Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Releases ROCm 4.2 Compute Stack

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by vegabook View Post
    [...]man you're not that interesting.
    thats just your opinion i find the user "Coder" very interesting...

    i many times only do not respond to something because the only think i could write is: yes you are right..,

    and i do not want to write "yes you are right" 100 times so i just write nothing if that case happens-
    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by vegabook View Post
      Oh brother. Not another looooong winded trawl through all the same issues,
      I don't like to repeat myself. So, chances are that it's not simply a regurgitation of the same points.

      Anyway, if you've lost interest in the discussion, what people usually do is just let it go and walk away. The fact that you need to toss some shade on your way out tells me that you're still too emotionally invested in your position to consider the matter dispassionately.

      Originally posted by vegabook View Post
      probably peppered with your "butthurt" projections.
      I'm sure at least 9 out of 10 independent observers would read your first post and conclude nothing less. In fact, it's so bad that you even had to write that little fan fiction piece about Raja Koduri, which is a pretty epic level of butthurt.

      Originally posted by vegabook View Post
      Sorry dude I'm done I've made all my points can't be bothered to read this.
      I understand that it's asking a lot for someone to really look at facts that run somewhat counter to one's preferred narrative. I thought you were up to the challenge, but maybe you need to cool off a bit.

      You certainly don't have to read anything I write, but it's basic decorum to read the posts you're replying to.

      Originally posted by vegabook View Post
      Try to be more concise man you're not that interesting.
      You're clearly invested in the issue. I don't pretend you're interested in me. I do presume you're interested in the issue you posted about.

      I don't apologize for taking on your points, fully, logically, and thoroughly. That I would even bother to do so could be taken as a sign of respect. And on the point of respect, I do respect your decision and your frustration. If you want to talk about it, that's what we're here for. If not, that's also fine.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        thats just your opinion i find the user "Coder" very interesting...
        Thanks man. When we stay on topic, I find you have some interesting perspectives. Your points and questions often make me think, and that's a good thing.

        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        i many times only do not respond to something because the only think i could write is: yes you are right..,
        Right. If I don't reply to a point in a post, then it's usually because I agree. Sometimes I'll say I agree, if I'm already replying, but not always.

        If I agree with a whole post (or most of it and don't strongly disagree with any part), I just use the "like" button.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          no PC gaming is not important to amd compared to playstation5
          It would be interesting to know how much profit AMD is making off each XBox and PS5 sold. I'm guessing it's not nearly as much as their dGPUs, but I honestly can't say.

          Edit: if you're interested, a quick search turned up these discussions on the topic. Indeed there are better places than here to discuss such things.


          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          at TSMC AMD did in fact prioritized playstation 5 chips over PC gaming chips.... now they only start to make PC chips again because the console gaming market is already filled up.
          What's your source on that?

          I've heard many people claim that AMD is handling the production of the XBox and PS5 APUs, but I wonder if this is an assumption or based on any evidence. Even if it's true, AMD is operating by contract, which means they're subject to certain supply obligations. Therefore, I'm sure they're not just at liberty to prioritize their own products ahead of MS and Sony's.

          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          right... but does it make a difference ?
          In so far as you're claiming linux gamers must be using like 48 GB graphics cards, it does.

          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          linux people have much better hardware than windows gamers...
          I'll agree with you, on this point. That's what such data would suggest. Next question is how many Linux gamers are using Steam.

          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          I am sure on the long run amd will lose customers as soon as intel or whatever company does gaming cards with features like SR-IOV...
          You do make a good case for it.
          Last edited by coder; 15 May 2021, 08:36 PM.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            It would be interesting to know how much profit AMD is making off each XBox and PS5 sold. I'm guessing it's not nearly as much as their dGPUs, but I honestly can't say.
            It's well known that the console market is a high-volume but low-profit per chip market. That's the primary reason Nvidia and Intel were never particularly interested in fighting AMD to get it. Profits on their own chips are going to be far more profitable than what they're getting paid by Sony and Microsoft.

            I've heard many people claim that AMD is handling the production of the XBox and PS5 APUs, but I wonder if this is an assumption or based on any evidence. Even if it's true, AMD is operating by contract, which means they're subject to certain supply obligations. Therefore, I'm sure they're not just at liberty to prioritize their own products ahead of MS and Sony's.
            It is public knowledge that MS/Sony don't pay TSMC directly, and they are paying AMD a lot of money. So their chips come out of AMD's share of TSMC production. It's all defined by contract though. I assume they are contracted to provide a certain # of working chips per month and it's up to AMD to figure out how many wafers that requires (or maybe it's just a certain number of wafers that is required, I'm not sure). You can be certain that AMD is trying to prioritize their own chips as much as possible since they'll make far more profit on those.
            Last edited by smitty3268; 15 May 2021, 08:39 PM.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by coder View Post
              It would be interesting to know how much profit AMD is making off each XBox and PS5 sold. I'm guessing it's not nearly as much as their dGPUs, but I honestly can't say.
              you have the wrong perspective on this. playstation/box means sony/MS saved AMD from bankruptcy back in the bulldozer desaster time.... sony/ms did in fact use bulldozer as cpu and was a big success on the gaming consoles but on PC gaming the bulldozer cpus completely failed ... because of the windows market bulldozer has always better performance on linux and then years later because of vulkan/dx12 the bulldozer cpus perform good but vulkan/dx12 was to late to save bulldozer.

