Read more.Quote:
"We built it as a concept PC," so like concept cars, it may never be produced.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
"We built it as a concept PC," so like concept cars, it may never be produced.
Let hope next year we don't get the headline:
I still cannot help think it was because it needed an Intel CPU to shine and AMD were never going to go down that route. There aren't enough Mantle titles to get 2 Fury cards running full-pelt on an AMD chip.Quote:
AMD Zen CPU may never come to market
"We built it as a concept CPU" so like concept cars, it may never be produced.
Maybe when DX12/Vulkan games start to appear they can swing it but I guess by then they will have Zen out....AMDs timing has been pretty crappy lately.
AMD is really going down the ****ter....
No HDMI 2.0 killed it :p
They couldn't put an AMD CPU in there with available consumer parts. AMDs Motherboard manufacturers have not made ITX boards for the FX CPUs. It didn't need to shine beyond looking cool. Not like its been sent out for bench-marking and I don't think they showed scores or anything like that.
The star of the package was the dual fiji GPU anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
You can put dual gpus in almost anything. It was about performance per litre! (Didn't think I would ever use that as a computer metric!)Quote:
Originally Posted by semitope
nvidia recalled millions of shield tablets. nvidia must be going down the ****ter.... Makes more sense than AMD not releasing a concept PC. Makes me wonder if all those car companies are going down as well due to not releasing concept cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmy112
Same difference. The dual GPU provided the performance in the small space.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithisYou can put dual gpus in almost anything. It was about performance per litre! (Didn't think I would ever use that as a computer metric!)Quote:
Originally Posted by semitope
Bit disappointed. I don't think I'm part of the target market but this is still an interesting idea. Hopefully Zen comes out and causes some major waves and this "concept" finds it's way to shelves.
With HDMI 2.0
Everyone going on about no HDMI 2.0.......
You know what I use HDMI for? An HDMI to VGA dongle plugged into an old 15" monitor at 1024 res.
Use DVI-D and quit the belly aching ;)
DVI-D doesn't support 4KQuote:
Originally Posted by shaithisYou can put dual gpus in almost anything. It was about performance per litre! (Didn't think I would ever use that as a computer metric!)Quote:
Originally Posted by semitope
I was wondering why they wouldn't try an APU similar to that exascale processor in one, rather than go for intel..
About this never becoming a consumer product.. Remember project discovery???
Built as a concept CPU... AMD tested the waters.. it got trolled for using an Intel processor. Not surprised why it won't be produced...
I guess they have their sofa *really* close to the TV and have far better eyesight than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plasmastorm
Omg some still whining about hdmi common you wanna connect a full 4k able machine to a connector which is needed for a tv ?!? Serious.
It was fully clear this model not coming to the market especially if you consider the price tag of such a box, have any one actually did the maths what his concept machine is going to cost to produce if they can not sell it in high enough numbers.
There are so many people whining that AMD again missed the boat, so you all gave the answer instant why they not even think about producing them.
Why would they produce it for the 10 people who are able to buy it... think again and give some constructive answers.
Or maybe i am stupid ... one thing i do understand that nvidia lovers try to find another way to discredit AMD in every way they can find.
I'm not one of the "whiners" as I'd never buy this..but HDMI is an absolute must for 4K, and I'll tell you why - 4K is the sort of resolution where a TV makes much better sense than a monitor. Gaming on a TV has always been my preference, but with a monitor you still got higher fidelity, so it always felt like a compromise. But with 4K it actually feels like more of a handicap to use a monitor rather than a big screen. Gaming on a 4K 65" TV is just absolutely glorious, and TVs tend to favour HDMI over DPQuote:
Originally Posted by uBronan
EDIT: Oh and your last bit...it's hard to be constructive with AMD when they are consistently screwing up. What, we're supposed to cut them a break for not being quite as good as nvidia ? The Fury X was a flop. They touted it as a 4K solution, and straddled it with 4GB of RAM, and when you spend years making the higher VRAM on your cards a selling point due to higher resolution benefits, it makes it hard for consumers to not absolutely rip you for trying to say "nah son 4GB is fine yo" (not direct quote..maybe).
AMD are a second fiddle company. Against Intel and against Nvidia. I'm not going to cut them slack for a product that doesn't quite match up as long as they keep trying to say theirs will be better. I cut them a lot of slack with their CPUs, and use them a LOT on builds for none-caring clients, because they are what they are - decent parts that are not as good as Intel but are sure as sugar a good price.
I mean I don't want them to stop making an effort with the GPUs, because that'd mean Nvidia had no competition, and we've all been witness to what a dominating company does when it realizes it has no competition (*cough* Intel), I just want them to not BS us like they did with the Fury. I really wanted it to be better than Nvidia - even though I use Nvidia and have done for longer than I can remember, it's out of necessity, I use whatever is best.
I wanna see a brand new architecture, that is efficient, that uses HBM2 and has 8GB VRAM, and doesn't need a bloody liquid cooling loop to stay at a decent temp! I wanna see Nvidia sweat and release a graphics card quickly, not one it has had in the stable for months just to keep the others in check.
AMD needs to do better.
I see this sort of sentiment all over the place and I don't quite understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum: To fully appreciate 4K, you need a smaller display. I've got the Dell 24" 4K display and I'd describe the angular resolution as 'adequate'. I suspect that we need 8K @ 24" to truly reach the limits of human perception - I can definitely tell the difference in the clarity of the display and my tablet, for example.
The DPI scaling in Win 8.1 is pretty good, providing that you don't use multiple monitors that have lower DPIs - then they look like arse.
That said, computer games are not yet making anything like full use of 4K. There are an awful lot of pixels "wasted" to lower resolution textures and low-detail models - and yet there is a definite step up in clarity from 1080p or even 1440p.
So, I guess, I partially agree with you: if your main purpose in life is to play computer games, don't buy a small 4K monitor. A far better investment would be an ultrawide display. If, like myself, you spend 90% of your time on the computer browsing the internet and 5% of your time programming, the highest DPI display you can get your hands on makes a big difference.
More on topic - HDMI is a horrible standard that needs to die. DisplayPort is the future.