Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Linux Driver Preparing For A Navi "Blockchain" Graphics Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    You didn't noticed "Largest Public Companies" in Forbes title or what? Because you was supposed to click on link and read at least the title. Or "Largest Public Companies" somehow is not "Big Business" enough?
    The fact that a big company offers something doesn't mean it's going to be big in terms of customer pick-up. History is full of expensive mistakes from big companies like New Coke, the Ford Edsel, the Lada "EuroSamara" and Microsoft BoB (helm'd by Bill Gates' wife).

    "Consumer" is individual or business (as in "consumer base")?In former case - almost nothing from Forbes list is offered to individuals - it's mostly about B2B solutions or in-house deployments for own usage (like Walmart). Real world example I provided is also from B2B sector. In latter case - I guess you get part about latter case by now.
    Should have been more specific that I meant business in general rather than let it be implicit. Either way, the fact that companies have adopted something for internal use and started selling something as part of a business-to-business solution doesn't mean that it's a success either. There's plenty of internal systems that have not worked out and like with sales to consumers, something being on offer doesn't make it a success.

    Like consumer products, B2B solutions can fail miserably and you've yet to point towards anything that has actually been a success. Only towards products existing and being on offer.
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
      B2B solutions can fail miserably and you've yet to point towards anything that has actually been a success
      You said "only uses", so burden of proof is on you. Is this statement based on, for example, analyst report about market of B2B blockchain solutions? Or on your own study methodology? How you came to this statement?

      Like, I read about several real world deployments in Russia, I read list compiled by Forbes (about products in developments, offered products, deployed and used products) and then I read your opinion on this topic - which one looks more conveniencing to me? I mean, stating that B2B solution is failed because B2B can fail doesn't prove anything. Yes, it can. Now what, it failed? Who said so? And how "actually been a success" is only opposite of "fail miserably" without anything in between?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by theriddick View Post
        I don't see a point to these cards unless their decently cheaper and/or faster at block-chain work!
        No coin miner I've read/watched has ever bothered with them! No resell value.
        Doesn't have to be blockchain, could be any acceleration workload that doesn't need ECC or Double Precision.

        And may just be a way to sell chips that have defects on the video/IO block and they discount it to whatever price is needed to clear.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by cl333r View Post

          This fact confuses me because crypto currencies brag about how it's all anonymous and implies there are no traces to you but if anyone knows that a given transaction/whatever belongs to you then they can track everything you did forever from your wallet, right?
          With something like zcash, you can have actually anonymous transaction that can't be unveiled without the wallet's private key. Or if there is high trust between the parties, they can give the private key to a wallet.

          But really the best way to describe bitcoin/etherium/litecoin is that they are pseudonymous. The names are random numbers, but they don't change from transaction to transaction (at least not without some complex wallet management software). It's like a masquerade ball where everyone has a unique mask. The mask hides the real identity, but once you learn the correlation, the mask is a reliable indicator of who's underneath. A few very paranoid people will hand thier mask off completely, or put on a new mask between every conversation, but most people don't want to take it to that level, at the trust gained w/ an ID's history can be worthwhile over time. (If you change your mask all the time at the ball, you can't really gain any social credit except moment by moment.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
            You said "only uses", so burden of proof is on you. Is this statement based on, for example, analyst report about market of B2B blockchain solutions? Or on your own study methodology? How you came to this statement?
            You're again ignoring the words that came right after like you've either got some aggressive form of dyslexia or the memory of a gold fish. I pointed out that a product being on offer doesn't mean it's anything even resembling a success so the existence of a product means nothing!

            If all you can show are that products exist then you obviously don't have a case. You're the one who needs to prove that they have any sort of customer pick-up, be it end consumers or businesses. Seeing how you can't prove they have any customer pick-up only proves that these are failed or failing products. As simple as that.
            "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
              If all you can show are that products exist then you obviously don't have a case. You're the one who needs to prove that they have any sort of customer pick-up, be it end consumers or businesses.
              Initial claim: "so far the only uses that can be referred to as "big business" are subverting Chinese currency controls*, cryptolocker ransom payments, drug cartel money transfers and payments for contraband like narcotics, forged official documents and firearms that are either unlicensed or illegal for civilians to own."

              Let's see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

              Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
              You did initial claim, so burden of proof is on you. Go on - prove your own words.

              In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder.
              And only when you fulfill the burden of proof you can ask anything from me. Now you get it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
                You did initial claim, so burden of proof is on you. Go on - prove your own words.
                The fact that I can't find any news that would claim those products have been any kind of business success clearly suggests they haven't been a success. Again, a product existing and being on offer does not automatically make it a success and that's all you've brought up so far. You've had plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong by showing articles about how many customers those products have, but all you've come up with so far are articles about them existing, but nothing more.

                And only when you fulfill the burden of proof you can ask anything from me. Now you get it?
                Do you get it? Because I pointed out the deafening silence when it comes to the actual market success of those kinds of products, you counter with some products that merely exist and I'm somehow supposed to bring up their sales numbers when we both know that companies will only talk about them if they're good? You're asking me to find information both of us know they're not going to be sharing with the public unless it proves what you're trying to claim.

                Because of that, the absence of evidence is a very clear sign that these products aren't doing well at all.
                "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  unless it proves what you're trying to claim
                  Please, quote "what I am trying to claim" before you "remember" something I "been talking for years".

                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  You've had plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong
                  I want to learn something new from a person who supposed to be blockchain business analyst, given claims he made. Or at least know that specific field better than twitter financial markets/epidemiology/blockchain "experts".

                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  The fact that I can't find any news that would claim those products have been any kind of business success clearly suggests they haven't been a success. Again, a product existing and being on offer does not automatically make it a success and that's all you've brought up so far.
                  I still can't find explanation how "been a success" is only opposite of "fail miserably" without anything in between. Will you help my with that?

                  I'm somehow supposed to bring up their sales
                  Feel free to bring up evidence for your claim, if you have it. If you don't have it - no hurt feelings. There is nothing wrong if one have opinion about something, But if you don't have evidence - don't think that your opinion is the ultimate truth.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                    Do you get it? Because I pointed out the deafening silence when it comes to the actual market success of those kinds of products, you counter with some products that merely exist and I'm somehow supposed to bring up their sales numbers when we both know that companies will only talk about them if they're good? You're asking me to find information both of us know they're not going to be sharing with the public unless it proves what you're trying to claim.
                    I agreed with your initial claim, on the basis that the primary impact of blockchain has been via cryptocurrencies, which have had (IMO) an overwhelmingly negative impact on society. That's not the same as saying blockchain is useless for anything else or that there aren't some niches where it makes sense to have a distributed ledger system. It's an open question whether these niche applications are already served by ASICs or are even large enough or high-volume to support such a product as this card.

                    If we step back from absolute positions, I think there's a lot we can all agree upon. Like the fact that this product seems to have missed its market window by several years, unless it's like WorBlux says -- that they're really selling it as a low-end GPU compute solution that's only nominally for blockchain.

                    A few years ago, I used GPUs for AI, in an appliance-type product, where we actually went out of our way to disable their graphics outputs. A card like this would've been a perfect fit, though mining-oriented cards were only just starting to hit the market, back then. Today, more attractive ASIC-based solutions are hitting the market. Also, I think Navi's decode acceleration still pales in comparison with Nvidia and even Intel -- AMD too long thought of video decode as just for people streaming movies on their PCs, and not as a key enabler for AI video analytics or for large-scale video transcoding operations.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X