Citiraj:
Autor Nybelung
(Post 2901247)
Mislim na to da dvolični FX-ovi uopće nisu ozbiljan proizvod. To su igračke za home usere, nešto kao Playstation. :D
I dok ti tu meni pokušavaš dokazati da je FX-8350 na 4.5 GHz-a u editiranju videa jednako dobar kao i stock i7 Sandy Bridge Intel je praktično jedini CPU supplier za workstatione. HP npr. nudi jedno 20 procesora u svom high-end workstationu, tipa Z840, a niti jedan nije AMD-ov. :goood:
Ne, Intel nije osuđen za "gimpanje AMD procesora". Suđenje nikad nije ni započelo. Dali su AMD-u 1.25 ili tako nešto milijardi dolara i povukli međusobne tužbe. Milijarda gore-dole, Intel, Samsung, Apple i ekipa si stalno šalju tu milijardicu jedan drugome kako se kojem sudu digne čekić.
|
Majstore.
AMD have sued Intel for unfair competition at least since 2005, and the case has been settled in November 2009. This settlement deals with many issues of unfair competition, apparently including the Intel compiler. The settlement says: 2.3 TECHNICAL PRACTICES
Intel shall not include any Artificial Performance Impairment in any Intel product or require any Third Party to include an Artificial Performance Impairment in the Third Party�s product. As used in this Section 2.3, �Artificial Performance Impairment� means an affirmative engineering or design action by Intel (but not a failure to act) that (i) degrades the performance or operation of a Specified AMD product, (ii) is not a consequence of an Intel Product Benefit and (iii) is made intentionally to degrade the performance or operation of a Specified AMD Product. For purposes of this Section 2.3, �Product Benefit� shall mean any benefit, advantage, or improvement in terms of performance, operation, price, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product.
In no circumstances shall this Section 2.3 impose or be construed to impose any obligation on Intel to (i) take any act that would provide a Product Benefit to any AMD or other non-Intel product, either when such AMD or non-Intel product is used alone or in combination with any other product, (ii) optimize any products for Specified AMD Products, or (iii) provide any technical information, documents, or know how to AMD.
This looks like a victory for AMD. If we read "any Intel product" as Intel's compilers and function libraries, "any Third Party" as programmers using these compilers and libraries, and "Artificial Performance Impairment" as the CPU dispatcher checking the vendor ID string; then the settlement puts an obligation on Intel to change their CPU dispatcher. I will certainly check the next version of Intel's compiler and libraries to see if they have done so or they have found a loophole in the settlement.
Interestingly, this is not the end of the story. Only about one month after the AMD/Intel settlement, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. The accusations in the FTC complaint are unusually strong: Intel sought to undercut the performance advantage of non-Intel x86 CPUs relative to Intel x86 CPUs when it redesigned and distributed software products, such as compilers and libraries.
[...]
To the public, OEMs, ISVs, and benchmarking organizations, the slower performance of non-Intel CPUs on Intel-compiled software applications appeared to be caused by the non-Intel CPUs rather than the Intel software. Intel failed to disclose the effects of the changes it made to its software in or about 2003 and later to its customers or the public. Intel also disseminated false or misleading documentation about its compiler and libraries. Intel represented to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs. In truth and in fact, many differences were due largely or entirely to the Intel software. Intel�s misleading or false statements and omissions about the performance of its software were material to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public in their purchase or use of CPUs. Therefore, Intel�s representations that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs were, and are, false or misleading. Intel�s failure to disclose that the differences were due largely to the Intel software, in light of the representations made, was, and is, a deceptive practice. Moreover, those misrepresentations and omissions were likely to harm the reputation of other x86 CPUs companies, and harmed competition.
[...]
Some ISVs requested information from Intel concerning the apparent variation in performance of identical software run on Intel and non-Intel CPUs. In response to such requests, on numerous occasions, Intel misrepresented, expressly or by implication, the source of the problem and whether it could be solved.
[...]
Intel�s software design changes slowed the performance of non-Intel x86 CPUs and had no sufficiently justifiable technological benefit. Intel�s deceptive conduct deprived consumers of an informed choice between Intel chips and rival chips, and between Intel software and rival software, and raised rivals� costs of competing in the relevant CPU markets. The loss of performance caused by the Intel compiler and libraries also directly harmed consumers that used non-Intel x86 CPUs.
The remedy that the FTC asks for is also quite farreaching: Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:
- Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
- Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
- Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.
Maybe the FTC has decided that the AMD/Intel settlement was not a fair and sufficient remedy against Intel's monopoly behavior? The settlement compensates AMD, but not VIA and other microprocessor vendors, and not the customers who have been harmed by insufficient competition and by the "defective" software produced with the Intel compiler.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
Prestani drobiti glupost. FX-8 je bio cijene kao i5, sada je dvaput jefitniji.
Intelova prljava taktika im se isplatila, i sad bi mi kao trebali biti sretni zbog toga, jelte? Pogotovo takvi revizionisti kao ti. AMD je uvijek bio kompetitivan. I danas je još uvijek sa 4 godine starim procevima. Posljedice osjećamo još i danas (kao što je lijepo demonstrirano u postovima iznad) jer na žalost AMD nije proizveo 20+% brži procesor od Intela da bude "kompetitivan". |
