HW News - 'AMD Lost vs. Intel, ' Stadia vs. GeForce Now, & Intel CPU Updates
video description
Date: 2020-05-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
insomniac
What's worse about Flash being abandoned is that its functionality isn't being replaced. There isn't a standard format for vector animations and games (not being in a dedicated container file) don't have a straightforward way of being downloaded (it either doesn't work or is explicitly broken with Unity WebGL if not uploaded to a server) and thus the backup effort you see the effect of now for Flash won't exist for the current era of HTML5 games (even if there is a possibility of backup, people aren't downloading them to play offline like they did with SWFs. I'm not sure how well vector is supported in games, but it doesn't seem popular and visual quality I've seen in WebGL games seems poorer than Flash games in many cases I've seen. Although some faults might just be in implementation, such as from Unity WebGL. It's odd to lose this scalability especially when you can open an old SWF (something from 15+ years ago, most likely viewed at 720p or lower on release) and view at 4K+ with crisp rendering today. Google could've made a vector video format to play in HTML5/Youtube, including many QoL features (like dynamic aspect ratio and Level-of-Detail) but they (and other companies like Mozilla) only care that people aren't using it (because security concerns, not that Flash has been replaced. Although there is also a culture/momentum and lack of rival tools that explain people still developing things using Flash long after you stop expecting it. And people still viewing it in Flash format because it's content.
reply
What's worse about Flash being abandoned is that its functionality isn't being replaced. There isn't a standard format for vector animations and games (not being in a dedicated container file) don't have a straightforward way of being downloaded (it either doesn't work or is explicitly broken with Unity WebGL if not uploaded to a server) and thus the backup effort you see the effect of now for Flash won't exist for the current era of HTML5 games (even if there is a possibility of backup, people aren't downloading them to play offline like they did with SWFs. I'm not sure how well vector is supported in games, but it doesn't seem popular and visual quality I've seen in WebGL games seems poorer than Flash games in many cases I've seen. Although some faults might just be in implementation, such as from Unity WebGL. It's odd to lose this scalability especially when you can open an old SWF (something from 15+ years ago, most likely viewed at 720p or lower on release) and view at 4K+ with crisp rendering today. Google could've made a vector video format to play in HTML5/Youtube, including many QoL features (like dynamic aspect ratio and Level-of-Detail) but they (and other companies like Mozilla) only care that people aren't using it (because security concerns, not that Flash has been replaced. Although there is also a culture/momentum and lack of rival tools that explain people still developing things using Flash long after you stop expecting it. And people still viewing it in Flash format because it's content.
reply
Dane
Doesn't right to repair kind of make planned obsolescence a worth while strategy for manufacturers? In the current market they can somewhat predict when your product will fail and plan guarantees around that and they don't have to pay much mind to when your card would be obsolete, with right to repair all they can really rely on for new purchases is if what you have dosen't do what you want anymore, Nvidia forced early upgrades to the RTX series for anyone who had to try ray tracing and the later let older cards run it anyway with right to repair Nvidia might never have let the 10 series do ray tracing through software because that would be proof that the 10 series isn't obsolete yet so a broken 1080ti might have been repaired rather than a new 2080 sold and we wouldn't want that In other words, could right to repair be a detriment to the release cycles as any new product would have to make older products obsolete before a new release is considered? There was a lot of complaints about Nvidia not having gotten further given that they took twice as long to release the 20 series as they did with the 10 series, so would the 20 series have existed in a right to repair world or would Nvidia have taken even longer to release something new because they would have to release something that makes what's available obsolete if they want sales Sure right to repair makes the used market way more useful but is it at the cost of new products?
reply
Doesn't right to repair kind of make planned obsolescence a worth while strategy for manufacturers? In the current market they can somewhat predict when your product will fail and plan guarantees around that and they don't have to pay much mind to when your card would be obsolete, with right to repair all they can really rely on for new purchases is if what you have dosen't do what you want anymore, Nvidia forced early upgrades to the RTX series for anyone who had to try ray tracing and the later let older cards run it anyway with right to repair Nvidia might never have let the 10 series do ray tracing through software because that would be proof that the 10 series isn't obsolete yet so a broken 1080ti might have been repaired rather than a new 2080 sold and we wouldn't want that In other words, could right to repair be a detriment to the release cycles as any new product would have to make older products obsolete before a new release is considered? There was a lot of complaints about Nvidia not having gotten further given that they took twice as long to release the 20 series as they did with the 10 series, so would the 20 series have existed in a right to repair world or would Nvidia have taken even longer to release something new because they would have to release something that makes what's available obsolete if they want sales Sure right to repair makes the used market way more useful but is it at the cost of new products?
