SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: rzborusa who wrote (269442)3/6/2012 4:14:41 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273464
 
They did not (do the honorable thing)

We must assume then they did the dishonorable thing...

You must feel terribly humiliated...

Poor man.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Mahmoud Mohammed who wrote (269418)3/6/2012 4:27:39 PM
From: muzosi
of 273464
 
there is only one clown in this group.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269429)3/6/2012 4:30:10 PM
From: muzosi
of 273464
 
Why don't you add something of value to this board?
i think momo is adding enough value. the snr is stratospheric. it's ok for others to bring it down a little.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269438)3/6/2012 4:32:34 PM
From: muzosi
of 273464
 
what did you expect them to say "i am so sorry we missed it. it was great technology but we couldn't see it at the time" ?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: muzosi who wrote (269447)3/6/2012 4:40:52 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273464
 
what did you expect them to say "i am so sorry we missed it. it was great technology but we couldn't see it at the time" ?

No, I would have expected them to keep quiet if they really missed the boat.

Why do you have trouble believing Intel really did turn it down? Can you make a case that it's compelling technology with performance nobody else can duplicate?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269448)3/6/2012 4:49:47 PM
From: muzosi
of 273464
 
performance nobody else can duplicate

when was that the only reason for acquiring ip? big companies usually have a nih syndrome which causes them to struggle for a long time without getting much better performance. sometimes performance doesn't matter though, a monopoly can push a worse product.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: muzosi who wrote (269449)3/6/2012 4:54:43 PM
From: Mahmoud Mohammed
of 273464
 
Mr Muzosi,

Re: "... sometimes performance doesn't matter though, a monopoly can push a worse product."

And sometimes performance does matter and a company is able to command higher ASPs.

Mahmoud

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: muzosi who wrote (269449)3/6/2012 5:47:15 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273464
 
when was that the only reason for acquiring ip? big companies usually have a nih syndrome which causes them to struggle for a long time without getting much better performance. sometimes performance doesn't matter though, a monopoly can push a worse product.

Intel recently bought QLogic IP.

newsroom.intel.com

So obviously they were in the market for high performance interconnect IP. Infiniband is a standard Intel defined years ago but left it to others to implement. Now it looks like they're interested in using it perhaps with Intel silicon. They could have bought SM but chose QLogic instead. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: greg s who wrote (269427)3/6/2012 6:42:30 PM
From: steve harris
of 273464
 
lol

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Elmer Phud3/7/2012 10:13:02 AM
of 273464
 
From Chipguy on iHub

E5-2690 vs 6282 SE:

Two socket TPC-E

E5-2690 (2s/16c/32t) - 1863.23 TpsE @$207.85/TpsE
6282 SE (2s/32c/32t) - 1232.84 TpsE @$257.00/TpsE

tpc.org ... esults.asp

Sandy Bridge gets 51% higher TPC-E performance than
Bulldozer with half the cores.

Two socket SAP-SD

E5-2690 - 7855 users
6282 SE - 5660 users

sap.com

Sandy Bridge gets 39% higher SAP-SD performance than
Bulldozer with half the cores.

So much for "fake" Intel threads vs "real" AMD threads.
For server workloads so far it looks like a SandyB core
performs 2.8 - 3.0 times better than a BD core.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.