Eh but in other words Intels job will be much easier this year Here's what many AMD fans are looking for
"According to slides which resemble those from the roadmaps of Advanced Micro Devices, the first desktop chip from the world’s second largest chipmaker made using 65nm process technology will be released in the first half of 2007 to substitute the mainstream dual-core 90nm products. Another 65nm microprocessor is slated to be released in the second half of next year and target entry-level computers."
8O
That surpasses my most pessimistic speculation about its arrival. I honestly thought we'll be having AMD 65 nm in Q3 or Q4 but it seems that we'll (i mean you'll) have to wait a couple of months longer. Not only this but i really don't like such a general placement in time(first half !?). First half can be January or it can be June.
Combine this with some AM2 delays and it's clear that SOMETHING is not right. AM2/65nm project isn't working out the way it should.
It kinda scares me to even think about the socket F considering 65 nm( BTW, will AMD still use 90nm techno in socket F based chips ?) will be so late.
And i'm trying to be as objective as i can(no AMD bashing or Intel bias).
Sincerely,things don't look good for AMD. Intel is advancing, AMD will have to reach the current 939 based CPU performance before even thinking about advancement.
Don't want to sound like an intel fanboy but at the end of this year begining of the second year I DOUBT that AMDs high end will be way ahead of Intel's,in fact i doubt that AMD will reach Intel's performance (provided that Conroe is no flop and of course with the gaming exception). Current AMD 90 nm compete and in some cases(gaming,performance/watt) beat Intel's 65. But with the new arhitectures and low heat/energy consumption it is looking a bit grimm for AMD. :?
Yeah, AMD unfortunately has been sitting around boasting their high performance and basically kicking around Intel for so long. While this was going on, Intel did their homework.
The good thing about this is at least AMD wants to ensure that the transition is very smooth and doesn't want complications with its new processes so in a way, I applaud them for that. Although, Intel has already done it.
Intel is a smart company believe it or not. I don't agree with the whole anti trust thing one bit which has more or less steered me into the AMD realm even though, I still consider myself an avid Intel enthusiast.
The other thing too is, AMD might be awaiting Intels new products later this year so they can ramp up their intelligence and continue their recent success.
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have nothing to live for any more i'm gonna go commit hari kari ahhhhh oh oh ohhhhhhh!!!!!!!
LOL,didn't notice the other thread that was about the same thing(i searched the first page but it wasn't there).
This is one active forum. Gotta dig a lot to find a 4 hour old thread.
65nm arriving only next year is not the problem for AMD, they can also do some other tweaking to their current offerings. The thing is that in 2007 Intel will be ahead by 2 manufacturing generations for a short time.
And that, obviously, is something to be worried about for AMD. Intel could build CPUs with like 100 pipeline stages (exageration) and still win due to litography benefits.
I think that we could see Intel being ahead in manufacturing by 3 generations by 2010-15 if things go like they do now. Im very glad Intel pulled up with the very aggressive pricing during the last months, but if they extend their litography leadership even more, Im afraid that prices will rise by a fair amount due to lacking competition by IBM, Sun and AMD.
2005 was a good year with all the competition between the companies, but I think it might be the last year with such competition (I mean... like everyone threw nice offerings at the market).
Yep, exactly. Intel is a smart company. They know how to build processors and build them better than AMD. Now that Intel knows they obvisouly can't market the way they used to, they will get aggressive in chip design and fabrication to ensure they outgun AMD.
Either way this is a win win situation for us consumers. This is the same thing that's going on between ATI and nVidia. As long competition stays hot, WE get great products regardless of who they're from. What we don't want is for competition to slow down, otherwise product innovation may start to get stale.
I don't believe AMD or Intel are dumb. AMDs been busy patting themselves on the back which, as pointed out before, has given Intel time to lick their wounds and do their homework. However, once AMD feels Intel kicking them in the junk they'll turn around and do their homework and fire a shot back at em.
That's right. We ALL win no matter what. We may love Intel, we may love AMD but we shall prevail in the end.
My thing is, every LAN party I've ever had here in my home, all walks of life show up with their machines. Do we sit around and brag about how much better one is over the other? Absolutely not, that would create nothing but a snooze fest. Instead we drink heavily, have fun and are not even bothered about what processors we have.
Just take your machines, use em to your hearts delight and enjoy em.
