Intel passing off bogus Xeon Server 'metrics'

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, cj09beira said:

it should be just a cache layer, shouldn't need recoding on the side of 3rd parties (outside of possible optimizations)

Putting an extra cache layer on the CPU won't just make it usable, it'll require a lot of development to actually make it work properly and doing it wrong can reduce performance not increase it. You're adding another cache lookup and another cache miss potential with another pipeline stall potential. Plus you're going to have to decide the most basic thing of what type of caching are you going to do, if we're talking HBM you can due to the capacity and speed have it as part of the memory controller/path. Stacking HBM on top or below the IOD is probably the best option in terms of placement.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

A very real possibility. I feel like a lot of things that could have been never really developed. There's still almost no support for Thunderbolt on AMD platforms, and FreeSync was so poorly regulated that many FreeSync monitors have been repackaged as "G-Sync Compatible", without so much as an AMD logo on the box.

Freesync was so poorly regulated that only 5% (or something similar) was good enough to get the g-sync compatible logo. 

[MadDuke]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Freesync was so poorly regulated that only 5% (or something similar) was good enough to get the g-sync compatible logo. 

Except that even one of my 220 USD 32 inch 75Hz MVA 1440P monitors has freesync that works great. It's not freesync 2, not gsync but sure beats the hell out of not having VRR at all. 

 

I don't need a gsync compatible sticker that would increase the price of the monitor when more than 90 percent or freesync monitors work just fine. (from reputable brands). And you have reviews to find out if they don't. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, MadDuke said:

Except that even one of my 220 USD 32 inch 75Hz MVA 1440P monitors has freesync that works great. It's not freesync 2, not gsync but sure beats the hell out of not having VRR at all. 

 

I don't need a gsync compatible sticker that would increase the price of the monitor when more than 90 percent or freesync monitors work just fine. (from reputable brands). And you have reviews to find out if they don't. 

I never said freesync monitors don't work.  In fact I didn't even comment on their quality.    AMD placed virtually no regulation on monitor makers to use the free sync logo, so it was slapped on anything that could do it.  The post I was responding to claimed many freesync were relabeled gsync compatible without mention of AMD at all, I was merely pointing out that the regulation on Gsync was so stringent that not many freesync monitors qualified for the sticker.  

 

[justpoet]

10 hours ago, WillyW said:

Let's put an itanic on everyone's desk! With OS/2!

Only if it can Warp.

[WillyW]

[JoostinOnline]

On 11/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, mr moose said:

Freesync was so poorly regulated that only 5% (or something similar) was good enough to get the g-sync compatible logo. 

Yes, but they still lost the AMD branding on their best monitors.

[RejZoR]

Everyone raving about FreeSync/G-Sync and I'm here with Adaptive V-Sync/Fast V-Sync that I've been using for years, scratching my head what's all this fuss about... Microscopic input latency and no image tearing. How people don't use it more widely is just bizarre.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Yes, but they still lost the AMD branding on their best monitors.

Apart from sucking hard for AMD, they probably should have expected it. Unless you tie down your IP, CR and trademarks they'll be abused by anyone who thinks they can screw a few more dollars out of it.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Everyone raving about FreeSync/G-Sync and I'm here with Adaptive V-Sync/Fast V-Sync that I've been using for years, scratching my head what's all this fuss about... Microscopic input latency and no image tearing. How people don't use it more widely is just bizarre.

Tried it once, made my games laggy as hell and perform awfully, that's why for me personally. 

[Crowbar]

Why is this news?

 

Shrout has been the biggest intel shill since joining the company as the "community engagement specialist" (or whatever his bullshit title is) and being caught repeatedly spewing nonsense in marketing material is just another day at the office for him.

 

He's literally lost all creditibility from his former role at this point.

[Crowbar]

On 11/7/2019 at 1:28 PM, mr moose said:

Freesync was so poorly regulated that only 5% (or something similar) was good enough to get the g-sync compatible logo. 

It's called an open standard.

 

Understand what that is.

 

If the specs of one monitor do not meet your requirements then buy one that does. At least with freesync you have an unlimited amount of options/choice.

 

I also couldn't care less what nvidia have qualified. They have no say in the freesync feature.

[mr moose]

Just now, Crowbar said:

It's called an open standard.

 

Understand what that is.

we know what it is, what part of the discussion made you think we don't know that?

[Crowbar]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

we know what it is, what part of the discussion made you think we don't know that?

You clearly don't because for reasons unknown you seem to think that what nvidia has to say about it has some form of legitimacy.

 

There's a reason nvidia had to cave and allow freesync to work on their hardware.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

You clearly don't because you some how think that what nvidia has to say about it has some form of legitimacy.

 

There's a reason nvidia had to cave and allow freesync to work on their hardware.

 

WTF are you talking about?  Please read the thread a gain.  You have seem to be missing the context.

 

AMD developed freesync,  AMD released it as open source and basically lost control over who could and couldn't label a monitor freesync.  We are saying that had they retained control (regulated freesync better) they would not have lost freesync labeling to g-sync compatible labeling.   I'm not sure why that is a hard thing to understand.

 

You seem to be trying to argue irrelevant conditions as if they change the legitimacy of what we were discussing.

[Crowbar]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

WTF are you talking about?  Please read the thread a gain.  You have seem to be missing the context.

 

AMD developed freesync,  AMD released it as open source and basically lost control over who could and couldn't label a monitor freesync.  We are saying that had they retained control (regulated freesync better) they would not have lost freesync labeling to g-sync compatible labeling.   I'm not sure why that is a hard thing to understand.

 

You seem to be trying to argue irrelevant conditions as if they change the legitimacy of what we were discussing.

Open standards do not belong to anyone. That's the entire point of an open standard which you clearly don't understand.

 

Then you some how white knight for nvidia claiming that what they say is good enough to qualify for "g-sync compatible" has any clout regarding the feature.

 

Who gives a shit?

 

Like I said, if you don't like one freesync panel there are a thousand other better ones. The beauty of an open standard is that it's not artificially walled behind paying X amount of dollars for the feature.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

Open standards do not belong to anyone. That's the entire point of an open standard which you clearly don't understand.

No one said they do,  don't you read the entire discussion?  did you not read anything?

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

Then you some how white knight for nvidia claiming that what they say is good enough to qualify for "g-sync compatible" has any clout regarding the feature.

 

Who gives a shit?

 

Like I said, if you don't like one freesync panel there are a thousand other better ones. The beauty of an open standard is that it's not artificially walled behind paying X amount of dollars for the feature.

 

Why are you even posting?  you have completely ignored half of the discussion (and further explanations) in order to keep talking about things that weren't even  insinuated let alone said.  If you want to argue go to reddit.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

Open standards do not belong to anyone. That's the entire point of an open standard which you clearly don't understand.

What's the point of a standard if you don't bother to check it's been followed and products are complaint with the standard? G-sync Compatible is Freesync and if Nvidia is picking up issues with monitors not meeting the standard on a wide scale their only solution is to have G-sync Compatible branding because they might actually care about things working properly and meeting said standards.

[Crowbar]

Just now, mr moose said:

No one said they do,  don't you read the entire discussion?  did you not read anything?

 

Why are you even posting?  you have completely ignored half of the discussion (and further explanations) in order to keep talking about things that weren't even  insinuated let alone said.  If you want to argue go to reddit.

- Why do I need to read the entire discussion when I'm only responding to your nonsense?

 

- Why are you even posting? How many hours do you literally spend here a day arguing fallacies? Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror and join reddit yourself. . .

[Crowbar]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What's the point of a standard if you don't bother to check it's been followed and products are complaint with the standard? G-sync Compatible is Freesync and if Nvidia is picking up issues with monitors not meeting the standard on a wide scale their only solution is to have G-sync Compatible branding because they might actually care about things working properly and meeting said standards.

So that anyone can implement it without having to fork out ridiculous royalties?

 

"Working properly" is a stretch. It's well documented at this point that hundreds of non "g-sync compatible" monitors work perfectly fine without any issues on nvidia hardware. The entire branding is a farce.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

- Why do I need to read the entire discussion when I'm only responding to your nonsense?

Because if you bothered to read all of my posts you'd realize that half of what you think is nonsense is explained.  You are trying to make something out of nothing.

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

- Why are you even posting? How many hours do you literally spend here a day arguing fallacies? Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror and join reddit yourself. . .

 

Troll  much?

[Crowbar]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because if you bothered to read all of my posts you'd realize that half of what you think is nonsense is explained.  You are trying to make something out of nothing.

 

Troll  much?

You can explain it until you are blue in the face. That doesn't change that you are wrong. I don't care if you stay up all night writing a 300 page essay on what you think.

 

Who made the suggestion to post on reddit first? It's not my problem if you can only dish it but not take it cupcake.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

You can explain it until you are blue in the face. That doesn't change that you are wrong. I don't care if you stay up all night writing a 300 page essay on what you think.

 

Who made the suggestion to post on reddit first? It's not my problem if you can only dish it but not take it cupcake.

 

You are claiming I insinuated things I did not even remotely say, you are ignoring half of my posts and most of the context in order to call my posts nonsense.  Please stop trolling.

[Crowbar]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

You are claiming I insinuated things I did not even remotely say, you are ignoring half of my posts and most of the context in order to call my posts nonsense.  Please stop trolling.

What? I've explained to you as clearly as possible what part of your posts are inaccurate.

 

Is your new tactic to complain every time you don't agree with someone on the internet?

 

Maybe pick up a new hobby like sewing?

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

So that anyone can implement it without having to fork out ridiculous royalties?

Open standards don't mean anything other than no royalties, it does not in any way mean there is no standards body or enforcement. Many many open standards have a consortium that is responsible for standards enforcement. I don't think you even know what an open standard actually is.