AMD EPYC

Moore's Law BTFO

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Whoever this Moore's faggot is, he should be FIRED.

What a fucking moran.

>infinity fabric

Reminds me of that "Unlimited Detail" engine scam from like 5 years ago.

Back to Sup Forums, faggot.

but it actually works, it's an evolution of Hypertransport that's independant of topology.

>Hypermeme independant of turdology
hurr hurr

...

Literally four chips glued together

Oy.
Buy Xeon Scalable Family Processors, goyim!

>I don't know what I'm talking about, but let me just make an ass out of myself!: The post

You're not funny

>moore was literally co-founder of intel

Why is he so intent on destroying everything intel?

Devs should use a language for the future

Meanwhile you faggots suck SJW dick by using single-threaded inferior RUST

Intel coerced Compaq into killing Alpha.
It's personal.

|
|>
|
|3
|

>glued together

...

Wasnt that just GPU fencing shit?

That's petty, even for intel.

...

Oh no! don't make fun of my boss. He's the one that deposits a Shekels per post i do here.

...

jew jizz vs glue in cpu
who would win

It was just voxels and octrees. In other words, a completely normal voxel engine hyped up to retards to trick the retarded Australian government to keep giving them money.

...

Get back to work, Brian. Shareholders don't pay you to shitpost.

oy vey

How long before Intel glues everything together and calls it superbonded or something?

this cpu is antisemitic. anti defamation league will block its production

~2019 or so, whenever Tigerlake-SP launches.

>Intel does MCM
>Interconnect is slower and laggier than IF
>Didn't need that memory latency anyway!

Why is this worded like it's advertising Infinity Fabric for sale when it's exclusive technology that AMD doesn't license out

It looks like it is for investors in the company.

Your funny

cut one ccx two more will take its place ever wondered why it was green all along?

...

There is not a single thing on that slide on the same level of marketing bullshit as Apple. Or NVidia. Or Intel now too, I guess. Add them to the list.

But every statement on AMD's slide is true.

That actually seems accurate though, once you start OCing the amounts of power you need for an increase in performance are kinda similar to that. Obviously no numbers or units though.

Hail Hydra!

this is not funny

SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

GOLANG
O
L
A
N
G

Delete this, goy.

>OP doesn't know what Moore's Law is, the thread

EPYC

No, it was a landscape scanning engine for use by architecture and planning firms and does exactly what it was advertised to do, just the Sup Forums holdover retards on Sup Forums thought it was a game engine and started screaming about scams.

So what is it? What does it do?

I don't know, the horizontal die to die communication seems up to spec, but otherwise looks like an 8 to me.

...

Engineers do the designing, marketing does the naming

Unless you're AMD and let engineers name the products(Ryzen, EPYC, Threadripper)

No joke.

It is for sale though. Custom SoC business. Infinity Fabric is fancy and bendable enough that AMD could go and stick an FPGA on there, or a GPU, or a memory chip. Why do you think Zen was built with SoC features built right in?

It has actually one of the best optimizations in the voxel world. About half year ago I read they made some animation system, choppy but hey, they are animating voxels an still working on it.

this

Moore was a dumbshit

There is no Moore's Law.
Intel's Gordon Moore made the observation that chip density doubles every 18 months, a couple of decades ago.
It's not a Law; just an observation. It results from an artifact of the methodology of chip production based on methods used back then.

>four glued together desktop dies

>four glued together marketing slides

>dipshit doesn't know what an MCM is
Both Intel and IBM have done this before.

>Data center server shit
Do i look like a data center?
Wtf do i care?

...

And this doesn't even surpass Moore's law.

They're just sticking more chips in a single package, not increasing the density of transistors on the chips.

moores law has nothing to do with the density of transistors, dumbass

>T-they're cheating!
>I-it doesn't count!

We can't double the number of transistors per square inch every 18 months anymore.
But no one said we can't make better things than transistors, or make bigger dies with glue and contacts.

lol.

I guess you're right.
They could make much larger chips with the same transistor density to maintain Moore's Law.

But sticking multiple chips in the same package still doesn't apply to Moore's law because they are separate ICs.

Dude scala is literally the future

It actually does.
It's literally "twice the transistors every 18 months", and this is dead.
But this don't mean the death of the performance improvement, just the death of twice of the transistors every 18 months.
It's time to be smart instead of waving your "muh manufacturing process" dick around.

>The Alpha architecture was sold, along with most parts of DEC, to Compaq in 1998. Compaq, already an Intel customer, decided to phase out Alpha in favor of the forthcoming Hewlett-Packard/Intel Itanium architecture, and sold all Alpha intellectual property to Intel in 2001, effectively killing the product.

Keller quit DEC that year in '98 to go work for AMD. The more I read about this guy the more I appreciate his hate boner for Intel. It's like he lives to shit on them.

But moores law is literally the density of transistors.

>i-intel's marketing wank is terrible!
>a-amd's marketing wank is perfect!
It's all marketing wank. You can't take any of it at face value.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
>Moore's law (/mɔərz.ˈlɔː/) is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
>number
not
>density
JEWS BTFO AMD WINS AGAIN

He didn't say density of transistors, just that the number of transistors in a dense IC doubled about every two years.

Now, most of the time that does equate to transistor density because of shrinkages in transistor size and the fact that larger ICs are harder to produce at large volumes, but that's how the law being observed, not what the law stated.

It's a bit more belivable in AMD's case when their attempts to beat Moore's law works, and Intel's attempts just result in wasted billions on node shrinks that go nowhere.

I'm not intel side here.
As i said, it's time to be smart, not time to flaunt your manufacturing process dick around.
You know, the thing intel been doing for the last 10 years.

They should already have an interconnect technology ready for the fight, but no, "MUH DENSE TRANSISTOR DICK".
And now to make things worse, they're getting BEHIND, with everyone else going to 7nm while they're shooting for 10nm.

do you have any pictures like that, but from POWER8?

I don't think there are any POWER8 MCMs

POWER8 is single die?

Yes, up to a 12-core die

>And now to make things worse, they're getting BEHIND, with everyone else going to 7nm while they're shooting for 10nm.
I guarantee they arent doing shit with 7nm especially with their jew cum TDP.

7nm is a thermal deathtrap right now.

Holy shit, now i get it. I always wondered why he didn't worked for Intel if he was so good

see again is four separate ICs.

doesnt prove me wrong in the slightest faggot

Wrong font

Seriously. Guy designs one 64bit chip that gets bought out and killed by intel. Turns right around and leads the design of the athlon64. It's like pottery.

It doesn't prove you wrong about Moore's law, it proves you wrong about AMD somehow BTFOing Intel because it's not "breaking the constraints of Moore's law".

That constraint is still there because each IC making up Threadripper and Epyc is still under it.

And then Itanic sank into the sea. RIP.
"Work smart, not hard".

>it proves you wrong about AMD somehow BTFOing Intel because it's not "breaking the constraints of Moore's law".
got any proof? because so far the epyc is better than anything has to offer.

What now?

OY VEYYYY DELETE THIS NOW

AMD IS ANTI-SEMITE YOU DIRTY GOYIM

SHUT IT DOWN!

> Moore's law predicts that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future.
Moore's law stopped being relevant when we hit 14nm and we couldn't make transistors significantly smaller than that.

Transistors are dead.

>moores law is about transistor size
brainlets...when will they learn

>transistors per square inch
>not density

How do you fit the same size transistors into a smaller space, and thus make a transistor higher density?
Moore's law is inherently linked to transistor size, because you have to make them smaller in order to fit more transistors per square inch.

DELID THIS

Or you go the intel route and increase the die size at the expense of your yields.

>How do you fit the same size transistors into a smaller space, and thus make a transistor higher density?
>moores law is about transistor density
brainlets...

is right, you're hilarious.

You don't. You make a larger die with your larger wafers and purer silicon crystals instead, with yield and feature size being held equal. Gordon Moore never said a word about density as such. You're the one introducing the constraint that a dense integrated circuit must retain the same die size, not him. The semiconductor world ignored your constraint anyway. Even if he did, the ITRS adhered to it as a matter of policy, just one option among many, in order to keep the semiconductor tooling world awash in cash.