I just hope an open source version equivalent of CUDA will become mainstream ( I think there's this thing called OpenCL, don't know how similar that is to CUDA).
I just hope an open source version equivalent of CUDA will become mainstream ( I think there's this thing called OpenCL, don't know how similar that is to CUDA).
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
By your comments
You said they need to diversify; Nvidia is doing it at a faster rate than apparently what you think. i saw their preview at Nvision08 of their diversification and i am impressed.
. . . cloud computing and super computers ... CUDA .. the GPU as "all purpose" ... 3D for games and TV .. physX .. medical imaging .. the auto, entertainment and the oil industry .. mobile computing ..
.. how much more diversification does Nvidia need?
i listened to the Rose interview with Jensen, twice .. and took good notes the first time
Having hype catchphrases and slideware does not constitute diversification.
It may constitute a plan to eventually become diversified, and having a plan to become diversified certainly would not be in disagreement with anyone stating they need to become diversified.
I stand by the statements I made in my post and I don't see where you've said anything that actually disagrees with them.
you aren't looking, clearly
obviously the move to mobile computing means nothing to you
nor does the move into the pro market and medical imaging
3D for gaming and television must not ring a bell for you either
perhaps designing GPUs for automobiles does not match your narrow definition of diversification
.. now i really doubt you paid any attention to the interview, IF you even caught any of it
:roll:
i stand by my conclusions also
There are folding clients for both ATi and Nvidia GPU's, and they run circles around just about all X86 hardware
Sadly, their usefulness is limited to the types of simulations they can do, so you couldn't just have an all GPU folding farm and get everything done.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
By your comments
You said they need to diversify; Nvidia is doing it at a faster rate than apparently what you think. i saw their preview at Nvision08 of their diversification and i am impressed.
. . . cloud computing and super computers ... CUDA .. the GPU as "all purpose" ... 3D for games and TV .. physX .. medical imaging .. the auto, entertainment and the oil industry .. mobile computing ..
.. how much more diversification does Nvidia need?
i listened to the Rose interview with Jensen, twice .. and took good notes the first time
Having hype catchphrases and slideware does not constitute diversification.
It may constitute a plan to eventually become diversified, and having a plan to become diversified certainly would not be in disagreement with anyone stating they need to become diversified.
I stand by the statements I made in my post and I don't see where you've said anything that actually disagrees with them.
you aren't looking, clearly
obviously the move to mobile computing means nothing to you
nor does the move into the pro market and medical imaging
3D for gaming and television must not ring a bell for you either
perhaps designing GPUs for automobiles does not match your narrow definition of diversification
.. now i really doubt you paid any attention to the interview, IF you even caught any of it
:roll:
i stand by my conclusions also
Is there some reason you continue to hassle me with the semi-personal attack posts? Stating what I have/have not done, declaring what I think/don't think?
You don't know what I think, you don't know what I know, and you don't know what I have read/listened too. So stop posting your impressions of me as if they are fact.
It's getting annoying. Seriously, knock it off. No one else around here does this, there is no reason for you to do it either.
apoppin
Lifer
Hassle?
:roll:
You make sweeping statements that somehow i am agreeing with you
yet you give absolutely nothing to back up what you say about Nvidia's needing to diversify
i am saying they are doing it; you have said they still need to
No one questions your generalizations?
:roll:
You make sweeping statements that somehow i am agreeing with you
yet you give absolutely nothing to back up what you say about Nvidia's needing to diversify
i am saying they are doing it; you have said they still need to
No one questions your generalizations?
Yes, let's see your posts to me thus far in this thread:
Originally posted by: apoppin
you aren't looking, clearly
obviously the move to mobile computing means nothing to you
nor does the move into the pro market and medical imaging
3D for gaming and television must not ring a bell for you either
perhaps designing GPUs for automobiles does not match your narrow definition of diversification
.. now i really doubt you paid any attention to the interview, IF you even caught any of it
:roll:
i stand by my conclusions also
Yes, these statements you make are definitely flamebait, an attempt to attack me and my ability to rationalize data and market trends. Claiming I'm not looking, claiming things mean nothing to me, claiming things don't ring bells, claiming I have a narrow definition of diversification, claiming I did not catch or paid attention to the interview, etc.
If your posts are not intentionally inflammatory then I really need Keys and mark to assist me in understanding what flamebait posts look like these days.
Please provide proof that I ever stated you were agreeing with me.
You continue to make blatant statement lies about me.
In my post I gave examples of the historical trends in the industry that I was drawing upon as backing up my assertions that Nvidia needs to diversify.
If those historical trends are inaccurate I expect you or someone else to correct me with the facts.
If the relevance of those trends to the topic at hand is questionable I expect you to engage me in a debate on the subject of its relevance.
You did not state anything that contradicts my statements. You did not refute anything I stated.
You did not state the examples of trends I gave as being incorrect or non-factual.
Instead you attacked my credibility of whether I had or had not listened to interview and you continue to give absolutely nothing to backup your claims regarding what I have or have not done.
This is silly semantics.
The tense of both references (yours and mine) do not include the past tense.
You are saying in present tense that they are in the process of becoming diversified. (meaning someday you believe they will be diversified)
I am saying in future tense they need to become diversified.
Neither one of us are saying they are already diversified (past tense).
Until Nvidia is diversified (past and present tense) then I will continue to posit that they to continue to endeavour (present tense) to eventually/someday become diversified (future tense).
You do not have to agree with me, feel free to claim they are already diversified (past tense). But find a way to do it without simultaneously attacking/questioning my ability to process the data and information I have at my disposal. That is where you keep making it a personal issue, and that is when your posts are inflammatory and flamebait.
Originally posted by: apoppin
No one questions your generalizations?
My generalizations are questioned all the time. As a long-time forum member surely you are aware of this, how could you not be, so I am not sure why you are positing a needlessly rhetorical question like this...unless, again, it is intended to be received as flamebait.
But you aren't questioning just my generalizations...for some reason you felt it necessary to take it to the next level and make it personal by questioning my abilities to listen to interviews, weigh the relevance of slideware from marketing junkets, and claim I have narrow definitions of diversification, etc.
This is all very needless. I've been flamebaited before on these forums but usually they are your typical sub-40 post count members who are understandably cutting teeth and simply have troubles adjusting to what is polite and expected posting behavior on these forums, so I rarely if ever take the time to respond. But I very much expect more, a lot more, from a fellow elite member with 30k+ posts.
IMO you need to drop the 'tude and try being less abrasive and inflammatory with your posts, it is needless and it detracts from the otherwise fruitful discussions we generally have here in the forums.
edit: spelling
Originally posted by: magreen
idc, I sympathize. But I have to say, sometimes it hurts to be the Cassandra.
Apollo tells me you and your visions aren't to be trusted any longer.
This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me, but I am going to have to unfriend you in MyGreekMythologySpace now.
Originally posted by: apoppin
in Jensen's (Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO Nvidia) latest 38-minute interview with Charlie Rose this last Friday night on PBS, he said NO
Regarding Intel, he said, "there is no need to reinvent the CPU" and Jensen actually said the core of the ?tension? between Nvidia and Intel ?is the battle for the soul of the PC?.
:Q
Nvidia wants the GPU to become *at least as important* as the CPU as the world moves to cloud computing to compliment client computing
[or supplant it, more likely]
it is an awesome interview about Nvidia's "intuition" for the future of expanding computing; one of Rose's best tech interviews
i wish they would air that here in india
magreen
Golden Member
- Dec 27, 2006
- 1,309
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: magreen
idc, I sympathize. But I have to say, sometimes it hurts to be the Cassandra.
Apollo tells me you and your visions aren't to be trusted any longer.
This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me, but I am going to have to unfriend you in MyGreekMythologySpace now.
Ok, that's your decision. Just beware if he tries to win your friendship back with gifts, especially of the equine nature.
Originally posted by: ganesh1
Originally posted by: apoppin
in Jensen's (Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO Nvidia) latest 38-minute interview with Charlie Rose this last Friday night on PBS, he said NO
Regarding Intel, he said, "there is no need to reinvent the CPU" and Jensen actually said the core of the ?tension? between Nvidia and Intel ?is the battle for the soul of the PC?.
:Q
Nvidia wants the GPU to become *at least as important* as the CPU as the world moves to cloud computing to compliment client computing
[or supplant it, more likely]
it is an awesome interview about Nvidia's "intuition" for the future of expanding computing; one of Rose's best tech interviews
i wish they would air that here in india
You can watch the interview in its entirety from the Charlie Rose link provided in apoppin's webpage/blog on the topic. (this is where I read/heard the interview myself)
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Jensen's only wants to survive. NV is fighting for its life. But anyway I wish them luck in X86 land. The best thing out of all this is . It showed how corrupt the system really is. It was a valuable lesson I learned watching this whole thing play out.
First The industry learns Intel is working on many core cpus. Than ATI working close to Intel gets a true feeling for the 3 development projects has going on . Dave sees the light.
Word spreads . AMD panics buys ATI becauseATI had better raytracing tech. Intel LOL. Than wall street marketers were putting out Intel will by NV. Intel LOL at that. God these guys are criminals. All they had to do is look at what intels projects to know were this thing was going. I thought kiefer would win . but Oh! Well.
First The industry learns Intel is working on many core cpus. Than ATI working close to Intel gets a true feeling for the 3 development projects has going on . Dave sees the light.
Word spreads . AMD panics buys ATI becauseATI had better raytracing tech. Intel LOL. Than wall street marketers were putting out Intel will by NV. Intel LOL at that. God these guys are criminals. All they had to do is look at what intels projects to know were this thing was going. I thought kiefer would win . but Oh! Well.
Which begs the question - if Intel capital or investments management divisions shorted AMD stock would that be considered insider trading? Not because they might know what AMD is doing but because they know how brutally (potentially) devastating their own technology is going to be? Where does one cross the lines in insider trading as a business entity doing share buybacks or actively shorting a competitors stock?
The first sentence is undeniably true.
As for the rest...I think I understand the nemesis-speak but I don't exactly subscribe to the view of history or reality he is putting forward.
Understand he is referring entirely to GPU architecture, don't confuse the multi-core talk as usurping AMD's long stated plan to go multi-core with their athlon architecture. AMD owns this innovation on the CPU side of things.
The rest of the post appears to be conspiracy theory type stuff about attempted market manipulation at Intel's disfavor by some analysts, etc. I don't remember history happening the way Nemesis does, but that doesn't mean it didn't seem to happen the way he says it happened within different circles on the planet at the time.
However I respect his opinion and the fact he went to the effort to communicate his opinion to us for our reading benefit so I am not going to challenge it, let sleeping dogs lie as they say. If Nemesis wants to expand on his thoughts then I welcome any clarification he can provide.
But I am interested in understanding his take on my question as it would play out in his version of the world as it would seem his version of history is a worst-case scenario for Intel and yet it seems like an opportune scenario for short-selling their competitors stock and making a bundle of shareholder equity for loyal Intel shareholders...so depending on the response from Nemesis, my follow-up question will naturally be "so why didn't they?".
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
By your comments
You said they need to diversify; Nvidia is doing it at a faster rate than apparently what you think. i saw their preview at Nvision08 of their diversification and i am impressed.
. . . cloud computing and super computers ... CUDA .. the GPU as "all purpose" ... 3D for games and TV .. physX .. medical imaging .. the auto, entertainment and the oil industry .. mobile computing ..
.. how much more diversification does Nvidia need?
i listened to the Rose interview with Jensen, twice .. and took good notes the first time
Having hype catchphrases and slideware does not constitute diversification.
It may constitute a plan to eventually become diversified, and having a plan to become diversified certainly would not be in disagreement with anyone stating they need to become diversified.
I stand by the statements I made in my post and I don't see where you've said anything that actually disagrees with them.
you aren't looking, clearly
obviously the move to mobile computing means nothing to you
nor does the move into the pro market and medical imaging
3D for gaming and television must not ring a bell for you either
perhaps designing GPUs for automobiles does not match your narrow definition of diversification
.. now i really doubt you paid any attention to the interview, IF you even caught any of it
:roll:
i stand by my conclusions also
Looks like we got another fanboy, where is the Banning stick. Someone call the mods, tonight, we shall eat man flesh!
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
I do not. Was he right about them? I started really paying attention to charlie's track record around the time he got real chummy optimistic about AMD's future with Phenom (dancing in the aisles and all that). At that time my general recollection of Charlie's record to date (then) was that it was equally abysmal. (ergo not worth committing to memory)
But if there was a golden age of groo articles and scoops when he was on the button and not so busy grinding axes then I'd really would be interested in knowing about them.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
Yea, he was spot on the performance claims, plus or minus compilers and optimized drivers. That was back then when virtually everyone was denying that 4-issue was going to do a lot for this CPU(of course there are multiple factors for the performance but people were focusing on nothing but the 4-issue part). They were also saying we won't see anything higher than clock speeds of Core Duo, which was at the time 2.33GHz.
You have to be pretty discriminatory. If they spout specific numbers, I don't see why you need to doubt them. Things like final clockspeeds are always a moving target for the rumors.
Interesting. So he does know how to be value-add to the community. Now if he'd just get off his anti-NV bent and get back to giving us scoops it would be great.
My caveat still stands, I consider his scoop on Intel/PS4 as a confirmed scoop given the veracity with which Sony denied it and for that I thank Charlie for doing his job.
