unifiedguru.com/high-bandwidth-memory-hbm-delivers-impressive-performance-gains/

1GB HBM3 price twice vs. DDR5.

So why is HBM3 still not soldered on x86 boards?
At least on boards and laptops above average?

There will never be fast RAM on x86 until the memory controller becomes at least 512 bit. It is the speed of RAM that affects 3D performance and system responsiveness.

Or vram soldering in the size of 8-16GB HBM3e for igpu. It can also be used as general RAM, even without installation in the main memory slots. What's convenient is that you can buy a laptop without RAM and test it, and then buy a slower DDR5-6 in 2 slots and expand it to 64-128GB.

Another way -
The operating system kernel should long ago work only on soldered HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 500GB/s+. For a non-paged Windows kernel with all basic services, 4-8GB is enough.

Those, solder 4-8GB HBM3 for the operating system and 8-16GB for igpu. And let everything else in slow DDR5/6.

Quote from: peepeepoopoo on March 31, 2024, 16:29:24good ryzen

I keep hearing this but has ryzen ever actually been good? Not even talking mobile but even on desktop? When they first launched I'm sure they were decently priced (they had to be after the disaster that was the bulldozer fx series) but they lacked in decent single threaded ipc until like, what zen 3? Then by the time zen 3 launched they had jacked up the prices so much that a 6 core cpu was selling for 299, it felt like intel era all over again. Only literally like recently, 3 years after now you can find decent deals on them and I hesitate to call them a "deals" since you can probably find a comparable intel cpu in performance for roughly the same price. This doesn't remind me of the amd athlon xp era where you could get something faster than intel for half the price. Tho it was so long ago maybe my boomer memory is making me imagine things now.

Then there's the mobile front. Even if we look past their 2 available designs wins per year limited supply issues. Their APU SoCs seem a whole lot less impressive than they should have been mainly because by 2020 Apple and Qualcomm started taking iGPUs way more seriously, in an era where gpu performance is increasingly paramount for mobile SoCs. When you've base M-silicon chips that are faster and Snapdragon 8 gen 3 chips reaching GTX 1650 tier graphics, mobile ryzen APUs just seem a little disappointing considering they're still so extremely bandwidth starved.

The only real hope I have, is that hopefully by the time Zen 5 arrives we will have some extremely discounted RDNA3-based APU laptops. Like $400-$700 territory. At a time with everything being so expensive (M4 silicon, arrow lake, snapdragon x elite, strix halo, etc) .. zen 4 might actually be a better deal then.

There will be no healthy market competition if the system is carefully built in such a way that large corporations can easily destroy any startup or buy it whole.

Start with patent law - no more than 7-10 years for very large companies and especially those whose market share exceeds 40-45%.

If now all x86 patents are cancelled, what will change now that the cost of entry is already monstrous? This should be an automatic system to force large companies to act in the public interest, and not in pursuit of only shareholder profits, if they have become a company with an overwhelming market share.

Therefore, such large companies should be fragmented, and their patents more than 7-10 years old should be canceled.

But this prevents politicians from carrying out geopolitical scams. After all, controlling the management/owners of many companies in each market niche is much more difficult than putting pressure on 1-2 that create the appearance of competition.

We lost the correct path for the development of civilization decades ago.

Quote from: NikoB on April 01, 2024, 11:00:04You have no choice at all because both options are disgusting. This is not market competition, this is an obvious oligopoly, or rather AMD has simply been protecting Intel for 20 years against possible claims from society (and its representative - the antitrust authority). But with Intel's 75% share of the x86 market, there is no real competition. It would be if the shares were 50/50. And even this would still be an oligopoly.

Both manufacturers still cannot make an SoC that consumes as much when decoding 4k@60fps as SoCs with Arm in smartphones consume, and this is a shame.

Just like everything else. In fact, the big three - Intel/NVidia/AMD are deliberately pushing forward. Like integrating DP2.0/UHBR20 ports into video cards from five years ago (!) to support 8K monitors.

Yes, you are right (I slightly misinterpreted your previous post, but understand now more clearly what you meant). I'm with you on that - there is no real choice, and there is no real competition. And all these companies fob off us with products that are deliberately outdated and deficient.

Quote from: peepeepoopoo on March 31, 2024, 16:29:24its a clown world we live in.

Yes, a fucking clownworld. Of malicious clowns, not funny clowns.

Quote from: Hotz on April 01, 2024, 10:49:19Eventually you can only make your choice depending on what kind of system you wish.

You have no choice at all because both options are disgusting. This is not market competition, this is an obvious oligopoly, or rather AMD has simply been protecting Intel for 20 years against possible claims from society (and its representative - the antitrust authority). But with Intel's 75% share of the x86 market, there is no real competition. It would be if the shares were 50/50. And even this would still be an oligopoly. Only with a minimum of 4 suppliers and 4 shares of 25% would there already be real market competition. But she's not there. Therefore, both companies do business as it suits them, because there are no real competitors. But they don't exist because the monstrous, shameful patent law allows transnational monsters to hold on to key patents for too long. I have already written many times that only beginning startups should have patent protection for more than 7 years. But patents should be automatically canceled after 7 years for companies like Intel and in 100% of cases if the company's market share is more than 45%.

Both manufacturers still cannot make an SoC that consumes as much when decoding 4k@60fps as SoCs with Arm in smartphones consume, and this is a shame.

Just like everything else. In fact, the big three - Intel/NVidia/AMD are deliberately pushing forward. Like integrating DP2.0/UHBR20 ports into video cards from five years ago (!) to support 8K monitors.

Quote from: NikoB on March 31, 2024, 22:44:13Don't forget that AMD can't produce more than 1/5 of what Intel produces. And if they produce only 20% of the batches needed by the market, then the result is obvious - large laptop manufacturers will only work with Intel, because AMD cannot provide batches of the same size and at the same dumping price as Intel. And the larger the batches, the lower the cost.

This is a vicious circle created long ago by Intel, thanks to corruption in the US antitrust authority.

AMD has been favoring gaming-focused hardware for years (gaming handhelds and consoles). And these are also the ones who get all the chips first. Which also happened with the 680m and 780m: they were built into thousands of gaming handhelds long before even a laptop appeared with this chip. So even if they have lower capacities, it was their choice to use these capacities for consoles mostly and only.

Besides AMD could have made a much strong iGPU for notebooks-pc years ago in a small form factor. But they didn't as they have contracts with Sony and Microsoft to not release anything stronger for the PC-laptop market than the existing gaming consoles.

So yeah... the notion of AMD is the "good one" and INTEL the "bad one" isn't really the truth. The truth is that both are assholes, each of them in their own ways. It's just that INTEL is more focused on notebooks-pc and AMD is more focused on gaming-consoles. Eventually you can only make your choice depending on what kind of system you wish.

Apparently because these mini-PCs are even more overpriced (and what fools still buy them for this crazy money) than laptops and therefore their creators can buy wholesale quantities from AMD at an increased price, and laptop manufacturers do not want to pay as much as manufacturers miniPC, so they use Intel, which is apparently both more accessible and cheaper in large quantities.

Don't forget that AMD can't produce more than 1/5 of what Intel produces. And if they produce only 20% of the batches needed by the market, then the result is obvious - large laptop manufacturers will only work with Intel, because AMD cannot provide batches of the same size and at the same dumping price as Intel. And the larger the batches, the lower the cost.

This is a vicious circle created long ago by Intel, thanks to corruption in the US antitrust authority. If they had started to put pressure on them in time, AMD would not have found itself in a situation where it had no choice - in order to increase market share, it needs to dump large quantities, but then this is a minimum profit or even a loss, and AMD does not have that much cash in its accounts to win a price war with Intel, it will simply bankrupt them. If, of course, we assume that these are real competitors, and the fact that AMD has been an anti-monopoly gasket against Intel for many years...

Therefore, AMD is happy with the niche in the x86 market, but now it has become a burden for them, because there are more profitable markets where Intel has no influence or weight.

Therefore, it may happen that AMD will leave the x86 processor and SoC market altogether. Unless, of course, Intel, for the sake of providing cover from antimonopoly officials, will not secretly pour money into it again, so that AMD continues to pretend that the x86 market is still interested in it and creates the appearance that it is fighting Intel.

meanwhile all the good ryzen zen 4 mobile chips are ending up in non-name minipc's where battery life is of no meaning.

its a clown world we live in.