Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Leaked Intel Roadmap Details New Fall Core CPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2010 11:34:11 PM

Come on AMD, release something that will benefit us, the customers. More competition is always better.
May 31, 2010 11:38:20 PM

15W core i7 is impressive
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 31, 2010 11:42:40 PM

Hurry up AMD and release magny corus!
May 31, 2010 11:44:00 PM

joytech22Hurry up AMD and release magny corus!

I mean, the desktop version BEFORE 2012
May 31, 2010 11:44:29 PM

AMD is dead, they should just give up instead of confusing the market with their continued pathetic existence.
May 31, 2010 11:52:27 PM

killerclickAMD is dead, they should just give up instead of confusing the market with their continued pathetic existence.


The moment AMD stops selling cpu's is the moment Intel will increase its prices by 200 percent. Without competition, Intel can set whatever price it wants.
May 31, 2010 11:55:11 PM

killerclickAMD is dead, they should just give up instead of confusing the market with their continued pathetic existence.


AMD i know for a fact is solely working on bulldozer its a rebuilt CPU (not a phenom) with a ATI 5770 video card ON die!, this is going to KILL intel in games and in photoshop, bulldozer will also work in CF with any other 5xxx series card and 6xxx series card using GPU parallisation.
The Bulldozer will Smoke the Core i7 and Core i9 in games, AND there is a rumour also that they are going to let the GPU do some FPU if this si true its good bye intel for the CPU performance crown, and its coming out Q1 2011
May 31, 2010 11:57:50 PM

Quote:
killerclick
Dude, go back to your Intel fanboy base. If you think AMD is crappy, have some logic behind it you clueless dolt. And don't respond with that Intel has faster processors bs becuase they both cater to different markets. And how theu f are they "confusing" the market? Its very existence is stopping Intel to have a monopoly on CPUs and therefore charging w/e the hell they want to.
June 1, 2010 12:01:39 AM

HellboundThe moment AMD stops selling cpu's is the moment Intel will increase its prices by 200 percent. Without competition, Intel can set whatever price it wants.


So what, I got money.
June 1, 2010 12:11:28 AM

killerclickAMD is dead, they should just give up instead of confusing the market with their continued pathetic existence.


c'mon now... you deserve to be slapped. In anycase it is an interesting road-map, but none of it sounds spectacular (must have). but then again, I'm not into mobile platforms from either AMD or Intel, i thought this was the Desktop road-map when i opened the link, not the mobile.
June 1, 2010 12:20:13 AM

EugenesterDude, go back to your Intel fanboy base. If you think AMD is crappy, have some logic behind it you clueless dolt. And don't respond with that Intel has faster processors bs becuase they both cater to different markets. And how theu f are they "confusing" the market? Its very existence is stopping Intel to have a monopoly on CPUs and therefore charging w/e the hell they want to.


Before you're so critical, try to be smarter.

Intel processors are roughly the same size as AMD, and perform a lot better. And i7 9xx and Phenom quad are very, very close in size. But, not in performance.

AMD is forced to be a bottom-feeder because of this reality, not because they chose to go after a different market. If they made a chip half the size that was cheaper, great. It's the same size, but it's just badly designed and has to be sold at low margins because it's inferior.

But, Killerclick is maybe more clueless. I don't know why he thinks AMD is confusing the market. Intel does that by itself. i7 860/870 cross i7 930. i5 670/680 cross i5 750. Some i5s are quads, some not. Some i7s are real Nehalems, some are Lynnfields. Then they have the i5 750s, which doesn't clock the same as the i5 750.

To me, AMD makes a Hell of a lot more sense than Intel.

No one was telling Intel to leave the market when they were producing the Pentium 4. AMD sells junk processors now, we all know that. We all knew that Intel sold junk with the Pentium 4. Did that mean they couldn't come out with something better? So why assume AMD can't? At least AMD knows they sell rubbish and price it accordingly. Intel was still overpriced when they sold the Pentium 4.
June 1, 2010 12:21:22 AM

killerclickSo what, I got money.


