AMD Financial Analyst Day (Official Zen & GCN News)

[Sakkura]

I think you missed the point, @Victorious Secret was implying that any claim about performance from the marketing division of a company is frivolous until independently verified/reviewed by someone like at anandtech. And I think the specific reference to waiting for independent reviews to verify this made that quite clear.

 

Yeah I missed that point so hard that... I... specifically addressed it in my post?

 

 

Of course AMDs claims have to be put to the test. That goes without saying.

[deviant88]

Now we talking AMD,make sure you stick to those slides and promises and that you deliver again and again and you shall grow back with great profits once again.

40% IPC Zen mother of all CPu's... i hope they price FX unlocked 8core 16 thread Zen at 50$ under i7 4790k/6700k and steal all their sales mwahhaha.

[Notional]

I think you missed the point, @Victorious Secret was implying that any claim about performance from the marketing division of a company is frivolous until independently verified/reviewed by someone like at anandtech. And I think the specific reference to waiting for independent reviews to verify this made that quite clear.

 

#CEOMath

[Opcode]

I think you missed the point, @Victorious Secret was implying that any claim about performance from the marketing division of a company is frivolous until independently verified/reviewed by someone like at anandtech. And I think the specific reference to waiting for independent reviews to verify this made that quite clear.

What makes Anandtech more credible than the people who actually designed the chip. Like stated AMD has been on spot about IPC gains. AMD has rolled out numbers for every Bulldozer revision meanwhile every review backs up them numbers sometimes exceedingly. At this point in time I wouldn't doubt that AMD has working silicon in hand as Zen has been an ongoing project since 2012 when Keller was rehired. Which means performance benchmarking has probably been an ongoing thing to ensure the product delivers what's promised before moving to volume production (otherwise they would never know Zen delivers +40% IPC over Excavator). This is Jim Kellers baby after all and meanwhile most people would like to slander his name, he is simply one of the greats in architecture design. I doubt anyone can name one of his products that fell short of what was initially expected. AMD has really matured as a company since Lisa Su took over and has been pretty much delivering exactly what they set out to do in every department. The ages of Bulldozer hype are gone as them idiots lost their chair at the company a while ago. At this point in time all we have is the official word of 40%. So we have to go by that with our predictions and speculation moving forward. If you don't care about it until the product launches that's fine too. Although it won't stop us from speculating and estimating where Zen will more than likely land. It's all part of the PC enthusiast nature. While not every prediction among these communities is right, a lot of them happen to be within margin of error. Giving more insight to fellow enthusiasts long before the product is even pictured for that matter. Besides it's fun to tinker around with the numbers initially to figure out if the product will even be a success. If AMD came out and wen't "Yez, 9% more IPC over Excavator" then we wouldn't even need to run the numbers and all of us would immediately know the product will be a failure with 99% accuracy.

 

#CEOMath

Every time I read that it immediately translates to #HuangMath. The TITAN X reveal with Pascal news has scared me.  :wacko:

[Eroda]

Now we talking AMD,make sure you stick to those slides and promises and that you deliver again and again and you shall grow back with great profits once again.

40% IPC Zen mother of all CPu's... i hope they price FX unlocked 8core 16 thread Zen at 50$ under i7 4790k/6700k and steal all their sales mwahhaha.

 

It will depend on performance if its competing with intels 8 core enthusiast chip then probably not but they could price it around the 6 core if thats true

[Notional]

Every time I read that it immediately translates to #HuangMath. The TITAN X reveal with Pascal news has scared me.  :wacko:

 

Ikr? It's shocking, but even worse, people in here are defending his bullshit.

[Opcode]

It will depend on performance if its competing with intels 8 core enthusiast chip then probably not but they could price it around the 6 core if thats true

It also depends on the hardware itself L3 cache per example is expensive and the 8C16T version of Zen will have 16MB of it. Reasons like this are why the 5960X simply costs too damn much. Although with less L3, cheaper platform and as a aggressive price competitor I would expect Zen to still be cheaper than Intel offerings even if they out perform them. If they can match Intels core performance then AMD needs to price the chips as high as they can without killing sales. This is one of the biggest downfalls that AMD has been struggling with is they've been selling a sub-par product and are losing profit overhead because of having to sell the product at a lower cost in order to move inventory (unsold CPUs is worse than CPUs sold cheap). If 4C8T Zen is equally as good as Skylake then I would expect to see it around $250-$300 just for the quad core. AMD needs a solid product and they need to price it up there with Intel in order to churn them profit margins. Even if Intels offerings were not that much better than AMDs, Intel would still be much more profitable in this market simply because they are so strict on pricing. You can buy a past generation i7 (technically a worse product) for exactly what it costs for the latest generation i7. If AMD can do the same thing with a solid product they will eventually return to a profitable company.

[Eroda]

It also depends on the hardware itself L3 cache per example is expensive and the 8C16T version of Zen will have 16MB of it. Reasons like this are why the 5960X simply costs too damn much. Although with less L3, cheaper platform and as a aggressive price competitor I would expect Zen to still be cheaper than Intel offerings even if they out perform them. If they can match Intels core performance then AMD needs to price the chips as high as they can without killing sales. This is one of the biggest downfalls that AMD has been struggling with is they've been selling a sub-par product and are losing profit overhead because of having to sell the product at a lower cost in order to move inventory (unsold CPUs is worse than CPUs sold cheap). If 4C8T Zen is equally as good as Skylake then I would expect to see it around $250-$300 just for the quad core. AMD needs a solid product and they need to price it up there with Intel in order to churn them profit margins. Even if Intels offerings were not that much better than AMDs, Intel would still be much more profitable in this market simply because they are so strict on pricing. You can buy a past generation i7 (technically a worse product) for exactly what it costs for the latest generation i7. If AMD can do the same thing with a solid product they will eventually return to a profitable company.

 

i think they will be agressive on price they will be more expensive but im sure they will undercut intel even if its faster because it will be difficult to shake that "budget cpu" name they have for themselves. its also why i think FX needs to go away for a while well you get an FX CPU they pretty good for the money but if you want performance go i5/i7 and thats not even intels "enthusiast socket". they need to shake the consumers perception of their products easiest ways to do that is to deliver a competitive product at an aggressive price point with solid marketing and putting a new fresh face on the product so its no longer associated with what people think.  possibly the first gen of Zen will be cheaper compared to second gen ie make a little more profit than currently and once proven up the price.

[patrickjp93]

 

You must not have seen the links I provided for you 8+ months ago when the same topic arose (FX ECC system memory support). I thumbed through the AMD product data sheets and found this (snipped from my post in the "AMD readies new FX microprocessors" thread from August 2014):

 

 

"There are several wiki articles that show AMD's wide ECC support. Here's the actual ECC memory page (First paragraph under Implementations):  http://en.wikipedia....wiki/ECC_memory

Here is the wiki chart for all the Bulldozer/Piledriver fx chips showing ECC support: http://en.wikipedia....microprocessors

 

Of course AMD's official documentation posted on their own site is much better source.

 

I looked at many "Product Data Sheet" PDFs and couldn't find any AMD 64 bit chip without ECC support. Check out the integrated memory controller section in each one, they all specifically mention ECC support.

 

Here is the "family 15h FX" data sheet straight from AMD: http://support.amd.c...-Series_PDS.pdf

Here is the page where all the other sheets can be found: http://support.amd.c...=ecc#k=ecc#s=21 (Click on tech docs)

 

It really does come down to the mobo makers to "implement" ECC support. Most of the higher end boards are good to go. Here is the M5A99fx Pro R2.0 User Guide: http://dlcdnet.asus....99FX_PRO_R2.pdf (Pages 25, 89)"

 

 

Maybe I had misinterpreted the documentation, but at the time it sure looked to me like every 64bit AMD CPU architecture released has supported ECC memory. What do you think?

 

I forgot back in DDR3 days we had both registered (240-pin) and fully-buffered (288-pin) DIMMs which were not interchangeable. The tech world is so intricate I admittedly will cross wires now and again. That, and it's the end of the term, projects have all come due, and I have a capstone presentation and finals to prep for.

[mr moose]

Yeah I missed that point so hard that... I... specifically addressed it in my post?

So you should have just posted that one sentence instead of the lecture on comparisons.

 

#CEOMath

 

Simply avoiding marketing.

 

What makes Anandtech more credible than the people who actually designed the chip. Like stated AMD has been on spot about IPC gains. AMD has rolled out numbers for every Bulldozer revision meanwhile every review backs up them numbers sometimes exceedingly. At this point in time I wouldn't doubt that AMD has working silicon in hand as Zen has been an ongoing project since 2012 when Keller was rehired. Which means performance benchmarking has probably been an ongoing thing to ensure the product delivers what's promised before moving to volume production (otherwise they would never know Zen delivers +40% IPC over Excavator). This is Jim Kellers baby after all and meanwhile most people would like to slander his name, he is simply one of the greats in architecture design. I doubt anyone can name one of his products that fell short of what was initially expected. AMD has really matured as a company since Lisa Su took over and has been pretty much delivering exactly what they set out to do in every department. The ages of Bulldozer hype are gone as them idiots lost their chair at the company a while ago. At this point in time all we have is the official word of 40%. So we have to go by that with our predictions and speculation moving forward. If you don't care about it until the product launches that's fine too. Although it won't stop us from speculating and estimating where Zen will more than likely land. It's all part of the PC enthusiast nature. While not every prediction among these communities is right, a lot of them happen to be within margin of error. Giving more insight to fellow enthusiasts long before the product is even pictured for that matter. Besides it's fun to tinker around with the numbers initially to figure out if the product will even be a success. If AMD came out and wen't "Yez, 9% more IPC over Excavator" then we wouldn't even need to run the numbers and all of us would immediately know the product will be a failure with 99% accuracy.

 

 

Every time I read that it immediately translates to #HuangMath. The TITAN X reveal with Pascal news has scared me.  :wacko:

 

If you seriously think marketing guff is more credible than Independent review there is nothing more to say.  I think the term "drinking coolaide" describes the person who believes a companies press releases rather than independent review.

[Opcode]

If you seriously think marketing guff is more credible than Independent review there is nothing more to say.  I think the term "drinking coolaide" describes the person who believes a companies press releases rather than independent review.

There's a difference between PR and internal numbers. People who fail to realize that haven't had enough experience in these types of situations. There are no reviews for Zen (for obvious reasons) so unless you have a source proving otherwise your doubts are immediately extinguished. For the time being 40% stands until reviews come later backing it up. I'm sure we'll see demos of the product long before launch given such a drastic performance increase is something that will later make for good PR. No one is forcing you to believe it although its not a number that's entirely out of reach for a company hasn't been wrong with their past three architectures. There's no advantages for falsifying performance figures.

[LAwLz]

What makes Anandtech more credible than the people who actually designed the chip.

The fact that they are independent. It is the sole reason why scientific papers are not taken very seriously until they have been peer reviewed. If you were a math teacher, would you let your students grade their own tests? "what makes you more credible than the people who actually answered the test!". See how stupid it sounds?

Anandtech = teacher

Test = benchmark

AMD's chip = AMD's answer to the benchmarks

 

 

 

There's a difference between PR and internal numbers. People who fail to realize that haven't had enough experience in these types of situations. There are no reviews for Zen (for obvious reasons) so unless you have a source proving otherwise your doubts are immediately extinguished.

But these are PR numbers... The AMD Financial Analysis Day is the textbook definition of marketing. It doesn't matter that you try to dress it up in a different name it is still PR and it is still coming from AMD themselves without any way to prove them right.

 

And what the hell are you smoking? Are you seriously implying that mr moose should prove AMD wrong and if he can't do that then he shouldn't doubt their claims? Sorry but that's the most backwards logic I have ever seen. Statements are always FALSE until they are proven correct, not the other way around. AMD's 40% increase is currently in the default FALSE state because they have not been proven to be correct. It's the one making the claim that should back it up with indisputable proof. You can't just throw a claim out and go "you can't prove it wrong so therefore it must be right". That shit does not fly with anyone who has half a brain.

 

If you blindly trust AMD's numbers then you should also blindly trust Intel's and Nvidia's numbers. Anything else would be hypocrisy (especially with your flawed logic of "you can't prove then wrong so therefore they are right"). I don't think you should ever trust the manufacturer's own numbers because they are almost always biased.

[Sakkura]

So you should have just posted that one sentence instead of the lecture on comparisons.

 

No, because I explicitly explained why the different numbers were floating around, that it isn't just AMD fanboys trying to inflate a 40% figure to 60% because fuck yeah hype hype.

[Opcode]

The fact that they are independent. It is the sole reason why scientific papers are not taken very seriously until they have been peer reviewed. If you were a math teacher, would you let your students grade their own tests? "what makes you more credible than the people who actually answered the test!". See how stupid it sounds?

Anandtech = teacher

Test = benchmark

AMD's chip = AMD's answer to the benchmarks

There's no advantage to falsifying the information of your own product. Using an analogy much like yours if you were a math teacher that made a quiz for your students. Would you grade them based on what they think are the right answers? Certainly not. Nobody knows more about a product or item than its creator. A prime example would be my LinusTechTips Tray Tool. You wouldn't even know where to start with explaining how it works and whether or not to question any performance improvements I do to the software as you know I could run full circle around you with it. Why? Because I am the original creator nobody knows how it works better than I do. Zen was a from scratch architecture designed specifically by Keller and his team. Expecting anything less than 40% over a Bulldozer revision would immediately throw fanboy flags. This isn't a debate whether or not it will deliver the full 40% but the fact that the 40% is set and stone right now as it cannot be debunked by any theory. All we have now is a couple casuals coming into the thread touting "omg 40% no wai too mach AMD can't do it" not so cleverly disguised as biased opinions.

 

But these are PR numbers... The AMD Financial Analysis Day is the textbook definition of marketing. It doesn't matter that you try to dress it up in a different name it is still PR and it is still coming from AMD themselves without any way to prove them right.

 

And what the hell are you smoking? Are you seriously implying that mr moose should prove AMD wrong and if he can't do that then he shouldn't doubt their claims? Sorry but that's the most backwards logic I have ever seen. Statements are always FALSE until they are proven correct, not the other way around. AMD's 40% increase is currently in the default FALSE state because they have not been proven to be correct. It's the one making the claim that should back it up with indisputable proof. You can't just throw a claim out and go "you can't prove it wrong so therefore it must be right". That shit does not fly with anyone who has half a brain.

 

If you blindly trust AMD's numbers then you should also blindly trust Intel's and Nvidia's numbers. Anything else would be hypocrisy (especially with your flawed logic of "you can't prove then wrong so therefore they are right"). I don't think you should ever trust the manufacturer's own numbers because they are almost always biased.

There's a distinct difference between the PR I am referencing and internal testing. Coming out and saying Zen will have 40% higher IPC over Excavator wasn't a publicity stunt but more over of what to expect from the upcoming product (keep in mind this is Financial Analysts Day). Once again you're questioning the creator, something that will never hold any weight. You will see how far that will carry you in this thread as you two are the only ones who honestly think that AMD is just throwing bullshit into the fan. There has to be a logical explanation for that somewhere...

 

Mr Moose's posts imply what I've stated in the above paragraph so I think a lot more than just me would like to see credible proof as he flat out stated that AMD's numbers are more than likely wrong. Not true, numbers can be dead accurate without any evidence backing them up. Lets go back to the software I wrote for this community for another example. If I posted in the thread that I was going to integrate the entire forum such as the ability to reply to messages, posts, etc straight from the tool does that mean the information I shared with you guys is wrong? Simply because I haven't launched a revision of the software with them features? Even though I may already have an internal build with every one of them features working undergoing extensive testing. You see there's backwards logic and reality. Some of us live in the real world while others live in their own fantasy world. The door swings both ways, you simply cannot prove the 40% wrong either. Given the company was 100% accurate with their past three architectures I think it's safe to say it's perfectly fine to speculate based off that number.

 

I don't full on trust the numbers as several of my posts in this thread clarifies. I just believe Zen should deliver around that area of performance given the circumstances and I don't mind speculating and building information based off that data. It's the only bridge to stand on right now as that's official word without any other information coming from anywhere else (it's the only real information thus far). If you think it's fake, fine that's all you. If you take it to heart 100% and live the next year and half of your life by that number, more power to you. Although you simply cannot just insist that it's fake based off no information at all.

[linuxfan66]

Can i point in another industry(pharmicutical studies), studies funded by the person make the product always looks better than it does in an independent study. and tech vendors will do the same. even so i want to see amd compete with intel again so im not stuck with intel as the only sensible choice despite being australia taxed like heck in oz.

[Analog]

All I see is some beautiful and colorful graphs with some imaginary numbers on them. 

[bogus]

But these are PR numbers... The AMD Financial Analysis Day is the textbook definition of marketing. It doesn't matter that you try to dress it up in a different name it is still PR and it is still coming from AMD themselves without any way to prove them right.

 

And what the hell are you smoking? Are you seriously implying that mr moose should prove AMD wrong and if he can't do that then he shouldn't doubt their claims? Sorry but that's the most backwards logic I have ever seen. Statements are always FALSE until they are proven correct, not the other way around. AMD's 40% increase is currently in the default FALSE state because they have not been proven to be correct. It's the one making the claim that should back it up with indisputable proof. You can't just throw a claim out and go "you can't prove it wrong so therefore it must be right". That shit does not fly with anyone who has half a brain.

 

If you blindly trust AMD's numbers then you should also blindly trust Intel's and Nvidia's numbers. Anything else would be hypocrisy (especially with your flawed logic of "you can't prove then wrong so therefore they are right"). I don't think you should ever trust the manufacturer's own numbers because they are almost always biased.

This reminds me of the talks we had about Mantle and DX12 and what was previously called OpenGL Next, where some of you were bashing Richard Huddy for claiming what is now publicly known, that Microsoft and Khronos indeed used Mantle in their new APIs.

You point out blind trust, but blind disbelive it's also illogical - mostly due to liability and bad press. A lie only stretchs so far - it's easier to lie with numbers, because numbers are just numbers when out of specific context, but claims or statements, it's kind of a different story - it has crushed companys, small and big ones.

So to say statements are always FALSE until proven CORRECT, it's a bit far fetched imo. This works for every company, not just AMD, NVIDIA, Intel.

[LAwLz]

There's no advantage to falsifying the information of your own product.

You can't be for real... I can't tell if you are naive, gullible or a massive fanboy. Maybe a combination of all three.

Would you say the same about performance metrics released by Nvidia about their own products?

 

Using an analogy much like yours if you were a math teacher that made a quiz for your students. Would you grade them based on what they think are the right answers? Certainly not. Nobody knows more about a product or item than its creator. A prime example would be my LinusTechTips Tray Tool. You wouldn't even know where to start with explaining how it works and whether or not to question any performance improvements I do to the software as you know I could run full circle around you with it. Why? Because I am the original creator nobody knows how it works better than I do. Zen was a from scratch architecture designed specifically by Keller and his team. Expecting anything less than 40% over a Bulldozer revision would immediately throw fanboy flags. This isn't a debate whether or not it will deliver the full 40% but the fact that the 40% is set and stone right now as it cannot be debunked by any theory. All we have now is a couple casuals coming into the thread touting "omg 40% no wai too mach AMD can't do it" not so cleverly disguised as biased opinions.

I don't think you understood my analogy properly.

Anandtech = teacher

Anandtech's benchmark tools = the test

AMD = the student

The new chip = the answers handed in by the student.

 

You would have to be a colossal moron to let the students grade their own tests and then go "well they are the one who wrote the answers so they will know more about it than the teacher does!"

It doesn't matter how much AMD knows about the product. This is just marketing from a very biased source and should therefore be taken with a shovel or two worth of salt. It should not be trusted.

 

Your whole "the 40% is set in stone right now as it cannot be debunked by any theory" is mind blowingly bad. It's what's called an unfalsifiable theory. Unfalsifiable claims should never be trusted, and they have no place in science or serious conversations. The logic you are trying to apply here is the same one Carl Sagan used to argue that he had an invisible dragon in his garage. You could use the exact same flawed logic to argue that AMD has a 4,000,000% performance increase.

By saying that something can't be debunked, you have made your claim unfalsifiable, and it is therefore not to be trusted.

 

 

Nobody here is even saying that AMD can't manage to get a 40% IPC increase. That's just you projecting incredibly hard. What some others and I have said is simply "sounds good but wait for independent testing". I have no idea how you can twist that into us being biased against AMD. Maybe you haven't noticed this but I say the same thing in all hype threads. Wait until the product is out on the market and has been tested before deciding if it's good or bad. I say it in AMD threads, in Intel threads, in Nvidia threads, in Samsung threads, in Asus threads... you get the point.

 

 

Once again you're questioning the creator, something that will never hold any weight. You will see how far that will carry you in this thread as you two are the only ones who honestly think that AMD is just throwing bullshit into the fan. There has to be a logical explanation for that somewhere...

You sound more and more like a religious fanatic with every single post you make...

Can you please link me to the post where I gave any indication that I think AMD is just throwing bullshit into the fan? All I have done so far is say that you shouldn't blindly trust marketing material without independent third party testing.

 

 

 

 

-snip-

So to say statements are always FALSE until proven CORRECT, it's a bit far fetched imo. This works for every company, not just AMD, NVIDIA, Intel.

I will skip over the first part of your post because you are twisting the truth.

You're right. Saying that something is false until proven correct is not right. I should have said it is in the "unknown" state until proven true or false. Right now all the numbers AMD are throwing out can not be validated and should therefore be taken as neither true nor false.

[mr moose]

There's a difference between PR and internal numbers. People who fail to realize that haven't had enough experience in these types of situations. There are no reviews for Zen (for obvious reasons) so unless you have a source proving otherwise your doubts are immediately extinguished. For the time being 40% stands until reviews come later backing it up. I'm sure we'll see demos of the product long before launch given such a drastic performance increase is something that will later make for good PR. No one is forcing you to believe it although its not a number that's entirely out of reach for a company hasn't been wrong with their past three architectures. There's no advantages for falsifying performance figures.

 

No need to say any more, LawLz has summed it up perfectly.

 

Suffice to say if you truly believe what you are saying then you must also believe Nvidia when they make claims about tegra being twices as powerful and other chips being twice as efficient?

 

I didn't think so.  I'll wait for reviews to confirm or deny the marketing spin before I get excited.

[Eroda]

lawlz 40% for me isnt outlandish for me ill take them at their word because i wont be buying the products until i see benchmarks anyway i am need of an upgrade and i am hoping AMD can deliver something in the 2011 performance bracket with a more reasonable cost because i am an AMD guy at heart this is my only intel PC and back in 2010 it was a worthy upgrade. you mention nvidia performance calculations, http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2015/03/Pascal-10x-Maxwell.png hmmmm it just seems a little far fetched i mean seems like (4x with "Mixed Precision" + 6x with 3D Memory)/2 x 2 with NVLink = 10x as faaaaast. "*Very Rough Estimates"  i mean 10x performance increase whats that 900% seems a little BS

[Glenwing]

Anyone remember this?

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180088-nvidias-questionable-geforce-337-50-driver-or-why-you-shouldnt-trust-manufacturer-provided-numbers

 

We'll see what actual tests bring, rather than go by the first-party numbers.

[linuxfan66]

Anyone remember this?

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180088-nvidias-questionable-geforce-337-50-driver-or-why-you-shouldnt-trust-manufacturer-provided-numbers

We'll see what actual tests bring, rather than go by the first-party numbers.

Yeah that's pretty shady...then again what do you expect them to do?

[Notional]

Anyone remember this?

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180088-nvidias-questionable-geforce-337-50-driver-or-why-you-shouldnt-trust-manufacturer-provided-numbers

 

We'll see what actual tests bring, rather than go by the first-party numbers.

 

We all know about NVidia's #CEOMath. But that is kinda the point. We know NVidia lies and manipulates whenever they can get away with it (and that is apparently surprisingly easy). I think what @Opcode is hinting at, is that there has been a general correlation, between AMD's claims, and reality, making AMD, again generally, a lot more credible than Mr. CEOMath.

 

But of course, generally, we should all be sceptical about companies claims, at all times. AMD's too. But credibility does have its advantages.

[Victorious Secret]

Anyone remember this?

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/180088-nvidias-questionable-geforce-337-50-driver-or-why-you-shouldnt-trust-manufacturer-provided-numbers

 

We'll see what actual tests bring, rather than go by the first-party numbers.

 

The double standards are a little sickening, in my honest opinion. 

 

People need to stop taking what CEOs say seriously. Anything that comes out of a companies mouth isn't in your benefit. Its for their benefit. 

 

Using #CEOMath as some insult against Nvidia or AMD or anyone is laughable. Every single company pumps their own tires, only a true moron will take what they say at face value. People need to stop being so attached to any company and think that said company cares about being entirely honest towards them. 

[PumaXCS]

As a Intel and nVidia fan boy I'm really hoping that AMD has a good year. The way both companies have been releasing things is scary. Bring back competition and it's better for everyone.