or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

It's similar to the problem Microsoft is having in offering their wares to non Windows OSs. While they had to support the Mac, for various reasons, that's not true for anything else. As long as they see this Windows product as being central to the companys future, they couldn't offer product anywhere else. That's now changed, to a certain extent. The market has opened their eyes.This is the problem Intel has. ARM SoCs are much less expensive than any x86 design, even the...
They're still two steps behind intel. Even moving to 28nm on some of their chips doesn't change the fact that foundry wise, and therefor chip design wise, they are years behind. I have no faith that anything AMD says about upcoming designs are going to match the actual product. They haven't, for years. I really don't care who is in charge of the company. They are circling the drain.
Apple's sales were increasing nicely before the switch. The fear at the time is that sales would slow down because of it. I remember the talk about that very well. What actually happened was that they sped up.Our friend Rob Enderely, in an article that I chided him about, said that the move to x86 would cause the increasing Mac sales to "tank". I still bother him about that when we correspond.
This is a difficult issue for everyone to discuss. Moving to x86 was a wrenching experience. Watching intel dissolve with Netburst, and then having Jobs come out on stage saying that performance/watts was why Apple was moving to x86 was like a dream. How could that be right? I assumed that he had seen things at intel that no one else knew about, except, possibly, some other big intel customers. After all, while the G5 was slightly behind x86 in performance, it was actually...
Go to Anandtech. They just reviewed some of AMD's newest chips. Terrible, really. They hope that AMD will do well, so they try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they're slowly dying. And yes, 220 watts is where their top chips are. Even the newest chip at 95 watts doesn't perform as well as a number of intels chips at half the power, for most tasks. And while the over locking is impressive, to get all the way up there requires taking the chip all the way to an...
Aarg! Sigh. This is another article where DED gets much of it right, but uses too much hyperbole to have the article seem more than a rant. He also gets enough if it wrong to make it seem worthless. I really hate saying this almost every article of his. But I wish AI would tell him to reign in his overbearing style, and just tell the facts. The main thrust here is that Apple should stop using Qualcomm, and produce their own radios. Radios are a very difficult thing....
Basically all true.But it's amazing that AMD's newest chips are still on 32nm. 32nm!! Intels comparable part is 125 watts, while AMD's is 220 watts. So far as x86 goes, Intel is still far ahead.We'll see what happens four, or so, years from now.
To be fair, a number of those problems hit most every other computer manufacturer as well. Dell had to recall about 28,000 laptops from one line because of the Nvidia screwup. Hp needed to recall about 100,000 computers, and numerous other companies had similar problems. It was so bad, thar when Nvidia finally admitted they screwed up, they had to put $500 million into an escro account to pay manufacturers for repairs.Motorola was ticked at Apple because they withdrew the...
The reason why the A8X has so many transistors is because it's an SoC, which means "system on a chip". All of the support functions that would be carried by external chips are on that. In addition, as has been said, Apple includes a camera processing chip which most (or all) other SoC's don't. We also don't know what approximately 35% of the chip area is being used for. That's possibly a billion transistors.
Doesn't matter, they're in a race to the bottom.Which process technology are their latest processors running on? 32nm. That's right! They are two full generations behind intel. Hard to believe. Their top units need a full 220 watts. Those are compared to intel's 125 watts for the equivalent units.Nah! Nothing for them now.
New Posts  All Forums: