I think you'll find though that the 480 is only faster if the game makes use of async compute. Having said that async compute is shaping up to be a very important feature.
Well, it doesn't look too good for AMD. Their "super efficient" RX 480 uses much more power than the 1060 and is slower. On the bright side is the price of the 480 is only $200 (well, eventually it will be;) ) and also AMD's version of aync compute works far better than Pascal (see: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gef... and http://www.eurogamer.net/artic... )
How do you know? Going from netburst to core gave a huge performance boost. Moore's law has slowed down, that's what I said, but progress hasn't stopped.
It's nothing to do with Moore's law. Intel's next chip will only be marginally faster, because it has no competition. They could make it a lot faster by redesigning the core, but why bother if there's no competition? Moore's law hasn't stopped, it's just slowed down. They will have 10nm next year and then 7nm and there's also 3D packaging that will keep Moore's law going for quite a while.
So, what's to stop Microsoft from overriding the "disable update" setting? So far, they have violated every other user setting, including the firewall rules.
Interesting blog about node.js here: http://geekforbrains.com/post/... some quotes: "All this to say that it feels like the Node ecosystem is constantly moving. Not in a good way. New tools that âoetrumpâ old tools seem to come out daily. Theres always a new shiny thing to replace the other. Youâ(TM)ll be surprised on how easily this happens to you and the community seems to encourage it. You use Grunt!? Everyone uses Gulp!? Wait no, use native NPM scripts!
Packages that consist of trivial code no more than 10 lines of code are downloaded in the thousands every day from NPM. Seriously!? You need a dependancy for array type checking? "
TSMC delivered their last node ahead of schedule, so it's pretty certain that they will deliver 10nm on time - i.e. Autumn 2017 - ready for the Apple A11. The latest rumour says that Samsung will pip them to the post, though and Intel will only be a few months behind. Intel are more agressive on tolerances, so their 10nm will be more dense than TSMC's. This comes at a cost though, because it's much harder to get good yields. You should bear in mind Intel's processes are built for high end SoC's costing around $200, while TSMC's process is designed for much cheaper SoCs ($5 - $30). Although Intel's process is denser and better performing than TSMC's, it is also more expensive to manufacture.
> AMD Mantle and Apple's Metal on desktop-class GPUs there are mixed performance gains (sometimes faster than OpenGL, but also sometimes slower)
If it's slower, it's because of bad implementation. Either badly written drivers or badly written application.
For me, I welcome Vulkan. I don't have to tie myself in knots anymore trying to optimise draw call into batches. The only that OpenGL has that is better than Vulkan is compatibility.
AMD is taking a different tactic. They will release 2 mid ranged Polaris cards at the same time that the GTX1080 is released. Mid range cards are where the bulk of the profits are.
The loss is not as bad as it seems. Sure $80M was stolen, but they made savings on those $10 routers, so that's maybe only $79,999,500 lost... not so bad as we first thought.
They were running out of money fast, so they really had no choice. AMD has been losing money every quarter for the last year and that doesn't look to change until Polaris and Zen are released. Also, Intel is as strong as ever in "what's left of the desktop market". Even when Zen reaches the market it'll be competive, but still slower than Intel's offering.
More importantly, we have yet to see them reuse a returned rocket. After all, the entire exercise is just a cool way to waste money unless you are actually launching with returned rockets.
Shaders for mobile GPUs use 1/2 precision quite a bit, however the small range (-2 - 2) is a problem for many operations, so you end up only being able to use them for less than half of the code.
"with the expectation that one day they too would...get an improved UI" I must say that was a very, very naive expectation. The best version of Skype was around 4.0, since then it's got worse and worse: slow, bloated, adware, enforced updates and riddled with usability bugs.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. Look at the case of Nvidia they had hoped for 16nm for Maxwell (their Kepler successor), but it simply wasn't ready on time. So, they redesigned it and made it more efficient and faster, and that was despite it being on the same 28nm process as Kepler.
The article says: " Intel introduced 14nm back in August 2014, and has since released parts upwards of 400mm2, whereas Samsung 14nm / TSMC 16nm had to wait until the launch of the iPhone to see 100mm2 parts on the shelves" This is not really a fair statement, as Intel's 14nm process began with very poor yields, while TSMC began from the startoff with very good yields. It was only mid - 2015 that Intel fixed their yield problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find though that the 480 is only faster if the game makes use of async compute.
Having said that async compute is shaping up to be a very important feature.
Well, it doesn't look too good for AMD. Their "super efficient" RX 480 uses much more power than the 1060 and is slower. ;) ) and also AMD's version of aync compute works far better than Pascal (see: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gef... and http://www.eurogamer.net/artic... )
On the bright side is the price of the 480 is only $200 (well, eventually it will be
How do you know? Going from netburst to core gave a huge performance boost.
Moore's law has slowed down, that's what I said, but progress hasn't stopped.
It's nothing to do with Moore's law. Intel's next chip will only be marginally faster, because it has no competition. They could make it a lot faster by redesigning the core, but why bother if there's no competition?
Moore's law hasn't stopped, it's just slowed down. They will have 10nm next year and then 7nm and there's also 3D packaging that will keep Moore's law going for quite a while.
Swift features seem to get depreciated so quickly, it's highly likely that it'll be completely obsolete by the time they are grown up
Yeah right, and Apple were forced to use Objective C against their wishes?
So, what's to stop Microsoft from overriding the "disable update" setting? So far, they have violated every other user setting, including the firewall rules.
Windows phone now has the same market share as Blackberry.
Interesting blog about node.js here:
http://geekforbrains.com/post/...
some quotes:
"All this to say that it feels like the Node ecosystem is constantly moving. Not in a good way. New tools that âoetrumpâ old tools seem to come out daily. Theres always a new shiny thing to replace the other. Youâ(TM)ll be surprised on how easily this happens to you and the community seems to encourage it. You use Grunt!? Everyone uses Gulp!? Wait no, use native NPM scripts!
Packages that consist of trivial code no more than 10 lines of code are downloaded in the thousands every day from NPM. Seriously!? You need a dependancy for array type checking? "
TSMC delivered their last node ahead of schedule, so it's pretty certain that they will deliver 10nm on time - i.e. Autumn 2017 - ready for the Apple A11. The latest rumour says that Samsung will pip them to the post, though and Intel will only be a few months behind.
Intel are more agressive on tolerances, so their 10nm will be more dense than TSMC's. This comes at a cost though, because it's much harder to get good yields.
You should bear in mind Intel's processes are built for high end SoC's costing around $200, while TSMC's process is designed for much cheaper SoCs ($5 - $30). Although Intel's process is denser and better performing than TSMC's, it is also more expensive to manufacture.
> AMD Mantle and Apple's Metal on desktop-class GPUs there are mixed performance gains (sometimes faster than OpenGL, but also sometimes slower)
If it's slower, it's because of bad implementation. Either badly written drivers or badly written application.
For me, I welcome Vulkan. I don't have to tie myself in knots anymore trying to optimise draw call into batches. The only that OpenGL has that is better than Vulkan is compatibility.
AMD is taking a different tactic. They will release 2 mid ranged Polaris cards at the same time that the GTX1080 is released. Mid range cards are where the bulk of the profits are.
I wonder how long before the reminder pop-ups appear to upgrade to Windows 10.
Just curious how many floppy disks would it take to store 300 TB?
The loss is not as bad as it seems. Sure $80M was stolen, but they made savings on those $10 routers, so that's maybe only $79,999,500 lost... not so bad as we first thought.
They were running out of money fast, so they really had no choice. AMD has been losing money every quarter for the last year and that doesn't look to change until Polaris and Zen are released. Also, Intel is as strong as ever in "what's left of the desktop market". Even when Zen reaches the market it'll be competive, but still slower than Intel's offering.
More importantly, we have yet to see them reuse a returned rocket. After all, the entire exercise is just a cool way to waste money unless you are actually launching with returned rockets.
Shaders for mobile GPUs use 1/2 precision quite a bit, however the small range (-2 - 2) is a problem for many operations, so you end up only being able to use them for less than half of the code.
With all those exploitable vulnerabilities at least it will easier for indies to get their games green lit than it normaly is.
"with the expectation that one day they too would...get an improved UI"
I must say that was a very, very naive expectation. The best version of Skype was around 4.0, since then it's got worse and worse: slow, bloated, adware, enforced updates and riddled with usability bugs.
Actually, we are going the opposite way - converting web pages to smartphone apps.
This is an old one, but still funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sorry, but that's simply not true. Look at the case of Nvidia they had hoped for 16nm for Maxwell (their Kepler successor), but it simply wasn't ready on time. So, they redesigned it and made it more efficient and faster, and that was despite it being on the same 28nm process as Kepler.
The article says: " Intel introduced 14nm back in August 2014, and has since released parts upwards of 400mm2, whereas Samsung 14nm / TSMC 16nm had to wait until the launch of the iPhone to see 100mm2 parts on the shelves"
This is not really a fair statement, as Intel's 14nm process began with very poor yields, while TSMC began from the startoff with very good yields. It was only mid - 2015 that Intel fixed their yield problems.
Is AMD the only company with Linux Vulkan drivers?