              for this reason alone because it is a constand flow of money AMD dies in fact prioritize the playstation/xbos.

              there are many such more reasons...

              another one is this: AMD/ATI had no chance in the gaming market on PC because of the ISA war with intel games always used the next intel only version of the ISA... (AMD only break this circle later because multicore did in fact minimize the effect of the ISA but this only happened at 12-16 or more cores and on 8cores ISA is still king. )
              on Nvidia paid all game developers to use nvidia only technology from PhysX to broken nvidia-only resselation (AMD's 16X tesselation vs 64X nvidia one) many more such cases many games only run on nvidia because of broken nvidia-only opengl and also bugs in the game and only the nvidia driver fixed the bug on the driver side and it is a fact AMD/ATI was lost.
              but AMD/ATI did find a hole in the intel/nvidia defence it was the gaming consoles of sony/MS because the developers where used to end up in programm low level and optimize the game for exactly the hardware of the console. this means it was the only way to sell gaming gpus and cpus without going into "nvidia the way its meant to be played" walled garden fight with nvidia or ISA war against intel.
              and this war is still going on but because playstation/xbox is based on AMD hardware nearly all game developers become used to in the end support amd hardware.

              this means from AMD side this is an strategic decision to fight nvidia/intel and because of this AMD sells the chips very cheap to Sony/MS...

              so your thinking "how much profit" is complete wrong in this topic... AMD just dot do it for profit.

              see it like this many games are only console ports to windows or linux and if the console port is made for AMD hardware then in the end AMD also sells PC cpus and gpus... see AMD do make in the end profit but maybe not on the console chips.

              Originally posted by coder View Post
              What's your source on that?
              I read so many tech articles that i do not remember the source. but trust me it is like i said to you.

              Originally posted by coder View Post
              I've heard many people claim that AMD is handling the production of the XBox and PS5 APUs, but I wonder if this is an assumption or based on any evidence. Even if it's true, AMD is operating by contract, which means they're subject to certain supply obligations. Therefore, I'm sure they're not just at liberty to prioritize their own products ahead of MS and Sony's.
              for AMD the game consoles are the way to stay in business even in times no one buy amd hardware on the pc market.

              as i wrote you at top of my post here even if AMD makes ZERO money on gaming consoles it is of great importance to have this position.. because without it amd would be bankrupted long time ago.

              gaming consoles are the only market the intel/nvidia criminals can't hurt them.

              Originally posted by coder View Post
              In so far as you're claiming linux gamers must be using like 48 GB graphics cards, it does.
              I'll agree with you, on this point. That's what such data would suggest. Next question is how many Linux gamers are using Steam.
              i really think some linux people to play on 5000-10000€ nvidia cards... but of course hey dont buy it for this they do it because they have the card anyway because they do other stuff with it. but this case is very rare on windows.
              linux people are more in the professional field..


              Originally posted by coder View Post
              You do make a good case for it.
              yes i know more and more people and more and more games who just dont work even on windows...
              whatever they do it does not work...
              and only some professionals make it run by virtual machines...
              so people who think that VM features are not for gamers but for workstation users only are plain and simple stupid.

              it is really like that they are stupid... PC gamers suffer because of this for decades now it is not new problem

              i even remember LAN parties before the internet even happened... they had problem run windows98 games on windows 2000 or windows XP....
              so this is really no new problem... if people could run DOS/Win98/winXP/win7/win10 on the same pc with VM techniques they would play a lot more old games who just dont run on windows 10 or modern linux
              Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                because of the ISA war with intel games always used the next intel only version of the ISA...
                1. I doubt game developers can lock out people with Intel CPUs 1-2 generations old. So, it's not going to be the very latest ISA revision.
                2. Intel didn't add any new instructions to mainsteam desktop CPUs between Skylake and Rocket Lake. And Ryzens supported basically all the Skylake instructions.

                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                but AMD/ATI did find a hole in the intel/nvidia defence it was the gaming consoles of sony/MS because the developers where used to end up in programm low level and optimize the game for exactly the hardware of the console. this means it was the only way to sell gaming gpus and cpus without going into "nvidia the way its meant to be played" walled garden fight with nvidia or ISA war against intel.
                and this war is still going on but because playstation/xbox is based on AMD hardware nearly all game developers become used to in the end support amd hardware.
                There are two problems with this theory:
                1. Playstation uses its own graphics API. So, games have to be ported across APIs, when porting between PCs and Playstation consoles. A lot of the optimizations might therefore get lost.
                2. The people doing console ports are rarely the game's original developers. Game companies contract out this work. I heard this from a very good authority on the matter, when I asked about the very thing you're claiming.

