Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2018 21:28 UTC
Intel

Intel's recent demonstration of a 28-core processor running at 5GHz has certainly stirred the pot here at Computex, particularly because the presentation appeared to imply this would be a shipping chip with a 5.0GHz stock speed. Unfortunately, it turns out that Intel overclocked the 28-core processor to such an extreme that it required a one-horsepower industrial water chiller. That means it took an incredibly expensive (not to mention extreme) setup to pull off the demo. You definitely won't find this type of setup on a normal desktop PC.

We met with the company last night, and while Intel didn't provide many details, a company representative explained to us that "in the excitement of the moment," the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn't targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip.

A lot of people always say "CEO's and companies don't lie because that's illegal, so you can always believe them".

Yeah.

Order by: Score:
AMD has what here?
by xero1 on Fri 8th Jun 2018 22:10 UTC
xero1
Member since:
2009-01-30

Quick go get some dry ice, we need damage control.

Reply Score: 3

RE: AMD has what here?
by quackalist on Sun 10th Jun 2018 22:12 UTC in reply to "AMD has what here?"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Pretty much sums up Intel's forgetfulness

https://youtu.be/-Zp_iXYl4IQ

Reply Score: 3

CEOs, companies and lies
by jessesmith on Fri 8th Jun 2018 22:42 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who thought they could believe CEOs or companies, or trust them not to lie. Goodness, I hope I never meet someone that detached from reality.

Reply Score: 5

RE: CEOs, companies and lies
by woegjiub on Fri 8th Jun 2018 22:48 UTC in reply to "CEOs, companies and lies"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

You've never met a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, then.

They truly think the "free market" works, and would fix everything if only the government didn't get in the way. You know, the only entity that ever protects us from greedy and malicious corporations.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: CEOs, companies and lies
by cybergorf on Fri 8th Jun 2018 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: CEOs, companies and lies"
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

You've never met a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, then.

They truly think the "free market" works, and would fix everything if only the government didn't get in the way. You know, the only entity that ever protects us from greedy and malicious corporations.


Well - Yes I am a libertarian and I think that most governmental interference is harmful and contra productive.

But I would never trust a CEO or a any spokesman of a big company - It is their job to lie (within legal limits).

So you clearly are mixing up two very different things here: just because someone does maybe not share your political point of view, it does not mean that person is stupid ...

Edited 2018-06-08 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CEOs, companies and lies
by kwan_e on Sat 9th Jun 2018 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CEOs, companies and lies"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

It is their job to lie (within legal limits).


You were going so well until you wrote this... ironically proving people right about libertarians.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: CEOs, companies and lies
by cybergorf on Sat 9th Jun 2018 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CEOs, companies and lies"
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

"It is their job to lie (within legal limits).


You were going so well until you wrote this... ironically proving people right about libertarians.
"

There is nothing ironically about it: I never tried to convince people otherwise. I am just stating the facts.

Reply Score: 1

TheForumTroll Member since:
2018-04-28

> It is their job to lie (within legal limits).

Well, even if you hadn't stated your political viewpoint the above clearly does.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CEOs, companies and lies
by acobar on Sat 9th Jun 2018 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CEOs, companies and lies"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

It is their job to lie (within legal limits).

That is not their job, their job is to bring good balances and seek growing opportunities to their companies, yet, many have played the system to give them shameful amounts of bonus even if, in the end, the strategies they pursue may be harmful on long term.

Also, when confronted with bad news the "acceptable" method is deflection and talking about some project they think is worth.

Most lies end up uncovered and have a high detrimental impact so I can't see them as synonymous of good management, which is what they were hired for.

Also, every one that read Adam Smith should know about his critics about uneven markets. Things don't sort out by magic.

Edited 2018-06-09 12:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: CEOs, companies and lies
by cybergorf on Sat 9th Jun 2018 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CEOs, companies and lies"
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

" It is their job to lie (within legal limits).

That is not their job, their job is to bring good balances and seek growing opportunities to their companies
"

And to do that, they try to let a company or a new product look as good as possible.
It's called advertising - and every advertisement contains at least a small lie.


yet, many have played the system to give them shameful amounts of bous even if, in the end, the strategies they pursue may be harmful on long term.


that is nor cheating or playing the system, but simply fulfilling contracts.
It is entirely up to the owner of a company, how much they would like to pay a CEO. Some pay millions, some pay just 1$ (to Steve Jobs in some years).


Also, when confronted with bad news the "acceptable" method is deflection and talking about some project they think is worth.


yes, there are several communications strategies in such a case ... so?
You have to know about them to see trough them.


Most lies end up uncovered


That is a typical misconception:
since you are (of course!) only aware of uncovered lies, you assume all lies become uncovered in the end.
No: most lies are newer uncovered and therefore never identified as lies and you are completely unaware of them!


Also, every one that read Adam Smith should know about his critics about uneven markets. Things don't sort out by magic.


It is politics that provide unfair conditions and uneven markets

Edited 2018-06-09 19:30 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: CEOs, companies and lies
by Alfman on Sat 9th Jun 2018 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CEOs, companies and lies"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

cybergorf,

It is politics that provide unfair conditions and uneven markets


While politics can create unfair conditions and uneven markets, it would be naive to think it's the only way to arrive at uneven markets. Inequality is a self reinforcing problem, which is unfortunate but true. This hurts economic mobility as more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck and struggle to save any money.

While we shouldn't under-emphasize the importance of hard work, at the same time it doesn't make sense to ignore the intrinsic financial advantages that come with being wealthy. A millionaire doesn't even have to wake up or go to work since they can earn above average income just living off of the shares that they own. Of course many millionaires will work anyways even though their financial needs are already covered. Since all this is extra income for them, it is all disposable income and that means they can realistically reinvest 100% of it, unlike the middle class who have to spend most of theirs on living expenses. It's not too difficult to see how this creates a positive reinforcement loop benefiting the wealthy for being wealthy and hurting the poor for being poor.


Beyond this, the wealthy have non-intrinsic advantages too. This includes government policies that favor the wealthy. Consider the 15% tax owners pay on profits versus their employees paying much higher regular income taxes (in the US). This is why some CEOs like steve jobs, who you brought up, prefer to work for shares rather than cash.

Edited 2018-06-09 21:06 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: CEOs, companies and lies
by cybergorf on Sun 10th Jun 2018 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: CEOs, companies and lies"
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

Inequality is a self reinforcing problem, which is unfortunate but true.


Depends on what kind of inequality you are referring to.
Financial? Most family fortunes are lost again within three generations.

Otherwise: people are not equal in talent, intelligence, feelings, interests and so on. Inequality is a natural thing.

A millionaire doesn't even have to wake up or go to work since they can earn above average income just living off of the shares that they own.


You can not earn a living by having just one million - you would spend more than you get and you would not be a millionaire very long..

and that means they can realistically reinvest 100% of it, unlike the middle class who have to spend most of theirs on living expenses.


(Re)investing is exactly what you want them to do and a reason why we need a certain concentration of capital. You would not get good electric cars, Hyperloops, reusable rockets, or even smartphones if not for some people with very deep pockets believing in this dreams.
(And while croudfunding is nice and surely a good thing, you still need the industrial infrastructure to let a product become reality..)


Beyond this, the wealthy have non-intrinsic advantages too. This includes government policies that favor the wealthy. Consider the 15% tax owners pay on profits versus their employees paying much higher regular income taxes (in the US). This is why some CEOs like steve jobs, who you brought up, prefer to work for shares rather than cash.


As I said: politics
Same goes for patents and copyright beyond your death, rescuing financial institutes with tax money and many other things every libertarian disproves.

Edited 2018-06-10 00:35 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: CEOs, companies and lies
by Alfman on Sun 10th Jun 2018 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: CEOs, companies and lies"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

cybergorf,

Depends on what kind of inequality you are referring to.
Financial? Most family fortunes are lost again within three generations.

Otherwise: people are not equal in talent, intelligence, feelings, interests and so on. Inequality is a natural thing.


It's nevertheless true that social mobility has significantly declined for recent generations in the US and other countries. We're becoming less of a meritocracy.

You can not earn a living by having just one million - you would spend more than you get and you would not be a millionaire very long..


Look at the numbers then, you should find them enlightening...

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html
2016 median income: $30k


http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm
DOW Jones average yearly return: 10%

https://ycharts.com/indicators/sandp_500_total_return_annual
S&P 500 average yearly return: 12%


To be extra conservative, let's assume your average rate of return is only 5%.
1,000,000 * 5% = 50k

You can make quite a bit more than median income without touching the principal, and you are only taxed at 15%! Furthermore any losses you take in the market can be deducted from future gains, allowing for 0% taxes until you make up your losses.

So as long as you spend within your means and don't touch the principal, not only can you afford a better quality of life, but you'll end up making your second million well before your working class neighbors can make their first, if ever. All without working a single day in your life! Of course, most millionaires do work, 100% of that income can be reinvested if they choose, making them wealthier still.


As I said: politics
Same goes for patents and copyright beyond your death, rescuing financial institutes with tax money and many other things every libertarian disproves.