reply
yumri4
The way which he describe the 1st version that is now scrapped of the nViida one sounds like Google's GPU compute and Amazon's GPU compute. You can play games on a Tesla V100 BUT you will run into problems which most of them are solved if you have the Tesla V100 or Tesla P100 in the cloud instead of locally. Now to that both companies charge by what hardware do you want to be using and how much of it do you want to be using at any one time. nViida found out that consumers do not like the business to business model that is used for GPU cloud compute so renamed it into GeForce now but kept the GPU cloud compute. Now knowing that consumers do not like the pay for your own software and pay to use our hardware at higher costs for better hardware they changed it to an unknown hardware that is able to run your games as long as they are supported by GeForce now. Most triple A games that you would want to play are supported. The CPU is most likely a custom CPU for nVidia as Intel also is in the market for custom made chips. Then you have it might just be a Xeon with the CPU being sliced up into several CPU chucks and they are what the gamers are seeing. So in short nVidia did what Google did saw it failed fixed it and released the fixed version 7ish years later. So going by that it should only take Google 7 years to fix their broke cloud gaming thing. i do not think gamers are willing to wait 7 years for the product to work.
reply
The way which he describe the 1st version that is now scrapped of the nViida one sounds like Google's GPU compute and Amazon's GPU compute. You can play games on a Tesla V100 BUT you will run into problems which most of them are solved if you have the Tesla V100 or Tesla P100 in the cloud instead of locally. Now to that both companies charge by what hardware do you want to be using and how much of it do you want to be using at any one time. nViida found out that consumers do not like the business to business model that is used for GPU cloud compute so renamed it into GeForce now but kept the GPU cloud compute. Now knowing that consumers do not like the pay for your own software and pay to use our hardware at higher costs for better hardware they changed it to an unknown hardware that is able to run your games as long as they are supported by GeForce now. Most triple A games that you would want to play are supported. The CPU is most likely a custom CPU for nVidia as Intel also is in the market for custom made chips. Then you have it might just be a Xeon with the CPU being sliced up into several CPU chucks and they are what the gamers are seeing. So in short nVidia did what Google did saw it failed fixed it and released the fixed version 7ish years later. So going by that it should only take Google 7 years to fix their broke cloud gaming thing. i do not think gamers are willing to wait 7 years for the product to work.
reply
wNG
That article is flawed and makes no sense. Intel has made numerous bad business decisions. And they have been bleeding ever since. Their offerings are lackluster, expensive, and also legacy products have been impacted serverely by the last HW flaw hack. AMD's architecture was unaffected by it. Intel systems saw a 15+% performance loss. Intel has laid off tens of thousands globally. Fab locations are stagnant and downsizing. Their NUC products are somewhat directionless. Their cut of support of legacy products ie. motherboards, servers, and server CPUs, are not well received by customers. Their current CPUs are just plainly mediocre. And their attempt to enter the GPU race isn't blowing any skirts up. Intel's attempt to acquire companies in AI/autonomous driving seem desperate to compete against Nvidia and Tesla. Some are trying to claim Intel is now the leader in the field, yet this is just blatantly false. Tesla is magnitudes greater in experience due to actual mileage in the billions. Intel, like IBM forty years ago, is the empire that is crumbling. If they can't offer a 5 or 7 nm process soon, they are not to be declared as a market leader. I see no reason personally to being investing on any Intel offering for the near and long term.
reply
That article is flawed and makes no sense. Intel has made numerous bad business decisions. And they have been bleeding ever since. Their offerings are lackluster, expensive, and also legacy products have been impacted serverely by the last HW flaw hack. AMD's architecture was unaffected by it. Intel systems saw a 15+% performance loss. Intel has laid off tens of thousands globally. Fab locations are stagnant and downsizing. Their NUC products are somewhat directionless. Their cut of support of legacy products ie. motherboards, servers, and server CPUs, are not well received by customers. Their current CPUs are just plainly mediocre. And their attempt to enter the GPU race isn't blowing any skirts up. Intel's attempt to acquire companies in AI/autonomous driving seem desperate to compete against Nvidia and Tesla. Some are trying to claim Intel is now the leader in the field, yet this is just blatantly false. Tesla is magnitudes greater in experience due to actual mileage in the billions. Intel, like IBM forty years ago, is the empire that is crumbling. If they can't offer a 5 or 7 nm process soon, they are not to be declared as a market leader. I see no reason personally to being investing on any Intel offering for the near and long term.
reply
Alan
I don't know about other industry but when it come to tech, Wallstreet Analysts just straight up sucks. They get value wrong all the time: they've been saying AMD overvalued for several years, they valued Apple at less than 200, they valued Tesla at 300. look where those stocks are now. I don't know why. Maybe because they spend all their time on phone call & networking & polishing reports and all they get is secondary knowledge instead of actually using and understand tech products. I'll listen to them when it comes to to traditional industry like banking. But as for Tech, i'll listen to people who actually know what's going on. By the way those people don't publish information for free. They always push an agenda. Nobody should be surprised that intel perform great last quarter given new cycle upgrade and security flaw forcing companies to buy more chip. Yet those analyst undervalued intel so that they got an earning surprise. AMD won't overtake intel in just 2 years everybody who is serious should've understand that. What we actually want to read is buy side analyst, not sell side. And especially not analyst who own Intel stocks.
reply
I don't know about other industry but when it come to tech, Wallstreet Analysts just straight up sucks. They get value wrong all the time: they've been saying AMD overvalued for several years, they valued Apple at less than 200, they valued Tesla at 300. look where those stocks are now. I don't know why. Maybe because they spend all their time on phone call & networking & polishing reports and all they get is secondary knowledge instead of actually using and understand tech products. I'll listen to them when it comes to to traditional industry like banking. But as for Tech, i'll listen to people who actually know what's going on. By the way those people don't publish information for free. They always push an agenda. Nobody should be surprised that intel perform great last quarter given new cycle upgrade and security flaw forcing companies to buy more chip. Yet those analyst undervalued intel so that they got an earning surprise. AMD won't overtake intel in just 2 years everybody who is serious should've understand that. What we actually want to read is buy side analyst, not sell side. And especially not analyst who own Intel stocks.
reply
Jonathan
I went to a presentation given by Google Stadia s Executive Producer, Sebastien Puel, at McGill University on January 20th 2020. I asked him a few questions: How do you justify consumers having to repurchase games they already own on other plateforms only so they can play on google stadia? . How do you plan on restoring Stadia s reputation after the sub-optimal launch it went through? His answers were respectively: Online game distribution services are not interested in partnering with cloud gaming services like stadia and We work to improve our service. We learn as we go since we are the first ones to ever offer cloud gaming services. Then I alluded to Geforce Now, which has been in beta mode for years already and seems to be ahead of Stadia in many of the issues they are currently having. He said he never heard of them, and that it didn t sound like it could be scalable. I left thinking that Stadia was doomed, and barely two weeks later Geforce Now is officially launched.
reply
I went to a presentation given by Google Stadia s Executive Producer, Sebastien Puel, at McGill University on January 20th 2020. I asked him a few questions: How do you justify consumers having to repurchase games they already own on other plateforms only so they can play on google stadia? . How do you plan on restoring Stadia s reputation after the sub-optimal launch it went through? His answers were respectively: Online game distribution services are not interested in partnering with cloud gaming services like stadia and We work to improve our service. We learn as we go since we are the first ones to ever offer cloud gaming services. Then I alluded to Geforce Now, which has been in beta mode for years already and seems to be ahead of Stadia in many of the issues they are currently having. He said he never heard of them, and that it didn t sound like it could be scalable. I left thinking that Stadia was doomed, and barely two weeks later Geforce Now is officially launched.
reply
David
AMD and Intel have been duking it out since AMD started and until one of them dies it will continue. As far as right to repair I agree that companies are taking it too far. but they may have good reasons. I have personally known people with all kinds and a variety of certifications that didn t know squat (and that s putting it as mildly as I can. Several didn t even know where a keyboard or mouse plugged in, and trust me, more than 1 phone call on the issue raises concerns. LR has fixed more than 1 board with botched repairs that had been somewhere else before he got it. So I can kinda see where companies are coming from, but ultimately, the customer should have the choice with the understanding if they do, the company isn t going to stand behind the product at all. Warranty stickers can do a lot to show tampering I m sure they can come up with a way to remove doubts.