But after living thru four years of repeated abuse of the "IBM to buy AMD" rumors I'd really appreciate if he'd lay off spending the next four years spinning "ZOMG Nvidia to produce x86 cpu!" rumor treadmill.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Yes, let's see your posts to me thus far in this thread:
Originally posted by: apoppin
you aren't looking, clearly
obviously the move to mobile computing means nothing to you
nor does the move into the pro market and medical imaging
3D for gaming and television must not ring a bell for you either
perhaps designing GPUs for automobiles does not match your narrow definition of diversification
.. now i really doubt you paid any attention to the interview, IF you even caught any of it
:roll:
i stand by my conclusions also
Yes, these statements you make are definitely flamebait, an attempt to attack me and my ability to rationalize data and market trends. Claiming I'm not looking, claiming things mean nothing to me, claiming things don't ring bells, claiming I have a narrow definition of diversification, claiming I did not catch or paid attention to the interview, etc.
If your posts are not intentionally inflammatory then I really need Keys and mark to assist me in understanding what flamebait posts look like these days.
Please provide proof that I ever stated you were agreeing with me.
You continue to make blatant statement lies about me.
In my post I gave examples of the historical trends in the industry that I was drawing upon as backing up my assertions that Nvidia needs to diversify.
If those historical trends are inaccurate I expect you or someone else to correct me with the facts.
If the relevance of those trends to the topic at hand is questionable I expect you to engage me in a debate on the subject of its relevance.
You did not state anything that contradicts my statements. You did not refute anything I stated.
You did not state the examples of trends I gave as being incorrect or non-factual.
Instead you attacked my credibility of whether I had or had not listened to interview and you continue to give absolutely nothing to backup your claims regarding what I have or have not done.
This is silly semantics.
The tense of both references (yours and mine) do not include the past tense.
You are saying in present tense that they are in the process of becoming diversified. (meaning someday you believe they will be diversified)
I am saying in future tense they need to become diversified.
Neither one of us are saying they are already diversified (past tense).
Until Nvidia is diversified (past and present tense) then I will continue to posit that they to continue to endeavour (present tense) to eventually/someday become diversified (future tense).
You do not have to agree with me, feel free to claim they are already diversified (past tense). But find a way to do it without simultaneously attacking/questioning my ability to process the data and information I have at my disposal. That is where you keep making it a personal issue, and that is when your posts are inflammatory and flamebait.
Originally posted by: apoppin
No one questions your generalizations?
My generalizations are questioned all the time. As a long-time forum member surely you are aware of this, how could you not be, so I am not sure why you are positing a needlessly rhetorical question like this...unless, again, it is intended to be received as flamebait.
But you aren't questioning just my generalizations...for some reason you felt it necessary to take it to the next level and make it personal by questioning my abilities to listen to interviews, weigh the relevance of slideware from marketing junkets, and claim I have narrow definitions of diversification, etc.
This is all very needless. I've been flamebaited before on these forums but usually they are your typical sub-40 post count members who are understandably cutting teeth and simply have troubles adjusting to what is polite and expected posting behavior on these forums, so I rarely if ever take the time to respond. But I very much expect more, a lot more, from a fellow elite member with 30k+ posts.
IMO you need to drop the 'tude and try being less abrasive and inflammatory with your posts, it is needless and it detracts from the otherwise fruitful discussions we generally have here in the forums.
edit: spelling
ridiculous
let's look at your post to me, first:
i took issue with your statements and i still do
You said they "must diversify" and i said Nvidia ALREADY DID
the rest of your "complaints" about what you think i am accusing you of, are a smokescreen because i simply called you on this one point
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
One only has to look back to when the The 3 many core projects started. That will give ya a date on when Intel started working many core projects.
The Bolded part above. No way . It was an attempt to raise NV. price and it worked .analysts should have a higher education. I knew what Intel was working . So should they have. A little research works wonders . But Ya the know it alls skip the research part. And drive a dieing companies stock price higher. Its criminal . Or these guys aren't very bright.
I'll repeat. Please knock it off with the inflammatory flamebait.
You have repeatedly made statements about me in this thread, and you cannot defend why you made them nor can you refute having made them.
My calling you out on the flamebait is not smokescreen, your post record in this thread speaks for itself and I'm not the only one who has noticed.
Regardless whether you feel you are right or not on the technical topic material, your approach of making your posts towards me personal and inflammatory is simply unacceptable.
No one else gets to throw crap like that up on the forums and walk away with a shrug and grin and claim "I don't knows any better". You know better and you need to demonstrate it.
If you are incapable of understanding what it is about your posts that are inflammatory then I'll ask a mod to assist you. Its now repetitive, has always been needless, and continues to detract from the value of this thread.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter