

Originally Posted by gehn

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Going the core route was definitely the right thing to do, I completely agree. And I already know why they did it and how everything works. We were talking about R&D here though and how AMD needs to find a different way of doing things in order to keep competitive. I'm just saying I think this is something they should put SOME, not all, SOME research into.

The fundamental problem is that Intel has a strong arm on the most talented engineers. They can pay the higher salaries, and they recruit the best candidates, leaving the B-C candidates for other companies, including AMD. Sure, a diamond in the rough may slip by eventually and do something big that could hurt Intel, but the odds are not in their favor.

R&C requires capital investment, and if the company does not have the cash to invest, then they simply won't likely be able to come up with anything that can trump what Intel is already doing.

Then you would have to ignore all the times the major playing in an industry surpassed by someone else because they had something innovative. Google anyone?

Sure it doesn't happen often but it still happens. Way to be a downer though. We already know the odds are stacked against them.

You can't really compare Google to Intel. One is an advertising company, the other is a microprocessor manufacturer. You might be able to make a comparison by way of ingenuity, innovation, and developing something new, but Intel's ideas compete against science and physics while Google's ideas do not.

Again, as I said, every now and then there could be some diamond in the rough, but the last 5-6 years haven't been too good to AMD in the world of R&D, and that has been stated by several sources over the years as being due to the strong recruiting, hiring, and salaries being payed for the engineers at Intel.

Not saying it can't happen, but I am betting on it not happening. Do I like it? No. I would prefer that AMD would have put something out worth buying since Intel released the Core 2 Duo and Quad chips. Bottom line is that they haven't even been in the same ball park.

You're right. Google was a bad example.

I thought about using Intel or AMD as examples of it happening, but I figured that was too obvious? Both were not the first to do what they started off doing in the first place, but they did it better so each eventually took huge market shares. Both have also had their dark ages as well. Now I'm not saying AMD will come back and be stronger than ever. I am saying that everything Rises and Falls and companies can sometimes be weak then strong then weak again. Or new companies can come in and take over use shares of a market from the bigger companies, despite them having the money to pay the better salaries and benefits.

To me, all those things seem like the norm, not the other way around.

I think it is going to be really tough because Intel is already hoarding technology, which is always BAD for the consumer. Technologies exist, yet we can't even touch it. Sadly, that not only sucks for the average consumer, but it also sucks for developers.

Cry Engine 4, Unreal Engine 4, Direct X 12... these are things that SHOULD be great for the future of gamers... but most people won't have the hardware to support it. Hell, let's be realistic here... most gamers don't go for top of the line hardware and demand the top notch graphics out of their systems. Gamers have changed since the late 90s when everyone was getting their Voodoo2 cards, and then a 2nd one for SLI, and then upgrading to GeForce or Riva TNT 2 just to get the best gaming experience. It seemed like I was getting a new card every other year just to keep up with what was required to play the games the developers were releasing. Now most people get a graphics card and can hang on to it for 4 years because developers are NOT pushing the limits for most games. And we all know why... they want to make money, so they need to make games that run on multiple platforms and don't have crazy requirements.

Sometimes games come out that FORCE people to upgrade their systems. While it sucks for people that can't afford regular upgrades, it is GREAT for gamers that have big pockets and want the absolute best in gaming. Hell, if I wanted to game on a budget, I would get a damn console.

It is equally as important for AMD to continue to push the advancement of computer graphics technologies as well. Nvidia has had a great run here lately with the 400, 500 and now 600 series being able to best out AMD in MOST cases. While AMD is pretty much right behind them, they are doing a great job at keeping the competition close. They seem to keep out-doing each other with every single release, and Nvidia seems to be winning only due to the timing of releases.

I hope AMD can turn this around, but it is going to be tough with Intel's boot on AMD's neck. We will all be better off. From a gamers perspective, we need low cost budget systems, and we need the next level systems that are overkill for most mainstream gamers because those systems allow developers to continue to push the limits. People often ask me WHY I spend so much on my gaming computer if it isn't needed, and I explain to them that of course it isn't needed, but not only am I getting a superior gaming experience in MOST cases, I also feel that I am playing an active role in the advancement of technology. If there was no market for high end hardware, developers would stop researching, developing, and manufacturing it.