Jim Keller leaves AMD

[Boze]

I am beginning to wonder what some of this banter has to do with Jim Keller . . . but hey, Dr. Cutress said it well. That's probably the last, best word on the subject.

Well, I'll get back on topic for a second and say that I once heard someone say Jim Keller is probably the smartest chip designer on Planet Earth, and that if anyone could help AMD out of the funk they've been in the past decade, it would be him.

Again, as I said before, I don't hate AMD, but I'm really sick of seeing them consistently drop the ball. One of my home servers is based off an AMD FX-6300, and I've had K6-2 based systems and an Athlon FX-based system back in the day.

It would be 'a good thing' for Zen to come out and just completely dominate Intel performance, but Intel refuses to remain a stationary target, meaning whatever Keller designed for them, it needs to be far enough advanced to be competitive in late 2016 / early 2017, and that's a hard task for any chip designer.

 

[tweakboy]

Why did he start working with ATI hell in the first place. AMD will always be behind and popular with poor people..

 

[ShintaiDK]

I guess you don't have cash registers and ATM machines in Europe.

Every company I've ever worked at leaves the desktops running 24/7. Either in sleep mode or full operation. Of course, I work in a very specialized field: Point of Sales devices. But the fact remains: many desktops are running 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. Point of Sales devices are still mostly desktop, although mobile devices (especially iPhones) have made some recent gains.

What I'm saying is very common in the United States -- Today it's still about 1 out of every 3 desktops:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/...-waste-28-billion-annually-to-power-idle-pcs/

When I started in 1994, it was probably about 50-60% of all enterprise desktops.

This is not 2009 anymore.

Seems you have no idea at all. Also explains why you cant understand why performance/watt is so important in all segments.

 

[cytg111]

My A6 has something your Hyundais don't have. Status.

- Status? Really? I see these middle aged dudes in "status cars" and I think(so do most others), selfesteem issues, small cock, wife smacks him around, etc. I dont think you understand what kind of status it is you are projecting . I could easily afford a 'status car' but i'd feel stupid every time i looked at it...

 

[Boze]

- Status? Really? I see these middle aged dudes in "status cars" and I think(so do most others), selfesteem issues, small cock, wife smacks him around, etc. I dont think you understand what kind of status it is you are projecting . I could easily afford a 'status car' but i'd feel stupid every time i looked at it...

Then you work in an industry where no one cares what you drive.

You could come to work in Middle's Sonata, or an F-150, or a Ford Mustang and no one cares.

Not everyone has that luxury. Some people are expected to project a certain lifestyle / appearance.

 

[Boze]

This is not 2009 anymore.

Seems you have no idea at all. Also explains why you cant understand why performance/watt is so important in all segments.

His entire identity hinges on being right about this, Shin.

Which is why its so much fun for me to objectively show him to be wrong.

In seriousness, this is why I stopped posting years ago, everyone on this forum thinks they're Albert Einstein crossed with Steve Jobs.

 

[Dresdenboy]

All of you brought up good points. But any dichotomic thinking spoils the points somewhat. In the end reality is a mixed bag.

 

[Fjodor2001]

WOL is not supposed to function on a wireless connection. What do you want to do, wake up a laptop in somebody's bag in thier trunk so it gets cooked?

WOL can actually work with WLAN, but it's not as common. See this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN

In case the computer being awakened is communicating via Wi-Fi, a supplementary standard called Wake on Wireless LAN (WoWLAN) must be employed.

 

[Dresdenboy]

I never heard of any company that didnt shutdown their desktops. Also the security people both shutdown desktops as they turn off any lights not turned off. As well as checking doors and windows.

Software management is easy to do. But none of the solutions requires desktops to run 24/7. Vast majority today is laptops as well. So any software deployment and updates needs to be done in their online time.

Its quite clear to see who works with enterprise IT and who doesnt.

Good point about laptops. Our huge mother corporation has tens of thousands of laptops (3 sizes). There are desktops as well for heavy tasks (used 2-4 years), individually set up servers (others are located in racks) more often than not running 24/7. But these make maybe 5-10% of all computers.

This also throws an interesting light on decisions regarding those systems: Decisions about common ones affect tens of thousands of computers at once, thus scaling up any difference in price, performance, power, usability. Decisions about individual systems often happen at team level and there each minute spent on finding a more power or price efficient solution costs $1-2, quickly reducing any advantage by simply thinking about it or doing some research.

So 3 people discussing the optimal hardware for one hour already burnt $200-300. But this is not China, Russia, Brasilia, India, Spain, etc. What is their mix of electricity and labor costs, hardware budget, workplace requirements?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Good point about laptops. Our huge mother corporation has tens of thousands of laptops (3 sizes). There are desktops as well for heavy tasks (used 2-4 years), individually set up servers (others are located in racks) more often than not running 24/7. But these make maybe 5-10% of all computers.

This also throws an interesting light on decisions regarding those systems: Decisions about common ones affect tens of thousands of computers at once, thus scaling up any difference in price, performance, power, usability. Decisions about individual systems often happen at team level and there each minute spent on finding a more power or price efficient solution costs $1-2, quickly reducing any advantage by simply thinking about it or doing some research.

So 3 people discussing the optimal hardware for one hour already burnt $200-300. But this is not China, Russia, Brasilia, India, Spain, etc. What is their mix of electricity and labor costs, hardware budget, workplace requirements?

TCO would matter even more in those countries. The best case country in the world for low performance/watt hardware may be the US due to the wage/power cost ratio. If its bad business there, then its pretty much bad business everywhere.

Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say the savings isn't worth it?

 

[Dresdenboy]

TCO would matter even more in those countries. The best case country in the world for low performance/watt hardware may be the US due to the wage/power cost ratio. If its bad business there, then its pretty much bad business everywhere.

Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say the savings isn't worth it?

Ok, let's have a look at it. The most discussed TCO component in this forum is electricity. Of course this is important for servers, HPC and any 24/7 running computers. But we're talking desktop PCs and laptops here. So we need better fitting data than assumed 24/7 game/Prime95 load on an office PC.
http://www.eceee.org/library/confer...mmer_Studies/2005c/Panel_4/4160kawamoto/paper has some answers. It's not new, but was easy to find. And usage patterns shouldn't have changed that much since then (at least not more than by a factor of 2).

They got these usage statistics:

Which led to these power consumption numbers back then (DPC=desktops with P4 and Celeron, NPC=notebooks with more interesting CPUs, read yourself ):

What to do with this?

Now I take the max. prices/kWh of the countries of interest from here (max to be closer to corporate use prices):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
Brazil: 0.162$/kWh
China: 0.117$/kWh
Russia: 0.14$/kWh (minimum 0.024 btw)
India: 0.17$/kWh (minimum 0.001, avg. 0.07)
Spain: 0.227$/kWh

Let's take the P4's as replacement of a hypothetical inefficient AMD desktop CPU. Idle power consumption is about 25 to 30 kWh per year. "in-use" accounts for about 40 to 50 kWh per year. If we compare that to an effient CPU like NPC1 (~7kWh idle and ~11kWh in use - and check the CPU model ) the max. delta (worst case analysis here) is 23 and 39 respectively.

In above countries this would cost between $2.69 and $5.22 per year for idle phases and betwen $4.56 and $8.85 for in use phases. At best this would accumulate to max. $56 over 4 years using the old numbers. Using newer data YMMV.


Another paper has this chart, showing for example that >90% of the time the CPU is utilized <20%.

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/atc10/tech/full_papers/Das.pdf

This is what we're talking about here when mentioning office and TCO.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Remember that is for 1 PC, scale it up. Also its not TCO, its just that single PC. TCO would include climate control in the building etc.

If we are to trust your paper. People would work less than 200 days a year. Work patterns have also changed dramatically due to internet and less paper.

Even by your own fictive numbers. Buying 1000 PCs and saving 10% in TCO you could have a couple of people spend a month, even years in some countries to research for that saving and nothing else.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Remember that is for 1 PC, scale it up. Also its not TCO, its just that single PC. TCO would include climate control in the building etc.

If we are to trust your paper. People would work less than 200 days a year. Work patterns have also changed dramatically due to internet and less paper.

Even by your own fictive numbers. Buying 1000 PCs and saving 10% in TCO you could have a couple of people spend a month, even years in some countries to research for that saving and nothing else.

The costs are there and they scale up. But so does the price for the systems incl. CPU w/ iGPU, board, cooling, etc. I thought to bring up a point in the discussion of higher CPU prices to save power. In large corporations your scenario might become true as I already wrote. But if by such a decision TCO goes down by $50*1e5 and systems cost goes up by $100*1e5, this is a $50M loss.

BTW I just read in "CAPITAL", that in many countries there are many part timers which like to work more but aren't allowed to do so. However the working days may differ by 10%. How about breaks and meetings? We calculate with ~220d in Germany.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yet again, you just don't get it...

My A6 has something your Hyundais don't have. Status.

Hence the reason why people buy Intel, then? (If your analogy were to hold up.) "Status". Which, apparently to fanboys, is everything. Hence why NV continues to rake in the dough quarter after quarter, and AMD languishes, apparently, despite having a more forward-looking architecture with non-blocking ACEs.

Silly me, I thought computers were tools, and people buy them to do useful things. Apparently, I'm wrong too, and people buy them, like phones... for "Status".

Edit: I buy my home PCs, laptops, and tablets, yes, to be "useful", but also the fun-factor is very enjoyable. I bought my G3258 CPUs and overclocked them, not because I'm poor, but because they provided tremendous bang-for-buck for web-browsing along with decent power-efficiency, but also because OCing them is fun. Same with my Compute Sticks. I wanted to try out something new, and see how low I could go on the power-usage scale, and still be comfortable using it. It they didn't thermal-throttle so horribly while on Skype, I would probably still be using them. Alas, they disappoint. (The design concept is sound, but the execution isn't quite there yet.)

Edit: I've bought PC parts before for "status" too. I bought some Q6600 rig parts, OCed one to 3.6Ghz on fairly low volts, put it in my sig, but I didn't even use it for day-to-day activities. Biggest waste of money ever, on PC parts, buying for "Status". Hence why I'm loathe to buy anything higher-end than I actually need, although I also do DC, which can use as big a machine as you can throw at it. (But that's more of a want, and less of a need.)

 

[R0H1T]

Hence the reason why people buy Intel, then? (If your analogy were to hold up.) "Status". Which, apparently to fanboys, is everything. Hence why NV continues to rake in the dough quarter after quarter, and AMD languishes, apparently, despite having a more forward-looking architecture with non-blocking ACEs.

Silly me, I thought computers were tools, and people buy them to do useful things. Apparently, I'm wrong too, and people buy them, like phones... for "Status".

Of course they do, part of the reason that Intel/Nvidia/Apple are so successful are the legions of their followers. It does help of course that they also happen to have the best (halo) product in their respective segments, gives the owner bragging rights :biggrin:

The same doesn't necessarily apply in fruityland, but generally when you have that halo product the rest of your lineup automatically bags a price premium & sells just as well, the 960 being a prime example.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Silly me, I thought computers were tools, and people buy them to do useful things. Apparently, I'm wrong too, and people buy them, like phones... for "Status".

You are quite wrong. People purchase things for all sorts of reasons, and all sorts of combinations of reasons. Tools have utilitarian value to do things, but that doesn't preclude them from also having aesthetic value, or having value as status symbols if their craftsmanship is recognizable.

In a consumer market consisting of a large number of items, most of which are constructed from the same commodity components, how do you think people will decide what to purchase?

 

[xthetenth]

Remember that is for 1 PC, scale it up. Also its not TCO, its just that single PC. TCO would include climate control in the building etc.

If we are to trust your paper. People would work less than 200 days a year. Work patterns have also changed dramatically due to internet and less paper.

Even by your own fictive numbers. Buying 1000 PCs and saving 10% in TCO you could have a couple of people spend a month, even years in some countries to research for that saving and nothing else.

That last sentence is incredibly flagrantly wrong in its whole consideration of the situation being discussed. The lifetime TCO would have to be lower for the chip with the higher up front cost to simply reach parity with the chip that costs less initially. For why, it's very simple, future money is worth less than money now, period. If it weren't that would mean that you literally have no way to spend money to increase future revenues, and what are you doing buying computers when you need to be getting your resume ready. So saying that you can cover anything with the (optimistic, naturally) TCO savings you need to account for the value of future money is farce.

 

[Boze]

Hence the reason why people buy Intel, then? (If your analogy were to hold up.) "Status". Which, apparently to fanboys, is everything. Hence why NV continues to rake in the dough quarter after quarter, and AMD languishes, apparently, despite having a more forward-looking architecture with non-blocking ACEs.

