Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is ElMoIsEviL a reality denier?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 8:36:27 AM

ElMoIsEviL said...

Quote:
The performance seems to be right where it should be. Although RV870 can theoretically hit up to 2.7TFLOPs, in practice it can only hit up to 1.3TFLOPs


totally false rv870 can hit 2.5tflops which was 3x 'Larrabee'.

Quote:
As for when Larrabee will be released.. sometime in 2010. I think they're working to perfect their manufacturing process to get the most out of Larrabee.


Cancelled, cancelled, cancelled.

Quote:
Intel seem to be making good progress on Larrabee in my opinion.


No need to comment.

Quote:
Even if it doesn't beat Fermi or RV870, if it get's somewhat close.. give it two to three generations and it will compete handsomely.


That's two to three generation Larrabee won't be getting however.

Quote:
You claim what I am saying as being the "same old argument" but I am basing it on historical knowledge (precedence). You simply despise Intel with a passion and wish them failure in anything they do (blind hatred). And this blind faith you have is blinding you from what most of us see as rather obvious.


Blind faith?

Quote:
I think that, given the roll Intel is on and with Otellini in charge, Larrabee will be a success. I don't see it being a failure. I don't see what would lead you to think otherwise.


Ah this is blind faith.

Quote:
I don't see any evidence to sustain your assertion that Larrabee is an imminent failure.


Time to remove the rose tinted glasses?

Quote:
..the question you have to ask yourself is "Given Intel's current trend, is it plausible that Intel will release a product meant for failure?"... I think the answer is rather obvious...


Yes, it was rather obvious

Quote:
This argument is over. I'll let the THG readers decide who won.


I'll let intel decide.


Note that all of this happened within the same post, less than a week before Larrabee got cancelled. What is it they say about people in glass houses Elmo?
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 10:28:29 AM

Does it really matter? This is a forum, not real life.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 10:37:20 AM

WOW, just wow, would you like a gold star now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 14, 2009 11:02:25 AM

jennyh said:
ElMoIsEviL said...

Quote:
The performance seems to be right where it should be. Although RV870 can theoretically hit up to 2.7TFLOPs, in practice it can only hit up to 1.3TFLOPs


totally false rv870 can hit 2.5tflops which was 3x 'Larrabee'.

Quote:
As for when Larrabee will be released.. sometime in 2010. I think they're working to perfect their manufacturing process to get the most out of Larrabee.


Cancelled, cancelled, cancelled.

Quote:
Intel seem to be making good progress on Larrabee in my opinion.


No need to comment.

Quote:
Even if it doesn't beat Fermi or RV870, if it get's somewhat close.. give it two to three generations and it will compete handsomely.


That's two to three generation Larrabee won't be getting however.

Quote:
You claim what I am saying as being the "same old argument" but I am basing it on historical knowledge (precedence). You simply despise Intel with a passion and wish them failure in anything they do (blind hatred). And this blind faith you have is blinding you from what most of us see as rather obvious.


Blind faith?

Quote:
I think that, given the roll Intel is on and with Otellini in charge, Larrabee will be a success. I don't see it being a failure. I don't see what would lead you to think otherwise.


Ah this is blind faith.

Quote:
I don't see any evidence to sustain your assertion that Larrabee is an imminent failure.


Time to remove the rose tinted glasses?

Quote:
..the question you have to ask yourself is "Given Intel's current trend, is it plausible that Intel will release a product meant for failure?"... I think the answer is rather obvious...


Yes, it was rather obvious

Quote:
This argument is over. I'll let the THG readers decide who won.


I'll let intel decide.


Note that all of this happened within the same post, less than a week before Larrabee got cancelled. What is it they say about people in glass houses Elmo?



Wow!!! all of this from a person who believes when she's laying up dying in a hospital bed, AMD will be the cure.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 11:13:24 AM

Larrabee hasn't been cancelled, just delayed... again. The project is still running.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:09:10 PM

Simple fact is, your wannabe forum hero Elmo is guilty of the exact same rabid fanboyism that he is accusing others on AMDZone of being - the evidence is above. Did he come back with an apology? No. Any admittance that he got it wrong?

No.

And I left it be until his second anti-AMD thread in as many days but now he's being called up for being the hypocrit he obviously is.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What exactly has AMDZone got to do with this forum anyway except to serve as an outlet for frustrated AMD haters to have a go because they (rightly) got banned from there? He's a failed troll out to wind up the AMD corner and nothing else.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:17:20 PM

I vote to close this thread, it's purpose is nothing but to flame another user and shouldn't be left open. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, at least not to me.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:22:09 PM

Fine close it, after his retarded past two threads are closed as well because those for sure were created with nothing else in mind except winding up AMD supporters - just like every single thread and post he has made on this forum.
December 14, 2009 3:43:22 PM

lerrabee will wipes amd out of graphical market in the wishful future. then decades later when we look back today and seeing "evergreed" display in the dumpster we will be grateful that we get rip of amd for good. same goes to nvidia..they won't last before 2011 and will be acquired by intel after the following event of bankruptcy.

the gpu-cpu unification will be complete. intel will dominating the market forever.

in the foreseeing future!

randomizer said:
Larrabee hasn't been cancelled, just delayed... again. The project is still running.


lerrabee is coming up in q1 2010
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:54:25 PM

loneninja said:
I vote to close this thread, it's purpose is nothing but to flame another user and shouldn't be left open. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, at least not to me.

It's purpose is to annoy a user that flames, not to flame, and I wholeheartedly support it. And elmo does flame, the only thing is, he flames indirectly which is even more anger inducting for objective people.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:56:29 PM

cheesesubs said:
lerrabee will wipes amd out of graphical market in the wishful future. then decades later when we look back today and seeing "evergreed" display in the dumpster we will be grateful that we get rip of amd for good. same goes to nvidia..they won't last before 2011 and will be acquired by intel after the following event of bankruptcy.

the gpu-cpu unification will be complete. intel will dominating the market forever.

in the foreseeing future!



lerrabee is coming up in q1 2010

Yup, I think Jenny got pwned with all this objectivity coming from objective users who are greatly informed and have an intention to greatly inform other uninformed people. Thumbs up, that is how it will be! And thy shall taste the spice of it's almighty blueness!
December 14, 2009 4:06:30 PM

I have to admit, believing a company cant fail to deliver either on time or at all is showing favor.
On the other hand, I dont think Elmo is a fanboy for either camp.
Intel has been on a roll, but again, it still doesnt mean theyll stay there.
Much of that roll can be acredited to stealing/cheating/breaking various countries laws etc, and even worse, effecting its only competition from becoming more effective.
They still havnt lost anything tho, besides a few billions of dollars, more like 5 billion currently, and more if the FTC chimes in, but their fabs and people are still there, their projects, including LRB is still there etc
Having a projected dominance in the market is one thing, but its since been drastically changed, so too will its R&D and products lines.
Intel loses 600million off the top every year, its competition is stronger, its had several large monetary losses, and if LRB doesnt pan out, its spent alot of money for something they already have, but will take time, Polaris.
This is reality, and assuming Intel will forever be on this great roll isnt wise, and it wouldnt be for any tech company, not over a long duration.
What Intel has done for the length of time it has done it is unprecedented, but again, I point back to all the billions of cheating/control/lawbreaking and the weakening of its competition.
It wont last, at least not at the pace weve seen
December 14, 2009 4:14:43 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Yup, I think Jenny got pwned with all this objectivity coming from objective users who are greatly informed and have an intention to greatly inform other uninformed people. Thumbs up, that is how it will be! And thy shall taste the spice of it's almighty blueness!



that is the major reason i hate amd so much because of people like her portraying terrible example...giving people really bad image about how amd only talks trash and bring nothing but junk product to enrage the consumer.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I have to admit, believing a company cant fail to deliver either on time or at all is showing favor.
On the other hand, I dont think Elmo is a fanboy for either camp.
Intel has been on a roll, but again, it still doesnt mean theyll stay there.
Much of that roll can be acredited to stealing/cheating/breaking various countries laws etc, and even worse, effecting its only competition from becoming more effective.
They still havnt lost anything tho, besides a few billions of dollars, more like 5 billion currently, and more if the FTC chimes in, but their fabs and people are still there, their projects, including LRB is still there etc
Having a projected dominance in the market is one thing, but its since been drastically changed, so too will its R&D and products lines.
Intel loses 600million off the top every year, its competition is stronger, its had several large monetary losses, and if LRB doesnt pan out, its spent alot of money for something they already have, but will take time, Polaris.
This is reality, and assuming Intel will forever be on this great roll isnt wise, and it wouldnt be for any tech company, not over a long duration.
What Intel has done for the length of time it has done it is unprecedented, but again, I point back to all the billions of cheating/control/lawbreaking and the weakening of its competition.
It wont last, at least not at the pace weve seen


one side excuse for amd's failure. if so why is it just gone out recently that suppose to be blew out wat before 2004? why are major menufacturer like sony/hp/dell/gateway less willing to use amd processor in their line? for example, dell(not include alienware)has 90% of line were intel's while only 10% were for amd. why? because of general consumer cant accept amd. same goes to mac/apple who being lack of support by major population of 20 years. because people dont like them.