reply
AMD and Intel have been duking it out since AMD started and until one of them dies it will continue. As far as right to repair I agree that companies are taking it too far. but they may have good reasons. I have personally known people with all kinds and a variety of certifications that didn t know squat (and that s putting it as mildly as I can. Several didn t even know where a keyboard or mouse plugged in, and trust me, more than 1 phone call on the issue raises concerns. LR has fixed more than 1 board with botched repairs that had been somewhere else before he got it. So I can kinda see where companies are coming from, but ultimately, the customer should have the choice with the understanding if they do, the company isn t going to stand behind the product at all. Warranty stickers can do a lot to show tampering I m sure they can come up with a way to remove doubts.
reply
TheGonzo1970
AMD/Intel - I see his points. but it is readily apparent hes not a Tech Guy, hes a Money guy. Makes a couple good points, but doesn't seem to realize what AMD MADE Intel do. Do you honestly think we would have a 200 6 Core i5 right now if it wasn't for AMD? I'd doubt it. AMD took the High Core Count Market where Intel was making Boatloads of cash. I remember paying 600 for a i7-3930k (6 Core, 12 Thread) I got into AMD at 1. 88 per share. When the RX480 came out (and was hyped to be 980 speeds) and didn't live up to the hype (base 970 speed) I got cold feet when AMD's stock was 6 and I jumped ship. While their Debt-To-Equity is getting more in line with something Sane, they still owe Billions (With a B) in debt. I wouldn't buy AMD right now at all.
reply
AMD/Intel - I see his points. but it is readily apparent hes not a Tech Guy, hes a Money guy. Makes a couple good points, but doesn't seem to realize what AMD MADE Intel do. Do you honestly think we would have a 200 6 Core i5 right now if it wasn't for AMD? I'd doubt it. AMD took the High Core Count Market where Intel was making Boatloads of cash. I remember paying 600 for a i7-3930k (6 Core, 12 Thread) I got into AMD at 1. 88 per share. When the RX480 came out (and was hyped to be 980 speeds) and didn't live up to the hype (base 970 speed) I got cold feet when AMD's stock was 6 and I jumped ship. While their Debt-To-Equity is getting more in line with something Sane, they still owe Billions (With a B) in debt. I wouldn't buy AMD right now at all.
reply
defektiv
I totally support right to repair, but the Massachusetts bill seems overbearing, if I'm understanding it right. not just that a product manufacturer is prevented from taking deliberate steps designed to make repair more difficult (good, but that the company has to go out of their way, spend their own money, to provide parts for sale and instructions on performing various repairs. Fine for Google, Apple or Samsung, but any new startup companies trying to break in to the market would now have this additional cost to deal with. I'm afraid this will just end up entrenching the established corporations as a de facto oligopoly in hardware manufacturing.
reply
I totally support right to repair, but the Massachusetts bill seems overbearing, if I'm understanding it right. not just that a product manufacturer is prevented from taking deliberate steps designed to make repair more difficult (good, but that the company has to go out of their way, spend their own money, to provide parts for sale and instructions on performing various repairs. Fine for Google, Apple or Samsung, but any new startup companies trying to break in to the market would now have this additional cost to deal with. I'm afraid this will just end up entrenching the established corporations as a de facto oligopoly in hardware manufacturing.
reply
AmpEdition
Just going off sheer size, AMD smokes! They give you a product that made intel look dumb and in a panic, first 8 core desktop CPU, just like 2, 3, 4, 6 and so on. AMD has always been the real innovation and pushing the envelope, intel milks its customers and gives companies bundled deals to say with them, personally I think every company out there should be on threadripper in the server realm, for the money nothing can touch AMD period. there is a reason cray super computers worked with AMD and not intel on the fastest computers in the world! Can call me a fanboy or whatever, no these are facts and reality!
reply
Just going off sheer size, AMD smokes! They give you a product that made intel look dumb and in a panic, first 8 core desktop CPU, just like 2, 3, 4, 6 and so on. AMD has always been the real innovation and pushing the envelope, intel milks its customers and gives companies bundled deals to say with them, personally I think every company out there should be on threadripper in the server realm, for the money nothing can touch AMD period. there is a reason cray super computers worked with AMD and not intel on the fastest computers in the world! Can call me a fanboy or whatever, no these are facts and reality!
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
11:41
33:21