Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Whats to stop...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 27, 2006 12:57:27 PM

Intel from or any other company for that matter (nvidia perhaps) from creating a chipset that would support 2 core 2's? Why is AMD's 4x4 solution so special? I just dont get the hype?

Is AMD so desprate to claim back the crown at all costs (in this case double the cost). Please can somebody explain to me the hype as I just dont see the point, call me a fanboy, call me what ever just explain why its a good solutions and something intel can not possibly do...

More about : whats stop

July 27, 2006 1:43:32 PM

Quote:
Intel from or any other company for that matter (nvidia perhaps) from creating a chipset that would support 2 core 2's? Why is AMD's 4x4 solution so special? I just dont get the hype?

Is AMD so desprate to claim back the crown at all costs (in this case double the cost). Please can somebody explain to me the hype as I just dont see the point, call me a fanboy, call me what ever just explain why its a good solutions and something intel can not possibly do...


AMD isn't desperate to regain the crown. Of course, until you can buy your conroe, AMD hasn't lost that crown yet. But they are a technology business and as such, must maintain competitive products in such an aggressive industry as they are in. It should also be noted that AMD isn't generating this hype. The media is. After all, the latest is that Intel will offer quad core before AMD - this year in fact.
July 27, 2006 2:08:40 PM

I guess the only edge AMD can have over Intel is if they can make a quad that uses less power and runs cooler than Intel. I believe they both are getting ready for lower nm figures. AMD is going to have to do more than "HAHA! I'll just put two together!" and I think they know that. HOW they will make it better and/or competitive is a mystery till they say.
Related resources
July 27, 2006 2:10:10 PM

Well, the point is that AMD has done this wheras Intel hasn't (yet). Obviously, just adding another processor to a motherboard doesn't make the system faster unless the proper architecture is there to support it. This is not a simple task from what I understand. For instance, look at the (GPU war) 7950 from NVidia. Although it should be as fast as an SLI configuration, it's just barely faster than the 7900 (or ATI X1900XTX). So it takes time to do these things (properly).

Aside from that, it looks like Intel is going to go another route by putting 4 cores on one chip. We'll see how that works out. :D 

Just sayin'...
July 27, 2006 2:27:59 PM

Quote:
Well, the point is that AMD has done this wheras Intel hasn't (yet). Obviously, just adding another processor to a motherboard doesn't make the system faster unless the proper architecture is there to support it. This is not a simple task from what I understand. For instance, look at the (GPU war) 7950 from NVidia. Although it should be as fast as an SLI configuration, it's just barely faster than the 7900 (or ATI X1900XTX). So it takes time to do these things (properly).

Aside from that, it looks like Intel is going to go another route by putting 4 cores on one chip. We'll see how that works out. :D 

Just sayin'...


its not like it hasnt been done before though. I got a machine here with 2 pentium 2 in it.

Thats another thing, everyone is acting like this is like "new" when it isnt. New maybe for AMD definetly not for intel.
July 27, 2006 2:33:19 PM

Quote:
Well, the point is that AMD has done this wheras Intel hasn't (yet). Obviously, just adding another processor to a motherboard doesn't make the system faster unless the proper architecture is there to support it. This is not a simple task from what I understand. For instance, look at the (GPU war) 7950 from NVidia. Although it should be as fast as an SLI configuration, it's just barely faster than the 7900 (or ATI X1900XTX). So it takes time to do these things (properly).

Aside from that, it looks like Intel is going to go another route by putting 4 cores on one chip. We'll see how that works out. :D 

Just sayin'...


its not like it hasnt been done before though. I got a machine here with 2 pentium 2 in it.

Thats another thing, everyone is acting like this is like "new" when it isnt. New maybe for AMD definetly not for intel.

Considering AMD's (limited) success with their Athlon MPs, it isn't terribly new for them either and they've obviously had tremendous success with their multi-processor Opterons.
July 27, 2006 2:36:34 PM

Quote:
Well, the point is that AMD has done this wheras Intel hasn't (yet). Obviously, just adding another processor to a motherboard doesn't make the system faster unless the proper architecture is there to support it. This is not a simple task from what I understand. For instance, look at the (GPU war) 7950 from NVidia. Although it should be as fast as an SLI configuration, it's just barely faster than the 7900 (or ATI X1900XTX). So it takes time to do these things (properly).

Aside from that, it looks like Intel is going to go another route by putting 4 cores on one chip. We'll see how that works out. :D 

Just sayin'...


its not like it hasnt been done before though. I got a machine here with 2 pentium 2 in it.

Thats another thing, everyone is acting like this is like "new" when it isnt. New maybe for AMD definetly not for intel.

Considering AMD's (limited) success with their Athlon MPs, it isn't terribly new for them either and they've obviously had tremendous success with their multi-processor Opterons.

Exactly, So why the hype? whats going to make thier 4x4 solution so much better than what intel can deliver that all the AMD supporters are bragging about it?
July 27, 2006 2:42:21 PM

Well, there's really no way to know how fast this config is going to be until we get some benchmarks. (Theoretically) AMD's 4x4 solution could be faster than the Conroe in multitasking operations, but when Intel's quad core comes out, it will probably wipe the floor with the AMDs.

I think AMD is trying to quickly release something to combat the Conroe until they can come out with their 65nm process (which, by the way, may take longer now that they are aquiring ATI).

Just a thought...
July 27, 2006 2:45:49 PM

Quote:
Well, the point is that AMD has done this wheras Intel hasn't (yet). Obviously, just adding another processor to a motherboard doesn't make the system faster unless the proper architecture is there to support it. This is not a simple task from what I understand. For instance, look at the (GPU war) 7950 from NVidia. Although it should be as fast as an SLI configuration, it's just barely faster than the 7900 (or ATI X1900XTX). So it takes time to do these things (properly).

Aside from that, it looks like Intel is going to go another route by putting 4 cores on one chip. We'll see how that works out. :D 

Just sayin'...


its not like it hasnt been done before though. I got a machine here with 2 pentium 2 in it.

Thats another thing, everyone is acting like this is like "new" when it isnt. New maybe for AMD definetly not for intel.

Considering AMD's (limited) success with their Athlon MPs, it isn't terribly new for them either and they've obviously had tremendous success with their multi-processor Opterons.

Exactly, So why the hype? whats going to make thier 4x4 solution so much better than what intel can deliver that all the AMD supporters are bragging about it?

Fanboys alone are bragging about it. Fanboys are to be ignored. You're wasting your time even reading fanboy posts. Look how many fanboys are bragging about Conroe when you can't even buy one yet! When people get their Conroes, they will surely have bragging rights. But now, any braggers can only be thought of as fanboys. Conroe fanboys are more reasonable than AMD 4X4 fanboys however, because at least the Conroe is proven to actually exist.

Having stated the obvious, the media is keeping the big players (Intel VS AMD & nVidia VS ATI) in the headlines. They have to. It's what they get paid for. When there's no news, they fabricate it. Hey, it works for Fox News :D 
July 27, 2006 2:56:13 PM

Quote:
Well, there's really no way to know how fast this config is going to be until we get some benchmarks. (Theoretically) AMD's 4x4 solution could be faster than the Conroe in multitasking operations, but when Intel's quad core comes out, it will probably wipe the floor with the AMDs.

I think AMD is trying to quickly release something to combat the Conroe until they can come out with their 65nm process (which, by the way, may take longer now that they are aquiring ATI).

Just a thought...


And if intel put two core2's together then what?

Its not like its something intel can not do! Thats my whole point!

Here is my view on this:

AMD: O we in shit, I know what we can do. Ill put two CPU's together to beat Intels 1.

Intel: O AMD is putting two cpu's in one machine, wow why didnt we think of that? O wait, We have already, like back in 1996.
July 27, 2006 3:12:32 PM

Quote:
Well, there's really no way to know how fast this config is going to be until we get some benchmarks. (Theoretically) AMD's 4x4 solution could be faster than the Conroe in multitasking operations, but when Intel's quad core comes out, it will probably wipe the floor with the AMDs.

I think AMD is trying to quickly release something to combat the Conroe until they can come out with their 65nm process (which, by the way, may take longer now that they are aquiring ATI).

Just a thought...


And if intel put two core2's together then what?

Its not like its something intel can not do! Thats my whole point!

Here is my view on this:

AMD: O we in ****, I know what we can do. Ill put two CPU's together to beat Intels 1.

Intel: O AMD is putting two cpu's in one machine, wow why didnt we think of that? O wait, We have already, like back in 1996.

It looks like you're struggling to beat up on AMD and are blaming them for media hype. You're obviously a fanboy in your own right. Guess I'm done with this foolish thread. Thank you for wasting my time.
July 27, 2006 3:34:02 PM

Quote:
Well, there's really no way to know how fast this config is going to be until we get some benchmarks. (Theoretically) AMD's 4x4 solution could be faster than the Conroe in multitasking operations, but when Intel's quad core comes out, it will probably wipe the floor with the AMDs.

I think AMD is trying to quickly release something to combat the Conroe until they can come out with their 65nm process (which, by the way, may take longer now that they are aquiring ATI).

Just a thought...


And if intel put two core2's together then what?

Its not like its something intel can not do! Thats my whole point!

Here is my view on this:

AMD: O we in ****, I know what we can do. Ill put two CPU's together to beat Intels 1.

Intel: O AMD is putting two cpu's in one machine, wow why didnt we think of that? O wait, We have already, like back in 1996.

It looks like you're struggling to beat up on AMD and are blaming them for media hype. You're obviously a fanboy in your own right. Guess I'm done with this foolish thread. Thank you for wasting my time.

Gees it was ment to be a joke. And im not biased towards any brand.
July 27, 2006 4:05:24 PM

Intel already has 65nm Xeons based on Core2Duo's arch... the 51xx series...
And they will be releasing this year a 65nm socket 775 quad core also.
July 27, 2006 4:05:57 PM

While AMD will be releasing a 4x4 on 90nm.
!