Technology Android
- Thread starter THEV1LL4N
- Start date
On sale just 6 weeks after release.. Kaby Lake processors at up to 40% off.
Happy to see Intel suddenly pushed into the corner after years of abusing monopoly and leeching profit margins http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/
Happy to see Intel suddenly pushed into the corner after years of abusing monopoly and leeching profit margins http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/
I forgot to tell you, about 2 weeks ago there was a post on Reddit that said the same exact thing that you did about AMD's new processor that's going to blow Intel's out the water. It was an article announcing just that and the comments berated Intel for its shitty practices/monopoly.
Just thought I'd mention that. I got a ton of info. from your posts but probably a week or two before someone made an article on it and Reddit found it.
Just thought I'd mention that. I got a ton of info. from your posts but probably a week or two before someone made an article on it and Reddit found it.
Google completely shelved their Chromebooks, officially. They said they will continue developing the software but I somehow doubt anything big will come to it anymore, with other vendors switching to low end Windows (Cloudbook, cheap Windows 10 laptops, 2 in 1s etc):
http://m.androidcentral.com/say-goodbye-google-made-chromebook-laptops
As far as Intel is concerned, thanks! Im happy that more and more people research and arent happy with how Intel operated. It felt like some people needed a better platform to switch to in order to officially start criticizing Intel, as its kind of weird to hate on your processor company and continue buying their processors lol. At the same time many others didnt know how much shit was going on with Intel.
Now for the first time since Intel's latest major controversies AMD has the best platform, against all odds and Im glad so many people around the internet are spreading the news. Its kind of like watching that runner dude at the olympics having shit thrown at him, being pushed around and stopped and still getting to the finish line first, before the asshole who arranged for all the attempts at stopping him.
Also, wtf changed at Google that they started making horribly stupid decisions about their products? Basically killed the Nexus line and the Chromebooks, released the Pixel phone that sold tiny amounts of units and pretty much all of them in the US (and Google said they honestly believed it would do so much better!) but also they are releasing stupid product that very obviously nobody wants. I mean, its normal to throw stuff in there and see what sticks but Google product lines used to mean really spot-on useful ones and great value so everyone uses them. Now they destroyed that by pretty much coming up exclusively with stupid shit. We now know the Pixel phone was a failure, wtf is up with Allo, wtf is http://m.gsmarena.com/google_launches_meet_an_online_meeting_service_for_businesses-blog-23732.php and what and why is changing at Google?
http://m.androidcentral.com/say-goodbye-google-made-chromebook-laptops
As far as Intel is concerned, thanks! Im happy that more and more people research and arent happy with how Intel operated. It felt like some people needed a better platform to switch to in order to officially start criticizing Intel, as its kind of weird to hate on your processor company and continue buying their processors lol. At the same time many others didnt know how much shit was going on with Intel.
Now for the first time since Intel's latest major controversies AMD has the best platform, against all odds and Im glad so many people around the internet are spreading the news. Its kind of like watching that runner dude at the olympics having shit thrown at him, being pushed around and stopped and still getting to the finish line first, before the asshole who arranged for all the attempts at stopping him.
Also, wtf changed at Google that they started making horribly stupid decisions about their products? Basically killed the Nexus line and the Chromebooks, released the Pixel phone that sold tiny amounts of units and pretty much all of them in the US (and Google said they honestly believed it would do so much better!) but also they are releasing stupid product that very obviously nobody wants. I mean, its normal to throw stuff in there and see what sticks but Google product lines used to mean really spot-on useful ones and great value so everyone uses them. Now they destroyed that by pretty much coming up exclusively with stupid shit. We now know the Pixel phone was a failure, wtf is up with Allo, wtf is http://m.gsmarena.com/google_launches_meet_an_online_meeting_service_for_businesses-blog-23732.php and what and why is changing at Google?
I feel Google has lost its way. I'd say it's with hardware or software, one or the other, but it's probably both.
They start new projects, let them stagnate for 5 years and scrap them. The messaging service is the worst because they flood their apps with more apps that do the same thing, basically. Allo and Hangouts being a prime example. I don't even know WTF Duo offered over that? And it's still in the basement for messaging services as WhatsApp dominates and iMessage being a big reason people with iPhones stick with iPhones. Google doesn't have anything in Android that makes users want to stay. They've been riding the "customization" wave for 7 years now and it's getting old.
I love my phone and I still use plenty of Google services dozens of times a day. Search, GMail, Hangouts, and Maps. But the other stuff Google offers has no advantage over the competitors. And all the services I just mentioned are obviously available on iOS. Hangouts is better on iOS, whatever the reason may be behind that.
I love my S7 and Android on it, but it's hard to shake off the feeling that Google is just fucking around now. They're a big company with so many brilliant minds, but there's nothing they're doing that's cutting-edge. Even if Apple piggybacks some of the things Google does and then claims they developed or "invented" it first, iOS runs smooth as butter. Whatever measures Apple takes to improve battery life, it works well enough for casual and professional/heavy users alike. Google hasn't even been doing that with Android. They may claim they are with Doze, which works fine, but people still deal with battery drains without tinkering too much with their phones. It's Google services that have the bugs that create wakelocks that drain the batteries of users the most. Save from malicious apps downloaded and Snapchat, no one complains about any other app than Google Play Store/Services.
