Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Switches To AMD Ryzen Threadripper After 15 Years Of Intel Systems

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

  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

    I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

    Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.


    Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

    It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


    Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.
    There is another aspect for RAM. A RAM stick has a fixed size, so there is a limit to the number of chips that fits on the stick.

    When going for a high-end machine with really large RAM sticks, only the best fabs can make really large RAM chips. And these fabs have a limited capacity. So there is a premium price for the chips besides just the extra because they are larger.

    This means that if I buy a server motherboard with 8 RAM slots, it costs more if I go for 4 silly large RAM sticks or if I go for 8 sticks that are half the size each. So I can either decide to pay premium, and later add 4 more modules. Or go the cheaper route and later have to throw away 8 sticks to replace with 8 larger sticks. So for high-end hardware, it isn't an extra cost to make us of all memory channels.

    But when moving down to smaller RAM modules, the mechanical cost starts to matter. It takes more time in the factory to make two 4 GB sticks than one 8 GB stick. So at the smaller end of memories, there is a very real reason why a single, twice-as-large, stick is cheaper than two smaller sticks.

    So it isn't an arbitrary choice to be evil, that we see single-channel deliveries in lower range products. It really does affect the price of the product. And the price is a very important factor for the lower range products - either because the customer can't afford more, or the product is intended for a huge mass-market. 1 million kiosk installations means $5 difference per installation is a $5 million saving.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge?
    Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

    I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

    Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.
    Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

    It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM components, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


    Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.
    Last edited by coder; 06 June 2020, 07:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    Hold up.... You brought up 12 year old students in some parts of the world. That was the point that -you- made. As far as I'm concerned kids in -any- part of the world should have access to the very best technology this world has to offer, they are the future of our world. I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.
    You need to slow down.

    If all you have is $100 and there is one computer for $100 and one computer for $110, you have two choices. Buy the computer you can afford. Or stand there with no computer at all.

    It's cheaper to produce a computer with one 8 GB memory module than with two 4 GB modules.

    Have you still failed to understand what I said about cars made in different sizes and prices? You still think it's a question of prejudice that people want to pay different amounts? Or have different ability on how much they can afford?

    You are prejudiced here, because you think rich people all over the world doesn't have the ability to buy whatever they want. While at the same time you fail to realize that not all people are rich so there is a need for products for all wallet sizes. You prejudice is that no one who can't afford a high-end computer should be able to buy one, because you think it's prejudice if the computer shop have cheaper computers available.

    "Should have access to" is a totally irrelevant strawman argument to this discussion about use of single-channel or dual-channel memory. And your personal view on your experiences with external 4k screens are irrelevant too, since the majority of the human population doesn't have any plans to get any external 4k monitors - those 4k monitors would not make their day better in any way.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post

    No, I'm insinuating that they might not be able to afford an external 4k screen and that a single or dual bank of RAM makes a difference in price.

    Just a tip.

    A => B means A implies B.
    A <=> B means A is equivalent with B.
    A => B is not necessarily the same as B => A.

    So "not needing" isn't the same as "must not be allowed to have".

    Ever wondered why cars are sold in different sizes and different price ranges?

    Your want/need isn't necessarily the same as others wants/needs.

    Don't be so prejudiced when you see someone drive a small - or old - car. Because by your logic, you are.
    Hold up.... You brought up 12 year old students in some parts of the world. That was the point that -you- made. As far as I'm concerned kids in -any- part of the world should have access to the very best technology this world has to offer, they are the future of our world. I know something about product tiering and I think it's time for some massive tieraside, but that is totally beside the point that you made about 12 year old students from some parts of the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge? If those 12 year old students want to use an external 4k screen then they should definitely have that right. Limiting access to capable hardware for them is wrong. Just plain wrong.
    No, I'm insinuating that they might not be able to afford an external 4k screen and that a single or dual bank of RAM makes a difference in price.

    Just a tip.

    A => B means A implies B.
    A <=> B means A is equivalent with B.
    A => B is not necessarily the same as B => A.

    So "not needing" isn't the same as "must not be allowed to have".

    Ever wondered why cars are sold in different sizes and different price ranges?

    Your want/need isn't necessarily the same as others wants/needs.

    Don't be so prejudiced when you see someone drive a small - or old - car. Because by your logic, you are.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post

    That it isn't enough in many cases is irrelevant to if there should exist single-channel systems.

    You own a car? In many more cases it isn't needed.
    You own a house? In many more cases it isn't needed.
    You own a ...

    See a pattern there? It doesn't matter how many examples you can list where dual channel is good or needed - that doesn't change the fact that there are other situations where single-channel is good enough. So in the end, best is still to have available both single-channel and dual-channel systems but make sure that single-channel systems aren't falsely advertised or sold for situations where they aren't good enough.

    But an APU is so very much more than a laptop. And a laptop for 12-year-old school students in one part of the world needs to fulfill way different requirements than a laptop for someone who plans to use an external 4k monitor.
    That thinking is so prejudiced. Are you insinuating that 12 year old students in some parts of the world don't deserve access to external 4k screens? And who do you think you are that you can be their judge? If those 12 year old students want to use an external 4k screen then they should definitely have that right. Limiting access to capable hardware for them is wrong. Just plain wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post

    And in many more case it isn't.

    I have a Thinkpad T580 with the Intel iGPU and for some unknown reason it came with 16 GB in a single channel. It drops frames on the Windows desktop when plugged into an external 4K display. It isn't terrible, but what were they thinking, that someone's going to use a T580 without an external monitor? It's a nice screen, but really...

    AMD APUs are even more crippled. Reviews I've read show performance can double just by adding that second RAM card.
    That it isn't enough in many cases is irrelevant to if there should exist single-channel systems.

    You own a car? In many more cases it isn't needed.
    You own a house? In many more cases it isn't needed.
    You own a ...

    See a pattern there? It doesn't matter how many examples you can list where dual channel is good or needed - that doesn't change the fact that there are other situations where single-channel is good enough. So in the end, best is still to have available both single-channel and dual-channel systems but make sure that single-channel systems aren't falsely advertised or sold for situations where they aren't good enough.

    But an APU is so very much more than a laptop. And a laptop for 12-year-old school students in one part of the world needs to fulfill way different requirements than a laptop for someone who plans to use an external 4k monitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zan Lynx
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post

    In many cases, single channel RAM is enough.
    And in many more case it isn't.

    I have a Thinkpad T580 with the Intel iGPU and for some unknown reason it came with 16 GB in a single channel. It drops frames on the Windows desktop when plugged into an external 4K display. It isn't terrible, but what were they thinking, that someone's going to use a T580 without an external monitor? It's a nice screen, but really...

    AMD APUs are even more crippled. Reviews I've read show performance can double just by adding that second RAM card.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post

    If only you (AMD) and Intel could keep OEMs from shipping hardware with single channel RAM. It's such a stupid move, but they can't seem to stop doing it.
    In many cases, single channel RAM is enough.

    It's more a question of having correct information when systems are sold to end users.

    Leave a comment:


  • kcrudup
    replied
    Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
    If only you (AMD) and Intel could keep OEMs from shipping hardware with single channel RAM. It's such a stupid move, but they can't seem to stop doing it.
    I'm sure there's many millions of people who buy these and not only don't know, they don't care, because the price is right. There's a market for low-cost hardware- why cut that out?

    Phoronix is a bubble ....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X