                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                this means from AMD side this is an strategic decision to fight nvidia/intel and because of this AMD sells the chips very cheap to Sony/MS...
                You're just guessing. I'm sure you don't have a good source on any of it.

                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                for AMD the game consoles are the way to stay in business even in times no one buy amd hardware on the pc market.

                as i wrote you at top of my post here even if AMD makes ZERO money on gaming consoles it is of great importance to have this position.. because without it amd would be bankrupted long time ago.
                Man, you're really contradicting yourself. So, if AMD doesn't make console chips for profit, then how can the revenue be enough to keep them alive? But, if they're doing it so that PC games will be better optimized for their GPUs, then why do you say they don't care about PC gaming?

                It sounds to me like you need to get your story straight. It would help if you could cite some facts to bolster your case.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  1. I doubt game developers can lock out people with Intel CPUs 1-2 generations old. So, it's not going to be the very latest ISA revision.
                  2. Intel didn't add any new instructions to mainsteam desktop CPUs between Skylake and Rocket Lake. And Ryzens supported basically all the Skylake instructions.
                  believe it or not but intel was successfull in the ISA wars many times 3dnow vs SSE ...
                  at the time of bulldozer AMD did add SSE4.0 and intel then only added 4.1 and all the games where 4.1 only or SSE3 but did not support 4.0... also FMA4 in bulldozer vs FMA3 in intel cpus.-..
                  the only time AMD did won the ISA war was with -AMD64

                  however this is old stories... as you said "Intel didn't add any new instructions to mainsteam desktop CPUs between Skylake and Rocket Lake"
                  also multicore means more than 12-16cores just anahilated any ISA benefit in multicore the ISA is less and less important.

                  i just said it for historical reasons...

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  There are two problems with this theory:
                  1. Playstation uses its own graphics API. So, games have to be ported across APIs, when porting between PCs and Playstation consoles. A lot of the optimizations might therefore get lost.
                  2. The people doing console ports are rarely the game's original developers. Game companies contract out this work. I heard this from a very good authority on the matter, when I asked about the very thing you're claiming.

                  You're just guessing. I'm sure you don't have a good source on any of it.
                  well its historically and not a big secret we can just ask bridgman about this.

                  in my knowlege this "A lot of the optimizations might therefore get lost" was not the case because at low level it was GCN AMD GPU ISA... there was some difference at high level parts but not at low level parts.

                  well good sources are always good but sometimes it is not so important that you really need to go and search sources.
                  all what is important and you can agree on this was that: game consoles did help AMD a lot.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Man, you're really contradicting yourself. So, if AMD doesn't make console chips for profit, then how can the revenue be enough to keep them alive? But, if they're doing it so that PC games will be better optimized for their GPUs, then why do you say they don't care about PC gaming?
                  It sounds to me like you need to get your story straight. It would help if you could cite some facts to bolster your case.
                  no its not contradicting it is just different "times" there was a time AMD was near bankruptcy.
                  and as a company you sometimes do stuff not to make money but to reach other goals.

                  "then how can the revenue be enough to keep them alive?"

                  believe it or not but at bulldozer times the games developers only did develop for bulldozer cpus because of playstation and xbox. and the same CPU code did land in console ports on PC...

                  "if AMD doesn't make console chips for profit"

                  believe it or not but there was a time amd did near zero profit on console chips but later it turned out to be positive for AMD.
                  its like a heroin dealer who give you the first shot of heroin for free and later you got addictet to it and buy for higher price.
                  Sony/MS did in fact become very "used to" to use AMD hardware that they did pay a higher price to stay on AMD hardware compared to switch to other tech like ARM or nvidia or intel.

                  "But, if they're doing it so that PC games will be better optimized for their GPUs, then why do you say they don't care about PC gaming?"

                  its also just a different time... yes they did prioritise playstation5/xbox chips thats why i told you at this moment they did not really care about PC gamers....
                  but it was long time stradegy to break the ISA war with intel and also break the nvidia-only walled garden...

                  and yes in this meaning amd is successfull... intel/nvidia is unable to break the game console railroad and many tech from the console in the end land on the PC...

                  so its all about the timeline and future strategies...

                  and in this strategy PC gamers are not evertime the most important factor.

                  thre is a simple example for this in china you can buy the playstation/xbox mainboard to use it as PC...
                  just an example of how the game console tech land in the pc in the end.

                  amd to be clear i have no problem with the point AMD follow such Strategy .... the game console market is filled up so we get PC stuff again...

                  and the PC stuff becomes less and less important to amd if you count in google stadia and stuff like that.

                  maybe in 10 years we PC people are some kind of extinct species
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X