Silly me, I thought computers were tools, and people buy them to do useful things. Apparently, I'm wrong too, and people buy them, like phones... for "Status".

Essence of War set you straight already, but I'll help you figure it out, since you're being about as dense as Middle and What'sHisFace in this thread.

I have my i7 5960X because I needed and wanted the best performance in a single-chip solution for both video encoding and gaming. But mostly video encoding.

I'm in the process of starting my own business and handing over the reins of my position to another person in my organization. Part of starting my own business is working on a lot of YouTube videos. But I also enjoy the occasional game. When I play that game, I want it the best possible frame rate.

I guess I could have bought and built two PCs, but that seems pointless when I can just build one monster PC with a ton of RAM, the fastest processor, and the fastest video card.

AMD couldn't provide either when it was time for me to build my system. Thus I did not choose AMD.

To destroy the idiot car analogy that Middle tried to use, I didn't choose a Hyundai Sonata because most of the other executives here drive Mercedes-Benz C550s or better. Our General Manager doesn't even drive, his chauffeur drives an Audi A8L W12. If I could have got away with it, I'd had drove to work my in 2000 Dodge Ram 1500, but sadly, I'm expected to dress a certain way, and drive a certain level of car. This is not uncommon in corporate America once you reach an executive level. All this nonsense of hoodies and driving VW bugs might work in Silicon Valley; it doesn't in the rest of the corporate world.

I'm also expected to play golf, and be a member of the local country club.

Its funny how these idiots keep trying to twist around my words after I destroy all their moron analogies...

It'd be easier to just admit that I'm right and that AMD can't compete against any top-of-the-line Intel processor, but if we must continue the stupidity, I will continue to beat the three of you over the head with the Logic Club until it sinks in.


Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[frozentundra123456]

Essence of War set you straight already, but I'll help you figure it out, since you're being about as dense as Middle and What'sHisFace in this thread.

I have my i7 5960X because I needed and wanted the best performance in a single-chip solution for both video encoding and gaming. But mostly video encoding.

I'm in the process of starting my own business and handing over the reins of my position to another person in my organization. Part of starting my own business is working on a lot of YouTube videos. But I also enjoy the occasional game. When I play that game, I want it the best possible frame rate.

I guess I could have bought and built two PCs, but that seems pointless when I can just build one monster PC with a ton of RAM, the fastest processor, and the fastest video card.

AMD couldn't provide either when it was time for me to build my system. Thus I did not choose AMD.

To destroy the idiot car analogy that Middle tried to use, I didn't choose a Hyundai Sonata because most of the other executives here drive Mercedes-Benz C550s or better. Our General Manager doesn't even drive, his chauffeur drives an Audi A8L W12. If I could have got away with it, I'd had drove to work my in 2000 Dodge Ram 1500, but sadly, I'm expected to dress a certain way, and drive a certain level of car. This is not uncommon in corporate America once you reach an executive level. All this nonsense of hoodies and driving VW bugs might work in Silicon Valley; it doesn't in the rest of the corporate world.

I'm also expected to play golf, and be a member of the local country club.

Its funny how these idiots keep trying to twist around my words after I destroy all their moron analogies...

It'd be easier to just admit that I'm right and that AMD can't compete against any top-of-the-line Intel processor, but if we must continue the stupidity, I will continue to beat the three of you over the head with the Logic Club until it sinks in.

Sounds like a fun job. Do you ever get to be yourself?

 

[RampantAndroid]

All this nonsense of hoodies and driving VW bugs might work in Silicon Valley; it doesn't in the rest of the corporate world.

Hey now....I don't drive a VW Bug (ick!) I drive a nice 2014 A4...but here, you don't NEED a certain car. One of our execs drove a Ferrari and habitually parked in handicapped spots despite not being handicapped. Another drove a Prius...

And I have a comfy hoodie on right now, too. I consider it a GREAT accomplishment to say that the tech industry gives zero shits what you wear. Before I interviewed here, I asked the recruiter "What should I wear?" The answer was "We don't care what you wear. We care about your ideas." Me, being a silly kid who had just finished finals and graduated said something like "so I should wear a suit. I'll wear a suit." I think the recruiter probably facepalmed...and I could not have been more overdressed. I walked in for my interview, signed in with the receptionist - there was a guy next to me there. Long hair, leather jacket. Older looking TShirt on (something like a back to the future TShirt) and black sneakers. The receptionist looked at me, and said "you're with him" pointing to the guy next to me. I did a double take. Even at Broadcom on the east coast the "dress code" was basically "wear a polo"...and only myself and the other intern adhered to that.

If Microsoft's CEO really wanted to shake things up, he ought to buy AMD. Microsoft's Surface Pro 3 is a clear indication that Microsoft can make hardware products that are attractive to business & enterprise.

Is your name perchance Steve Ballmer? Building a nice tablet is a far cry from building an entire CPU. Just because MS has the money doesn't meant they should do it - especially since plenty of investors still seem to want the XBOX sold off/split off from Microsoft. I don't see that MS buying AMD would really mean that they could get a good CPU out - they'd need a lot of talent for that, and if AMD is floundering right now with their current talent, why would a cash infusion make things magically better? The engineers who are building the Surface probably DON'T have what it takes to design a complex CPU.

And buying AMD would likely piss Intel off - should MS really get into the business of annoying Intel? I mean, anyone remember Acer crying about taking their toys and going home if Microsoft released the Surface?

 

[Boze]

Sounds like a fun job. Do you ever get to be yourself?

Yeah, all the time actually. Just because I'm expected to wear a nice suit and drive a nice car doesn't mean the job itself is bad. The job itself is great, and actually a load of fun, but both sides of my family has an entrepreneurial spirit, and it eventually overtook me too.

My Uncle thinks its hilarious because I'm around the same he was when he had enough of 9 to 5 and struck out on his own. He thinks its especially funny because 15 years ago I said I'd never start my own business.

Crow never tastes good.

EDIT: Also, I love golf, so the country club membership wasn't a huge deal, I used to play all the time with Adm. Paul Sullivan when I was stationed in Pearl Harbor years back, one of the perks of being part of his staff.

 

[Boze]

Is your name perchance Steve Ballmer? Building a nice tablet is a far cry from building an entire CPU. Just because MS has the money doesn't meant they should do it - especially since plenty of investors still seem to want the XBOX sold off/split off from Microsoft. I don't see that MS buying AMD would really mean that they could get a good CPU out - they'd need a lot of talent for that, and if AMD is floundering right now with their current talent, why would a cash infusion make things magically better? The engineers who are building the Surface probably DON'T have what it takes to design a complex CPU.

And buying AMD would likely piss Intel off - should MS really get into the business of annoying Intel? I mean, anyone remember Acer crying about taking their toys and going home if Microsoft released the Surface?

I thought 2) would have been obvious, but I guess I need to explain it.

1) The investors asking Microsoft to spin off the Xbox division are idiots. There's no such thing as infinite growth, and the sooner every single investor in the world understands this, the better. Infinite opportunity is a possibility, but infinite growth is not.

2) You fire AMD's CPU designers and you hire chip designers from other companies. Money talks. As you've pointed out, AMD's people don't have what it takes. But you need AMD's IP portfolio to get the job done. I never said you needed the people. When they go home the next day, they can explain to their wife that they sucked at their job, and have been doing so for the past 10 years.

Lastly, I'm not talking about a "cash infusion". That could be accomplished by investment. I'm talking about buying AMD.

 

[Arachnotronic]

When they go home the next day, they can explain to their wife that they sucked at their job, and have been doing so for the past 10 years.

Harsh!

 

[jpiniero]

Lastly, I'm not talking about a "cash infusion". That could be accomplished by investment. I'm talking about buying AMD.

You do realize the theoretical buyer of AMD loses the x86 license?

 

[mrmt]

Let's take the P4's as replacement of a hypothetical inefficient AMD desktop CPU. Idle power consumption is about 25 to 30 kWh per year. "in-use" accounts for about 40 to 50 kWh per year. If we compare that to an effient CPU like NPC1 (~7kWh idle and ~11kWh in use - and check the CPU model ) the max. delta (worst case analysis here) is 23 and 39 respectively.

It's not that simple. First the consumption will be magnified by the power supply inefficiency, and second the more inefficient AMD processor should end up spending more time on a higher load on top of the higher power consumption.