Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD’s Quad-Core Processors to Show Up Soon

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 3, 2006 6:17:49 PM

Since Tommy and friends aren't posting these valuable articles, I'll post them for all of you in the forum.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060126111118.html

Quote:
AMD’s quad-core processors are due out in early 2007, but some industry analysts have said AMD could release them by the end of this year.


Really interesting. I believe after this announcement, AMD will end up with 25% of server market share next year.

Who gives more??
February 3, 2006 6:27:11 PM

Ahhhh, the magical silicon bullet!!! 8O
February 3, 2006 6:40:26 PM

Quote:
Ahhhh, the magical silicon bullet!!! 8O
It vibrations get me all tingly inside. Buzz buzz! :D 

Oh, sorry, wrong magic silicon bullet. :oops: 
Related resources
February 3, 2006 6:41:03 PM

bull shitter im sorry i still cant believe you with a name like that lol
February 3, 2006 6:43:35 PM

:lol:  :lol:  ROFLMAO!
February 3, 2006 7:47:54 PM

do you believe everything you read and hear, sure don't
February 3, 2006 8:00:07 PM

And the crazy is saying this .Note that quad core is in the development program and is surely for sale later when most of us will already own a dual core processor . learn som thing abt bussiness then come to ze forum.dont u know that industries only commercialise new products when the old techno is no longer viable for commercilisation. :idea: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
February 3, 2006 9:29:27 PM

Quote:
learn som thing abt bussiness then come to ze forum.dont u know that industries only commercialise new products when the old techno is no longer viable for commercilisation.


Here we have Mr. business man. WOW, I'm impressed with such statements. :roll:

Here's a question for you:

1) Do you even know why quad cores are coming out??

2) Do you know what is a quad core processor??

Try to do your homework before posting bullshit about how the industry should do their job. :wink:

Quote:
bull shitter im sorry i still cant believe you with a name like that lol


And the reason of your post is...
February 3, 2006 9:32:38 PM

Ignore this post
February 3, 2006 9:45:51 PM

I wonder if they will be using 65nm? I would think they would be to keep the size, power, and heat down. The ones they're demoing soon they could actually be 90nm since I don't think Fab 36 is finished converting to 65nm yet. It'd be interesting to see how far AMD's SOI advantage in their 90nm process extends. Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores, so if AMD can do it with 90nm, it'd be an embarassement to Intel's manufacturing process which they pride themselves on. 65nm is probably more ideal, but the fact that AMD's 90nm is doable would still be a victory. (The size depends on your perspective of course).

Hmm, that may have come across too "professional" and "arrogant" so I'll apologize in advance since MadModMike is on my tail.
February 3, 2006 10:07:35 PM

ooh i cant wait for a quad-core opty to play on cod2 holy crap imagine the fps!
February 3, 2006 10:09:38 PM

hell yeah data is right amd can do it with 90 nm i think they could possibly do octople core with 65nm( am i spelling octople right?)
February 3, 2006 10:28:41 PM

i'm sorry bull shitter it's just with a name lik that who's gonna believe you
February 3, 2006 11:08:29 PM

Quote:
ooh i cant wait for a quad-core opty to play on cod2 holy crap imagine the fps!


is COD2 multi-threaded? if it isn't, having extra cores wouldn't have any effect sicne only one processor would be able to carry out one thread.

and even if its multi-threaded it might only take advantage of two cores because one thread might include in-game shadows, sounds,AI while the other thread would be all the other shit.

i don't know much about programming so i may be wrong
February 3, 2006 11:26:23 PM

no you see one core handles the charecter interaction while the other handles the eviroment. i think thats how it works
February 4, 2006 12:55:19 AM

Think of it this way (cores per processor)

Each CPU die exists in a 3D space, but it is mostly flat, so more like a 2D space with layers on it.