Sure, many government policies are counterproductive, but pointing to these instances is not in and of itself proof that all market regulation is bad. You know that a big reason that we have these bad government policies in the first place is that wealthy corporations have spent a lot of money lobbying for them and succeeded. I really wish we could kick them out of washington.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: CEOs, companies and lies
by zima on Wed 13th Jun 2018 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: CEOs, companies and lies"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Otherwise: people are not equal in talent, intelligence, feelings, interests and so on. Inequality is a natural thing.

And yet social mobility is somehow largest in the so called "nanny states"...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: CEOs, companies and lies
by zima on Wed 13th Jun 2018 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CEOs, companies and lies"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's called advertising - and every advertisement contains at least a small lie.

Again you just have to present lying / taking advantage of others as normal... how libertarian of you.

But tell me how are those ads (collected over the past few h on OSNews and Last.fm) lying...
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/1017610519212298842
https://creative.mathads.com/0001/55/80/df/0d/b02046266257fefa494ad4... (simple name, date, place of a conference, and its motto ~"technology in service of humanity)
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/9615685017760972809 ("colours of summer. bedding, accesories, decorations")
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/13977933450425252528 (as above)
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/12809150322622580368 (again)
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/16388054680819487052 (and again...)
https://secure-assets.rubiconproject.com/static/psa/2.jpg (linking to http://lovehasnolabels.com/ )
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/17080978855450157114 ("keep the tastes of summer. we prepare preserves and other delicacies")
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/11948323694203921706 (as above)
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/8135397858361810203

Edited 2018-06-14 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: CEOs, companies and lies
by Poseidon on Fri 8th Jun 2018 23:51 UTC in reply to "CEOs, companies and lies"
Poseidon Member since:
2009-10-31

You clearly haven’t met Republicans and Libertarians in USA.

They’re the majority governing party.

Edited 2018-06-08 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: CEOs, companies and lies
by indieinvader on Sat 9th Jun 2018 03:46 UTC in reply to "CEOs, companies and lies"
indieinvader Member since:
2009-08-11

> trusting anyone not to lie to create an advantage for themself

everyone lies. depending on what game your playing, you might need to do some research before you make a move based on hearsay.

Reply Score: 2

A hail from the past...
by CapEnt on Sat 9th Jun 2018 04:45 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

You know that Intel is in trouble when it has to resort to their old ways.

When Athlon began trouncing P3 in the media, and as a consequence, began to gain market share, Intel also began to make grandiose claims about the wonders of their new P4 Netburst architecture and how it would operate miracles.

When NetBurst was released, it became evident that it was a shit architecture that would not deliver. That's when Intel marketing department became unusually active.

Every press release from AMD was trailed closely by Intel releasing leaflets and doing presentations with crazy roadmaps that presented how they planed NetBurst to hit 10GHz by 2005, how in a single blink of eye (1/50th of a second) it would be able to do 400 million operations, how it will operate using less than one volt, how RAMBUS memory was superior in every way against that punny little failed piece of crap called "DDR" that AMD promoted (and then quietly adopting it later)...

There is even a bizarre case of Intel and HP "manipulating" (aka: lying on) benchmarks numbers, that resulted in a class action suit by Gilardi & Co. that was settled with both Intel and HP agreeing to pay $15 dollars to anyone that purchased a HP PC between November 20, 2000 to December 31, 2001. As the class action says: “It secretly wrote benchmark tests that would give the Pentium 4 higher scores, then released and marketed these ‘new’ benchmarks to performance reviewers as ‘independent third-party’ benchmarks."

When it became quite evident that marketing, "omissions", and big presentations was not enough... well, they began to engage in more aggressive ways: litigation, vendor intimidation, offering rebates to manufactures and retailers under the condition of not releasing/selling AMD products, direct monetary bribes to delay or restrict AMD product releases... and all boiled down to a fine from European Commission in 2009.

Eventually AMD shot itself in the head with Bulldozer, and a couple of odd management decisions, and did more damage to itself than Intel could possible do.

Exaggerated claims are omnipresent in technology world since always. But my point is: Intel is remarkable predicable when it makes exaggerations, and it is when things go south.

After years of quiet and uneventful releases, now they are actively trying to impress everyone. Why? Feeling the heat?

Edited 2018-06-09 04:48 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: A hail from the past...
by leech on Sat 9th Jun 2018 06:20 UTC in reply to "A hail from the past..."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Well with all the crap from Spectre/Meltdown, they need to be doing something different..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: A hail from the past...
by TheForumTroll on Sat 9th Jun 2018 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE: A hail from the past..."
TheForumTroll Member since:
2018-04-28

But... this isn't different. This is "The Intel Way". Intel business as usual.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A hail from the past...
by bassbeast on Sat 9th Jun 2018 14:49 UTC in reply to "A hail from the past..."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Funny you should mention the rigging and then say AMD "shot itself in the head" with Bulldozer instead of realizing a lot of its "low scores" were the result of the very same rigging you had just mentioned.

If you go to Phoronix and look at their numbers, which are based on a testing suite compiled with GCC instead of ICC? Well shock gasp surprise! you get exactly what you would expect, performance roughly equal to an i5 in lightly threaded, equal to an i7 (and in some cases beating) in heavily threaded, while costing less than either.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_vishe...

But hey nobody asks what those games being used for benchmarks is compiled with, right? And I'm sure those advertising partnerships with Intel on the games most likely to be used for benchmarks had no effect at all on their choice of compiler, nah that would just be silly.

Meanwhile most of the streamers on Twitch used FX CPUs right up until Ryzen dropped because the most popular games being streamed magically were able to do 1080p 60 FPS while streaming said game at 1080p 60 FPS without breaking a sweat, but that couldn't be the fact many games made by non USA devs didn't use ICC, nope, no way that could be it.

Oh and full disclosure, I record my games for my Youtube channel and with a lowly R9 280 I'm able to record at 1080p 60 FPS with zero microstutter despite all the physics and explosions filling the screen on an FX-8320e that cost a grand total of $129 new. Of course the games I play are from Russia and Asia where they don't use ICC, could that be it? Nah...thanks for the purchasing advice Twitch guys, I'm quite happy!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A hail from the past...
by CapEnt on Sat 9th Jun 2018 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: A hail from the past..."
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

I had a FX-8120 for five years, a fine processor... for specific workloads.

The Bulldozer is a combination of two mistakes by AMD:

1- Too long to phaseout K10 (that was just a minor revision of k8 architecture, indeed, it's internal name for quite a time was "k8L").

Albeit k8 used to be a great architecture, it grew long on tooth. By 2011, the Core architecture from Intel matured, and the "tick-tock" cycle of continuous improvements over it resulted in the quite remarkable Sandy Bridge, and Intel was already eating market share of AMD. The high-end and enthusiast markets was all but lost for AMD by 2011.

2- Wrong year. The Bulldozer was created for a present full of multi processes and multi threaded applications in mind, a present that simple was not there back in 2011, in particular for games (only now it is becoming a reality). The main OS at time, Windows 7, could not even properly schedule tasks for it without being patched. Things like AutoCAD could not use more than two cores at time (i believe that even today is like that). And it had a dismally bad single threaded performance.

Edited 2018-06-09 20:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: A hail from the past...
by zima on Wed 13th Jun 2018 20:13 UTC in reply to "A hail from the past..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

When Athlon began trouncing P3 in the media, and as a consequence, began to gain market share, Intel also began to make grandiose claims about the wonders of their new P4 Netburst architecture and how it would operate miracles.

You forgot the chapter of Pentium 3 Coppermine 1.13 GHz, a "factory overclocked" (so what we have also here) CPU which required specific motherboard, that was released to one-up AMD after Athlon became the 1st CPU to reach 1 GHz. And P3 1.13 GHz didn't really work fine / it was recalled... (I wonder if we might see this also here...)

Anyway, all those which you do mentioned are reasons why I just don't want to buy Intel... I'm writing this on an AMD machine, my next PC will also likely be AMD (a used laptop, most likely with "old" gen AMD CPU, so it's not even about jumping on Ryzen bandwagon)

Reply Score: 2

Not news
by cmost on Sun 10th Jun 2018 13:28 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Intel has been caught in the past overclocking CPUs for demos.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Sun 10th Jun 2018 15:59 UTC
yoshi314@gmail.com
Member since:
2009-12-14

never believe what you see in demos. did we somehow forget about this golden rule?

most people look at benchmarks before purchase anyway, even though some of those are biased.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by calden
by calden on Tue 12th Jun 2018 19:01 UTC
calden
Member since:
2012-02-02

What AMD has done in the last year is nothing short of amazing. I personally have a dual 24 Core Epyc CPU with a SuperMicro Motherboard. I purchased all 3 parts from eBay for less than $2000, used, yes but they run as if new. My system is incredible, though that is not the point of this post, my system cost over $5000 less than a comparable Intel setup and that is before I even added the rest, i.e. GPU, memory, SSD, etc.

This latest Intel preview simply shows us that Intel has nothing in the pipe-line that can compete with AMD's 32 Core ThreadRipper. They controlled our computers for far to long, with Apple going to ARM, real competition from AMD, Intel is finally sweating and that's a good thing.

Reply Score: 2