Clueless.
June 1, 2010 1:09:58 AM

TA152HAMD is forced to be a bottom-feeder because of this reality, not because they chose to go after a different market. If they made a chip half the size that was cheaper, great.


AMD is forced to make great, affordable, quality chips? Wow, how horrible for them. Apparently Intel could use some forcing too.
June 1, 2010 1:15:20 AM

Ok, normally I'm able to swing with the punches when a company starts doing weird things with product branding and model number's, but this one is a bit confusing for me, so some comments or an explanation would be much appreciated.

I thought the "i7" brand was reserved for procs described as having quad/hexa cores with 8/12 threads, but if I'm understanding this article correctly, they're saying that now intel is making a mobile version of i7 that only has 2 cores?

I mean, I agree that sub-25 watt power consumption is impressive, but if this really is a dual core system then I wouldn't be surprised if someone ends up buying a laptop thinking they're getting the power of 8 threads at 25watts or less to then find out they essentially have half that power...

Your thoughts everyone?
June 1, 2010 1:53:59 AM

killerclickSo what, I got money.

More money than brains that's for sure. You speak through your @$$. Intel hasn't dropped its prices in what 3 years? Core2duo's are still the about same price as the originals.
June 1, 2010 2:07:37 AM

Whatever happened to that Intel i9 CPU that was coming this year?
Edit: Just found out it changed name to i7 980X..
June 1, 2010 2:54:41 AM

wow two full blu ray movies on a full charge is pretty good progress in terms of batter life and processor saving,how about heat from the laptop?
a c 131 à CPUs
June 1, 2010 3:08:42 AM

joytech22I mean, the desktop version BEFORE 2012

Magny cours is not bulldozer. It's still based on the AMD K10 45nm. The stepping is identical to the Phenom IIx6. So, I guess they already have. What you want is bulldozer and Zambezi.
If I am mistaken and magney cours is bulldozer, I am very disappointed with the performance per core.
a c 131 à CPUs
June 1, 2010 3:10:20 AM

killerclickSo what, I got money.

Yeah, because everyone cares about you and how rich you are. You got the money to buy everyone else in the world a new CPU?
June 1, 2010 3:22:37 AM

TA152HAMD sells junk processors now, we all know that. We all knew that Intel sold junk with the Pentium 4. Did that mean they couldn't come out with something better? So why assume AMD can't? At least AMD knows they sell rubbish and price it accordingly. Intel was still overpriced when they sold the Pentium 4.


I was with you until this last portion of your analysis. AMD makes junk, really? Talk about clueless. Lower price does not = junk.
June 1, 2010 3:34:27 AM

I'm a bit disappointed by this road map to be honest. I'm waiting for a Nehalem based Hexcore processor from Intel that is actually reasonably priced(sub $400) before I ditch my Q6600 and build a new rig. I was hoping the Phenom II x6 would push Intel but it doesn't look like that is coming any time soon.

I really don't understand Hardware fanboism. It's not like you directly interact with the product or anything like that. Buy what suits your needs best. If you need raw horsepower, get Intel. If you want performance on a budget, go AMD. I don't get fanboism over something that you buy and stick in your machine never to see it again.
June 1, 2010 3:47:30 AM

When AMD stops selling CPUs, I start financing dogman1234.
June 1, 2010 3:50:04 AM

Everyone likes to talk trash talk AMD because their pride is still hurt from the Pentium 4 and Pentium D era. They just can't let it go.
June 1, 2010 4:10:09 AM

AbrahmI'm a bit disappointed by this road map to be honest. I'm waiting for a Nehalem based Hexcore processor from Intel that is actually reasonably priced(sub $400) before I ditch my Q6600 and build a new rig. I was hoping the Phenom II x6 would push Intel but it doesn't look like that is coming any time soon.


This is just the mobile roadmap, nothing about desktop here (not that the article says that).
June 1, 2010 4:28:56 AM

fryeThis is just the mobile roadmap, nothing about desktop here (not that the article says that).

Ah, missed the big "Mobile" in the title of the picture. That makes more sense then. Thanks!
June 1, 2010 4:33:35 AM

a 15W chip... now that's 1337!!! I wanted to work for intel since I was in college, but the only thing I would probably come up would be a 1000W chip lol. Goooo Intel GOooooOO
June 1, 2010 5:22:21 AM

I was kinda hoping by the title, this would mean more desktop cpu's. Oh well i guess. Atleast AMD might maybe do somethin about it in 5 years :p 
June 1, 2010 5:24:07 AM

ummmm CPU's not GFX cards lmfao
June 1, 2010 5:27:04 AM

To the point, AMD needs to up the ante on their CPU roadmap, especially in their mobile lineup. It is without a doubt that Intel is dominating the desktop and mobile line up with AMD staying alive by being the value leader and not by pure performance. I have to say that I am extremely impressed with what Intel has managed to pull with their CULV processors and this roadmap I begin to wonder what relevance Atom will be in the near future.
June 1, 2010 6:24:43 AM

djdarko321Fanbois need to do some research and not let their alligator mouths overload their tadpole asses seriously. the IMC allowed the Athlons to do that to Intel in the P4 days. they simply removed the slow middle man (FSB) from a not so gr8 chip and increased memory bandwidth which in turn yielded more performance per watt. hence the HyperTransport as AMD calls it. the conroe comes in 06 (and always used a FSB) and destroyed everything AMD had. Christ, they just caught up on quads LMAO. (till u OC a C2Q and they lose again) they needed the 6 core Phenom II to atleast jump in the lower level of I7 performance. (quads at that) WE NEED MORE COMPETITION as Ive stated numerous times to be able to advance so we arent stuck on this "budget" mindset of schemes the market put on us (points at INTEL for their BS marketing gimmicks), but more competition wont happen as Intel holds the cards due to instruction set licensing. (like BS theyre doing due to AMD and Global Foundries Fab's) Go back in time even further and research it urself, the Am386..a perfect clone of Intel's 386 ruled ok by courts in 1991 with the help of IBM. original? NO... Intel has always had too much a stranglehold on the market which in turns makes us reap the benefits of 3 - 5 yrs ago ...... Phenom a true quad core? lmao TLB and too many probs allowed C2D's even to beat them. (not the core 2 quads lol the duo's) crappy proc w an IMC got smoked by a proc w a FSB still and thats still hilarious to me. but ima stfu now go on w ur fanboi war


Actually the IMC didnt have to much to do with it as you stated. The Athlon XP was able to the P4 just fine & the Athlon XP was also runing at much lower clocks Hence the PR ratings from AMD. It was pretty sad that a 2ghz CPU was able to smoke a 3.2Ghz P4 in most everything. When AMD came out with the Athlon 64 with IMC the gap grew even bigger in favor of AMD.

Oh & no I am not a fanboy of AMD I have 6 computers & all of them have Intel inside. I just have been around in the service industry to actually know enough about this.

Thanks
That is all
June 1, 2010 6:25:40 AM

instead of calling this 'leaking' it should just be called 'releasing' as I doubt intel "accidentally" lets the information get out time after time after time... it seems more like viral advertising to me.
June 1, 2010 6:47:25 AM

unrealpinkyTo the point, AMD needs to up the ante on their CPU roadmap, especially in their mobile lineup. It is without a doubt that Intel is dominating the desktop and mobile line up with AMD staying alive by being the value leader and not by pure performance. I have to say that I am extremely impressed with what Intel has managed to pull with their CULV processors and this roadmap I begin to wonder what relevance Atom will be in the near future.


The Atom will be dead soon, living in name only. Core i3 processors already have better performance per watt, meaning they will work better at similar power-use levels. CULVs will probably take over in that space soon.

Low-Voltage processors will take over in the ULV markets. And full-power processors are already taking over in the LV markets. (HP's 2540p elitebook has changed over, for example).

Power management on Intel platforms has progressed nicely. Sadly, AMD seems years behind in that respect, as you can save 50$ but lose 50% of your battery life and 10-15% of your performance in laptops. They don't have any MID processors that I know of.

Honestly, the only "metric" that I have seen AMD competitive in is the "performance per dollar spent" and that only really means a lot in the desktop market.

On the positive side for AMD, their desktop products are competitive with Intel. A 6 core 1090T processor performs favorably in all real world benchmarking.
June 1, 2010 6:50:15 AM

Well, the CPUs look good, but nothing revolutionary. Intel is now just milking the cow called the Core series by shuffling clock speeds and adding or subtracting features like HT, triple channel mem. controller and turbo boost, which we have been hearing about for the last 2 years. They have already many overpriced processors (Talking about i7 980) which don't give the performance for their price compared to slower Intel processors and AMD processors. Well, let's see what AMD has got for the future and hope that it at least brings their performance levels at least comparable to if not at par with Intel processors. That would bring the prices to more sensible levels.
June 1, 2010 6:59:48 AM

Correction: HT (Hyper threading) has been for more than 2 years though it reappeared only 2 years ago.
June 1, 2010 7:33:23 AM

rocky1234 said:
Actually the IMC didnt have to much to do with it as you stated. The Athlon XP was able to the P4 just fine & the Athlon XP was also runing at much lower clocks Hence the PR ratings from AMD. It was pretty sad that a 2ghz CPU was able to smoke a 3.2Ghz P4 in most everything. When AMD came out with the Athlon 64 with IMC the gap grew even bigger in favor of AMD.

Oh & no I am not a fanboy of AMD I have 6 computers & all of them have Intel inside. I just have been around in the service industry to actually know enough about this.

Thanks
That is all


Athlon XP's main opposition was the Pentium 4 Northwood. The newer-model Northwood processor ran cooler and more efficiently, to put it simply, and the Athlon XP had trouble beating it. While the Athlon XP had a higher IPC count (that is, it did more at the same clock speed), the Northwood's clock speed scaled a hell of a lot higher. The Northwood went all the way up to 3.2GHz, and the Athlon XP to 2.2GHz (3200+). The Athlon XP 3200+'s PR number was sort of misleading, as it was slower than the Pentium 4 3.2C.(Northwood core) The Willamette was older than the Palomino btw so no comparison.
Those numbers AMD used w the Athlon XP's represented which P4's they comapared to or beat.

As a result, the Pentium 4's introduction was met with mixed reviews: Developers disliked the Pentium 4, as it posed a new set of code optimization rules. For example, in mathematical applications AMD's lower-clocked Athlon (the fastest-clocked model was clocked at 1.2 GHz at the time) easily outperformed the Pentium 4 Willamette, which would only catch up if software were re-compiled with SSE2 support......
Software devs helped hinder its performance at launch due to the newer instruction sets that were introduced. (Willamette core) x87 floating point legacy was still used over sse2 coding thus hampering it.

So Gen vs Gen the Northwood and Palomino were on par. Palomino was also the first AMD chip to utilize ALL SSE instruction sets from the P3 along with 3DNOW! (which allowed vector processing) Just depended on what code the software running was optimized for.
So depends which Athlon ur speaking of truly LOL
Ive been around for awhile myself K?

And the IMC on the Athlon 64 is what destroyed the P4 in 2003 along with other additional instruction sets along with the SSE,SSE2 SSE3 MMX (these four are still licensed from Intel among many others) 3DNOW! Enhanced and AMD64, the TLB (Sledgehammer and Clawhammer in 03)...... dig deeper :p 


that is all
thanks, as you say :p 
June 1, 2010 8:16:43 AM

AMD invent alot of thing on the processor that today intel r following like the multi core , AMD64(intel named EM64T) , hyper transport (intel named QPI) , efficiency cpu (intel was lost on the clock speed race b4) , overclock & unlocking features , CPU+GPU and more ......
who said that AMD processor has bad design must be full of crap in the head ,
we all know that intel processor and motherboard last time was old-school design that old fashino , not allow for overclock , does not have unlocking features , crappy graphic and more ......
is all because AMD in the market to push intel on today level ,
if not ... u all retarded intel fanboy will still running the over price and over heat but bad performance presscott cpu on ur crippled intel mobo .
June 1, 2010 8:43:55 AM

IMB's Power4 chip was first dual core proc tbh 2001 :) , AMD64 was AMD's iteration of IA-64 but on a x86 platform thus removing the need to recode everything again (IA-64 sucked @$$), HyperTransport (IMC) lolz the first integrated memory controller was on the Alpha 21364 DEC/Compaq in 1991, yes AMD has bad design atm YES THEY DO! or they wouldnt be using 6 cores to barely battle 4. AMD and Intel "steal" or get "ideas" from other companies technologies like IBM procs, Sun Microsystems and more.... and implement them into their own. CPU + GPU? ummm the 32nm Clarksdale procs are only ones w it atm btw .....
June 1, 2010 9:07:35 AM

At 15W chip and CULV wow - intel did a very good job - I hope AMD have something for this.
June 1, 2010 11:42:33 AM

The more they launch the less I know what they launched...

Too many names nowadays... =/
June 1, 2010 1:41:26 PM

otacon72AMD just getting left further and further behind....


You are a douche.
June 1, 2010 1:44:10 PM

I just built a system on an AMD Athlon II X3 440. With 4 gigs of memory, Win 7 64-bit and Gigabyte board, this thing works pretty smooth. I would admit that I would love to have an i7 or i5, but when I can build a complete system for $650, I couldn't resist. I have always been a fan of AMD for being the underdog and yes right now, their cpu's don't hold a candle to Intel. Intel ticked me off with the unfair business tactics and for that, I went back to AMD.
June 1, 2010 1:57:21 PM

No one drops their prices, if their products are selling. DA!
June 1, 2010 2:08:49 PM

no unlocked quad core 1366 i7's? not interested then.
June 1, 2010 4:05:15 PM

This bickering is pointless! Lord Otellini will provide us with the location of AMD's base by the time Sandy Bridge is operational. We will then crush AMD with one swift stroke.
June 1, 2010 7:30:59 PM

marsax73 said:
I just built a system on an AMD Athlon II X3 440. With 4 gigs of memory, Win 7 64-bit and Gigabyte board, this thing works pretty smooth. I would admit that I would love to have an i7 or i5, but when I can build a complete system for $650, I couldn't resist. I have always been a fan of AMD for being the underdog and yes right now, their cpu's don't hold a candle to Intel. Intel ticked me off with the unfair business tactics and for that, I went back to AMD.

$650 bucks? lolz u were ripped off.

$580 could have got u this btw which wouldve SMOKED that POS AMD proc by a land slide .... especially if u OC it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?I...

June 3, 2010 4:34:53 PM

warezme said:
no unlocked quad core 1366 i7's? not interested then.


the 965 975 and 980 are unlocked for 1366 /DOH!
June 8, 2010 11:45:56 PM

I keep hearing this "performance" talk up about Intel.
I have never seen a difference in 3.0Ghz x4 AMD and 3.0Ghz x4 Intel.
You can yell that Intel "out performs" but that doesnt make it true.
Can we see some benchmarks? Specs? Stats?
Truth be it that neither company makes a bad product.
This sounds like a PS3/XBOX debate.
PC owners shouldn't act like 13 year olds!
June 9, 2010 12:24:11 AM

FalsepuppetI keep hearing this "performance" talk up about Intel.I have never seen a difference in 3.0Ghz x4 AMD and 3.0Ghz x4 Intel.You can yell that Intel "out performs" but that doesnt make it true.Can we see some benchmarks? Specs? Stats?Truth be it that neither company makes a bad product.This sounds like a PS3/XBOX debate. PC owners shouldn't act like 13 year olds!


Are you blind dumb or retarded? Or all 3? seems like all 3 tbh
Are you 13? you seem it cause everyone knows that a 3.0ghz Phenom gets smoked by a 3.0ghz C2Q let alone an i7 975/965 (stock speeds non oc btw) keep ur mouth shut b 4 u show how dumb you really are k tnx
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

just one link .... see that poor old Phenom II 965 at 3.4ghz stock way down there? lmao
need more or can you not navigate Tom's at all either? "idiots make the world go around" thats for sure lol we make money off of em XD
!