The mindset powering AMD's Radeon: people and tech first, business 2nd

[patrickjp93]

24 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I think that's not a very legit disagreement.

 

AMD pioneered GDDR... which GDDR4/5 are developments of. You post looks like you're trying to occlude a recognition of GDDR, the foundation, by shifting focus to derivatives of the tech that AMD pioneered.

 

AMD bought ATi, and and today's AMD includes that which was ATi, which is a very big part of AMD, but you're right to point out that ATi did tessellation before AMD acquired them. But I think today's AMD is as much ATi as it is the original AMD, and that to use the AMD name is to recognize the merger of two intact groups.

 

AMD pioneered x86 multi-core CPUs... which is what I've said, and which isn't affected by Intel's release date. Although, Tomsen's post above clarifies that AMD had the first x86 multi-core CPUs on the market, regardless.

 

I think the only aspect of your post that has merit is that ATi was developing tessellation before they were bought by AMD.

GDDR was hardly any innovation over DDR, so let's just go all the way back to DRAM while we're at it. Stop being so contrite. It's not like HBM is any big innovation either. It's just a simplified, Frankenstein hybrid of HMC and Wide-IO with a high clock and a wider interface that has enormous growing pains and is a power vampire.

 

And AMD did not pioneer GDDR. It was just the first to use it. Infineon created it independently.

 

No, Intel beat AMD to multicore in both servers and on desktops/workstations. All AMD did was push Intel to release a desktop variant a little bit faster. No, Tomsen's post shows Intel had them on the market first. Can you people even read? His post does not say AMD beat Intel to multicore in servers, and it didn't. All it said was AMD had server products and ANNOUNCED it would provide desktop multicore products. Intel beat them to both markets. All AMD beat Intel too was having a monolithic die, and it didn't end up meaning much.

[Bouzoo]

10 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

And Nvidia's first GDDR5 product was purchasable February 2010. The memory technology was developed with Infineon, Elpida, and Nvidia.

So you want to say that NV developed GDDR5 but AMD used it almost 2 years before them. Shows either how capable they are or how your version has loopholes. 

[patrickjp93]

12 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

So you want to say that NV developed GDDR5 but AMD used it almost 2 years before them. Shows either how capable they are or how your version has loopholes. 

ATI's first GDDR5 product was purchasable in 2009. They only announced in 2008.

 

Just because a product is developed does not mean it's ready for prime time, and that has as much to do with economics as it does technological prowess. Nvidia demands high margins on its products. ATI really didn't, and AMD has taken that to an even greater extreme.

[Delicieuxz]

34 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

GDDR was hardly any innovation over DDR, so let's just go all the way back to DRAM while we're at it. Stop being so contrite. It's not like HBM is any big innovation either.

I think you meant to use a word other than contrite, there. Anyway, you sound like like you're twisting any which way to deny a credit to AMD.

 

34 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, Intel beat AMD to multicore in both servers and on desktops/workstations. All AMD did was push Intel to release a desktop variant a little bit faster. No, Tomsen's post shows Intel had them on the market first. Can you people even read? His post does not say AMD beat Intel to multicore in servers, and it didn't. All it said was AMD had server products and ANNOUNCED it would provide desktop multicore products. Intel beat them to both markets. All AMD beat Intel too was having a monolithic die, and it didn't end up meaning much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonah_(microprocessor)

"Core Duo was released on 5 January 2006... A dual-core (server) derivative, code-named Sossaman, was released on 14 March 2006 as the Xeon (branded) LV (low-voltage)."

 

I don't know how you count time where you are, but April 2005 for AMD's x86 dual-core server CPU's came before March 2006 for Intel's equivalent, where I live.

 

 

Edit: Actually, Intel's first dual-core processor released May 2005, which is still a month later than AMD's:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_D

"The Pentium D[2] brand refers to two series of desktop dual-core 64-bit x86-64 microprocessors with the NetBurst microarchitecture, which is the dual-core variant of Pentium 4 "Prescott" manufactured by Intel.

...

The brand's first processor, codenamed Smithfield, was released by Intel on May 25, 2005."

 

Though, the actual pioneering of x86 multi-core CPUs still took place even earlier, and as this article says:

"The original announcement of dual-core processors dates back to October 1999, when AMD's CTO Fred Weber was talking about "two x86 engines on a single chip" in a presentation at the Microprocessor Forum."

 

14 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

ATI's first GDDR5 product was purchasable in 2009. They only announced in 2008.

 

Just because a product is developed does not mean it's ready for prime time, and that has as much to do with economics as it does technological prowess. Nvidia demands high margins on its products. ATI really didn't, and AMD has taken that to an even greater extreme.

Why are you confusing the matter of whether AMD pioneered tech by emphasizing release dates while downplaying actual tech origin dates?

[patrickjp93]

12 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I think you meant to use a word other than contrite, there. Anyways, you sound like like you're twisting any which way to deny a credit to AMD.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonah_(microprocessor)

"Core Duo was released on 5 January 2006... A dual-core (server) derivative, code-named Sossaman, was released on 14 March 2006 as the Xeon (branded) LV (low-voltage)."

 

I don't know how you count time where you are, but April 2005 for AMD's x86 dual-core server CPU's came before March 2006 for Intel's equivalent, where I live.

 

Why are you confusing the matter of whether AMD pioneered tech by emphasizing release dates while downplaying actual tech origin dates?

