AMD has really annoyed me

[sgloux3470]

4 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

AMD Fanboy is Obvious Fanboy. How does Intel's X299 being crap mean it's totally OK for AMD to surf off the back of Intels naming scheme's and steal the next generations chipset number? AMD is just being James Cameron stealing the Ideas of Fern Gully, Pocahontas and others and calling them there own.

 

NON-Fanboys are able to separate there feelings of the GREAT PERFORMANCE of Threadripper and Ryzen and the obvious naming scheme ripoffs.

Think that's bad this one time Nvidia called one of their cards "TitanX" but then later in the future they said "NO WAIT THIS CARD IS THE REAL TITANX" and so they just released a new card with the exact same name as the old card.  

 

They probably thought calling it the TitanY would just result in people saying "TitanY not buy a 1080 ti instead"

[porina]

5 hours ago, rrubberr said:

x299 was a flop, and I'm not entirely sure that AMD wasn't first to that sceme.

The reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. All the consumer hype is with AMD right now, but the underlying product is still solid.

5 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i wish someone came out with a chipset named 1729 

I saw what you did there! 

 

Intel fell foul of using only a number a long time ago, when it was ruled using a model number couldn't be protected so anyone could copy the name, so that's when they came up with Pentium. This was way back in the day when there were many x86 CPU manufacturers, including AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta... can't remember if Via did one too, or were they only doing chipsets?

4 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Why you think they also using R3 R5 and R7?  Piggy backing off Intel's marketing bruh.

I'll let them off on the 3, 5, 7 thing as that isn't Intel specific, but a common marketing separation into 3 categories in a product range. The main line of BMW cars are also 3, 5 and 7 series, although in more recent decades they started doing other numbers more often too.

4 hours ago, rrubberr said:

Explain to me again why anyone cares what their chipset is numbered. What effect does that have on quite literally any metric of performance or competetiveness?

It preys on the uninformed. Bigger number, must be better right?

4 hours ago, rrubberr said:

Ffs Ryzen is barely a catchup with Intel, the only "revolution" is that they took a smaller profit margin than Intel was willing to.

Harshly put but I generally agree. Basically pricing for a given spec is the big lever they're using to hit Intel with. In a way, they have no choice but to take this route, as if they price matched Intel they will lose out due to branding. The question then is, how much do they undercut?

4 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's harsh also biased, ryzen is far above anything AMD has done before, yes a 5960x with fewer lanes( ryzen 1700) that can almost keep with "i9" seriously an 8c/16t overpriced CPU with only 28 lanes? you call that an upgrade? you also have to keep in mind that ryzen 1700 is a 300$( sometimes 280$ due to sales) CPU that can almost keep up with something that is 2 to 3 times its price. 

Intel still have a far stronger FPU arrangement, so differences vary with the workload. For AVX2 workloads Ryzen family is about half the IPC of recent Intel, putting it somewhere behind Sandy Bridge. This is with the significant improvement over previous architectures. The Intel and AMD HEDT offerings now offer different enough strengths and weaknesses, choice is more about what suits an individuals use case.

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's marketing. 

'nuff said  

[Zeperus]

When you look at the numbers, how do you get "barely" caught up? What I see is like a slightly worse IPC and therefor a slightly worse performance in Games, but I wouldn't say AMD is currently that far behind Intel. And price to performance AMD is currently King. I just would really like to find out where this "barely" comes into play.

[ravenshrike]

I think it's genius actually. Regarding both Vega and Ryzen launches AMD's marketing department clearly looked at the current state of social media and how people react to over the top conflict, turned to Lisa Su and Raja Koduri and said "Hold my beer and watch this"

8 hours ago, jcw150 said:

Nah it's gonna be Coffee Pond or Tea Lake

Coffee Tsunami

 

[Daniel644]

8 hours ago, sgloux3470 said:

Think that's bad this one time Nvidia called one of their cards "TitanX" but then later in the future they said "NO WAIT THIS CARD IS THE REAL TITANX" and so they just released a new card with the exact same name as the old card.  

 

They probably thought calling it the TitanY would just result in people saying "TitanY not buy a 1080 ti instead"

EVERY company at some point has released a NEW product with the SAME NAME cough APPLE, Razer and others I'm forgetting), you know whats worse, re-releasing a product under a NEW name when the ONLY thing that changed was you got better at making the chips so you where able to get slightly higher clocks out of them  cough RX 580 and every other generation of Intel CPU's cough. See my point NO company is innocent.

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 hours ago, porina said:

Intel fell foul of using only a number a long time ago, when it was ruled using a model number couldn't be protected so anyone could copy the name, so that's when they came up with Pentium.

You can use numbers in trademarking (Dale Earnhardt's estate owns the trademark for the number 1 for NASCAR purposes). The problem was that the term "386" was becoming a generic trademark and Intel couldn't defend it anymore. So they went with something they could defend.

 

Also you can blame AMD for that one (I'm not trying to knock on AMD, but they kick started the whole process).

[porina]

32 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

You can use numbers in trademarking (Dale Earnhardt's estate owns the trademark for the number 1 for NASCAR purposes). The problem was that the term "386" was becoming a generic trademark and Intel couldn't defend it anymore. So they went with something they could defend.

 

Also you can blame AMD for that one (I'm not trying to knock on AMD, but they kick started the whole process).

I don't claim to be an expert in trademark law, but there may be differences. The samples for that number 1 are all shown in a particular style, and in a quick dig I'm unable to confirm or otherwise if that is the protected element. It isn't the number "1" as such, as that particular styling of it. Intel's use of 386 and similar were not as a graphical design. It was a model number, which I think played a big part in it.

 

That linked article on the history is also interesting, if badly presented. I wonder what might have happened if AMD at the time lost the ability to call their CPUs by the same number, yet retained the right to manufacture them? Would they have sold as many under a different name?

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, porina said:

I don't claim to be an expert in trademark law, but there may be differences. The samples for that number 1 are all shown in a particular style, and in a quick dig I'm unable to confirm or otherwise if that is the protected element. It isn't the number "1" as such, as that particular styling of it. Intel's use of 386 and similar were not as a graphical design. It was a model number, which I think played a big part in it.

 

That linked article on the history is also interesting, if badly presented. I wonder what might have happened if AMD at the time lost the ability to call their CPUs by the same number, yet retained the right to manufacture them? Would they have sold as many under a different name?

From what my armchair legal knowledge knows, you can establish anything as a trademark if:

• Obviously isn't a trademark already
• Is/was not in common usage already
  • Microsoft got into some kerfluffle about Windows, because "window" was already a commonly established word in OS use
  • Similarly Apple got laughed at for trying to put a claim on the term "App", even though that term has been in use in computers since forever
• You can provide a specific context in which the trademark applies
  • It's why Apple can use the name of a fruit that's been in established lexicon for God knows how long
  • Dale Earnhardt's estate can only use "1" in the context of NASCAR. They can't sue someone else for trying to use it elsewhere.
  • And everyone was laughing at Monster Cable for trying to sue anyone with the name "Monster" in it (Monster Energy Drink, Pixar's Monster's Inc, and something else), even though those things had nothing to do with cables.
• You show you're actively defending the trademark
  • Which is why Xerox would like it if you stop saying "I'm going to xerox this document for you"

[porina]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

• You can provide a specific context in which the trademark applies
  • It's why Apple can use the name of a fruit that's been in established lexicon for God knows how long
  • Dale Earnhardt's estate can only use "1" in the context of NASCAR. They can't sue someone else for trying to use it elsewhere.
  • And everyone was laughing at Monster Cable for trying to sue anyone with the name "Monster" in it (Monster Energy Drink, Pixar's Monster's Inc, and something else), even though those things had nothing to do with cables.

Good point too. Not sure how wide the brands are worldwide, but in the UK you can drive a VW Polo, while eating a Polo mint. There's also more generic uses like a Polo shirt, and the sport involving horses, and aquatic version.

 

I didn't pay much attention to either case, but I recall Apple Inc (the computer people) having a disagreement with Apple Records over an agreement they had that Apple Inc would not not get involved in the music industry which they eventually did with iTunes, and separately with New York City over an apple logo they wanted to use somewhere. 

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

• You show you're actively defending the trademark
  • Which is why Xerox would like it if you stop saying "I'm going to xerox this document for you"

Google are also worried about this one. They don't want people to say "Google something" and instead "Google Search something".

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

Google are also worried about this one. They don't want people to say "Google something" and instead "Google Search something".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

 

Too bad it's becoming established in common lexicon :B

 

This may be why they founded Alphabet as well.

[TacoSenpai]

12 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Intel is about to release its new Enterprise architecture. This CPU will have a very unusual circular die with two straight pieces extending back for extra turbo power. The first chipset will be the NCC1701. AMD is already planning their Death Star architecture to counter its performance. The architecture's main advantage will be its 500TB of L3 cache, achievable only by using a CPU the size of a small moon.

It will be in the family of GTX Spinner Shitter Nvidia Ultra Subwoofer 9000. Yeah anything in that family and above is not messing around.

[Nena Trinity]

Old news, also does it really matter? AMD will probably name it x699 or x999 next time anyway!

[kirashi]

17 hours ago, jcw150 said:

Why the hell have AMD called their HEDT platform x399? Intel have x99 and x299 so it seems weird and in a way wrong for them to do this.

 

What do you lads and lasses think?

I think it's just as bad as literally any other manufacturer's naming scheme on the planet. A lot of manufacturer's cannot seem to name product lines anything remotely close to being a function of what the product actually provides in features. At least nVidia and AMD's GPU lineup has been sort of sane in that the first number is the generation, followed by numbers describing the performance of the card.