Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 65 nm won't arrive this year

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 10, 2006 1:56:42 PM

Sad but true :( 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060207225940...

Eh but in other words Intels job will be much easier this year :wink:
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. :?

P.S. No flamming or AMD vsIntel, just opinions :wink:

More about : amd arrive year

February 10, 2006 2:04:12 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 2:13:58 PM

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have nothing to live for any more i'm gonna go commit hari kari ahhhhh oh oh ohhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Related resources
February 10, 2006 2:32:09 PM

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. :roll:
February 10, 2006 2:40:36 PM

LOL yeah, they do move fast. Blink and you'll lose em that's for sure ..
February 10, 2006 3:02:17 PM

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).
February 10, 2006 3:15:35 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 3:59:23 PM

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.

Either way, we get good stuff!!
February 10, 2006 4:03:36 PM

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.

Ok, theres my grammy moment for the day.

Peace, love and harmony to all!
Luminaris
February 10, 2006 4:19:39 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 4:48:15 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 5:55:34 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 6:20:48 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 6:35:16 PM

and if you oc an amd chip..? lets not go there :p 
February 10, 2006 7:09:51 PM

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...
February 10, 2006 8:43:45 PM

[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 ...)
February 10, 2006 10:39:23 PM

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.
February 10, 2006 10:46:17 PM

Quote:
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..
February 10, 2006 10:48:33 PM

Why is everyone so defeated about AMD due to one little
article? Relax, take a deep breath....hold it...hold it....exhale.
February 10, 2006 10:51:42 PM

Quote:
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.


Intel smart?? Seriously? How do you call a company that hire Mariah Carey for it's ads???

Intel know how to design CPU, no doubt. But, would announcing product over product just to match competitor offering (that still has to be released) smart?

I don't think. That sound like some desesperate move from one company that see itself loosing to a competitor.

Intel should not announce too many product for future, but announce only a couple, and ensure that it will be up to customer's expectation. While some may see improvement with 65nm 9xx serie, I don't..
February 10, 2006 10:54:50 PM

Yup, Intel would be a whole lot smarter if they just killed off thier PR department.
Then again, who would lie to us about how good their next chips will be?
February 10, 2006 10:58:24 PM

Quote:
Yup, Intel would be a whole lot smarter if they just killed off thier PR department.
Then again, who would lie to us about how good their next chips will be?


I'd say that AMD PR rating are way smarter than Intel PR departement...
February 10, 2006 11:01:06 PM

You mean like the movie? dumb and dumber?
February 10, 2006 11:03:21 PM

Who cares? AMDs 90nm is better than Intels 65nm.
February 10, 2006 11:04:15 PM

kind of ...
February 10, 2006 11:18:46 PM

Quote:
Who cares? AMDs 90nm is better than Intels 65nm.


Luminaris does.. well.. sort of :wink:
February 11, 2006 2:22:27 AM

Well, obviously they are pretty smart in the sense that they still hold a clear advantage over AMD even with an alledged so-so chip. Let me clarify that a little further, what I meant to say was they are smart because they already have everything in place and have put themselves in a better position, all the while still out-numbering AMD in sales and marketing.

Now that they've been caught with dirty hands more or less, they're rolling out better products. They know what they did was wrong but yet, they've got better products coming out to offset these things and make them more competitive. Will they get in trouble? Who knows. Perhaps a slap in the wrist and a hefty fine. All this going on and yet, they've moved onto better technology and moving forward ahead of AMD.
February 11, 2006 9:59:52 AM

Quote:
Well, obviously they are pretty smart in the sense that they still hold a clear advantage over AMD even with an alledged so-so chip. Let me clarify that a little further, what I meant to say was they are smart because they already have everything in place and have put themselves in a better position, all the while still out-numbering AMD in sales and marketing.

Now that they've been caught with dirty hands more or less, they're rolling out better products. They know what they did was wrong but yet, they've got better products coming out to offset these things and make them more competitive. Will they get in trouble? Who knows. Perhaps a slap in the wrist and a hefty fine. All this going on and yet, they've moved onto better technology and moving forward ahead of AMD.


Intel are not rolling out "better products". Core Duo and Core Solo are the only better products that Intel are producing right now. On the desktop and server market AMDs "old" technology is still superior to Intels "new" technology. I certainly hope you are not thinking Intels new desktop CPUs are ahead of AMDs CPUs.
February 11, 2006 10:45:38 AM

Quote:
Well, obviously they are pretty smart in the sense that they still hold a clear advantage over AMD even with an alledged so-so chip. Let me clarify that a little further, what I meant to say was they are smart because they already have everything in place and have put themselves in a better position, all the while still out-numbering AMD in sales and marketing.

Now that they've been caught with dirty hands more or less, they're rolling out better products. They know what they did was wrong but yet, they've got better products coming out to offset these things and make them more competitive. Will they get in trouble? Who knows. Perhaps a slap in the wrist and a hefty fine. All this going on and yet, they've moved onto better technology and moving forward ahead of AMD.


But they still have Mariah carey...

AMD can do 65 and antthing lower.. they don't need to push it ATM. I rather think it will be introduced with something better. And yes, they sell more than AMD, but AMD raising market share since the A64 and opteron serie in worrying Intel to the point of making some error with design and marketting..(remember Mariah Carey, the man in blue,..)

Intel is no better than anybody else. They have share holder that want profit. But when you are at the top, it is harder to remain there.. Hey.. it is only CPU after all ..

Right now, AMD has the lead with better overall CPU. Intel is playing catch up. AMD won't put all its aces on the table to help Intel to figure out what they are doing, And I'm pretty sure than Intel is doing the same..

Once I had a 3-wheeler. A racing one.. And I did races... against competitors.. and none of them ould have know anything about my bike before the race... but once the race was over, the one with the best bike, the best tire for the specific track and the one with the best driving ability would win.. I'm happy to have some first place trophees.

Strategic moves are important in a race... This is part of the competition..

AMD came out with that. If it is really something they believe at and not something that only make them looks god, then it is valuable committement. Only time will tell. But, getting that from AMD vs Mariah Carey for Intel..

But anyway.. thay are still only CPU...
February 11, 2006 10:46:04 AM

Quote:
Well, obviously they are pretty smart in the sense that they still hold a clear advantage over AMD even with an alledged so-so chip. Let me clarify that a little further, what I meant to say was they are smart because they already have everything in place and have put themselves in a better position, all the while still out-numbering AMD in sales and marketing.

Now that they've been caught with dirty hands more or less, they're rolling out better products. They know what they did was wrong but yet, they've got better products coming out to offset these things and make them more competitive. Will they get in trouble? Who knows. Perhaps a slap in the wrist and a hefty fine. All this going on and yet, they've moved onto better technology and moving forward ahead of AMD.


Intel are not rolling out "better products". Core Duo and Core Solo are the only better products that Intel are producing right now. On the desktop and server market AMDs "old" technology is still superior to Intels "new" technology. I certainly hope you are not thinking Intels new desktop CPUs are ahead of AMDs CPUs.
Intel CPUs are still based on Net burst arhitecture.
It's a much better comparison to compare Intel's 65 with Intel's 90. I'd choose a 920 over a 820 anyday.
BTW performance wise AMD 90 nm >=( better by only a little) Intel 65 nm. Look at the 955, it's beating the X24800 in a significant number of benchies.
Also, i disagree with Net Burst = Failure. Netburst is the same tehnology used in Intel ships 3 years ago when Intel clearly dominated. Any technology becomes obselete sooner or later.
But "AMD> Intel now" fails cause Intel will do a redesign of the chip. Pentium M and Yonah proved their worth. I doubt the future Turion will even match current Core Duo.
If Intel implements this techno. corectly i'm certain they'll regain some of the market. Performance per watt will rock and performance will at least match AMD's CPUs
.
February 11, 2006 11:08:40 AM

Quote:



AMD can do 65 and antthing lower.. they don't need to push it ATM. I rather think it will be introduced with something better. And yes, they sell more than AMD, but AMD raising market share since the A64 and opteron serie in worrying Intel to the point of making some error with design and marketting..(remember Mariah Carey, the man in blue,..)

Intel is no better than anybody else. They have share holder that want profit. But when you are at the top, it is harder to remain there.. Hey.. it is only CPU after all ..

Right now, AMD has the lead with better overall CPU. Intel is playing catch up. AMD won't put all its aces on the table to help Intel to figure out what they are doing, And I'm pretty sure than Intel is doing the same..


That's were you're wrong.
If you have a great weapon or you have the technology to create it that will anihilate(not beat,anihilate) the oposition then why not make it? it doesn't make sense.
AMD is probably working for a new laptop CPU and AM2 and they can't do more than 2 things at the same time. That's probably the main cause. AMD is small compared to Intel and it lacks $$$ . But another reason might be problems with the current AM2 or Turion (plausible).
AMD fans think that AMD waits for Intels response. The truth is they can't "multitask". Why is AMD so craps in the mobile worlds. Because they mainly focused on dektop based CPUs.
Intel can do all of that. It's only mistake was taking the Net Burst to it's limits. If they'd chosen the correct path,it would be AMD=Intel desktop and AMD<Intel mobile(like it's now)
February 11, 2006 11:13:39 AM

Quote:

Also, i disagree with Net Burst = Failure. Netburst is the same tehnology used in Intel ships 3 years ago when Intel clearly dominated. Any technology becomes obselete sooner or later.


Netburst was what allowed Intel to deliver match and later better product than Athlon XP at this time. The mistake, they try to scale it further with prescott when the smartest choice would have been a better design based on PM CPU.

Quote:

But "AMD> Intel now" fails cause Intel will do a redesign of the chip. Pentium M and Yonah proved their worth. I doubt the future Turion will even match current Core Duo.
If Intel implements this techno. corectly i'm certain they'll regain some of the market. Performance per watt will rock and performance will at least match AMD's CPUs
.
[/color]

Notice the use of "now" and "will" in the same sentence.. and use of "future" and "current" too. This is assumption and that worth nothing to me.

The correct sentence would have been .. AMD> Intel now still hold true, but Intel will do a redesign of the chip so that would be something to watch.

And ...

It will have to be seen how the future Turion will match current Core Duo.


Doesnt that make more sense???

Hey.. Intel don't give you money to promote their product.. they rather use Mariah Carey.. So, do be so emotive about any product. It"s your money, choose what best fit your budget and be happy.

I'm not promoting AMD right now.. Even if t looks like.. I'm just.. well... trying to calm down the moment..

The only comparaison anybody can do is with current product. Everything else come from speculation, and worth nothing. I don't give a fuck to AMD future chip as I did not see them running. I don't give a fuck to future Intel product as long as I could not buy them..

But I do give a fuck to Intel product heating twice as much as my currrent setup in its cramped and necessary case. And costing more for the value han my current setup. My money is what I care the more here...
February 11, 2006 11:27:46 AM

Quote:



AMD can do 65 and antthing lower.. they don't need to push it ATM. I rather think it will be introduced with something better. And yes, they sell more than AMD, but AMD raising market share since the A64 and opteron serie in worrying Intel to the point of making some error with design and marketting..(remember Mariah Carey, the man in blue,..)

Intel is no better than anybody else. They have share holder that want profit. But when you are at the top, it is harder to remain there.. Hey.. it is only CPU after all ..

Right now, AMD has the lead with better overall CPU. Intel is playing catch up. AMD won't put all its aces on the table to help Intel to figure out what they are doing, And I'm pretty sure than Intel is doing the same..


That's were you're wrong.
If you have a great weapon or you have the technology to create it that will anihilate(not beat,anihilate) the oposition then why not make it? it doesn't make sense.
AMD is probably working for a new laptop CPU and AM2 and they can't do more than 2 things at the same time. That's probably the main cause. AMD is small compared to Intel and it lacks $$$ . But another reason might be problems with the current AM2 or Turion (plausible).
AMD fans think that AMD waits for Intels response. The truth is they can't "multitask". Why is AMD so craps in the mobile worlds. Because they mainly focused on dektop based CPUs.
Intel can do all of that. It's only mistake was taking the Net Burst to it's limits. If they'd chosen the correct path,it would be AMD=Intel desktop and AMD<Intel mobile(like it's now)

Yep.. I agree.. Intel is multitasking but failed to deliver solid product to desktop, server and only mobile product worth it is the P-M..

See, they should have disabled hyper threading, and running 2 core. The P-M for mobile and one for desktop based on the same CPU.

But tell me? What make you so happy about liking Intel? I mean.. You always compare Intel to AMD, but what does Intel now has? Forget the future.. I'm talking NOW. An outdated netburst architecture. A heat producing architecture. Dual core that has to be sold cheap to get market.

But they have the P-M for mobile. and part of the mobile success is the chipset. They have good chipset too.

I'll tell you. If I had to buy a laptop, I don't know which one I'll get. But I wont get a name. I will get value for my money. which one? I don't know.. I don't need one.

so, I don't see the need to argue more on future product because thay are not still there. And 9xx serie in a nice addon to the line, but not the AMD killer it was hoping to be, IMHO. A dual core Intel idle with the same power output than an AMD dual dore at full load? no thanks.
February 11, 2006 11:30:33 AM

Problems I see with intel is they try to force ideas. Let take P4 when it frist came out. Due to the panic of Amd being the frist 1 ghz chip. Then Presscott when Amd released the Amd 64 chips.
February 11, 2006 11:48:17 AM

Your right about that and I have pointed that out in other threads. Intels new 65nm chips are still ahead of AMD though. Newer, cooler and more advanced. Its the technology i'm referring to and not necessarily performance. As far as technology goes, Intel is far ahead of AMD at this point.
February 11, 2006 11:57:27 AM

Well, its funny how one does crappy in one area over the other. The P4 is just not the clear performer as the Athlon. I'll attest and agree to that. The only real way to get my P4 to run as good and better, is I had to OC the piss out of my P4. Now its very competitive and it outruns my AMD machines in most areas for the most part.

The mobile market, believe it or not, AMD once again has a faster chip then Intel in that arena too. However, much like the P4 vs. Athlon, the mobile chip AMD uses has flaws in it so it doesn't run as good and efficient as the PM. See a pattern here?

All I'm saying is they hand the ball back and forth to each other. The way I see it though, AMD has hit on a solid mark currently and probably will continue thier success even when Conroe comes out. Intel has hit on some good areas too and will share in that success in the near future. Its a trade-off that will always happen.
February 11, 2006 12:10:23 PM

AMD has spoken, the road map is a fake. They will have 65nm this year.

You guys, Net-burst is dead, soon to go the way of Socket A. Pentium M or Yonah is more like what Meron, Conroe, adn Woodcrest ARE. They have IPC like k8, and lower power consuption. Power to watt is the New Intel design goal.
February 11, 2006 4:03:52 PM

Quote:
Your right about that and I have pointed that out in other threads. Intels new 65nm chips are still ahead of AMD though. Newer, cooler and more advanced. Its the technology i'm referring to and not necessarily performance. As far as technology goes, Intel is far ahead of AMD at this point.

But it's not what's most advanced that counts. What counts is performance and price. Why should I as a consumer buy Intels new technology when AMDs older technology is superior?
February 11, 2006 4:22:34 PM

Quote:
Well, obviously they are pretty smart in the sense that they still hold a clear advantage over AMD even with an alledged so-so chip. Let me clarify that a little further, what I meant to say was they are smart because they already have everything in place and have put themselves in a better position, all the while still out-numbering AMD in sales and marketing.

Now that they've been caught with dirty hands more or less, they're rolling out better products. They know what they did was wrong but yet, they've got better products coming out to offset these things and make them more competitive. Will they get in trouble? Who knows. Perhaps a slap in the wrist and a hefty fine. All this going on and yet, they've moved onto better technology and moving forward ahead of AMD.


Intel are not rolling out "better products". Core Duo and Core Solo are the only better products that Intel are producing right now. On the desktop and server market AMDs "old" technology is still superior to Intels "new" technology. I certainly hope you are not thinking Intels new desktop CPUs are ahead of AMDs CPUs. Look at the 955, it's beating the X24800 in a significant number of benchies.

.

The AMD X2 4800+ is still better:

AMD 64 x2 4800+ vs Intel 955 EE
Take a look at these benchmarks (I compare at stock configuration so no OC or HT disabled are used:
OpenGL
3-2
Video
2-4
Application
5-3
Multitasking
2-5
Power Consumtion
3-0

Total score
15-14

And this is without comparing performance in games where the AMD is superior.

And the 955 EE is much more expensive compared to the AMD 64 X2 4800+. (At least here in Sweden)
February 11, 2006 4:32:20 PM

Quote:
But tell me? What make you so happy about liking Intel? I mean.. You always compare Intel to AMD, but what does Intel now has? Forget the future.. I'm talking NOW. An outdated netburst architecture. A heat producing architecture. Dual core that has to be sold cheap to get market.

Intel has my respect. I have 4 Intel CPUs and all are working. Granted,i didn't buy Prescott or Presler core CPUs but i have a northwood that is working at bellow 30 idle and bellow 35/40 in full load.
And i'll probably go for an AMD cpu for now since Intel's current CPUs are ...
Another major plus that Intel has is making its own mobos. That is a sort of assurance that the rig will work.
For now AMD rulz and i'm not affraid admiting this. But i'm always looking for good reasons to buy Intel CPUs . If AMD=Intel i chose Intel cause of my earlier experience with its chip and i'm willing to pay more(well 100$ more).
But i have never tried AMD. Once i'll try it i might switch sides but untill then Intel all the way.
The fact is untill Prescott Intel has always been the more reliable chip and so it gained respect among people. You don't loose the reputation gained in 5 years in a single year. Some people are willing to endure ignore this faulty Pres-hot and are waiting for something better.
Trying AMD is sort of risking(for Intel lovers). Now there are good reasons to risk. After Conroe we'll see ...
BTW some AMD fanboys tend to get very annoying(i speak in general). I spent time navigating the Anand Tech forum and come to one conclusion i dunno about AMD vs Intel but the peak of fanboyism is definitely held by AMD users. Now let's say someone post a topic, in which he says that he needs help with his next INTEL cpu purchase. Well,there always gotta be AMD fanboys that start bashing Intel and even insulting the author for his dumb choices. Sry,but that makes me not wanting to buy AMD.
This thread had an inclination to AMD vs Intel but i didn't bash neither one.
I just posted opinion(though i tried to avoid this i was probably influenced more or less by Intel experience ).
February 11, 2006 4:37:07 PM

14-15 is a tight score.
Even 14-18 makes a tight score.
AMD isn't bashing Intel,it just sells superior product right now.
February 11, 2006 4:41:44 PM

Ok guys, your completely missing my point here. I've already stated that AMD does have the better chip as far as performance goes. Nothing more needs to be said there.

Now, as I stated previously, Intel has moved onto a 65nm platform which, is better technology than 90nm. Again, not measuring performance here and only technology. Intel is able to squeeze more transistors and use a smaller die which leaves more room for expansion. AMD is following suit and they would not if it wasn't better technology.

Again, I do agree and I've stated that AMD has a better chip currently even with Intels 65nm technology. (comparing stock speeds) I've read numerous articles where even when Intel rolls out conroe, AMD will still be very competitive. Only because AMD has such a fast chip. On die memory controllers, shorter pipes and more efficient operation attributes to that. Its already been stated by numerous articles that until Intel moves to an on die memory controller and trashed the on board design, they will never have as "quick" of a chip. It might be more efficient in terms of more power per watt but the performance may still be lacking. WE will never know until conroe comes out.
February 11, 2006 5:35:39 PM

Several reviewers have been comparing the Core Duo with the AMD processors, and finding that the fastest Core Duo is fairly comparible with the Athlon x2 3800.

But the Core Duo is a low power processor designed for laptops, and it doesnt have a high speed FSB. The AMD's have a massive memory bandwidth compared to a Core Duo, and still dont beat it by any great margin.

Remember the P4/533FSB models bearly managed to keep up with Athlons, but the jump to the 800FSB on northwood 'c's made huge difference.

Now we see that the top 'Desktop' chips will be allowed to consume more power (65w?), and be fully fitted out with a 1066FSB. Clock for clock it should considerably outperform a Core Duo, and to pull a rabbit out of the hat, Intel have announced a 2.66Ghz version. E6700, and even an Extreme Edition.

Should be some serious processing power when it comes out.

In terms of memory bandwidth, intel doesnt really need an on die memory controller, at 1066mhz, thats enough bandwidth to support dual channel DDR2-533.

Personally I believe this processor will crush the old P4 series, and come in somewhat ahead of the AMD64's. With the added advantage of being even more power efficient, and cool running than the AMD.

No doubt AMD will attempt to hit back, but thats a good thing. With two highly competitive, companies both after the same customer base, the real winners are the consumers. We'll get the best processors, and good value prices.
February 11, 2006 7:44:43 PM

I went with AMD with the Athlon XP. Intel had the Willamette socket 423 at the time.. The northwood came too late, and I didn't plan on an upgrade at this time. Then, I wanted to experiment with the nforce2 chipset.. and a Mobile Barton 2500+. Had fun with it and when I upgraded again, guess what was there or soon coming?? Prescott!!! So, it was too risky for me to go back to Intel...

From there, I never risked again to go with intel.. it is funny how thing, no matter how different they are are still the same???


As for AMD fanboy being annoying.. well, it is normal. I remember, when I had a P3 500(or was it 550..), and the Athlon thunderbird was running hot.. and plagued with poor chipset, how "nice" were Intel fanboy about AMD user with their hot CPU.. So, this, coupled with the fact that Intel hired Mariah Carey (seriously.. I cannot understand this move..) gives plenty of opportunities for AMD fanboy to get annoying.. I guess you deserve it, Intel lovers.. Who spit in the air get it in the face ..is it what it is said??


I don't care which one will power my next computer, as long as it has good performance /price ratio, don't need excessive cooling, and don't have Mariah Carey in their ads...
February 11, 2006 7:50:33 PM

Quote:

The mobile market, believe it or not, AMD once again has a faster chip then Intel in that arena too. However, much like the P4 vs. Athlon, the mobile chip AMD uses has flaws in it so it doesn't run as good and efficient as the PM. See a pattern here?


What is complicate with mobile market is, you have a very efficient cpu for power consumption, but it would not perform as good as the one that is less powe efficient.

The Intel, will usually consume less, but will take more time to do complex task.. while the turion usually consume more, but take less time to make the same work..

So, both CPU has their own niche. Internet and light office work would benefit from Intel, but higher demanding task will benefit fom better performance of the Turion...

So, both can be ok, good or bad.. just use the right tool for the job ... and you'll be happy.
February 11, 2006 7:52:31 PM

Quote:
Problems I see with intel is they try to force ideas. Let take P4 when it frist came out. Due to the panic of Amd being the frist 1 ghz chip. Then Presscott when Amd released the Amd 64 chips.


It is not having too much idea that is bad.. It is to use the bad one first...named Willamette and Prescott...
February 11, 2006 8:09:18 PM

Quote:
Several reviewers have been comparing the Core Duo with the AMD processors, and finding that the fastest Core Duo is fairly comparible with the Athlon x2 3800.
....
No doubt AMD will attempt to hit back, but thats a good thing. With two highly competitive, companies both after the same customer base, the real winners are the consumers. We'll get the best processors, and good value prices.


Don't get fooled by those result.. the fastest dual core from Intel manage to be competitive with the lowest speed dual core from AMD. But, it has some head room. and that's good.

AMD will have to hit back. I'm sure they are ready. They just wait the right timing. They could already have the newer CPU on the market, but.. and it is the same for Intel, they need time to design the next product. So, the longest they will be competitive with their older tech, the better the new tech will be. Same for Intel. Why do you think that road map are changed so often? Because there is no need to rush the market yet.

As they are, both CPU can do whatever task they have to do. Only enthusiast cares about such thing like OCeability. Common users don't. And probably never will. Big company with lot of computer does. They pay their power bill. I do too, because I do pay my power bill, and I know that in the long term, the AMD will make me to have more money to have better vacation at the end of the year.. and next year, if intel allow me better vacation, then I'll surely have Intel.. unless AMD pay me to stay with them and become fanboy.. Hey..I cannot be worst than Mariah carey.. At least, I don't use any drug or have false boob ...
February 11, 2006 8:19:47 PM

What's the point of comparing Core Duo to an Athlon 64 X2, though?
Or Conroe to the X2?
That's like comparing an 2007 model Chevy to a 2006 Ford, despite knowing that the 2007 Ford is about to come out as well. You have to compare the 2007 Chevy to the 2007 Ford to have any kind of meaningful comparison.
Even if the Chevy comes to market several months ahead of the new Ford, why make the comparison? Yeah, if Chevy came out with a new model and Ford didn't deliver its comparable 2007 model until almost 2008, that would make sense.
But it looks like AMD is about to release AM2 this summer. (Well, they'll be showing the technology. Production to get ramped up later in the year)
When AM2 comes out, yeah, it'll be at 90nm compared to Intel's 65nm -- but they'll both be using DDR2.
Right now, Intel BARELY holds its own against AMD, even at 65nm, using faster RAM.
It's a completely different contest during the second half of this year.
February 11, 2006 8:28:19 PM

Conroe versus AM2 will be a very good fight in my opinion. Conroe is a totally new architecture, and I'm not sure how different AM2 will actually be from our current processors, considering some processors out now will be re-released on AM2. Also, DDR2 isn't a significant improvement, although it is definately there. Once AMD hits 65nm, I think they're superior engineering will definately give Intel a run for its money (once again). If AMD had 65nm out now, it would give Intel a pounding upon every level. Only time will tell if Intel just made a mistake with Netburst or if they will make another massive architectural failure, or if we will go back to the days of the pentium 3.
February 11, 2006 8:35:13 PM

no the 90nm isnt better and thats bs its all fucking rumors
!