130nm sq = 16900 '2D space used for X transistors'
90nm sq = 8100 '2D space used for X transistors'
65nm sq = 4225 '2D space used for X transistors'
45nm sq = 2025
32nm sq = 1024
22/23nm sq = 506.25 (apx)
16nm sq = 256 (apx)

So moving to 65nm (from 90nm) allows for a +91.7% increase in transistor count.

Then moving from say 12 to 13 layer manufacturing (as layers could be thinner on the smaller process) would allow for an additional +8.33% increase in transistor count.

Bringing the total to +107.67% increase (from 90nm to 65nm, as values above percentage multiply, not just add) in transistor count within the same 3D space.

If they then decide to implement Z-RAM as L2 cache they can then have 4x the cache (2 MB / 4 MB vs 512 KB / 1024 KB) while only using 80% the comparitive space (same process) for L2 cache..... or 40% the 'real' space (90nm -> 65nm).

eg: Using Z-RAM as cache would only use 80% of the space and permit a 4x increase in quantity of L2 cache on AMD processors.


End result = Expect Quad-Core Processors in 2007 with heaps more L2 cache at roughly similar prices to when Dual-Core processors where released, on a 65nm manufacturing process as, although it is 'possible' on 90nm, the processors would be 'large', yeild would thus be low (physically large dies), and require too much power to cool even though the surface area : contact ratio was higher.

You can figure it out using early high-school mathamatics alone, and 'common' physics plain sense.

PS: Using the above numbers (on dize size shrinks down to 16nm) you can see processors with over 16x the transistor count of current processors, eg: 8-16 cores, 64 MB L2/L3 cache, maybe a few dedicated 'processor element cores' specially designed for certain things, such as 'one-way' cryptography in consumer CPUs, offloading network I/O, specialist 'game elements' with very large register counts for SIMD and MIMD data processing, ..... and more.

Sure, it is a few years away, but it'll happen.... IA-64 may even take off 'again' under a new name around the same time frame.... but that is only 'speculation' on my part and nothing more at this time.
February 4, 2006 1:12:56 AM

Quote:
Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores


Not in their wet dreams.

For intel to achieve something like that, they'll have to go with 45nm process.
February 4, 2006 1:22:32 AM

intel needs atleast 51 nminfact. ive seen a 50 nm transistor once from some japanese company
February 4, 2006 1:30:04 AM

Intel Quad Core, multi-die chips in a single physical package mid 2007.
February 4, 2006 2:15:35 AM

hey guy's i remember reading an article like a month ago about 50nm transistor's does anyone know where i could find it?
February 4, 2006 4:27:36 AM

Quote:

intel needs atleast 51 nminfact. ive seen a 50 nm transistor once from some japanese company

hey guy's i remember reading an article like a month ago about 50nm transistor's does anyone know where i could find it?


But you've SEEN the 50nm process from some japanese company before right ?, surely you have the link and know the process very well, because well, YOU'VE SEEN 50nm.

Of course not knowing which chipset 'KT6' implies in your previous posts, and bashing various Eastern companies for 'bad chipsets' would indicate you haven't even come close to seeing these things.

48 hours, 500 posts, I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT, TRY HARDER - Feb 05 is not that far off.
1 year, 1 useful post, well that'd be priceless from you. :p 
February 4, 2006 4:33:34 AM

Quote:
Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores


Not in their wet dreams.

For intel to achieve something like that, they'll have to go with 45nm process.

I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p 
February 4, 2006 4:51:56 AM

no you dont understand on some japanese website they were talkin but i couldn't understand them only thing i could understand was the words 51-50 nanometer it was in plain english on a sign in the video i think it just of might have been a promotianial video of some sort's ok guy's geez i dont speak japanese!
February 4, 2006 9:51:25 AM

Quote:

I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p 


Intel wont make a Quad Core Netburst, on any process. Thier planned Quadcore is based on the new Conroe processor, not a netburst.
February 4, 2006 10:26:42 AM

Quote:

I never said that dude: ltcommander_data ; did.

Intel may be able to pull it off, but not using their 'NetBurst' CPU architecture. They can pull it off using IA-64 / Itanium easily (as the cores are only 20 million transistors each in IA-64 currently). :p 


Intel wont make a Quad Core Netburst, on any process. Their planned Quadcore is based on the new Conroe processor, not a netburst.
Its too bad that regardless of what core they use they are stuck with the same old lame FSB bottleneck for at least 2 more years.
February 4, 2006 12:02:53 PM

tabris i found the video last night on my k6 it date from 5 ears ago it was a commercial for laptops sorry it was the model number's 50 nm was a p3m and nm 51 samething bigger screen.
February 4, 2006 1:55:59 PM

The FSB 'bottleneck' isn't the major issue people make it out to be, sure it is only half-duplex to/from the NB, and shared with memory aswell as other I/O, but it isn't a 'major issue' yet.

It is also a double edged sword having an integrated memory controller on the CPU, ala: AMD64, as it makes various power saving features difficult to implement.

Sure AMD desktop systems use less overall power (today), but their laptops are unable to 'compete' battery life wise. (Being the only ones offering x64 laptops, via lé Turion64 was a good move though, as developers will 'lean in their direction', and just buy a 2nd/3rd battery, at least until apx Q3 2006). But market wise Intel has an advantage here, which they'll try to leverage into the desktop segment.... via Merom / Conroe in Q3 2006.

It would be possible to incorperate the North-Bridge, or part of it, on the 'CPU' in a seperate die and try to gain benefits of each method without the drawbacks. The introduction of DDR3 and FB-DIMMs will be interesting in this regard.

Just happy the competition between Intel and AMD is heating back up, = best results for the consumers.
February 4, 2006 2:02:44 PM

Quote:
tabris i found the video last night on my k6 it date from 5 ears ago it was a commercial for laptops sorry it was the model number's 50 nm was a p3m and nm 51 samething bigger screen.


Meh, don't worry 'bout it..... I ain't losing any sleep over it.... as I don't sleep anyway. :p  [Boom Tsccheé]. (It is 3 AM in ACT Australia now btw, GMT+10, DLZ)

Hard to imagine anyone still using a K6 (or K6-II+/III even) these days. They where alright CPUs for their time, even for the chipsets Socket 'Super' 7 had people pairing them with. Celeron 466 still kicked them in Quake 2 and Half-Life 2 (check the numbers), but the Celeron 466 (MMX, non SSE model) cost more.... and AMD hit 500 MHz first (on the K6-2, non plus model),.... if I recall correctly.

'2nd gen' Celerons, once the L2 cache was integrated, did about +20% more work per clock cycle compared to AMD K6-2, Much like today where Athlon64's do +60% more work per clock cycle when compared to Pentium 4 PreScotts. - The Intel / AMD 'instructions per clock' situation reversed.

Those where the days though. (I am old now, and don't LAN as much, had to LAN because Internet was too slow, Retired from gaming when the two last gamers I knew got ADSL ironically, but none of us game that much anymore).
February 4, 2006 4:16:57 PM

Quote:

Hard to imagine anyone still using a K6 (or K6-II+/III even) these days.

Not so hard for me. My own PC is a Celeron 400a(non sse) 75MHz FSB and has random chunks of ram+AGP2x. Cool :)  . I'm glad i don't have to use it right now. Non of the fans has been replaced since i bought it some 6-7 years ago. Hell of a racket it makes. I'm using an sse celeron now. It rocks compared to the previous one. Can use pc133 at it's full potential too! :) 
February 4, 2006 4:48:54 PM

If I can upgrade, while selling my current PC (or components thereof) for a decent price to help cover the 'upgrade' then so be it.

Over the years I've moved from working on 386's to owning a 486SX-25 (and various others, including the IBM/Cyrix Blue Lightning and AMD varients, up to a OC'd 160 MHz 486 - I joke not), all the way to my current rig - see sig.

Few dollars inital outlay for your 1st PC, then 'baby steps' with the 'major' upgrade here and there (prepare for them, save a little).... after awhile you hit a point where upgrading is not a viable option anymore. Sometimes, except for video cards, which always have something 'new' every 3 months, but the justification of upgrading video frequently is usually low, unless you can arrange a 'almost free' upgrade by selling then replacing and only lose $20 or so in the process.

Upgrading what I have is possible, eg: +30% or higher clocked CPUs of the same series as now, use SLI, get 2 x 7900's, nstall another 4 GB Reg ECC PC3200 in the remaining slots, etc when they all come out, but none of them are really justified. (not today at least)... and TCO (which is extended, time wise, more than normal due to the Mainboard mostly) over 2-3 years makes the machine cost effective (surprising no ?), even including a few upgrades here and there. Most PCs before now I would only keep 18 months... sometimes less as oppurtunities presented themselves. ;) 

I guess, in the same respect, people hit a point where word processing, Internet, é-mail, etc all run fine, and a Celeron ~500 could handle the typical load.... so it depends what people class as a justified upgrade. Running a processor which lacks SSE (as close as 3DNow! is to SSE) a K6-2 is still pretty 'out there' these days. Or perhaps they have 2 PCs, one for gaming, etc, and a more 'secure build' one as a backup PC, for the basics.

(Man how off topic are we ?, Still related, but only just).

You've openned my eyes a little I must say,... they are half closed still, as it is 6 AM (ACT, Australia, GMT+10, DLS), just got back from a B-day party and figured would chk my é-mail before crashing (not that tired).

The oldest stuff I see people wanting is Socket A, and far less often, Socket FC-370. With x64 in full swing, and Windows Vista around the corner alot of people may feel 'crunch time' hit soon. (Which could be good news for me :)  ) - Thx
February 4, 2006 5:01:48 PM

BullShitter (nice name btw),

I believe you have missed some of our articles if you say that "Tommy and friends aren't posting these valuable articles." Just recently we had an interview with AMD in which it was clearly said that quad-cores won't be available before 2007 (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/20/tgdaily_interviews_am...).

So, just assuming that a new processor typically is showing up in tech demonstrations about one year before the processor is actually introduced, it would not be too surprising if those quad-cores surfaced at next week's ISSCC as tech demos. So, keep an eye out for that and if AMD decides to talk about quad-cores you certainly will find the info on TG Daily.

As we mentioned in our articles in the past as well, AMD at this time has not a lot of motivation to talk about its future chips as they are waiting for Intel to catch up. This is the main reason, why you are not reading as much about AMD as you do about Intel. But once our friends at AMD will provide us more information, than we will cover that. But as of right now, there is little more than guesstimates out there.

Wolfgang
February 5, 2006 1:30:33 AM

Hi!

Certainly, Intel's Front Side Bus IS a major issue, now. Not only because of the obvious bottleneck is creates, being half-duplex & "quad-pumped", data-wise, only. It will, most probably, be soon (1-2 years from now?) replaced by the CSI (Common High-Speed Serial Interconnect)... I wonder why, since Intel has already licenced Hypertransport...
I agree that the CPU integrated memory controller is a double-edged sword, but not by the reasons you state: it's foremost limitation regards the type of memory the controller... controls. One step into a newer kind of memory, requires a newer memory controller; hence, a new processor.
Power-savings wise, on what concerns mobile computing engineering (apart 64-bit architecture), Intel is an order of magnitude ahead of AMD right now; their mobile processors, being more recent, have more & more sophisticated features (like power down more than 80% of L2 cache, when not in use), not to mention the 65nm fab node. Let's wait for what AMD has to 'say', in the near [mobile] term...

BTW, it's 3 AM here, in MTJ, Portugal, GMT -1. We're almost at the antipodes!

Cheers, mate!
February 5, 2006 2:15:18 AM

Like WGruener said, quad cores won't show up until sometime 2007.
I'll be surprised if they're widely available around June -- I'm hearing Aug/Sept. more likely.
The quad cores will be 65nm and only on the new server architecture (Socket F, if I remember correctly).
Socket AM2 (formerly M2) will be dual core only, unless software developers suddenly step up and optimize games and other applications for multiple threads.
At least, that's what I've gleaned from the various experts posted on other sites. I'm no CPU expert myself -- just sharing what I've read.
February 5, 2006 5:59:51 AM

Quote:

Certainly, Intel's Front Side Bus IS a major issue, now. Not only because of the obvious bottleneck is creates, being half-duplex & "quad-pumped", data-wise, only. It will, most probably, be soon (1-2 years from now?) replaced by the CSI (Common High-Speed Serial Interconnect)... I wonder why, since Intel has already licenced Hypertransport...


Their new CPUs will still scale 'fairly well' for 1-2 years.

The Pentium 4 (long pipeline) needed fairly high memory performance to keep it well fed, stop the pipeline stalling (from memory), etc

The Pentium M / Conroe / Merom have shorter pipelines, and as such do not require a high performance memory sub-system to keep scaling performance when higher models are introduced. (eg: from 2.0 GHz to 3.0 GHz will scale fairly well on a processor with a short pipeline).

We have all seen before, using the 'exagerated case' of the Athlon 64 on Socket 754, which was clocked proportionally lower (compared to the Pentium-M) yes, but also only has a 3.2 GB/sec memory interface, which was also proportionally lower aswell. All things considered Socket 754 scaled alright, just that people want 6.4 GB/sec dual-channel memory and 200 MHz lowered clocked processors (sometimes with less cache) instead.

Even if the Pentium M / Conroe / Merom has 667 - 800 MHz FSB x 64 bits wide (5.33 - 6.4 GB/sec), that is shared with other I/O aswell as memory, and still half-duplex it won't stop the processors from scaling for 1-2 years. This is especially true considering Intel typically use 2048 KB (or larger) caches on their current processors. Consider how high Socket 754 could scale if AMD decided to produce 65nm processors for it.

eg: AMD Clawhammer / S754 is in the middle of the pack, only needed +11% clock speed to make up for having half the memory performance, it can scale 'alright' with only 3.2 GB/sec to play with.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...
You'll notice in most applications the 'inferior' Socket 754, clocked only +11% higher with half the memory performance, performs quite well. The only exception appears to be game software. Intel do not market exclusively to gamers, and most 'typical' software does not benefit from high memory sub-system performance, clearly demonstrated in the CPU Charts. Also remember high clock speeds are Intels 'speciality', as are large L2 caches.

Intels FSB might not scale quite aswell as AMD Athlon 64 / Opteron platforms (Socket 939/940), and in the multiprocessor space it will likely scale poorly in comparison without having multiple FSBs, or aggregating memory performance somehow, but it will still scale long enough for Intel to prepare a new platform. Their platforms still have enough to fall back on, certainly more than Socket 754 AMD platforms.

Normally I wouldn't promote Socket 754 either, but in this case it serves as a good 'yardstick' to compare future platforms too, especially ones originating from Pentium-III / mobile sections into the desktop / workstation space.

For multiprocessor servers Intel may need to start taking action, less they lose market share.... and Intel hate losing market share.

You can already see the initial plans at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Next_Generation_Micr...
February 5, 2006 6:21:05 AM

Yeah, and Quad core mean quad price, quad expensive and I'll be quad broke that is if I can afford it in the first place. :cry: 
February 5, 2006 6:41:36 AM

Don't worry 'Chuckshissle', you've got about 12-18 months to save up a stockpile of cash, or plan a hold-up :p  , until they come out.

Disclaimer: Do not perform any hold-ups.
February 5, 2006 6:57:17 AM

I don't think your allowed to have a SLI rig inside a maximum prison isolation room. I'll go with saving money till 2010. :cry: 
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2006 9:56:20 AM

Quad core netburst P4 anyone? you wouldnt need any case lights - the glowing heatsink would do the job just fine, but the case might need some insulation, and you sure as hell wouldnt put any flamables near it (including wood lol), hell you wouldnt even be able to walk past it without getting sunburn or catching on fire, then Intels fanboys can be flameboys starting REAL flamewars with AMD.

Nah intel will be doing it soon and they might just do it better then AMD (who knows!) - Intel's Pentium m (yonah) is as quick as an amd but 1/3 the power & heat, and conroe will be a desktop or performance chip from a pentium m, quad core conroe's shouldnt be too hard (should be in the same boat as AMD).

Maybe this is intels new selling point "our intel 16 core is better then an amd with 4 cores!" - maybe one day we will see that instead of the old "3ghz is faster then 2.4ghz"


BTW it looks to be that conroe will have the following specs:
Initial clock speed - 2.93ghz
Dual and single core
1066mhz FSB (posibly 1333 for EE)
4mb L2 for EE and 2mb standard (shared like yonah)
65nm (obviously)
Around northwood power/heat levels (lower then ~80w)
4 issue wide (vs the current standard of 3)
~14 stages (pentium M of ~10 and AMD ~12 and Prescott ~30)

Lookin good i reckon, either way its closer to AMD and its not netburst, but AMD will still have the advantage of "its already here and its cheap" for a while.

A pentium m at 3.4ghz / 1+ghz fsb is as quick as a P4 at 7.2ghz and AMD's at 3.6ghz in superpi, conroe looks promising here.

If there initial speeds are ~3ghz, then its promising. (check www.x86secret.com)
February 5, 2006 9:17:37 PM

Agree (partially).

Quote:
The Pentium 4 (long pipeline) needed fairly high memory performance to keep it well fed, stop the pipeline stalling (from memory), etc (...)


The problem is not only between a 'wider' processor (i.e., less pipeline stages & more IPC; less MHz) and a 'narrower' processor' (i.e., more pipeline stages & less IPC; more MHz) but also, due to the so-called "large cache vs higher latency syndrome": Larger L2 caches are fine (depending upon its design implementation...) and allow for less [slower] main memory requests but, as a side effect, they carry a larger latency burden as well (not to mention the also 'wider' GPRs.).
Another issue which limits the [conventional] FSB, is the increase in [ACTUAL] CPU features (such as 64-bit extensions, virtualization, power-saving improvements, etc...), which must be supported by the OS, making it 'code-heavier', memory-hungry and stressing - even more - the FSB.
If one's to put aside, for the time being, the not-ready-to-market top technologies/implementations (like Z-RAM, MRAM, CSI, CNT, etc...), the >10 years old GTL+ bus (aka, FSB) is and will be - as long as it lasts & as far as i'm aware of - the [Intel] Achiles heel, no matter how 'pumped' it will be...

As for marketing-related operations, it's easy to point out one of the most elementary tactics of 'customer endearment': wave with the possibility first and sell what you've got, now!

Well, i don't pretend to give a lesson on computing basics (to no-one!), but i feel compelled to give some explanation to some of you, not aquainted with some of the terms i've used, here:

- IPC: Instructions Per Cycle;
- GPRs: General Purpose Registers;
- GTL+: Gunning Transceiver Logic Plus;
- CNT: Carbon NanoTubes (see THG article on the subject).
Other terms/acronyms are easy to search for.

Here's where i agree:
Quote:
Their [Intel] new CPUs will still scale 'fairly well' for 1-2 years.
, if you take the "fairly well" out of the equation.

Hope you all take this thread as it's intended to be, my opinion, and feel free to correct me, if needed be.

Ah! Just occurred me, while perusing this site http://www.livescience.com/history/ap_051215_mona_lisa.html, about Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa:

Quote:
The result showed the painting's famous subject was 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful and 2 percent angry. She was less than 1 percent neutral, and not at all surprised.


Wouldn't it be fun to start a thread on "Build your own TH-CPU", based on the University of Amsterdam analysis?
I already have a code-name for it: "Mona Lisa"! What about it?!


Cheers!
February 5, 2006 9:36:33 PM

I actually got a headache from all this techno-babble that everyone has been sprouting.

Though I did read about Z-RAM and CNT, I think that will be the next big thing for manufacturers to consider. They both have very nice applications, and only time will tell if and when the two techs are used by who and where. For increasing speed and effiency they both seem like a good idea. Especially on the die of the processor.

Again, only time will tell.
February 5, 2006 10:03:09 PM

Quote:
I wonder if they will be using 65nm? I would think they would be to keep the size, power, and heat down. The ones they're demoing soon they could actually be 90nm since I don't think Fab 36 is finished converting to 65nm yet. It'd be interesting to see how far AMD's SOI advantage in their 90nm process extends. Intel of course needs 65nm to do quad cores, so if AMD can do it with 90nm, it'd be an embarassement to Intel's manufacturing process which they pride themselves on. 65nm is probably more ideal, but the fact that AMD's 90nm is doable would still be a victory. (The size depends on your perspective of course).

Hmm, that may have come across too "professional" and "arrogant" so I'll apologize in advance since MadModMike is on my tail.


haha you're funny, now say something that is true, like how much you suck.
February 5, 2006 10:35:27 PM

Unbelievable, you two!

Are you that much in 'love'?! If you admire each other so much, why don't you start an exclusive thread for yourselves & forever?!

G'bye! It's a pitty, though: two of the most enlightened & knowledgeable persons i've been taken the time to read through, in this forum.


BUT, THAT'S LIFE!
February 5, 2006 10:38:21 PM

Quote:
Unbelievable, you two!

Are you that much in 'love'?! If you admire each other so much, why don't you start an exclusive thread for yourselves & forever?!

G'bye! It's a pitty, though: two of the most enlightened & knowledgeable persons i've been taken the time to read through, in this forum.


BUT, THAT'S LIFE!


Blame it on my ego, it gets pretty fat sometimes...
February 5, 2006 10:54:54 PM

I thought I smelled burnt neurons and chicken grease...
February 5, 2006 10:57:59 PM

Quote:
I thought I smelled burnt neurons and chicken grease...


Tryin' to start somethin'?
February 5, 2006 11:52:07 PM

(Anyway, jus' can't avoid it... LOL!!!)
February 6, 2006 2:53:54 PM

Quote:
I believe you have missed some of our articles if you say that "Tommy and friends aren't posting these valuable articles." Just recently we had an interview with AMD in which it was clearly said that quad-cores won't be available before 2007 (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/20/tgdaily_interviews_am...).


WGruener:

I've read that article and in deed, it was really informative.

The problem I have with you guys is that you're too informative about Intel and not about AMD (just a personal thought).

As an example, you can go to TGdaily and you can see an extensive article about Intel's upcoming Santa Rosa platform.
Last week you guys were busy talking about Microsoft's bug which hindered Core Duo performance.
Week before last you guys posted an article about Intel's great efforts in the 45nm process, but you didn't mention about AMD's and IBM enhanced SSOI process which will bring 30% to 40% performance to future Athlons.

The last thing I've seen an article about AMD was last week when you guys said that Blizzard was buying 1500 HP servers with Opteron processors.

Right now, Anandtech have posted an article covering the features of socket AM2 but it seems like you guys aren't interested about posting something like this on your front page.
MSI released their socket AM2 mobo and you guys doesn't seem to be interested to show it to the public like how The Inqueerer and many other sites did.
Let's not forget that a while ago you guys had an extensive coverage of Intel's i975X chipset and ALL the mobos that featured such solution. :wink:

There are many more examples which I'm not going to show here just for the sake of not being banned, but I'll leave the conclusions to anyone that has common sense, but once again, do we see a trend here?? :wink:
February 6, 2006 3:23:20 PM

Looks like 07 sometime for my next upgrade. :D 
February 6, 2006 4:14:43 PM

true to your name... once again you speak, bringing us even more. :roll:
February 7, 2006 12:57:10 PM

Quote:
Foward that to Omid instead and you'll get your wanted response.
Heck, if the TG editors really are trying to be more interactive with the community then you might get it anyway. :lol: 
!