Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Project Quantum Gaming PC Contains Intel CPU
nateman1352 links to an article at Tom's Hardware which makes the interesting point that chip-maker AMD will offer Intel -- rather than AMD -- CPUs in their upcoming high-end gaming PC. (High-end for being based on integrated components, at least.) From the article:
Recently, AMD showed off its plans for its Fiji based graphics products, among which was Project Quantum – a small form factor PC that packs not one, but two Fiji graphics processors. Since the announcement, KitGuru picked up on something, noticing that the system packs an Intel Core i7-4790K "Devil's Canyon" CPU. We hardly need to point out that it is rather intriguing to see AMD use its largest competitor's CPU in its own product, when AMD is a CPU maker itself.
The i7 4790k is faster than any CPU AMD make, by quite a wide margin. They're trying to sell this as the ultimate graphics crunching box... That needs a faster CPU than they can produce.
AMD knows their CPU dissipates too much heat for the SFF PC?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What a goddamn stupid submission.
Yes, companies that make one product do use products from competitors in some situations. Microsoft is a great example of this. Yes, they provide Windows, but you can also use Linux with Azure. There's nothing wrong with that. They're using a product that competes with Windows because that's what the Azure users want and need. It's the smart thing to do, for crying out loud.
A much bigger problem is when an open source project like, say, Debian, ends up having to support systemd thanks to political skullduggery, even though systemd is not what Debian's users want, it is not good for the Debian project's quality, it causes many problems, and causes many Debian users to lose trust in the project and its software. That's a real problem. This AMD-using-Intel-CPU shit is totally a non-issue.
That's the best value chip for high performance available right now, so it's WISE to offer it to consumers with AMD's graphics platform = more market and more gross. They need both.
That's what I'm reading. That AMD is willing to go the extra mile to offer what its customers are looking for.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The only reason to buy AMD these days is if you're on a budget, and you're OK with middling performance.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
What's refreshing is that they've recognized this. I'm reasonably sure this choice was the output of some rather heated meetings - but so.. 'refreshing' to see that the correct decision was made, for those people wanting to purchase the product.
Also gives a pretty good internal target for AMD - v2 of this box WILL have an AMD CPU in it (or else we're getting out of the CPU market).
This decision underlines that AMD wanted to make something great, that people would want and would buy - rather than being a vanity project for the company. :)
Been with nVidia for the last batch of GPUs and for last few CPUs - but I'm still rooting for them. The plucky, power-guzzling underdog
Maybe my next upgrade will switch me back to them, maybe it won't - but this decision at least shows me they've not lost their minds, and should still be considered.
i think the only admirable part of this if it can be called that is that AMD is not overtly suicidal.
you can't claim to offer the ultimate driving experience and slap in a lawnmower engine.
Modern app appers know that only Intel apps can app apps, since Intel Apps are used in App Tablets, while AMD Luddite CPUs are only used for Luddite software.
Apps!
I am still waiting to see the part were this was anything more than a promotional and inspiration design from AMD. Nowhere has AMD said they are going to sell this, or any, boxed PC.
NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
makes perfect sense actually. AMD has limited resources and is only targeting the mainstream CPU market; that is the mid end.
Other than the mid end FX-8350 or '70 or the too power hungry FX9000s there is nothing that would suit for a top end offering. Once their new cores arrive in 2016 they will offer a top of the line AMD model as well.
Their graphics offerings are much broader and cover the entire spectrum, from bottom to top.
While gaming performance always almost would be pretty stellar with mid end CPU combined with powerful graphics cards, a certain fraction of gaming enthusiasts want more, or simply want their system to be outdated further out ahead in time rather than sooner.
Over the past couple years they have put most their efforts into the mainstream laptop area and the combined graphics. Lowering CPU power was more of a target than higher performance. They have hardly at all updated their desktop offerings, and so, are particularly limited for single threaded high performance. Their more reasonably wattage desktop cores top out at 4.3GHz for single threaded (4GHz if all 8 cores are under load), not counting all the things overclockers do to them.
I just wish AMD gpu drivers weren't so shitty.
I'd love to have a solution to compare against Nvidia.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
They have been fairly hard to set up and buggy to some extent, however, this month they finally released version 15.5 for linux, a much needed update. The install went great and I can't complain. Putting it through the tests but as far as I know perfectly stable.
In an ideal world this would have existed like 2 to 3 years ago or so.
Do the editors actually review submissions? I submitted this a more than a week ago http://slashdot.org/submission...
Intel's chips have been real good in terms of performance/watt these days. AMD has had real problems in that regard. Their high end chips are massive power sinks. Now in some uses, maybe that isn't important, but in a small system, it matters. You are going to have to jump though hoops to make sure you thermal system fits, is sufficient, and isn't loud anyhow, trying to put a ton more power in there isn't a winning idea.
Thus when you have the 4790k on the one hand, which is rated at 88 watts TDP, and the AMD AMD FX-9590 at 220 watts on the other hand, the choice is pretty clear. Even if performance were equal (it's not) the power savings is a clear win for a small unit.
At the moment a combination of older lithography technology and core design has AMD CPUs running pretty high power, so not the thing for SFF devices. Perhaps that will change with their next generation, we'll see.
Lol, Nvidia drivers? BSOD, burned cards (literally), crippled 7xx series after less than one year of support, sub par SLI performance.. any of that rings a bell? Sorry, but you have your head deep inside your own ass if you think AMD drivers are inferior. Thats probably true only on linux, but if you are a gamer, linux should not be your platform of choice (at least until the arrival of the steam machines). They simply don't have enough resources for such a relatively small target in a fragmented mess of ecosystem, and the same is true for most AAA game publishers.
That one sentence says everything you can find in this 2 paragraph article.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
It means even they admit we are bereft of a second source of CPUs. We already should've learned from the OS market that a monoculture is a bad thing.
Since AMD is a large company now that makes graphics hardware as well as CPUs I'd wager the graphics portion doesn't give a shit either way about "eating their own dog food", since it's not really theirs anyway.
FX-8350 isn't that bad compared to i7 4790k, but not at gaming.
Anyway, Intel CPU inside it will be ONE OF THE OPTIONS. AMD CPU configurations will also be available
We have Quantum designs that feature both AMD and Intel processors, so we can fully address the entire market.
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...
Intel's CPU will be an option, but surely you can get it with AMD as well:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...
Fury X beats Titan X at many games at 4k resolution and even more at 5k.
Fury X beats 980 Ti (pre-emptive release by nvidia, that anticipated Fury X) at 4k, whit the same recommended price.
Now, these boxes will have to of Furys.
FuryX also has a nice "FPS cap" feature, which allows it to drop frequency to save power when you are beyond reasonable FPS (i.e. 90+, actual number depends on your taste).
Had they chosen to not allow Intel's CPU it would cripple it, but with i7 option, it's a great product.
10-15 years ago you definitely did not buy Intel if you wanted the fastest. In 2000, buying Intel chips was a way to show off that you didn't care about either performance or price at all; you were buying solely to get the "Intel Inside" sticker.
Intel wasn't a rational, defensible choice until 2006, and usually not the right high-performance budget-be-damned choice until 2008. (And then 2011 is when they really started kicking ass where even budget buyers had to consider their low-end chips, which were so murderously competitive with AMD's high end.)
Um, your "15 years" bit is off the mark. 15 years ago Intel was so busy chasing the mhz marketing dollar with the Pentium 4 (and the derived Pentium D) that AMD was able to dethrone them at the top end, and for an encore they then turned around and demolished Intel's 64-bit Itanium server architecture with the backwards compatible AMD-64 (which Intel quickly licensed from them. And renamed.) For the hat trick, they absolutely destroyed low end Celeron with their AMD Duron. For several years there, Intel was the worse (and most expensive) option in every major market segment.
Of course at this point Intel pulled their heads out of their asses, reached a little deeper into their pocketbooks and used the Pentium M's design as the way forward instead of the hz-obese Pentium 4 / Pentium D, and AMD (which simply cannot compete on a research dollar level) has been playing catchup ever since. But they absolutely deserve credit for keeping Intel on their toes. Even VIA (formerly Cyrix, remember them?) deserves some credit for taking some important first steps towards x86 low power design and motherboard miniaturization, and being the first company to introduce hardware cryptography instruction sets (which to this day remain superior to AES-NI, though it was under-supported and it's now stuck in a very badly aging and overpriced processor lineup.)
Has Intel been the undisputed CPU performance king for the past few years? Of course. But this can easily change, particularly since we're so close to hitting the transistor quantum size barrier. In 5-10 years there is not going to be a single clear path forward any more, and it remains to be seen whether Intel will choose the correct path, particularly in light of their increasingly befuddling market segmentation tactics.
They should have let ATI keep their brand, ATI did nothing to be ashamed of.
They immediately gave up the ATI brand. Now, ATI finally have top of the line graphics processor but AMD doesn't have top of the line CPU. Gamers and press aren't stupid, they would eventually compare i7 CPU by taking out AMD CPU.
It is AMD brand manager suits who created this awkward situation. It still shows AMD is a mature company who dares to take such decisions like putting Intel in it. Imagine Oracle suggesting IBM servers for running their software.
That's because intel backdoors it's CPUs at the request of the US govt, dumbass.
Vpro/Vt/AMT. Nice vnc server and ram dump integrated. Always remotely reenableable.
and this is backed up by Phoronix which shows that with GCC you "magically" get a 30%+ performance boost
Sorry but that doesnt follow. First you said they "rigged benchmarks" which of course is a reference to back in the early 00's where Intel's proprietary compiler produced sub-optimal results for AMD and VIA x86 CPUs, i.e. not using SIMD even though the feature was available in hardware. But now you are accusing GCC (an open source compiler) of being a cohort in some Intel conspiracy, now Im going to go ahead and call bullshit on that. If you are correct then obviously it will be trivial for you to expose "GenuineIntel" optimizations referencing the VendorID in the GCC source code, however having been involved in GCC development for quite a few years I can say I have never seen such things. It is more likely your "Tek Syndicate" is just incompetent however if you are going to level accusations then given the ease at which they can be verified surely you can provide some evidence.
Boy was I disappointed when I got past the title.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They are showcasing their GPU. I've had better experiences with ATI/AMD GPU over nVIDIA.
I'd buy a AMD GPU over an Intel one any day.
But yes, until AMD makes something significantly better, I'll buy an Intel CPU. My current system is Intel CPU, AMD GPU. The system I built before that was an Intel CPU, and ATI GPU, which is pretty much the same thing. Were I to build one tomorrow, probably also.
At least this shows that AMD doesn't have their own head stuck up their ass to know that their customers regularly pair their AMD GPU's with Intel CPU's...