if intel found quilty(which it had happaned) then most of major menufacturer would have to undergo the trail as well. however these big company who are much worse than intel are set still and doing dirty business. why blame intel? hewlett-packardare most to be blame and their leadership would all have to go to jail. everyone are been faulty for these mess. not just intel.
a c 117 à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:32:00 PM

I'm sensing the possibility of a hot monkey-love connection here that brings cross-platform peace.

The only question in my mind as to whether the resulting progeny will be named 'Elmenny' ....
December 14, 2009 4:35:43 PM

Im confused Jenny, you want Elmo to pay because hes not psycic? None of the quotes you offered up are fanyboi rants, there the rumors we had prior to the cancellation of the consumer version of Larabee.

As to the AMDZone dig, calling the 965 'superior' just because its AMD's highest binning part vs Intels lowest binning is dumb at best, but more than likely delusional, which fits pretty well with Elmo's question.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:35:53 PM

WOW cheesesubs were you living on Mars for the past 3 months or what?

Dell has 90% intel because they were BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. FACT.
December 14, 2009 4:42:04 PM

cheesesubs said:
...
one side excuse for amd's failure. if so why is it just gone out recently that suppose to be blew out wat before 2004? why are major menufacturer like sony/hp/dell/gateway less willing to use amd processor in their line? for example, dell(not include alienware)has 90% of line were intel's while only 10% were for amd. why? because of general consumer cant accept amd. same goes to mac/apple who being lack of support by major population of 20 years. because people dont like them.

if intel found quilty(which it had happaned) then most of major menufacturer would have to undergo the trail as well. however these big company who are much worse than intel are set still and doing dirty business. why blame intel? hewlett-packardare most to be blame and their leadership would all have to go to jail. everyone are been faulty for these mess. not just intel.


While I agree that the major OEMs should be brought to justice for participating, you seem to have a poor understanding of what happened. Intel payed these companys to delay, or outright cancel, product lines that featured AMD processors. It has nothing to do with 'general consumer cant accept amd.' General consumer doesnt know that AMD even exists, and most dont know what Intel makes. They just know the Blue Man Group and the jingle.
December 14, 2009 4:43:38 PM

cheesesubs said:
that is the major reason i hate amd so much because of people like her portraying terrible example...giving people really bad image about how amd only talks trash and bring nothing but junk product to enrage the consumer.



one side excuse for amd's failure. if so why is it just gone out recently that suppose to be blew out wat before 2004? why are major menufacturer like sony/hp/dell/gateway less willing to use amd processor in their line? for example, dell(not include alienware)has 90% of line were intel's while only 10% were for amd. why? because of general consumer cant accept amd. same goes to mac/apple who being lack of support by major population of 20 years. because people dont like them.

if intel found quilty(which it had happaned) then most of major menufacturer would have to undergo the trail as well. however these big company who are much worse than intel are set still and doing dirty business. why blame intel? hewlett-packardare most to be blame and their leadership would all have to go to jail. everyone are been faulty for these mess. not just intel.

This has been done to death, and its a wonder why anyone needs be reminded.
Everyone knows Intel cheated/broke the laws, to the tune of billions of dollars.
AMD tried to give away their cpus to 1 OEM, and they didnt take them, because it went against Intels and their illegal agreement.
I wont go thru all this now again, you need to read up on it, read when Otellini said AMD had better cpus and were killing Intel.
Just read it.
If the CEO of Intel admits having worse cpus, and they were threatened, and then more illegal activities took place, its a no brainer, its all on record, theyve already been found guilty 3 times, possibly 4, and have given AMD the equivilent of 5 billion dollars for AMD to drop the suit.
Just read it
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:47:34 PM

B-Unit said:
Im confused Jenny, you want Elmo to pay because hes not psycic? None of the quotes you offered up are fanyboi rants, there the rumors we had prior to the cancellation of the consumer version of Larabee.

As to the AMDZone dig, calling the 965 'superior' just because its AMD's highest binning part vs Intels lowest binning is dumb at best, but more than likely delusional, which fits pretty well with Elmo's question.


No elmo seems to not understand the difference between opinions and facts. If some people at AMDZone think the 965 BE is better then that is their opinion.

If elmo thought that larrabee was going to be a huge success because intel are infallible...that is also an opinion.

Elmo was *definitely* wrong however - whether or not the AMD cpu is 'better' than the intel one is still a matter of opinion. I considered his opinion on larrabee to be just as ludicrous as he considers this person at AMDZone's - and you know what? I was proven right.

As for the binning, that is a matter of timing is it not? If you'd compared the top binned AMD to the lowest binned intel last January what would the situation have looked like? What will it look like when Thuban is released?
December 14, 2009 4:51:18 PM

B-Unit said:
While I agree that the major OEMs should be brought to justice for participating, you seem to have a poor understanding of what happened. Intel payed these companys to delay, or outright cancel, product lines that featured AMD processors. It has nothing to do with 'general consumer cant accept amd.' General consumer doesnt know that AMD even exists, and most dont know what Intel makes. They just know the Blue Man Group and the jingle.


i believe it was flamed by these menufactuer since intel had become underdog in court for 2 years. it has no evidence prove that intel paid them to cancel or delay amd platform from being publish. also it was an excuse to justified their action were innocent in past because intel "force" them to do it. if so why did it blew out earlier? why are these supplier chose to tolerated? that doesn't make sense at all!!! and yet i agree this part that general population did not know about amd. but based of their ignorance was because these oem that was cover the public audience for ppurpose. intel was totally innocent except the x86 license part.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:54:37 PM

Yes and totally innocent companies pay $1.25 billion and sign up to anti-uncompetitive rules don't they?
December 14, 2009 4:55:35 PM

Heres one for cheesesubs
December 14, 2009 4:58:27 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This has been done to death, and its a wonder why anyone needs be reminded.
Everyone knows Intel cheated/broke the laws, to the tune of billions of dollars.
AMD tried to give away their cpus to 1 OEM, and they didnt take them, because it went against Intels and their illegal agreement.
I wont go thru all this now again, you need to read up on it, read when Otellini said AMD had better cpus and were killing Intel.
Just read it.
If the CEO of Intel admits having worse cpus, and they were threatened, and then more illegal activities took place, its a no brainer, its all on record, theyve already been found guilty 3 times, possibly 4, and have given AMD the equivilent of 5 billion dollars for AMD to drop the suit.
Just read it


i readed it and it was totally ridiculous that these major oem should be the one that been responsible for all of these mess. intel was obviously flamed by these fatcat. they admitted these was because they had lawsuit in 5 country and they want to get out of that mess as early as possible before the negative effect spread in stock holder and cause them retreat.

why didn't hewlett packard ceo and dell leadership go to court? why didnt they put in trail?

Heres one for cheesesubs
[urlExt=http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu171/jaydeejohn/sfar2c.jpg said:
http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu171/jaydeejohn/sfar2c.jpg]Heres one for cheesesubs
http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu171/jaydeejohn/sfar2c.jpg
[/urlExt]

yeah i believe lerrabee is better than evergreed
December 14, 2009 5:04:09 PM

How can you say that Larabee wont be a 'huge success' when its not here yet? That is your opinion. Nowhere do I see where he said 'This is gospel, believe or die!' Nor in his AMDZone thread did he say they wern't entitled to an opinion. He simply asked in what dreamworld they lived where those opinoins seem rational. He then highlighted a couple of quotes that seem to highlight this behavior.

December 14, 2009 5:04:20 PM

Lets see.
How did this all help HP or Dell?
Ask yourself that first.
Does buying Intel exclusive cpus help them in any way? Not when AMDs were faster, which they were at the time. Same for Dell.
So, who does it help? The motive lies at the feet of Intel and Intel only, as Intels motive was to control the market, and diminish AMD as much as possible, which they did.
Simple
December 14, 2009 5:07:51 PM

I think going on non facts as much as some decry them, is paramount to some blind assumptions, wouldnt you agree? Meaning, because Intels been on a roll, they wont miss with LRB.
" think that, given the roll Intel is on and with Otellini in charge, Larrabee will be a success. I don't see it being a failure. I don't see what would lead you to think otherwise."
Im not picking on him here, but including this statement is somewhat of a blind statement.

