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.
Quick go get some dry ice, we need damage control.
Pretty much sums up Intel’s forgetfulness
https://youtu.be/-Zp_iXYl4IQ
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.
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
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.
> It is their job to lie (within legal limits).
Well, even if you hadn’t stated your political viewpoint the above clearly does.
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
It is politics that provide unfair conditions and uneven markets
Edited 2018-06-09 19:30 UTC
cybergorf,
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
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
cybergorf,
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.
That is because we give the government and parliaments far to much responsibility and rights!
There is no good reason to delegate the decision-making to a bunch of bureaucrats – in a direct democracy a wealthy cooperation would have to bribe everyone
cybergorf,
Good luck with that. Seriously I get what you are saying, but you are speaking about an idealized model that doesn’t exist, whereas I’m speaking about the real world.
Edited 2018-06-10 03:53 UTC
My family are millionaires and my extended family. Basically they retain wealth by investing in blue chip shares/reinvesting profits back into stock or property. There are no losses only gains, losses are deducted against gains so that there is no net loss, and that includes when drops in the market have occurred. This dates back to well before the 1980s and continues to the present day. This is within Australia so your market/tax experiences may vary. The reality is that the markets and laws are setup so that it is easy to add to already gotten wins. Claiming otherwise is just lying to everyone. My advice to people wanting to get ahead is to look beyond property bubbles to actual value in property and shares and save for market downturns. Counter cyclical investing works. It’s hard and annoying that you have to wait. But it works.
Edited 2018-06-10 11:15 UTC
Back in two the 1980?
Ok, so they where not that rich before – this means they somehow got successfull.
Isn’t this an example of a family becoming rich from not being rich?
Secondly I doubt that your statement is true for all family members – there is always somebody loosing money.
And again: I only made case for just one million not being enough to stay rich a whole life without working or very lucky investments.
Of course it gets easier the richer you are.
cybergorf,
Well, your promoting deregulation based on an idealized model. The problem is that deregulation in the real world always leads to systematic abuse. Nobody necessarily likes regulation, however the reason it is necessary is to combat these abuses. If you have an idea to combat abuses that don’t involve regulation, then let’s hear it!
Unfortunately the “greed is good” and “invisible hand” philosophies don’t work with power imbalances and actually reinforce the imbalances
Well, that is what this discussion was all about, wasn’t it?
Somehow libertarian ideas got blamed for the situation and the injustice in the world.
I was pointing out that most things, people are pinning on libertarian ideas, are in fact issues of bureaucracy, etatism, or otherwise stupid politics …
Call it what it is – the US (together with the UK) is at the very bottom of developed countries in social mobility (i don’t think it ever was very high; “Land of Opportunity”/”American Dream” were mostly a myth)
Anyway/moreover, countries with greatest social mobility / meritocracy are the so called “nanny states” …in outright practical contradiction to libertarian ideas.
And yet social mobility is somehow largest in the so called “nanny states”…
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
You clearly haven’t met Republicans and Libertarians in USA.
They’re the majority governing party.
Edited 2018-06-08 23:58 UTC
> 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.
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
Well with all the crap from Spectre/Meltdown, they need to be doing something different..
But… this isn’t different. This is “The Intel Way”. Intel business as usual.
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!
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
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)
Intel has been caught in the past overclocking CPUs for demos.
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.
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.