Not at all. I just want AMD only given credit for genuine innovations. If you think AMD did the bulk of the work in its venture with Hynix, you're insane. AMD, with 0 experience in developing DRAM or interposers or TSVs and the engineering of package solutions thereof is to be given chief credit for HBM?! No. It goes to Hynix. All AMD did was provide money and good publicity.

 

Intel had older dual-core products than that. They were technically 2 CPUs sharing a socket rather than 2 connected by package links with disabled control logic on one chip, but my point remains. AMD DID NOT BEAT INTEL TO DUAL-CORE PROCESSORS! Intel also beat AMD to quad-core by releasing C2Q in November 2006.

 

Because if it only exists on paper, it doesn't exist, period. That's how the world reacted to IBM's announcement of big delays for Power8. Much of the old Power 7 community had to jump to Intel in the meantime. Just because AMD announces a product exists with tech XYZ doesn't mean jack squat. If I can't get the product in my hands, and your competitor comes out with the same technologies faster than you, you don't deserve the credit for being the big innovator. At best, you're a simultaneous innovator.

 

And, while we're at it, AMD didn't beat Intel to stacked DRAM either. HMC was being sold in 2012. AMD didn't beat Intel to quad-core SOCs (desktop or mobile) either despite what it claims based on an arbitrary definition of SOC.

 

I don't care who you root for, but let's cut the crap. AMD is not some heroic company doing great with very little money. DisplayPort was being made by the whole of VESA long before AMD jumped in. GDDR was not an AMD invention. HBM was not. Let's stick with the facts.

[Bouzoo]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Nvidia demands high margins on its products. ATI really didn't, and AMD has taken that to an even greater extreme.

Oh yeah, NV showed their high margins with their period from 9000 (better to say even 8000) up to 400 (or 500 series). Please. Or if you really want, with their future proofness of 700 series. Right. Both companies had terrible periods but please don't put them on a pedestal. 

[Notional]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Intel had them for servers before AMD as well.

 

The GDDR4 failure had everything to do with AMD. And Nvidia's first GDDR5 product was purchasable February 2010. The memory technology was developed with Infineon, Elpida, and Nvidia.

 

Just because Nvidia has historically had bumpy transitions doesn't mean it failed to assist in developing technologies.

AMD had the first dual core server chip, and Intel had the first dual core desktop chip.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_89872.aspx

Quote:

SUNNYVALE, CALIF. -- 8/31/2004 -- Today, AMD (NYSE: AMD) announces it is demonstrating the industry’s first x86 dual-core processor. During demonstrations held at the company’s Austin facilities, AMD is showing an HP ProLiant DL585 server powered by four dual-core AMD Opteron™ processors manufactured on 90nm silicon-on-insulator process technology.

Quote:

In April 2005, Intel's biggest rival, AMD, had x86 dual-core microprocessors intended for workstations and servers on the market, and was poised to launch a comparable product intended for desktop computers. As a response, Intel developed Smithfield, the first x86 dual-core microprocessor intended for desktop computers, beating AMD's Athlon 64 X2 by a few weeks.

[patrickjp93]

45 minutes ago, Notional said:

AMD had the first dual core server chip, and Intel had the first dual core desktop chip.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_89872.aspx

Quote:

SUNNYVALE, CALIF. -- 8/31/2004 -- Today, AMD (NYSE: AMD) announces it is demonstrating the industry’s first x86 dual-core processor. During demonstrations held at the company’s Austin facilities, AMD is showing an HP ProLiant DL585 server powered by four dual-core AMD Opteron™ processors manufactured on 90nm silicon-on-insulator process technology.

Quote:

In April 2005, Intel's biggest rival, AMD, had x86 dual-core microprocessors intended for workstations and servers on the market, and was poised to launch a comparable product intended for desktop computers. As a response, Intel developed Smithfield, the first x86 dual-core microprocessor intended for desktop computers, beating AMD's Athlon 64 X2 by a few weeks.

And Intel beat AMD to both markets despite AMD having early demos. How hard is this for you to understand?

[Notional]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

And Intel beat AMD to both markets despite AMD having early demos. How hard is this for you to understand?

The fact that Intel didn't? What server chip did Intel have on the market before AMD? On Desktop was 2 weeks. That hardly makes any difference.

[Doobeedoo]

Well good, whatever makes it go forward ftw

[Tomsen]

21 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Intel had them for servers before AMD as well.

 

The GDDR4 failure had everything to do with AMD. And Nvidia's first GDDR5 product was purchasable February 2010. The memory technology was developed with Infineon, Elpida, and Nvidia.

 

Just because Nvidia has historically had bumpy transitions doesn't mean it failed to assist in developing technologies.

They didn't. My previous quote even makes that clear.

 

Everything wrong with GDDR4 failure had nothing to do with AMD.

Didn't they have a GDDR5 (2xx series something) product out by 2009?

 

It was nothing about been part of developing new memory technologies, both rather implementing these new memory technologies.

[Centurius]

Great marketing strategy, but business is still very much first for them.

[Humbug]

On 2016-6-13 at 1:16 PM, niofalpha said:

It's an improvement over the fixer, but I still think it's stupid.

The only problem with fixer was people who took it seriously. It was obviously tounge-in-cheek.

[Trixanity]

47 minutes ago, Humbug said:

The only problem with fixer was people who took it seriously. It was obviously tounge-in-cheek.

I just saw it today for the first time thanks to this. That was actually a great ad. Obviously not meant for TV but I was pleasantly surprised.

We need more of that.