LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThese issues have been with Intel for years haven't they. As cock ups go it's as monumental as Nokia dropping the ball and getting soldOriginally Posted by watercooled
These issues have been with Intel for years haven't they. As cock ups go it's as monumental as Nokia dropping the ball and getting sold
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
Only the mobile phone bit - Nokia is still a major telecoms company, and one of the few major names in 5G networks.
A lot of the big telecoms companies ended up selling or ending their mobile phone businesses in one way or another - Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Alcatel, etc.
Well there's still Huawei but the US government seem hell-bent on removing that competition from the market. But they've made some of the most competent phones (including their own SoCs) on the market over the past few years, especially in the more budget-oriented segment where some of the other big names seem to put some effort into making that sector unnecessarily poor to up-sell people.
that was either an act of major negligence almost to the point of almost criminal ineptitude by the CEO, or else he did it deliberately as some kind of corporate sabotage but again wtf? Either he knew what he was doing and is therefore an idiot, or he didn't and therefore an idiot. IIRC MS hired him though after the takeover so they clearly didn't think he was an idiot or a liability. Draw your own conclusions. Great article on it here: https://communities-dominate.blogs.c...-pictures.htmlThese issues have been with Intel for years haven't they. As cock ups go it's as monumental as Nokia dropping the ball and getting sold
I do wonder if they might get back into the mobile business again, perhaps with an investment of some sort into HMD?
Had Windows Phone been an emerging and successful platform then he could have been onto a huge winner. But Nokia backed Microsoft at the point that Microsoft went completely nuts and seemed to be busy trashing their own phone OS and hacking off their customers.
If Elop had jumped from their burning platform to Android, I expect it would have worked.
At the time didn't they basically say something along the lines of "we don't want to have compete with all those cheap Android also-rans". Which is sort of saying "we were to late to move into the market and are now not able to compete".
Very much like Apple in 90s. From the Mac II until the mid 90s they had better hardware and operating system than PCs but never wanted to licence. When they finally allowed PPC third-party clones it was too late and Power Computing just ended up taking shares from Apple rather appealing to PC buyers.
Nokia crawling to Windows Mobile because they though they couldn't compete with generic Android was similar.
Very much like now AMD will push out zen4 on 7nm ..(its too late to change) BUT they will hold in reserve a refresh to 5NM .. they will wait to see what Intel brings to the table .. two pair or a straight flush. If its needed then the zen3 "XT" Cpus will appear, for a mid life refresh, thatw ill be foillowed by ZEN4 which will have the much vaunted additions
Ryzen 4000 is Zen3, not Zen4. And the current Ryzen 3000 is Zen2.
While I think you are right, I personally can't see why generic Windows Phone was any better than generic Android. If they wanted a small ecosystem they should have stayed on their burning platform, at least they had control over that. I have seen people who adopt Microsoft platforms crucified over an over in the decades I have been in IT as Microsoft adopted and then abandoned the likes of MIPS and SuperH leaving "partners" hanging out to dry.
exactly. Which genius though that was a good idea?
Ryzen 2000 was still based on the Zen microarchitecture, so the model name advanced by one but the core name didn't.
I know. What I'm saying is all they needed to do was call it the 1000+ and everything would have been ok, and future generations would nicely make sense.
Mate, you can't use "Ryzen 3" to mean Zen 3. Those names are referring to totally different aspects of the CPUs, and phrasing it as you have in your post is completely incorrect and confusing as hell.
Zen = Ryzen 1000 Series (unsure about APUs)
Zen + = Ryzen 2000 Series (unsure about APUs)
Zen 2 = Ryzen 3000 Series (except APUs)
ZEN 3 = Ryzen 4000 Series (except APUs)
Ryzen 3 = Lowest tier Ryzen CPUs
Ryzen 5 = Lower-Mid tier Ryzen CPUs
Ryzen 7 = Upper-mid tier Ryzen CPUs
Ryzen 9 = Top tier Ryzen CPUs
I think the reason the article contradicts the image posted, is because the image posted was showing the planned timeline, where the article is saying that 5nm may be coming so much sooner, that Zen 3 might/will actually be coming on 5nm instead of 7nm.
Where in my post did I say ryzen 3 means zen 3? Maybe try reading what you're quoting.
To be fair it's confusing as hell, not your post, well sort of your post but the naming of them, it's the whole APU's using different series' than the desktop parts that throw me, i get that the series' are running one step ahead of the architecture naming but then when you look at APU's they don't, or is it they run a step behind, or in front...oh i give up.
Last edited by Corky34; 08-06-2020 at 07:12 AM.
I'm not making the 'someone else does it so it's good' argument, but it's not unusual for this to happen. Multiple core generations have appeared in a given CPU generation for Intel, for example the i7 6700k came out before the i7 6800k. Both use the same microarchitecture right? Wrong! So the 6800 must use the newer core? Wrong again! 6700k came out first using Skylake, then the 6800k came out the following year using the older Broadwell microarchitecture.
And now we have several generations and CPU codenames all using Skylake cores, the first of which was called Skylake (when Intel used the same name for core and CPU), followed by Coffee Lake, Coffee Lake Refresh, and Comet Lake.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote