ItsAFeature

I doubt the new flagships will be 2x as powerful as the 980Ti and FuryX. With the node shrink, I don't think it's illogical and unrealistic to expect at least 25%. And I'm currently holding off on my next upgrade for Pascal but I would be blown away if we saw more than a 50% performance improvement for the flagships.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if they were capable of much more but hold off so that they can release another generation on the same node if necessary.

Jaybird Bluebuds X. About $130. Great sound quality and I use mine at the gym all the time.

Jaybird Bluebuds X. About $130. Great sound quality and I use mine at the gym all the time.

Uh, database admins the world over do (Oracle is the leading database software provider). Banks and scale-up server architects do. IBM certainly does. Oracle may not have made Java great, but Oracle is still huge and very valuable in the software and hardware worlds.

Google took Oracles Java APIs and customer tailored them to build Android on top of, but by doing so made normal java code incavle of running on the platform. What makes Java unique, and made it so popular, is the JVM that allows a Java program written once to run on any machine that the JVM exist for. Ex: Mac, Linux, Windows on any architecture x86, 64x, ARM, etc. Really they have a real case since they kind of messed up what Java is and is supposed to be without permission on Oracles part.

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

Came in expecting these:

He isn't salaried at $84 million. It's a discretionary year-end bonus decided by the chairman and high equity holders of the company based on the job they think he did. Much of the bonus is meant to reward what they believe is a good job running the company but large parts is also based around ensuring that your CEO does not get an offer they cannot refuse from another corporation.
 
In no way was his decision to lay off a large amount of their workforce based around enlarging his own bonus. It's just business. The employees were part of a technology that the corporation no longer invested in and thus there is no reason to keep them on. It's just part of life. If my own employer does eliminate my entire team due to not needing it anymore, I can't say that I would expect to be kept on. I haven't had exposure to, an interest in, or an understanding of the other parts of our technology and business. I would expect to be laid off and would start to look for opportunities elsewhere. 

He isn't salaried at $84 million. It's a discretionary year-end bonus decided by the chairman and high equity holders of the company based on the job they think he did. Much of the bonus is meant to reward what they believe is a good job running the company but large parts is also based around ensuring that your CEO does not get an offer they cannot refuse from another corporation.
 
In no way was his decision to lay off a large amount of their workforce based around enlarging his own bonus. It's just business. The employees were part of a technology that the corporation no longer invested in and thus there is no reason to keep them on. It's just part of life. If my own employer does eliminate my entire team due to not needing it anymore, I can't say that I would expect to be kept on. I haven't had exposure to, an interest in, or an understanding of the other parts of our technology and business. I would expect to be laid off and would start to look for opportunities elsewhere. 

Try living in New York City. I've been here a week and I'm already convinced that I'd have to make at least a million to live comfortably here. I imagine it's much the same in cities like San Francisco and Seattle.
 
Plus I'm sure I could find a way to spend it on PC parts and cars.

Try living in New York City. I've been here a week and I'm already convinced that I'd have to make at least a million to live comfortably here. I imagine it's much the same in cities like San Francisco and Seattle.
 
Plus I'm sure I could find a way to spend it on PC parts and cars.

Not only that, but people really don't sit down and consider just how hard your average CEO has worked over their entire life to get to that position.  Then the position has so many facets, not only are they the linch pin that keeps the company running.  They may only be one person but history has shown if they are shit then a lot more people lose their jobs than when they are good.

He isn't salaried at $84 million. It's a discretionary year-end bonus decided by the chairman and high equity holders of the company based on the job they think he did. Much of the bonus is meant to reward what they believe is a good job running the company but large parts is also based around ensuring that your CEO does not get an offer they cannot refuse from another corporation.
 
In no way was his decision to lay off a large amount of their workforce based around enlarging his own bonus. It's just business. The employees were part of a technology that the corporation no longer invested in and thus there is no reason to keep them on. It's just part of life. If my own employer does eliminate my entire team due to not needing it anymore, I can't say that I would expect to be kept on. I haven't had exposure to, an interest in, or an understanding of the other parts of our technology and business. I would expect to be laid off and would start to look for opportunities elsewhere. 

He isn't salaried at $84 million. It's a discretionary year-end bonus decided by the chairman and high equity holders of the company based on the job they think he did. Much of the bonus is meant to reward what they believe is a good job running the company but large parts is also based around ensuring that your CEO does not get an offer they cannot refuse from another corporation.
 
In no way was his decision to lay off a large amount of their workforce based around enlarging his own bonus. It's just business. The employees were part of a technology that the corporation no longer invested in and thus there is no reason to keep them on. It's just part of life. If my own employer does eliminate my entire team due to not needing it anymore, I can't say that I would expect to be kept on. I haven't had exposure to, an interest in, or an understanding of the other parts of our technology and business. I would expect to be laid off and would start to look for opportunities elsewhere. 

My god. Its funny how people who complain the hardest about some execs salary actually have NO IDEA how it actually works nor barely have any idea if how finance actually works nor how businesses operate.
HE DOES NOT RECEIVE $84 MILLION CASH. PERIOD.
Also to people saying he hasn't contributed anything? Are you stupid or ignorant or both? He ran the Azure division which has been one of Microsoft's MOST profitable and highest growing businesses the last few years.

Never forget the Fermi line of graphics cards, or the drivers that literally cooked graphics cards!
 

 

 

Let me preface this by saying that my first rig was an AMD rig and I've always had a soft spot for them in my heart. I am willing to bet my job that Zen isn't going to save AMD. In fact, Zen probably won't make much of a difference at this point. AMD is the master of making their upcoming products sound like the bees' knees, yet for me they've been underwhelming for years. We've heard this "our next CPUs will blow the doors off Intel" rabble before. Their R&D budget is abysmal and even their own reports about Zen indicate that they expect only enough gain to stand on an equal footing with Haswell. So let's say Zen comes out and matches Haswell in per-core performance and TDP. Let's even say that Zen gets you 8 cores for the price of a quad-core Haswell.
 
Here are the problems with that:
 
1. Skylake will already be out - Zen won't be the fastest offering. And AMD said they no longer want to be thought of as the cheap option so I can't see them pricing it so that people like me won't just spring for the better performing option.
 
2. Intel is already heavily entrenched with OEMs and in the consumers' minds. AMD won't win that battle by barely being competitive - even if they are a slightly better bang for the buck. And the extras cores they have don't matter to 90% of consumers anyways since games don't really take advantage of it and professionals are going to go for the higher performing option like Skylake-E.
 
3. Servers / supercomputing. You can't win over Intel here by matching Haswell.
 
I wish it weren't so but I've mentally prepared to say goodbye to an old friend. Only hoping the name survives somehow. Oh, and maybe someone will bring back the ATI name while they're at it.

I think we both agree that AMD did have a chance of recovery, but it would have taken a whole different approach and different products. What most people seem to miss is that when you're that far behind, you can't make it up by simply catching up to your competitor. Sure, you might recover a few sales. But what AMD needed was to release something that would have made them the irresistible or logical choice. I haven't seen that product from them in years. And while something like the Fury X may be competitive against the 980ti, give or take, it isn't the foundation of a solid business. Sure, all the gaming enthusiasts get to talking about it, but revenue from the Fury X is a microscopic part of AMD's revenue. Whether you win the flagship GPU battle isn't what matters in the long run. Probably also doesn't help that it sounds like there's less than, what, 1000 Fury Xs in the continental U.S.?
 
Anyways, back to the Intel topic. From the impression I've gotten from Intel employees and from their actions lately, I've never once thought they didn't want to innovate. The slowdown is, as PatrickJP93 said, problems with yields. Seems like a lot of people think that Intel is happy selling you a 1% improvement year over year. But they know you won't spend $200 on 1-5% improvement. That's not what they're trying to do, and even if they were a complete monopoly, I doubt they would ever try that. Seems like a great way to waste R&D money. While some are unhappy about 5% improvements, they fail to see the strides made in power consumption, iGPUs, and non-gaming technological advancements.
 
If AMD went out of business, the only monopoly Intel would have is in a relatively small and shrinking market. They've got fierce competition in all of the big money making arenas. Plus they have to sell you a new gaming CPU at some point. I seriously doubt the price would move much, if any, if they were the sole gaming CPU option. They basically have been for the high end for years, and yet you see the 5820K be a better deal for entry level -E options than ever before IMO.

I had SLI 770s which is more powerful than a 690 and I basically gave up on them. Great cards but I ran into limited VRAM issues and with SLI support not always being the best, I decided to go with one more powerful GPU.
 
The 690 is good, but it's old now.

It's pretty clever. Fury is already shown to be hard to get your hands on so this is the time to make your own cards more enticing.
 
At $629 the 980ti beats the $649 Fury X in almost every benchmark I've seen and is both available and a bit cheaper. 
 
At $479 the 980 might lose to the $549 Fury but you have to pay $70 more for a few percent extra performance. And if the Fury is anywhere as short in availability as the Fury X then the 980 is a solid winner here.
 
What I'm surprised we haven't seen is a price cut on the 970. Right now it's in an unfavorable position against the 390.