Think if someone said this about BD, because, as we all know, AMD has always pretty much caught or surpassed Intel in the past, and going on this alone, say, BD will be incredible.
To me, its somewhat the same.
Ive been saying for awhile, weve all come expect certain things from Intel, and some were in denial about P2 before its release, its clocks especially, and thats where the HKMG thing came in.
I was surprised by P2, not as much as the LRB delay, but again, thats something more than Im willing to get into here.
At any given time, any company can fail, big or small, large failure or small
December 14, 2009 5:14:32 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Lets see.
How did this all help HP or Dell?
Ask yourself that first.
Does buying Intel exclusive cpus help them in any way? Not when AMDs were faster, which they were at the time. Same for Dell.
So, who does it help? The motive lies at the feet of Intel and Intel only, as Intels motive was to control the market, and diminish AMD as much as possible, which they did.
Simple


intel diminish amd in performance. fair enough! and these crowd(hp, dell) were just wait to rip the deady body of amd for the final profit. yes i admit intel did some rebate to these greedy oem, but does that mean guilty? why didn't amd come after? because their company was too small to afford such offer? if intel was anti-competive then how would explain amd's market share rise up to 48% in oem/retail while intel drop to 46%in 2005-2006? it is all fair enough.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:19:15 PM

B-Unit said:
How can you say that Larabee wont be a 'huge success' when its not here yet? That is your opinion. Nowhere do I see where he said 'This is gospel, believe or die!' Nor in his AMDZone thread did he say they wern't entitled to an opinion. He simply asked in what dreamworld they lived where those opinoins seem rational. He then highlighted a couple of quotes that seem to highlight this behavior.


I didn't believe his opinions were rational back then and I said it over plenty of posts.

Those posts were proven to be true. Everything him and the others said about Larrabee was false. To me it was obvious and I guess to any neutral observer everything I was saying was obvious too?

I mean, it all happened almost instantly afterwards? How could anybody believe that Larrabee wasn't in serious trouble? Look at the facts, it was as blindingly obvious as could be surely?

All his wild Larrabee 'opinions' were far more ridiculous than some random guy claiming the 965 BE was better than the i5. I can think of plenty of reasons why that rings true, for me at least. His Larrabee opinions will forever be remembered as a complete joke.
December 14, 2009 5:19:30 PM

They tried, read the complaint, the lawsuits, all of it, the PDF.
AMD tried, they even offered free cpus, just to get their foot in the door, but they were refused, and look also at what Intel threatened the OEMs with if they didnt comply.
Look what happened when they didnt comply.
This also includes IBM, they did it to everyone. Its called monopolitzation of a market, and the sellers have no great incentive, only the makers do
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:24:53 PM

Some people are forever lost Jaydee, cheesesubs is one of them seriously if he believes what he is writing then he has no hope at all.
December 14, 2009 5:32:18 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
They tried, read the complaint, the lawsuits, all of it, the PDF.
AMD tried, they even offered free cpus, just to get their foot in the door, but they were refused, and look also at what Intel threatened the OEMs with if they didnt comply.
Look what happened when they didnt comply.
This also includes IBM, they did it to everyone. Its called monopolitzation of a market, and the sellers have no great incentive, only the makers do


if so why amd gain market share rapidly from 30% to 49% highlight in 2004-2006 before met core 2? and intel drop from 68% to 40%(lowest market share since 1986 ) before core 2 save their a$$? did intel ever threaten oem to just rip off amd? again these major supplier should have report it that time but not now! so-called theaten consipiracy based on nothing more than excuse for these big oem to stay away from being charge.

we dont know amd did offer free cpu or not that was stated in document. but as long as these major supplier continuing block amd from public consume market in the future amd will have big trouble still. and which amd processor still rare seeing in the oem system after the court.

time will tell.

PS: the only oem that fair treat amd is e-machine/nec however they were too small compare to sony/hp/dell

oh and i dont know what would happan if they dont comply...
December 14, 2009 5:37:57 PM

Jenny, can u link to the original thread you pulled the quotes from? I want to read them in context.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:41:31 PM

cheesesubs said:
if so why amd gain market share rapidly from 30% to 49% highlight in 2004-2006 before met core 2? and intel drop from 68% to 40%(lowest market share since 1986 ) before core 2 save their a$$?


Oh i dont know... maybe because AMD had better cpu than Intel back then..... :whistle: 
December 14, 2009 5:49:11 PM

the company like hewlett-packard is twice larger than intel. and larger than microsoft and ibm combine. such monster would ever fear "theat" from intel? then how will you explain that hp favor on nividia more than amd?

if you want to blame. hp is the one who plays the big role of antagonist
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:50:28 PM

jennyh said:
ElMoIsEviL said...

Quote:
The performance seems to be right where it should be. Although RV870 can theoretically hit up to 2.7TFLOPs, in practice it can only hit up to 1.3TFLOPs


totally false rv870 can hit 2.5tflops which was 3x 'Larrabee'.

Quote:
As for when Larrabee will be released.. sometime in 2010. I think they're working to perfect their manufacturing process to get the most out of Larrabee.


Cancelled, cancelled, cancelled.

Quote:
Intel seem to be making good progress on Larrabee in my opinion.


No need to comment.

Quote:
Even if it doesn't beat Fermi or RV870, if it get's somewhat close.. give it two to three generations and it will compete handsomely.


That's two to three generation Larrabee won't be getting however.

Quote:
You claim what I am saying as being the "same old argument" but I am basing it on historical knowledge (precedence). You simply despise Intel with a passion and wish them failure in anything they do (blind hatred). And this blind faith you have is blinding you from what most of us see as rather obvious.


Blind faith?

Quote:
I think that, given the roll Intel is on and with Otellini in charge, Larrabee will be a success. I don't see it being a failure. I don't see what would lead you to think otherwise.


Ah this is blind faith.

Quote:
I don't see any evidence to sustain your assertion that Larrabee is an imminent failure.


Time to remove the rose tinted glasses?

Quote:
..the question you have to ask yourself is "Given Intel's current trend, is it plausible that Intel will release a product meant for failure?"... I think the answer is rather obvious...


Yes, it was rather obvious

Quote:
This argument is over. I'll let the THG readers decide who won.


I'll let intel decide.


Note that all of this happened within the same post, less than a week before Larrabee got cancelled. What is it they say about people in glass houses Elmo?

Ahh gotta love this.

JennyH... sit back and enjoy the pwning.

RV870 can theoretically hit 2.7 TFLOPs but in practice can only muster around 1.3TFLOPs... you claim this is not true yet instruments used to measure it's mathematical capabilities show this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/53/13

That's right.. 1.3TFLOPs.

When Larrabee was tested not too long ago it could sustain just over 1TFLOPs worth of performance so it was no slouch (but as I noted, you even quoted it above, the manufacturing process was not perfected yet).

Larrabee is not canceled. Only an idiot would state something of the sorts. Intel is simply not releasing a retail product (they're still making chips though). These chips will be used in the form of kits. And these kits will be used as programming tools for devs. So no it's not canceled.. only in JennyHs world is it canceled.

As for my comment stating that Intel "seemed" to be making good progress. I guess you just don't know what "seems" means. I suggest a dictionary.. oh wait I know you don't use such things so I'll do it for you:

seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.

To appear to be is essentially what it means. This is not a definitive statement. I'm sure you probably knew that but instead chose to straw man my argument regardless. That is called ignorance... something you show in bounds.

As for my statement that in two or three generations Intel might catch up. It holds true. This is precisely WHY Intel decided not to release a retail product and instead have it sent to devs in the form of a kit. To have devs get used to programming for Larrabee's x86 architecture. Makes sense to me to a point (although I would have liked to have a Larrabee chip as it surely would have beaten everything out there in terms of video encoding performance).

All my statements were in fact correct. I've re-read them and they still apply. The only way they could not apply is if you were under the false assertion that the Larrabee project was canceled (which it isn't).

So bite me :) 
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:57:49 PM

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54842

I haven't read the rest of your post, chances are its completely wrong like everything else you write. But hey, I'll give you the chance to read that, realise you were wrong again and change it before I do read it.
December 14, 2009 5:58:43 PM

Quote:
Just close this thread, if this isn't against the ToS for a user with as much comedy value as jennyH to call out another member it should be.


intel forever
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 5:59:17 PM

Quote:
Just close this thread, if this isn't against the ToS for a user with as much comedy value as jennyH to call out another member it should be.