Whatever it is, I'd been considering an iPhone for the last two generations now, seriously. My dad and sister have 7+ and they're great devices. But that's not even the issue anymore since my S7 is probably just as nice as far as build material/quality goes. Maybe I'm too used to Android where the features don't wow me as much. But a combo of battery tech being so poorly developed and Android going rogue with the wakelocks and battery drain from time to time, it's a frustrating experience some times.
And that just adds more to the frustration when Google scraps projects like Reader, which are widely used. Now Allo/Duo/Hangouts are all on the chopping block. Guess which one I use? The one that's been around the longest. Guess which gets the axe? Yup. I wouldn't even be mad if all three got the axe and Google just brings back GTalk, because nothing they do surprises me anymore.
They start new projects, let them stagnate for 5 years and scrap them. The messaging service is the worst because they flood their apps with more apps that do the same thing, basically. Allo and Hangouts being a prime example. I don't even know WTF Duo offered over that? And it's still in the basement for messaging services as WhatsApp dominates and iMessage being a big reason people with iPhones stick with iPhones. Google doesn't have anything in Android that makes users want to stay. They've been riding the "customization" wave for 7 years now and it's getting old.
I love my phone and I still use plenty of Google services dozens of times a day. Search, GMail, Hangouts, and Maps. But the other stuff Google offers has no advantage over the competitors. And all the services I just mentioned are obviously available on iOS. Hangouts is better on iOS, whatever the reason may be behind that.
I love my S7 and Android on it, but it's hard to shake off the feeling that Google is just fucking around now. They're a big company with so many brilliant minds, but there's nothing they're doing that's cutting-edge. Even if Apple piggybacks some of the things Google does and then claims they developed or "invented" it first, iOS runs smooth as butter. Whatever measures Apple takes to improve battery life, it works well enough for casual and professional/heavy users alike. Google hasn't even been doing that with Android. They may claim they are with Doze, which works fine, but people still deal with battery drains without tinkering too much with their phones. It's Google services that have the bugs that create wakelocks that drain the batteries of users the most. Save from malicious apps downloaded and Snapchat, no one complains about any other app than Google Play Store/Services.
Whatever it is, I'd been considering an iPhone for the last two generations now, seriously. My dad and sister have 7+ and they're great devices. But that's not even the issue anymore since my S7 is probably just as nice as far as build material/quality goes. Maybe I'm too used to Android where the features don't wow me as much. But a combo of battery tech being so poorly developed and Android going rogue with the wakelocks and battery drain from time to time, it's a frustrating experience some times.
And that just adds more to the frustration when Google scraps projects like Reader, which are widely used. Now Allo/Duo/Hangouts are all on the chopping block. Guess which one I use? The one that's been around the longest. Guess which gets the axe? Yup. I wouldn't even be mad if all three got the axe and Google just brings back GTalk, because nothing they do surprises me anymore.
Yeah Google went crazy with their decisions. I don't use any of their services for messaging as I don't know anyone using them, same with iMessage. I stick tô WhatsApp and Facebook as that's where people are and they're platform independent. I was also thinking "wtf don't Google have like 4 messaging platforms now that nobody uses?"
There are no good additions to Android too, with 7.0 adding the least new goodies. As a matter of fact it didn't change much, and I heard the battery is same if not a tiny bit worse, with the S7 taking just a tiny hit. That said, same can be said about iOS with the iPhones to me looking super old school now compared to newest Androids. My iPad took a major battery hit over the latest iOS updates too, and they didn't add any value. I still can't watch YouTube videos and I'm out of storage space with like 4 apps installed but I don't want to factory reset yet again and set all up from scratch.
The smaller bezels are somewhat of a game changer and chips going 10nm will be good for battery life, but nothing else interesting is happening in general in the mobile market. I am mostly excited about VR but that area is also progressing fairly slowly. I'll probably get the S8 unless they screw something up majorly, but otherwise my interest has shifted mostly towards PC again, with the most innovation happening back there again. Makes me happy to build a new rig soon, and it's going to be a challenge as I plan to make it tiny yet ultimately powerful.
There are no good additions to Android too, with 7.0 adding the least new goodies. As a matter of fact it didn't change much, and I heard the battery is same if not a tiny bit worse, with the S7 taking just a tiny hit. That said, same can be said about iOS with the iPhones to me looking super old school now compared to newest Androids. My iPad took a major battery hit over the latest iOS updates too, and they didn't add any value. I still can't watch YouTube videos and I'm out of storage space with like 4 apps installed but I don't want to factory reset yet again and set all up from scratch.
The smaller bezels are somewhat of a game changer and chips going 10nm will be good for battery life, but nothing else interesting is happening in general in the mobile market. I am mostly excited about VR but that area is also progressing fairly slowly. I'll probably get the S8 unless they screw something up majorly, but otherwise my interest has shifted mostly towards PC again, with the most innovation happening back there again. Makes me happy to build a new rig soon, and it's going to be a challenge as I plan to make it tiny yet ultimately powerful.
My battery seemed to get worse from MM to the Nougat beta I got last year. I was one of the testers. I factory reset my phone in late-January for the first time since launch day. I was hoping it would fix the battery issues, and it seemed to do so, but that could be because I didn't install Google Now Launcher and stuck with Touchwiz. Nougat did nothing, yet the people on S7 forums were ready to suck a dick for Nougat a month ago when it started to roll out. But I'm sure happens with all phones getting major updates.
I may be stretching thin here, but what about the iPhone's design makes it look "old?" From the get-go Apple never had touch buttons on their devices. It seemed odd at first but even Google started removing touch buttons from their devices and instead on the screens of Nexus phones. I think some OEMs also followed suit but the main thing was it started at the root level: vanilla Android. So in some ways, Apple was ahead in that design curve, intentionally or unintentionally, since they never implemented it despite 5+ years of Android devices having them.
After that, it's a rather simple phone and that's what makes it a piece of art. Technically, the iPhone's aesthetics have stagnated for the past few years, with the only major changes being the addition of TouchID and decreasing the bezels. I guess adding more functions to the Home button like Force Touch just made the Home button have some more functional depth.
Speaking of TouchID, I remember someone on here ridiculing it when it was first announced for the 5 or 5S. Yet it's a staple of every mobile device sold now, and is even a metric on how "responsive" it is.
I'm not saying Android isn't innovative but the tech world is full of lead-and-follow and different OSs and OEMs take turns in being the leader. But when it comes to OSs, iOS vs Android, when was the last time Google broke a barrier that Apple had to play catch-up to? It's happened before, probably with the multitasking feature Android had, but after that? It may be a bit unfair since Apple makes both the hardware and software, but Google does that too now with the Pixel, right? It's a device that Google now engineers to its liking rather than "knighting" an OEM with the task of being a Nexus.
So what new ground has Android broken recently on either front? For a lot of us, Google's magic came from predicting user behavior by having access to the user's data. Location, usage, etc. And that's cool because if people didn't know or value their information given to Google or any company before, they certainly do now with internet privacy being such a huge deal the past few years. But that was part of the illusion. Google has always been collecting data and informing the user, but most users were oblivious to it and just thought Google giving travel times to work, traffic conditions, weather, articles we'd like, etc., was some sort of witchcraft. But that novelty wore itself thin a few years back and Google hasn't been able to wow users since. Especially since we know how the magic trick was done; using our data.
So in the last 5 years, Apple put out Siri, TouchID, Force Touch, and made a "courageous" move to remove the headphone jack. Google improved on Siri and because superior to it. TouchID was a lead and follow situation. Force Touch may not be as big a deal unless you tried and like it. And we'll see what happens with Apple's push for wireless audio. Google has added a ton of apps/services but I'm sure only the more advanced users know about Google Trips and use it. Same with Allo and Duo. For the latter two, which casual user on iOS or Android would switch from WhatsApp or Facebook and use Google's services? So why is Google still beating down this path despite that?
About Chromebooks, the allure is how cheap they are. They're all over classrooms. But with the advent of ultrabooks, both Mac and PC, do people with even moderate productivity needs use a Chromebook over ultrabooks?
I may be stretching thin here, but what about the iPhone's design makes it look "old?" From the get-go Apple never had touch buttons on their devices. It seemed odd at first but even Google started removing touch buttons from their devices and instead on the screens of Nexus phones. I think some OEMs also followed suit but the main thing was it started at the root level: vanilla Android. So in some ways, Apple was ahead in that design curve, intentionally or unintentionally, since they never implemented it despite 5+ years of Android devices having them.
After that, it's a rather simple phone and that's what makes it a piece of art. Technically, the iPhone's aesthetics have stagnated for the past few years, with the only major changes being the addition of TouchID and decreasing the bezels. I guess adding more functions to the Home button like Force Touch just made the Home button have some more functional depth.
Speaking of TouchID, I remember someone on here ridiculing it when it was first announced for the 5 or 5S. Yet it's a staple of every mobile device sold now, and is even a metric on how "responsive" it is.
I'm not saying Android isn't innovative but the tech world is full of lead-and-follow and different OSs and OEMs take turns in being the leader. But when it comes to OSs, iOS vs Android, when was the last time Google broke a barrier that Apple had to play catch-up to? It's happened before, probably with the multitasking feature Android had, but after that? It may be a bit unfair since Apple makes both the hardware and software, but Google does that too now with the Pixel, right? It's a device that Google now engineers to its liking rather than "knighting" an OEM with the task of being a Nexus.
So what new ground has Android broken recently on either front? For a lot of us, Google's magic came from predicting user behavior by having access to the user's data. Location, usage, etc. And that's cool because if people didn't know or value their information given to Google or any company before, they certainly do now with internet privacy being such a huge deal the past few years. But that was part of the illusion. Google has always been collecting data and informing the user, but most users were oblivious to it and just thought Google giving travel times to work, traffic conditions, weather, articles we'd like, etc., was some sort of witchcraft. But that novelty wore itself thin a few years back and Google hasn't been able to wow users since. Especially since we know how the magic trick was done; using our data.
So in the last 5 years, Apple put out Siri, TouchID, Force Touch, and made a "courageous" move to remove the headphone jack. Google improved on Siri and because superior to it. TouchID was a lead and follow situation. Force Touch may not be as big a deal unless you tried and like it. And we'll see what happens with Apple's push for wireless audio. Google has added a ton of apps/services but I'm sure only the more advanced users know about Google Trips and use it. Same with Allo and Duo. For the latter two, which casual user on iOS or Android would switch from WhatsApp or Facebook and use Google's services? So why is Google still beating down this path despite that?
About Chromebooks, the allure is how cheap they are. They're all over classrooms. But with the advent of ultrabooks, both Mac and PC, do people with even moderate productivity needs use a Chromebook over ultrabooks?
Personally I don't find use in Chromebooks but I'm sure some people would like them for simplicity - a computer with internet browser as the OS, essentially. Something I'd consider for my grandpa, although even he could be limited with not being able to install things like Skype easily.
As far as iPhones go I think it's largely where you're coming from and your perception. I was always up to date with iPhones but didn't have many of them around, so coming to Canada seeing so many of them in the wild makes me scratch my head. The device feels really old school to me. The bezels are gigantic, the display is small while the device is as big as my S7. There's something to it that makes it feel like a few years old mid range device. Perhaps Apple being late to adopt newest tech unlike pretty much everyone else contributes to it. I mean things like a 720p screen when the world is considering moving from 2k to 4K, big bezels, no wireless charging, no fast charging and only considering moving to USB for charging now might add to that. The only thing that feels like Apple does to change that perception is putting unnecessarily fast chips inside - they make great ARM chips, but they seem to get wasted on iOS which simply doesn't need that, it feels like they do that just to claim that it's a high end device and not a mid ranger sold at insane profit margins. Their cameras are not bad too - but they usually use fairly small sensors of previous generations which are cheaper and make up for deficiencies with image processing.
Apple didn't use the same physical buttons but had the menu button, which to me was the worst of both worlds, as I hate having to find the back button in every app in a different location, if I'm lucky enough to find one. Android OEMs are ditching the physical buttons due to not having space for them anymore, due to bezels being almost gone, but at least the on screen buttons are always in the same place.
Otherwise Apple and Google are equally stagnating with their software these days. Gone are the days of excitement due to even minor Android releases bringing a huge set of completely new and exciting game changing features. Same with iOS - they copied each other over the years with iOS adding functionality and Android becoming more simple to use and it feels like they've reached what they wanted and updates are barely incremental now, with both systems being left far from perfect.
As far as iPhones go I think it's largely where you're coming from and your perception. I was always up to date with iPhones but didn't have many of them around, so coming to Canada seeing so many of them in the wild makes me scratch my head. The device feels really old school to me. The bezels are gigantic, the display is small while the device is as big as my S7. There's something to it that makes it feel like a few years old mid range device. Perhaps Apple being late to adopt newest tech unlike pretty much everyone else contributes to it. I mean things like a 720p screen when the world is considering moving from 2k to 4K, big bezels, no wireless charging, no fast charging and only considering moving to USB for charging now might add to that. The only thing that feels like Apple does to change that perception is putting unnecessarily fast chips inside - they make great ARM chips, but they seem to get wasted on iOS which simply doesn't need that, it feels like they do that just to claim that it's a high end device and not a mid ranger sold at insane profit margins. Their cameras are not bad too - but they usually use fairly small sensors of previous generations which are cheaper and make up for deficiencies with image processing.
Apple didn't use the same physical buttons but had the menu button, which to me was the worst of both worlds, as I hate having to find the back button in every app in a different location, if I'm lucky enough to find one. Android OEMs are ditching the physical buttons due to not having space for them anymore, due to bezels being almost gone, but at least the on screen buttons are always in the same place.
Otherwise Apple and Google are equally stagnating with their software these days. Gone are the days of excitement due to even minor Android releases bringing a huge set of completely new and exciting game changing features. Same with iOS - they copied each other over the years with iOS adding functionality and Android becoming more simple to use and it feels like they've reached what they wanted and updates are barely incremental now, with both systems being left far from perfect.
Also, NDAs on AMD Ryzen benchmarks are off, they started shipping today and they are.. well, see below.
You can see the Cinebench, with the Ryzen chip on top. The tiny 985 score down below is the i7700k - the fastest Kaby Lake chip. Zen scored fraking 70% better. Intel saying 8th Gen will be 10-15% faster than Kaby Lake? Pff, Intel won't have a competing chip for a long time now then.
The only two Intel chips that are close to Ryzen in this benchmark are the 10-core and 8-core Intel High-Performance Computing Platform chips with the only faster chip - the 6950X being a 10-core/20thread unit that sells to OEMS for 1723$ plus big money for a board supporting it.
The Ryzen 7 Chips are 329$ to 499$ available on the new mainstream platform that AMD announced will be supporting all the newest processors for at least the upcoming 4 generations. Which means if you buy Zen2,3,4 or whatever they call it, you can just swap the processor and you'll have the newest one in your very same computer. You buy Kaby Lake today and want 8th generation Core processor next year? Sorry, with Intel you need a whole new board!
This is the biggest thing in desktop computing for over 10 years and of course it didn't come from Intel.
Single core and low resolution gaming benchmarks are a little below the 7700K, but the 7700k has 4 cores instead of 8 and thus is clocked at 4.2ghz as opposed to 3.6ghz for Ryzen. Also Intel optimizations over the years and new-platform factors to be otherwise fixed with BIOS updates come into play. Believe it or not, those results are with a memory latency bug that is supposed to get fixed through upcoming updates for the Ryzen boards.
Even those aside, the Ryzen is by far the highest performing desktop chip on the market, and funnily at the same time a great bang for the buck compared to Intel chips, oh and it is more power efficient, which means great things for the upcoming mobile versions (2H 2017).
AMD is also arguing that with a lot of stuff out there being optimized for Intel, they now dedicated their engineers to work with software developers to start optimizing stuff for Zen too, which will make it perform even better. Bethesda and several other game developers jumped in and announced that they will be optimizing their upcoming games for AMD chips: http://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-partners-with-amd-to-optimize-games-for-ryzen-and-vega/
http://venturebeat.com/2017/02/28/a...ing-ryzen-processors-and-vega-graphics-chips/
And all is right in the world again, just hoping Intel won't fuck it up with shady shit again and competes fairly. Regardless, this time everyone is watching.
Edit: As a little of surprise that felt great to read, even Anandtech had this to say in their review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700
You can see the Cinebench, with the Ryzen chip on top. The tiny 985 score down below is the i7700k - the fastest Kaby Lake chip. Zen scored fraking 70% better. Intel saying 8th Gen will be 10-15% faster than Kaby Lake? Pff, Intel won't have a competing chip for a long time now then.
The only two Intel chips that are close to Ryzen in this benchmark are the 10-core and 8-core Intel High-Performance Computing Platform chips with the only faster chip - the 6950X being a 10-core/20thread unit that sells to OEMS for 1723$ plus big money for a board supporting it.
The Ryzen 7 Chips are 329$ to 499$ available on the new mainstream platform that AMD announced will be supporting all the newest processors for at least the upcoming 4 generations. Which means if you buy Zen2,3,4 or whatever they call it, you can just swap the processor and you'll have the newest one in your very same computer. You buy Kaby Lake today and want 8th generation Core processor next year? Sorry, with Intel you need a whole new board!
This is the biggest thing in desktop computing for over 10 years and of course it didn't come from Intel.
Single core and low resolution gaming benchmarks are a little below the 7700K, but the 7700k has 4 cores instead of 8 and thus is clocked at 4.2ghz as opposed to 3.6ghz for Ryzen. Also Intel optimizations over the years and new-platform factors to be otherwise fixed with BIOS updates come into play. Believe it or not, those results are with a memory latency bug that is supposed to get fixed through upcoming updates for the Ryzen boards.
Even those aside, the Ryzen is by far the highest performing desktop chip on the market, and funnily at the same time a great bang for the buck compared to Intel chips, oh and it is more power efficient, which means great things for the upcoming mobile versions (2H 2017).
AMD is also arguing that with a lot of stuff out there being optimized for Intel, they now dedicated their engineers to work with software developers to start optimizing stuff for Zen too, which will make it perform even better. Bethesda and several other game developers jumped in and announced that they will be optimizing their upcoming games for AMD chips: http://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-partners-with-amd-to-optimize-games-for-ryzen-and-vega/
http://venturebeat.com/2017/02/28/a...ing-ryzen-processors-and-vega-graphics-chips/
And all is right in the world again, just hoping Intel won't fuck it up with shady shit again and competes fairly. Regardless, this time everyone is watching.
Edit: As a little of surprise that felt great to read, even Anandtech had this to say in their review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700
It's a new core, new architecture. It was released desktop first, later this year the mobile chipsets with this core and the new Vega GPU are coming out, and that is a sweet combination of the fastest CPU and GPU architectures on one package, and now it's the GPU part that we're waiting for. Zen and Vega were designed to be fully scalable - from mobile to supercomputers so you should see them at least wherever Intel's Core is now and all OEMs, including Apple, will be able to use them (unless Intel managed to get them to sign exclusivity agreements).
The first products shipping with it will be available in 2H 2017. We know it will be sooner rather than later due to the Xbox One Scorpio being announced in June and launching with such combo during this Holiday season, and it'll already have a semi-custom part based on Zen/Vega chips, which means the stock mobile parts it's based on should be long out by that time. Microsoft is really raving about it and the main marketing material for it is all about that very AMD chip: http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/project-scorpio
The original Xbox One and PS4 chipsets are also semi-custom solutions built on AMD mobile Jaguar Cores and Radeon GCN cores of that time which were available on mobile 4 months prior to being launched on consoles. They were very underutilized in mobile, but they weren't anywhere as great for their time as Zen/Vega are now.
So far the predictions are excellent - while the "standard" 8-core Ryzen processors use a little bit more power than 4-core Kaby Lake processors, there is also a 65W 8 core Ryzen CPU that goes from 95W to 65W TDP just by clocking it at 3.0ghz instead of 3.6ghz. That would be less than half the power per core compared to a Kaby Lake CPU at the same frequency and makes it by far the most efficient 8-core CPU on the market, and we're talking about full 8-cores/16 threads desktop units at 65W! The Kaby Lake mobile quad core i7s are rated 45W, for reference.
The only question is how low they can scale this well, but even if efficiency decreases for some reason, we still have better performance per Watt (and per $) than Kaby Lake, plus there's far superior GPU, as AMD is the only company making both - high end CPUs and GPUs.
The first products shipping with it will be available in 2H 2017. We know it will be sooner rather than later due to the Xbox One Scorpio being announced in June and launching with such combo during this Holiday season, and it'll already have a semi-custom part based on Zen/Vega chips, which means the stock mobile parts it's based on should be long out by that time. Microsoft is really raving about it and the main marketing material for it is all about that very AMD chip: http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/project-scorpio
The original Xbox One and PS4 chipsets are also semi-custom solutions built on AMD mobile Jaguar Cores and Radeon GCN cores of that time which were available on mobile 4 months prior to being launched on consoles. They were very underutilized in mobile, but they weren't anywhere as great for their time as Zen/Vega are now.
So far the predictions are excellent - while the "standard" 8-core Ryzen processors use a little bit more power than 4-core Kaby Lake processors, there is also a 65W 8 core Ryzen CPU that goes from 95W to 65W TDP just by clocking it at 3.0ghz instead of 3.6ghz. That would be less than half the power per core compared to a Kaby Lake CPU at the same frequency and makes it by far the most efficient 8-core CPU on the market, and we're talking about full 8-cores/16 threads desktop units at 65W! The Kaby Lake mobile quad core i7s are rated 45W, for reference.
The only question is how low they can scale this well, but even if efficiency decreases for some reason, we still have better performance per Watt (and per $) than Kaby Lake, plus there's far superior GPU, as AMD is the only company making both - high end CPUs and GPUs.
No clue if and what Apple is going to do with it, to be honest. The chips are likely to be cheaper than Intel's, while also more powerful so it would make sense to use them all around. Apple would have to optimize their software for it though - it's similar to Intel's Core processors, but still to take full advantage of its strong points, some work is required (Microsoft is working with AMD right now on finishing Windows optimizations). I believe such switch would be a big move for Apple so not sure how much sense it would make for them to use it just on one product. Besides, Apple is one of the most conservative OEMs, making switches very rarely and investing in more than one architecture is almost unheard of on their camp. Basically it was PowerPC and then the Core architecture from Intel. They're making their lives easy at the cost of flexibility and being stuck with what they gambled on 100%. At the positive side effect of making it easier for developers who have to consider issues only for Intel processors. That would have to be changed. With some programs not working as well as on Core without optimizations. AMD seems happy to work with developers to make that happen, but Apple might still decide it's more convenient to go with slightly inferior architecture that enables them to avoid additional work.
The critical point here is that Apple will have to go through that soon anyway. Intel's Core architecture is now antiquated and has maybe two or three more generations of not much progress ahead of it. AMD has a brand new architecture now that will grow substantially from an already great starting point - Ryzen is to AMD what Core 2 Duo was to the current Core processors, with additional promise of keeping the same platform for upcoming 4 generations of processors, which is against Intel's money-milking policy making the slightest changes to make platforms incompatible with their newer processors. Switching a platform is much more costly than just getting a newer generation processor.
Intel won't have a new architecture for a few more years, making it a few years on an inferior and more expensive architecture. There are decisions to be made at Apple, and I'm sure Intel will be throwing their money at Apple to influence those decisions. Let's not forget when Apple was ditching IBM and just starting with x86 (Intel/AMD) AMD had the better architecture and Apple still went with Intel. Apple were lucky that Intel managed to come up with Core - the architecture that turned out to be very good at the time.
This time around odds are against Intel, but Intel has the money to spend and existing ties with Apple, and Apple tends to value brands over great compontents - they deal with the same few companies exclusively, even if a different one has a better product.
Those are the differences between how Apple and to some extent others operate, that show that Apple is more likely to go with the easier choice from a vendor that they've worked with for a long time. And Apple users are less likely to mind not having the absolute best performer, although not sure if that remains with Ryzen which can render a video almost twice as fast as on the fastest Kaby Lake, and Apple camp has a lot of content creators.
That's what worries me. Apple can be bought or be complacent with the tech and still get away with it. That was my worry about Apple deciding to make a big jump and include AMD or to stick with old-ass Intel stuff for another 2-3 years, or more.
I don't remember that far back nor was I as interested in tech back then as I am now but I do remember the switch to Intel back in 2006 or so. Maybe slightly before that, but news probably got to me even slower back then. But I didn't think it was strictly Intel and though Apple had simply ditched PowerPC and opened up for compatibility reasons. So when I asked about AMD on Apple, I thought there was a period Apple just simply "opened up" and allowed both Intel and AMD processors on their systems. Then around 2010 when the Core i5/7 came out on Macs, Apple was exclusively using Intel. I just thought Macs had AMD processors at some point, but it seems I was mistaken. And if they went this long with Intel only, I don't see them changing anytime soon. Macs still use AMD GPUs though, right? I think the high end models use Radeon GPUs. So I guess there is still some hope.
Just the other day, Cook reassured users that Apple hadn't given up on Macs and that they were going to surprise us with something. Not sure what it is but WWDC is a while away and I don't think the MBPs are looking at a refresh at that point. I imagine if Macs were to magically get AMD CPUs in Q4 of this year, there would be issues with apps created to run on previous models which were all Intel? I didn't realize CPU made that much of a difference when using the same app.
Wasn't Apple also supposed to be putting ARM processors in Macs a few years back? That's when the buzz started about Apple making their own or something. Seems like the talks have died down but if Intel is set to hit a wall in a few years, you would think Apple would have a contingency plan for that.
I don't remember that far back nor was I as interested in tech back then as I am now but I do remember the switch to Intel back in 2006 or so. Maybe slightly before that, but news probably got to me even slower back then. But I didn't think it was strictly Intel and though Apple had simply ditched PowerPC and opened up for compatibility reasons. So when I asked about AMD on Apple, I thought there was a period Apple just simply "opened up" and allowed both Intel and AMD processors on their systems. Then around 2010 when the Core i5/7 came out on Macs, Apple was exclusively using Intel. I just thought Macs had AMD processors at some point, but it seems I was mistaken. And if they went this long with Intel only, I don't see them changing anytime soon. Macs still use AMD GPUs though, right? I think the high end models use Radeon GPUs. So I guess there is still some hope.
Just the other day, Cook reassured users that Apple hadn't given up on Macs and that they were going to surprise us with something. Not sure what it is but WWDC is a while away and I don't think the MBPs are looking at a refresh at that point. I imagine if Macs were to magically get AMD CPUs in Q4 of this year, there would be issues with apps created to run on previous models which were all Intel? I didn't realize CPU made that much of a difference when using the same app.
Wasn't Apple also supposed to be putting ARM processors in Macs a few years back? That's when the buzz started about Apple making their own or something. Seems like the talks have died down but if Intel is set to hit a wall in a few years, you would think Apple would have a contingency plan for that.
Apple has great ARM processors, but they are not optimized for such performance due to limitations of ARM as a concept and necessity to completely rewrite all software with a new philosophy in mind to even work (and still not work well). Most companies kind of gave up on ARM in the PC space but Qualcomm which tries to work on a Windows emulator, lol. "lol" because ARM processors are much weaker in the first place, and emulating them means a huge additional performance hit making them perform like processors from the 90s whenever there's a program that will actually run on them.
I think it might have been a pipe dream sparked by ARM's performance growth compared to Intel chips. ARM performance growth slowed down a lot, they are still in completely different ball parks and ARM is just not viable for performance, let alone it's a completely different architecture with not much similarities that would also throw the whole legacy support out the window.
AMD boasted a design win with Apple for Macbooks, but I believe it was for graphics and a win against Nvidia, yeah. AMD dedicated desktop graphics are not related to their CPUs, they work with AMD and Intel processors just as well.
The CPU made a big difference during the switch from PowerPC to Intel. Intel to AMD would be by far less dramatic, but some programs surely are optimized for Intel and compiled with Intel tools. Heck, there are even reviews made on Intel-optimized benchmarks and tools to for some reason prove a point that AMD is still not on top.
In most cases they require simple changes, otherwise they will always work, but sometimes not as well. Same can be said about AMD working with developers to optimize software for AMD - it will work better on AMD processors due to the code aiming at the strengths of the processor. It isn't that much of a big deal, it will work on both but if someone optimizes only for one processor it might or might not take a performance hit on the other processor. The underlying instructions are the same, just different processors have different strengths and weaknesses, and I'm sure MacOS is optimized with Intel's Core strengths in mind, and so is at least a portion of high performance computing software made for Macs.
Yeah I think Apple might go both ways, I'd say with 60/40 chance that they'd stick with Intel. A big part of why it might be difficult is that there's a lot of content creators on Apple's camp. Well, Ryzen can render a video almost twice as fast as the fastest Kaby Lake. I think they'd be upset, time waste-aside, if they're creating time sensitive content being public an hour early might make it or break it.
Ryzen outperforms any Kaby Lake chip by almost twofold in pretty much any media creation task, it's where it's actually the strongest.
I think it'd be smart to open up to AMD and at least include them in higher range devices, especially Pros and desktop computers. Whether they'd do that, I don't know. I think Apple's stubbornness and conservative, unpredictable decisions are partially what makes people think they are innovative and against the trends. To me it just makes it hard to predict whether they are going to make the technologically right decision or not. No transparency or leaks coming from Apple regarding such things makes it harder to understand their motives, while Intel and Apple being both "profit margins first" surely adds a lot of behind the scenes business aspects to their decisions.
Yeah and that may be a deciding factor for me in choosing my next notebook. As much as I love macOS and the design of the MBPs, I still feel a bit cheated on the hardware components that Apple uses. I get that I'm not a power user that needs a 4 GB GPU and an octa-core CPU, but if Apple is stifling the power of their Macs in the name of compatibility or, more likely, profits, then it may not be worth $2k for a 15" MBP with specs sub-par to a $1300-1500 PC.
The more you talk about it, the less likely it seems Apple would opt to diversify their offerings between Intel and AMD, or any other company for any other component they use in their Macs. I haven't read much on Apple's subreddit about users hoping for this change with AMD. But if the next MBP refresh brings out Kaby Lake, like everyone was hoping would happen with the last refresh with the Touch Bar models, someone will definitely ask about Ryzen and why it's not being looked at by Apple. And it'll most likely come down increasing profits, but apologists will make the optimization argument and put the responsibility/blame on app devs needing to choose between optimizing their apps for Intel or AMD.
The more you talk about it, the less likely it seems Apple would opt to diversify their offerings between Intel and AMD, or any other company for any other component they use in their Macs. I haven't read much on Apple's subreddit about users hoping for this change with AMD. But if the next MBP refresh brings out Kaby Lake, like everyone was hoping would happen with the last refresh with the Touch Bar models, someone will definitely ask about Ryzen and why it's not being looked at by Apple. And it'll most likely come down increasing profits, but apologists will make the optimization argument and put the responsibility/blame on app devs needing to choose between optimizing their apps for Intel or AMD.
You're interested in mobile though, so we will see how mobile Ryzen vs Cannonlake compare by the end of the year. Maybe the final mobile chips end up being similar in CPU performance, who knows as it's going to be the first mobile chip based on the Zen architecture. Maybe it's amazing and somehow the cool guys will be out with those chips and everyone regrets having gone Intel.
The GPU is likely to blow Intel away though, as even old gen AMD mobile chips had significantly better graphics, and now Vega is coming which is big for AMD and will be integrated into those chips, while Intel is struggling with their ghetto integrated graphics as they're not a GPU company. There are even rumors about Intel integrating AMD graphics into their chips but not sure how realistic those are, while Intel GPUs suck ass AMD is their competitor in the CPU market: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tirias...ensing-radeon-graphics-to-intel/#7c09a5df6c40
Not sure how much it matters for a Mac though.
Regardless, Id hold off until Zen/Cannonlake mobile products are out. It's the worst time to buy a laptop now anyway, as they're stuck on an aging Skylake/Kaby Lake, while competition is having their product out in a moment and in turn Intel promised bigger gains on Cannonlake already, which means progress and better value for the money coming soon on both camps, regardless of which one ends up better in mobile.
The GPU is likely to blow Intel away though, as even old gen AMD mobile chips had significantly better graphics, and now Vega is coming which is big for AMD and will be integrated into those chips, while Intel is struggling with their ghetto integrated graphics as they're not a GPU company. There are even rumors about Intel integrating AMD graphics into their chips but not sure how realistic those are, while Intel GPUs suck ass AMD is their competitor in the CPU market: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tirias...ensing-radeon-graphics-to-intel/#7c09a5df6c40
Not sure how much it matters for a Mac though.
Regardless, Id hold off until Zen/Cannonlake mobile products are out. It's the worst time to buy a laptop now anyway, as they're stuck on an aging Skylake/Kaby Lake, while competition is having their product out in a moment and in turn Intel promised bigger gains on Cannonlake already, which means progress and better value for the money coming soon on both camps, regardless of which one ends up better in mobile.
So the Intel integrated GPUs are pretty shit? I think the 13" MBPs have the Iris but the 15" have the Radeon Pros, or something like that. I was looking at the 15" anyway for the better CPUs and 16GB of RAM standard. The GPU would be a nice bonus even if I don't use it to its max. It's the screen size that will be a bigger deal to me, namely because of the screen resolution. My 13" is still lagging behind with a 1200x800 from 2010. That's what I miss most about the newer machines, is the screen quality. I'm still living in pre-2009 as far as that goes.
Is Cannonlake due out after Kaby Lake? I thought Kaby Lake just got released and had another year or two in its life cycle.
Is Cannonlake due out after Kaby Lake? I thought Kaby Lake just got released and had another year or two in its life cycle.
The comments in this thread seem to be pretty divided https://www.reddit.com/r/technology...yzen_7_1700_linux_benchmarks_great_multicore/
Some saying Ryzen is good for compiling stuff but gaming and editing is inconclusive or Intel is still better.
Some saying Ryzen is good for compiling stuff but gaming and editing is inconclusive or Intel is still better.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.