What will happen, when AMD might be down someday?
Is it possible that Intel will be split up, like it almost happened to M$? Or will Intel have to help the competition even more to ensure that they wont just disappear?
Well... the best solution would be if there was a fusion of all the other companies to offer some balance in the processor business, but hey, who wants to drop their own company?
Intel is ramping up for some serious business, Im not too sure if anyone will be able to offer competition after 2008 considering that Intel is slowly fixing all problems of their current CPU offerings, while IBM and AMD dont seem to do anything significant.
I think you're both wrong (1st guy and XBit) AMD is smart to not talk much about the future. Even if the .65 doesn't happen this year (highly doubtful) AMD still has plans to increase the HT speed and add DDR2. If they can tweak the process nd get 3GHz, Intel wll be in a VERY bad way even with Conroe, the miracle chip that doesn't exist. I mean look at the 955. It barely wins the usual benchmarks and still can't compete in games.
Intel has a large war chest and should have the money to get .65 working first. EVery analyst that knows their stuff says AMD will eb in the driver's seat until 2007. Intel will still have to defeat HT and Direct Connect. The onboard mem controller using DDR2 will be serious. If AMD manages 25-30% increase this year they will still have the lead.
i read somewhere that AMD was having trouble getting the fabrication of 65nm with IBM. AM2 doesn't necessarily mean 65nm, but I still think AMD will compete fairly well with Conroe. Just cause they are having trouble doesn't mean it is failing miserably, it will come, and it when it does Intel had best cross theirs fingers just as AMD will do when Conroe arises. I think Intel's Conroe performance claims are seriously biased/rigged also, i mean, 3 freaking times the performance of prescott? i think this will definately push AMD behind a bit, but in the long run it won't matter since amd will remain competitive either with price or performance enhancements, and the market share it has gained in the last few years have been massive, especially in the server market. hopefully this all will level the playing field and turn it into an nvidia vs ati (constantly switching) and mean low prices and good performance on both sides.
Your right and I, even though I usually praise Intel, still think AMD will compete very well against Intel. AMD still has a very fast chip and it will take quite a bit from Intel to ultimately defeat them. I know I've said before unless you OC an intel chip, the performance doesn't match up. That's because AMD has such an advantage right now.
It wont help, Intel CPUs overclock much higher and the best thing is that for example the ALU works at 200% CPU speed which means 2 MHz better ALU performance for 1 MHz OC.
@ BaronMatrix:
The EE 955 hardly wins benchmarks? Err... you do know that it keeps up with 2 Opteron 270 in XP x64 4-threaded benchmarks? And it does compete better in games than it would need to...
[I think Intel's Conroe performance claims are seriously biased/rigged also, i mean, 3 freaking times the performance of prescott? ]
Agreed. I'm so tired of people quoting Intel press releases verbatim.
Intel's public relations division ALWAYS inflates claims for new CPUs.
I mean, go back and look at the Core Duo reviews that were coming out a couple of months ago (sorry, no links readily available) and compare that to recent reviews of an actual working MacIntel machine.
The promised major speed increase that was supposed to be realised by Apple switching to Intel turned out to be more like 5 percent faster.
The super duper magic CPU turned out to be ... well, not.
(True, that was Intel AND Apple lying on that one, but still ...)
AMD needs to change their tactic with SOI. My prediction is with Netburst out of the way and Conroe rising up, AMD needs to find a new way to gain the edge.
I hate to say this, but AMD's success was all due to Netburst. [/speaking from a performance fanboy perspective]
What I find rather strange is that Amd is actually marketing the tech to go from 90 to 65 seamlessly. Wonder why they aren't using it themselves? Then again, they only recently switched to 90 nanos, and seem to be doing just fine.
Perhaps if they catch a glimpse of Intel in thier rearview mirrors.
What I find rather strange is that Amd is actually marketing the tech to go from 90 to 65 seamlessly. Wonder why they aren't using it themselves? Then again, they only recently switched to 90 nanos, and seem to be doing just fine.
Perhaps if they catch a glimpse of Intel in thier rearview mirrors.
If I was either Intel or AMD, I would not say my plan to the competitor... I would make assumption, road map over road map.. but NEVER tell the truth...
So.. So, I won't hold my breath over any future offering from Intel or AMD..