Like you can talk stranger. Everything you write is complete garbage just go back to the graphics forum where you can pretend you actually know something.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:03:39 PM

I'd also like to add that you THINK I'm a fanboi because you ARE a fanboi JennyH. This is how the fanboi mind operates. In politics its similar. A partisan hack like say "Bill O'Reilly" is likely to label anyone who disagrees with him as being a "Liberal" (or a "Pinhead").

When Professor Noam Chomsky made some statements, Bill O'Reilly labeled him a Liberal. But Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist (Libertarian Left/Libertarian Socialist).

What you do is assert that anyone who disagrees that AMD (the company) is the best and is akin to some Holy Saint must be an Intel Fanboi. You then mix up the fact that Enthusiasts purchase the best product available regardless of how much it costs as them being Intel Fanbois because they end up purchasing Corei7 based products and supporting Corei7 based products.

What you fail to understand (much like Bill O'Reilly) is that enthusiast don't give a crap about such trivial things like brand loyalties. That is beneath us.. it is for the little people to argue about. We purchase what gives us the best performance at a given time. This leads us to switch between different manufacturers without notice (right now I own a Radeon HD 5970 and a 5870, at a moments notice I could be running Fermi based products).

Right now I run a Corei7 and have my sights on getting a Corei9 (Extreme Edition) once it releases. IF and When Bulldozer is released, and it beats the available Intel product, I'll make the switch (as I have done many times in the past).

Fanbois don't do this. They change the rules to suit their world view. One minute they could be arguing about how Performance (outright regardless of pricing) is the winning indicator and then when their preferred manufacture loses the performance crown they'll CHANGE their talking points to suit their world view (being that AMD is a holy Saint, rules and that Intel is evil). The AMD fanboi might then move the goal post to another area and claim that price/performance is the winning indicator or that the value segment only counts (whatever advantage AMD currently has becomes the winning indicator in their minds).

It's foolish and in my opinion ignorant. And this is you in a nutshell JennyH ;) 
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:11:16 PM

jennyh said:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54842

I haven't read the rest of your post, chances are its completely wrong like everything else you write. But hey, I'll give you the chance to read that, realise you were wrong again and change it before I do read it.

Quote:
To test ALU throughput we've put together some fairly simple DX10 shaders, that are engineered to test a number of cases, whilst removing all other bottlenecks outside of math prowess. We had to ensure that the loops we used were long enough to extract maximum rates from Cypress:


Wrong how exactly? I've read the forum post before because I was one of the members posting there. Not wrong at all. Read the review. They used a simple DX10 shader.

What the guys in the forum did was different. They tried to work to conjure up scenarios which would be tailored to the RV870 architecture. That is to say they used more than ONE shader at a time. Since RV870 (like all previous ATi architectures since R600) are based on a 5-way VLIW Super Scalar architecture, they can handle several shaders at once. But when you test the mathematical prowess of an architecture doing a single calculation.. you get the real world result (indicated at the link I posted). 1.3TFLOPs is the real world performance of RV870 when handling a simple DX10 shader. Larrabee does just over 1TFLOPs itself and nVIDIA Fermi is like not going to be far off either.

But it's dependent on the math load (as showcased).
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:20:12 PM

Quote:
Let's not argue about theoretical tests please, there is a reason they used games for testing gaming gfx cards.

JennyH is arguing the theoretical (she is somehow convinced that RV870 can sustain 2.7TFLOPs or 2.5TFLOPs of performance regardless of the workload). I'm attempting to show her that using real world DX10 shaders only nets RV870 around 1.3TFLOPs worth of computational performance.

She could argue that in theory this would mean that (if clocked the same) a 5970 could muster up 2.6TFLOPs, but again.. the issue there becomes that most OpenCL apps (as well as Stream, C++ or Direct Compute 11 apps) don't support multi-GPU scaling. It's possible to program for it, but as of the time of writing (AFAIK) there are not multi-GPU GPGPU apps available. Gaming is different of course.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:27:57 PM

No Elmo the point is simply, the 5870 *is* capable of 2.5+ teraflops depending on the software same as Larrabee was capable of 1 teraflops while overclocked depending on the software.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:32:02 PM

jennyh said:
ElMoIsEviL said...

Quote:
The performance seems to be right where it should be. Although RV870 can theoretically hit up to 2.7TFLOPs, in practice it can only hit up to 1.3TFLOPs


totally false rv870 can hit 2.5tflops which was 3x 'Larrabee'.

Quote:
As for when Larrabee will be released.. sometime in 2010. I think they're working to perfect their manufacturing process to get the most out of Larrabee.


Cancelled, cancelled, cancelled.

Quote:
Intel seem to be making good progress on Larrabee in my opinion.


No need to comment.

Quote:
Even if it doesn't beat Fermi or RV870, if it get's somewhat close.. give it two to three generations and it will compete handsomely.


That's two to three generation Larrabee won't be getting however.

Quote:
You claim what I am saying as being the "same old argument" but I am basing it on historical knowledge (precedence). You simply despise Intel with a passion and wish them failure in anything they do (blind hatred). And this blind faith you have is blinding you from what most of us see as rather obvious.


Blind faith?

Quote:
I think that, given the roll Intel is on and with Otellini in charge, Larrabee will be a success. I don't see it being a failure. I don't see what would lead you to think otherwise.


Ah this is blind faith.

Quote:
I don't see any evidence to sustain your assertion that Larrabee is an imminent failure.


Time to remove the rose tinted glasses?

Quote:
..the question you have to ask yourself is "Given Intel's current trend, is it plausible that Intel will release a product meant for failure?"... I think the answer is rather obvious...


Yes, it was rather obvious

Quote:
This argument is over. I'll let the THG readers decide who won.


I'll let intel decide.


Note that all of this happened within the same post, less than a week before Larrabee got cancelled. What is it they say about people in glass houses Elmo?


I also wanted to add this... it's something I said before as well (and you didn't quote me on it).

Speculation /= Reality.

My statements regarding Larrabee, regardless of the fact that they may still apply, were of a speculatory nature (it's an unreleased product after all).

If being wrong on speculations somehow equates to being in denial regarding reality then I guess up is down and night is day.

This also highlights the problem with the fanboi mind (JennyH). It's delusional.

de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Point 3... A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. JennyH is delusional when it comes to many of her claims regarding AMD and Intel (albeit not to the degree of AMDZone) and she is delusional when it comes to asserting that speculation = reality. And that somehow being wrong on your speculations regarding unreleased products equates to denying reality (Larrabee was unreleased therefore in reality it wasn't available).
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:34:45 PM

Redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;see redundant;see redundancy;.....
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:35:06 PM

jennyh said:
No Elmo the point is simply, the 5870 *is* capable of 2.5+ teraflops depending on the software same as Larrabee was capable of 1 teraflops while overclocked depending on the software.

Under no software conditions would 5870 hit 2.5TFLOPs (none that I am aware of). Unless you somehow create useful software which spends it's time only adding up values (no multiplication, division nothing just ADD functions). And it would have to be several ADD functions running in parallel (5-way).

a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:38:37 PM

Quote:
What was the theoretical capabilities of the 2900 again?

Same reasons it did not perform as it "should" apply then as they do today.

For some reason i feel I am baiting people with that comment. Perhaps I will be accused of being an nvidiot.

Radeon 2900XT had a theoretical peak of 475 GFLOPs.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 6:44:55 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Under no software conditions would 5870 hit 2.5TFLOPs (none that I am aware of). Unless you somehow create useful software which spends it's time only adding up values (no multiplication, division nothing just ADD functions). And it would have to be several ADD functions running in parallel (5-way).


There is nothing in the hardware preventing the 5870 from reaching nearly 2.7 tflops. That link proves that the 4870 can be pushed to 1 teraflops which is close to its theoretical maximum. Write the software and you will get ~ 2.5 tflops out of the 5870 - in fact if you read all those posts you'd see that the OP said there is no reason why not.

We don't know what kernel Larrabee was running either but you can be sure it wasn't capable of reaching 2.5 tflops under *any* circumstance.
December 14, 2009 7:51:50 PM

Theres optimised code for any given app, and wed be fools to think otherwise.
LRBs code was optimized as well, but in no way does LRBs optimization amount to getting all of the shaders working on ATI HW, but both are fudged to show best perf, but at 1.3, the ATI is somewhat actual, whereas we cant truly say that for LRB, where we might see 10-20% falloff in real world apps
December 14, 2009 8:07:53 PM

I listen to what elmo has to say for one reason, hes done the research , Having said that everyone has a potential for err. but one thing I know from experience over the years is that elmo doesnt deserve the slander that is the basis of this thread; regardless of where he might be wrong.

I think the mods should treat this personal atack as slander and delete it.
!