Thursday, November 20th 2014

AMD Announces Major Technology Partnerships at Future of Compute Event

AMD today at its Future of Compute event announced the introduction of the consumer electronic industry's first-ever ultra high-definition (UHD) monitors to feature its innovative, open-standards based FreeSync technology. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., plans to launch the screen synching technology around the world in March 2015, starting with the Samsung UD590 (23.6-inch and 28-inch models) and UE850 (23.6-inch, 27-inch and 31.5-inch models), and eventually across all of Samsung's UHD lineups. FreeSync will enable dynamic refresh rates synchronized to the frame rate of AMD Radeon graphics cards and APUs to maximally reduce input latency and reduce or fully eliminate visual defects during gaming and video playback.

"We are very pleased to adopt AMD FreeSync technology to our 2015 Samsung Electronics Visual Display division's UHD monitor roadmap, which fully supports open standards," said Joe Chan, Vice President of Samsung Electronics Southeast Asia Headquarters. "With this technology, we believe users including gamers will be able to enjoy their videos and games to be played with smoother frame display without stuttering or tearing on their monitors."

In addition, Capcom announced its collaboration with AMD on the AMD Mantle API to enhance Capcom's "Panta-Rhei" engine, enabling enhanced gaming performance and visual quality for upcoming Capcom game titles.

"This will improve the performance of our 'Panta-Rhei' engine, which was originally developed for console platforms," said Masaru Ijuin, technical director, Capcom. "Capcom is evaluating AMD's Mantle technology to help improve the graphics pipeline, and integrate it into 'Panta-Rhei' to provide outstanding benefits and impressive performance for gamers as well as the gaming developers."

AMD's Mantle API technology has been adopted by major developers including Crytek's CRYENGINE, DICE's FrostBite 3 and Oxide's Nitrous engine.
"Samsung and Capcom are strategic partners in helping us bring our revolutionary IP and technology to the homes and offices of consumers around the world," said David Bennett, corporate vice president, AMD APJ. "As we expand our product influence in the commercial sector, we believe open standard technologies like AMD FreeSync and software advancements like our Mantle API will play integral roles in driving the industry forward."

The Future of Compute event kicked off with the addition of the high performance processor codenamed "Carrizo" and mainstream processor codenamed "Carrizo-L" SoCs to the company's mobile Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) product roadmap. Designed as complete solutions for consumers looking to accelerate gaming and productivity applications and enable UHD 4K experiences, these latest mobile APUs are scheduled to ship in 1H 2015, with laptop and All-in-One systems expected in market by mid-year 2015.
Add your own comment

18 Comments on AMD Announces Major Technology Partnerships at Future of Compute Event

#1
wickedcricket
ye, somehow I don't find those dates reliable most probable scenario is: APAC Q1/Q2 2015, US Q2/Q3 2015, UE Q4 2015
Posted on Reply
#2
MLPosey27
Finally, some FreeSync coming to market!
Posted on Reply
#3
GhostRyder
I have been waiting to see some monitors with this implemented, I want to see a UHD monitor.
Posted on Reply
#5
ensabrenoir
.....amazed/confused as to that Amd can come up with some great partners and collaborations and yet theyre still in the red. Are these just seeds for future awesomeness or press smoke and mirrors about naught......
Posted on Reply
#6
TheGuruStud
ensabrenoir, post: 3196766, member: 83675"
.....amazed/confused as to that Amd can come up with some great partners and collaborations and yet theyre still in the red. Are these just seeds for future awesomeness or press smoke and mirrors about naught......
AMD always plans long term, but they dont have the capital...to capitalize on their investments (and some really shitty previous execs).

Intel blows billions on Itanic and Larrabee with no issue b/c of the success their "marketing" money has brought them. If AMD had that kind of cash and influence you'd see a very different company.
Posted on Reply
#7
ZoneDymo
ensabrenoir, post: 3196766, member: 83675"
.....amazed/confused as to that Amd can come up with some great partners and collaborations and yet theyre still in the red. Are these just seeds for future awesomeness or press smoke and mirrors about naught......
amd is not in the red, as with any company they are just talking about less profit.
companies have this weird need to make more profit each year, but a profit is still a profit meaning you are fine.
Posted on Reply
#8
HumanSmoke
TheGuruStud, post: 3196886, member: 42692"
Intel blows billions on Itanic and Larrabee with no issue b/c of the success their "marketing" money has brought them. If AMD had that kind of cash and influence you'd see a very different company.
Intel's success didn't come from "marketing", it came from the fact that they capitalized on technologies (EPROM, SRAM, DRAM) when other semicon companies were treating the IC industry as a hobby (Motorola, Fairchild, RCA), or whose business became introverted after propeller-heads drove the company instead of strategic planning (National Semi, Zilog). Intel was built on the removal of bubble memory from the market, and some smart intuition leading to industry leading yields ( Gordon Moore's "doping" of silicon gate MOS oxide layers, Dov Frohman's negative voltage "walking out" process), and a fundamental core strategy of driving markets rather than reacting to them. You can play the "what if" game to your hearts content, but the fact remains that Intel's IP between 1968 and 1971 built the company while AMD were still dicking around selling Fairchild's TTL chips, and highlights the difference between a company founded by engineers and one founded by marketing. The last reason is why AMD exists at all, since it was an engineers enthusiasm- namely Intel co-founder Bob Noyce, whose $50K investment in AMD assured its incorporation in the first place.

Intel can (and will) make mistakes. Itanium/IA-64 is a sterling example, but the multiple approaches to the market also yield viable results amid the failures. For every Netburst design ethos there is a P6/Pentium-M/Core development line. This is something AMD have not really copied until it was possibly too late. When their K5 architecture floundered their "Plan B" was buying IP (NexGen), when the original K8 stalled out (with Jim Keller), they drafted in Dirk Meyer and the ex-DEC Alpha team, when their graphics turned up empty, they bought IP (ATI) rather than hiring a team and licencing the IP, when they wanted to get into ARM they bought IP (SeaMicro). When a company stagnates or want to play it safe they buy IP rather than develop it themselves.
AMD aren't in Intel's league, and never really have been. They managed to punch above their weight with some astute engineering decisions and alliances (such as bringing Microsoft and the open source community in when drafting AMD64), but more often than not the spark to keep the company has had to be purchased rather than developed within.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheGuruStud
HumanSmoke, post: 3196995, member: 98425"
Intel's success didn't come from "marketing", it came from the fact that they capitalized on technologies (EPROM, SRAM, DRAM) when other semicon companies were treating the IC industry as a hobby (Motorola, Fairchild, RCA), or whose business became introverted after propeller-heads drove the company instead of strategic planning (National Semi, Zilog). Intel was built on the removal of bubble memory from the market, and some smart intuition leading to industry leading yields ( Gordon Moore's "doping" of silicon gate MOS oxide layers, Dov Frohman's negative voltage "walking out" process), and a fundamental core strategy of driving markets rather than reacting to them. You can play the "what if" game to your hearts content, but the fact remains that Intel's IP between 1968 and 1971 built the company while AMD were still dicking around selling Fairchild's TTL chips, and highlights the difference between a company founded by engineers and one founded by marketing. The last reason is why AMD exists at all, since it was an engineers enthusiasm- namely Intel co-founder Bob Noyce, whose $50K investment in AMD assured its incorporation in the first place.

Intel can (and will) make mistakes. Itanium/IA-64 is a sterling example, but the multiple approaches to the market also yield viable results amid the failures. For every Netburst design ethos there is a P6/Pentium-M/Core development line. This is something AMD have not really copied until it was possibly too late. When their K5 architecture floundered their "Plan B" was buying IP (NexGen), when the original K8 stalled out (with Jim Keller), they drafted in Dirk Meyer and the ex-DEC Alpha team, when their graphics turned up empty, they bought IP (ATI) rather than hiring a team and licencing the IP, when they wanted to get into ARM they bought IP (SeaMicro). When a company stagnates or want to play it safe they buy IP rather than develop it themselves.
AMD aren't in Intel's league, and never really have been. They managed to punch above their weight with some astute engineering decisions and alliances (such as bringing Microsoft and the open source community in when drafting AMD64), but more often than not the spark to keep the company has had to be purchased rather than developed within.
In regards to their situation against AMD since pentiums, it's all from their illegal business practices (so called marketing money) and exploiting their already huge bank account/market dominance. AMD was almost always a better buy (and ridiculous good buy in the K7-K8 eras). They lost tons of marketshare at the height of their success. No doubt billions in revenue were lost. R&D isn't cheap.
Posted on Reply
#10
HumanSmoke
TheGuruStud, post: 3197028, member: 42692"
In regards to their situation against AMD since pentiums, it's all from their illegal business practices (so called marketing money) and exploiting their already huge bank account/market dominance.
Again you seem to painting with very broad strokes. It is a matter of record that Intel paid for Dell and a few other OEMs not to sign contracts for AMD procs. It is also a matter of record that during the same timespan AMD was unable to fulfil orders it had signed - notably Hewlett-Packard (who were the #2 OEM at the time behind Dell). It is also a matter of record that Jerry Sanders and his lapdog Ruiz both vetoed outsourcing (20% of production allowed under the cross licence agreement) until the shortages became critical. And of course, as soon as Dell signed up and AMD could crow about having the #1 OEM onside, AMD starved HP for chips who then made up the shortfall with Intel contracts.....Dell went into its meltdown (financials, recalls, sales drop-off) and HP assumed the mantle of #1 primarily powered now by Intel.
So how is AMD's bad planning and hubris over courting a halo vendor (Dell) at the expense of their then current contracts the fault of Intel. You did allude to bad management, and that is precisely what this was over an extended period of time. Intel shoulders some of the blame with its "loyalty discounts", but if that were the only mitigating factor in AMD's decline. the payout would have been much greater than a $1bn. It doesn't help when your CEO+president awards himself shares, makes himself un-fireable by unilaterally changing company statutes, and needs the threat of legal action to rein him in.

I extensively researched AMD some time ago for a published article, and some of the less publicized aspects of their growth and decline make for sobering reading, and it is far from the black and white "Intel is to blame" argument that many people cling to.
Posted on Reply
#13
Xzibit
All panels exhibit some kind of bleeding and its varied panel to panel. Just look at the countless complaints from ASUS RoG Swift users for just backlight bleeding alone in various forums. Some are more then willing to put up with panel imperfections like bleeding and dead pixels because they consider themselves lucky not to be plagued by the various other issues. Similar kind of people will be buying these and if bleeding is the worst thing they have to look forward to, Not that bad.
Posted on Reply
#14
vega22
been a while since lg where the king of screens.

sammy hold that crown today imo.
Posted on Reply
#16
Eagleye
Am beginning to hate AMD like most here bcoz the`re always throwing a spanner in the works of Nvidia e.g. G-Sync/Free-Sync, Cuda/HSA-HUMa-OpenCL, Nvidia DX12 support/MANTLE and so on. If AMD don't want to make money, why not let Nvidia make it?

Am wondering if AMD is trolling Nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#17
AsRock
TPU addict
Eagleye, post: 3201641, member: 116514"
Am beginning to hate AMD like most here bcoz the`re always throwing a spanner in the works of Nvidia e.g. G-Sync/Free-Sync, Cuda/HSA-HUMa-OpenCL, Nvidia DX12 support/MANTLE and so on. If AMD don't want to make money, why not let Nvidia make it?

Am wondering if AMD is trolling Nvidia.
WTF, chances are AMD had both on the back burner and had no option to make them public and if they even were not holding them back because of funds they had to come up with some thing.

I guess your company would of been bust even faster than AMD as it would of just sat there and took it in the ass.
Posted on Reply
#18
Eagleye
AsRock, post: 3201682, member: 40310"
WTF, chances are AMD had both on the back burner and had no option to make them public and if they even were not holding them back because of funds they had to come up with some thing.

I guess your company would of been bust even faster than AMD as it would of just sat there and took it in the ass.
Calm down, I was being sarcastic.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment