The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Did the footnotes section default to expanded for you?
If it weren't for the 1. in the quote, I wouldn't have thought to find the section to expand it.
Also, the page as it loads doesn't make it clear what line the footnote applies to.

 

Press where it says "Footnotes".

 

Not that intuitive that you need to press Footnotes, doesn't even look like a link. And if you don't expand it and do a search for the it using the browser search it won't pull up anything. Which is exactly the first thing I did when I went to that page, I tried searching for "based on" and nothing pulled up, then I saw the Footnote part and thought it was weird that nothing was there so I moved my mouse around it and then found out it was a expandable link.

 

Oh great. And now it's turned into a discussion about how bad AMD's web designer is.

If @itsmydamnation wasn't right before, he certainly is now.

 

i don't know. i've only been on the internet since like '94 (military family). But i've always been conditioned that underlines are href maybe im now just old...........

Code:

<a href="#" class="open-footnotes">FOOTNOTES</a>

 

underlines are also used for titles, and to me that looks like a title,

If you want ask a designer and see how they feel about that, be my guest, they will tell you the same thing I just did, that looks like a title, not a hyperlink, because hyperlinks with just a word, are commonly done with different colors than the regular text font along with an underline when moused over and that second color is based on a color that is not used on the webpage, as a secondary or tertiary color. Basic guidelines for web development for text hyperlinks. Also you shouldn't use if for Single words either, because that too also doesn't stand out, you need the contrast of the surroundings to show the hyperlink difference.

http://usabilitygeek.com/hyperlink-usability-guidelines-usable-links/

 

For me, the text is not underlined without mouse-over. I accidentally skimmed over it a number of times thinking it was an empty section.

 

only one title per page and not in the body text /perdantic

it's underlinded for me and turns red when i mouse over.

 

You can have different headings within a page. Which is what I thought it was, but it looked funny as there was nothing under it and what Tot's quoted that is where it should have been so that is the reason why I found it. Others might not have even went further than the search feature, its one thing when a person is looking for something and another when someone says its there and you can't find it cause you use the search feature of a browser.

The reason why I moused over that area was to highlight that area and search for it in source just in case it was a bug in the page.

 

Yep same for me not underlined hence why I missed it, thanks for the heads up.
It does not help that for me Jason is highlighted and can be clicked (just above that footnote) and has a line above his comment making that look like it is a footnote/addendum type info as well.

Cheers

 

I understand what you were saying i was playing on your words. But again back in 94 <h*> didn't have underlines

 

They had better structured pages to allow for such factors

Edit:
And I should had pointed out that I am used to AMD site having an expansion arrow next to anything in the footnote that needs expanding like quite a few sites do if it is hidden and not underlined.
Case in point: http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/radeon-rx-series/radeon-rx-480
http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu
etc
Anyway all good now
Cheers

 

Don't see all that much wrong with a slight divergence to discuss how to access relevant material. Maybe just chill a bit and let the discussion work its way through. If it becomes a stodgy discussion on web design, it can be spawned off.

 

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-radeon-technology-2016nov15.aspx

FirePro S9300 x2 adopted by Google cloud services.

 

http://gfxspeak.com/2016/11/16/balance-power-gaming/?sf42624630=1

 

good read but it totally forgot to mention that AMD gaming market share (most of it from consoles) was won with extremely low margins that made the red team loosing money quarter after quarter. Doing so, it put the company at risk when their competitors are printing money that is invested in R&D. So I totally disagree with the conclusion of the article saying that AMD is in "great position". In fact, it's the opposite, they are in very dangerous position. When AMD tapes out 2 Polaris GPUs, Nvidia put 5 Pascal chips into the market and grab all revenue...

 

Decline in ps3 usage/sales given (Ps3's gpu is Nvidia) would be the reason for Nvidia's marketshare decline from its 36.8% marketshare to 20.1% now days.

I wonder if they consider someone with an intel igpu but who doesn't use it, and instead uses a dedicated videocard in their intel marketshare.

 

It looks like the figures for total install base for AMD's x86 gaming GPUs is the sum of the figure for AMD's PC base and shipped console GPUs. Until 2013, none of the console GPUs from AMD would be considered x86, not enough to explain why Nvidia's share from the PS3 would not bump up its count.
This apparently lumps all the console GPUs AMD ever shipped plus its PC base against Nvidia's estimated PC install base, despite 100-200 million of those consoles not being x86 or having an architecture related to AMD's current base.

May as well throw in IMG, Mali, and Qualcomm into the x86 base, given the laxity already applied.

 

PS3 usage isn't taken into account according to that report as it doesn't use an X86 CPU.

So the decline wouldn't be due to that, at least WRT to that article.

It also means that the data for 2010 and possible 2011 is incorrect, as AMD is unlikely to have started shipping the XBO SOC in 2010 or early 2011. Actually that looks like cumulative numbers, so all console GPU data in there for AMD would be incorrect.

Regards,
SB

 

The table tries to call everything "installed base", which seems dubious because of the longevity issues and general fall-off in console use from 100% utilization. I do not know how the 2016 numbers can be reached unless you include the lifetime shipments of the Wii (Wii U???), Xbox 360, and the PS4+Xbox One, and how that could possibly be workable since you can bet good money that a measurable fraction of those consoles haven't been active for years or had a RROD event.

Chipworks had a die shot that had a 2012 marking on the Durango die, which given the lead time from when the pattern would have been taped out, then to fabrication, and then mass production and distribution starting ahead of the 2013 launch makes sense. The chip wouldn't be part of any installed base (can't really count dev kits) until it managed to get through all that in 2013.