Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4 AMD news story on tgdaily

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Quad Core
  • AMD
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 3, 2006 4:55:11 PM

AMD to release first 65 nm processors in December:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_65nm/

AMD to postpone DDR3 adoption, first quad-core K8L resident Socket AM2+:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_postpones_ddr3/

AMD to ship 90% of desktop CPUs at 65 nm by end-2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_65nm_45nm/

AMD to launch quad-core K8L platform in Q3 2007
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_quad_core/

I figured 1 thread was enough for all 4 stories....

More about : amd news story tgdaily

October 3, 2006 5:26:53 PM

At least its not the INQ. We can be sure that its possiblly true then.
They've got big plans that they look to impliment. It just all seems a bit late. most of them will be implimented in the Q3
October 3, 2006 5:45:21 PM

it does seem very late to introduce new stuff. by then intel may have an even stonger preforming proccessers and we already know they will have the quad core out possibly this year. what is interesting though is AMD will stick to the 45nm transtition in 2008 accoring to one of those articles.
October 3, 2006 5:51:24 PM

Intel releasing a monolithic quad core 45 nm CPU at the same time AMD debuts its K8L is a real kick in AMD nuts.
October 3, 2006 5:56:06 PM

seems like Intel will be at 8 core processors before AMD even touches the quad core market
October 3, 2006 6:13:23 PM

Quote:
seems like Intel will be at 8 core processors before AMD even touches the quad core market


Perhaps... I'm a little worried by the TDP rise from Conroe to Kentsfield as it is purely linear. Unless they control it we would be looking at 200+ Watts for 8 Cores which would put overclocked 805's to shame. I think we'll see a pause at 4 cores for a bit until the thermal situation is figured out (either that or a tradeoff of less clockspeed for more cores), barring any architectural improvement like P4->Conroe of course.
October 3, 2006 6:21:39 PM

Quote:

Perhaps... I'm a little worried by the TDP rise from Conroe to Kentsfield as it is purely linear.


Its linear because its just two C2D dies next to each other.

Intels monolithic quad core (Q3 07) will solve that ... until they offer two monolithic quad cores in one package as the first 8 core chip incarnation :wink:
October 3, 2006 6:37:37 PM

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.
October 3, 2006 6:41:45 PM

preformance wise intel have beaten them. anyway the true dual core stuff doesnt matter just like the true quad core and the 'glued' approach.
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2006 6:48:23 PM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.


Uh?

Intel Core 2 Duo is Dual Core (Two Cores in one), Intel's Quadcore Intel Core 2 Quad is (Two Core 2 Duo on a single chip). Intel's 45nm shrink will introduce a Native Quad Core processor.

Intel has AMD beat for sure until Q3 2007.. then we'll see.
October 3, 2006 6:53:03 PM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

Please, lets stop with this "glued" vs "native" nonsense.
You all seem to think of Intel Dual Cores being crappy, and pieced together.
That may have been the case with the Pentium D's. But won't be the case with the Core 2 Quadro. The Pentium D was based on cores that had the infamous (for good reason, the thing could substitute for a stove) Netburst architecture. Netburst was very inefficient, so putting two of those on one chip made a CPU that was twice as inefficient in my opinion.
Core 2 Duo and its brother chip the Quad(ro) are based on the very efficient Pentium M architecture. Pentium M being mobile based, has a very good TDP rating. Intel just went and made it 30% more efficient.

1 x 4 = 4
2 x 2 = 4
4 = 4

Non Mathematical Short Version
Its not the amount of dies that you put on a chip or the implementation, its the core itself that's the real variable.
October 3, 2006 6:53:23 PM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.


You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol: 
October 3, 2006 6:56:41 PM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.


You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol:  true, very true
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2006 7:01:42 PM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.


You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol: 
:trophy:

Now that's a Good post .. :D 
October 3, 2006 7:58:42 PM

Quote:
Word

:trophy:


Phrase

:trophy:
October 3, 2006 7:59:40 PM

Go AMD... GO!
October 3, 2006 8:10:19 PM

Quote:
Word

:trophy:


Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:
October 3, 2006 8:17:26 PM

Quote:
Word

:trophy:


Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:

Paragraph

:trophy:
October 3, 2006 8:41:30 PM

but they are still on the old fsb tech
October 3, 2006 9:04:42 PM

Quote:
Word

:trophy:


Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:

Paragraph

:trophy:
I really shouldn't continue this but...
War & Peace

:trophy:
Now with that bit of ownage out of the way, the FSB still has a long way to go before it is fulling bogged down. Intel is due to change to a IMC sometime in the future as stated by their road map. Unlike AMD, they don't release a new socket ever year. But obviously with the implementation of both Duo and Quad(ro), we have yet to see the "massive" problems with the FSB.
October 3, 2006 9:14:27 PM

From AnandTech
Quote:
One thing we pointed out in our earlier preview coverage of Intel's Core 2 Extreme is that the new processors have extremely low latency memory access, despite relying on the same memory controller as the previous generation of Intel CPUs.

Without an on-die memory controller Intel's Core 2 processor must use the memory controller in its chipset, which currently means the 128-bit DDR2 memory controller in either Intel's 965 or 975X chipset. The confusing thing is that although the Core 2 processors use the same memory controller as the old NetBurst processors, memory latency has been improved tremendously

Intel's Core 2 processors now offer even quicker memory access than AMD's Athlon 64 X2, without resorting to an on-die memory controller. While Intel will eventually add one, the fact of the matter is that it's simply not necessary for competitive memory performance today thanks to Intel's revamped architecture. Update:As many astute readers have pointed out, Core 2's prefetchers are able to work their magic with ScienceMark 2.0, which results in the significant memory latency advantage over AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.
October 3, 2006 9:17:21 PM

The irony to all this is(ignoring anti-competitive factor) - AMD had the faster chip for 3 years, but most the system manufacturers used intel....

now

lets say intel may take the performance lead for 3 years - but the system manufacturers seem hot on swiching to AMD now....

No - AMD may not overtake intel in units sold, but you get my point.... But in an sense maybe intel is too late giving the system manufacturers(dell/lenova etc.) a GOOD product at a CHEAP price.... We may see more hardships financially for intel, no matter how good their desktop/notebook chips are....

ps. not starting a fight, I am just bringing up the business/money aspect of the next 3 years.... It is no secret intel is having financial hardships, because of it big size....
October 3, 2006 9:24:01 PM

We forget that the Core 2 has just been introduced. When Intel has had this product out for atleast a year, expect them to drop the prices on regular Core 2's or pump out prodiguos amounts of Core solo budget chips.
October 3, 2006 9:41:32 PM

Quote:
We forget that the Core 2 has just been introduced. When Intel has had this product out for atleast a year, expect them to drop the prices on regular Core 2's or pump out prodiguos amounts of Core solo budget chips.


They absolutely need to drop those prices then.... But from what heard from the stock pages they have literally Billions worth of pentium chips they can't get rid of.... So they really need to get as much for the cores as they can...

I hadn't considered Core 2 solo budget chips - interesting idea! I bet it would make a decent low end notebook chip.... Should be able to run vista....
October 3, 2006 9:48:05 PM

Due to its shear size Intel can absorb massive financial punishment and come back for more. AMD cannot.

AMD had Intel by the balls for three years, now those roles are reversed. I hope this motivates AMD to produce another Intel killer. Unfortunately K8L isnt going to be an Intel killer so its late 2008 at the very earliest before they could produce such a thing.

From next month Intel will offer an 8 core server platform with CPU costs 25% that of an equivalent AMD server with an additional 50% performance advantage. That is going to attract serious OEM attention.

Compare an 8 way Opteron to a $1200 Clovertown. (You need 4 of those Opterons to get 8 cores in a single machine.)

Granted AMD will retain an advantage in the 8+ core unified memory machine market. But that is a small market.

AMD's knee to Intels 'nads gave us the Core arch for which me and my wallet are very thankful.
October 3, 2006 11:43:47 PM

Woah woah, hey now. Lets not say KL8 will suck before it even has a benchmark. Personaly, I like Intel (I have a thing for massive empires!) but I honestly hope KL8 beats C2D and by a fairly large margin. Intel has shown a strong roadmap, AMD doesnt have new Arch plans other than the KL8 for some time. If it doesnt beat C2D then Intel wont lower prices and probably wont hussle to make us another Arch performancefest :(  .
October 4, 2006 12:10:37 AM

Quote:
somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.


I believe you are refering to Pentium Ds. Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors are true dual-core CPUs, part of why they jumped up in performance from the hack-job Pentium Ds.
October 4, 2006 12:13:25 AM

Is a hardship is making 1 billion in profit instead of 2?
October 4, 2006 2:24:06 AM

Quote:
The irony to all this is(ignoring anti-competitive factor) - AMD had the faster chip for 3 years, but most the system manufacturers used intel....

^^^
truth

Quote:
now

lets say intel may take the performance lead for 3 years - but the system manufacturers seem hot on swiching to AMD now....

No - AMD may not overtake intel in units sold, but you get my point.... But in an sense maybe intel is too late giving the system manufacturers(dell/lenova etc.) a GOOD product at a CHEAP price.... We may see more hardships financially for intel, no matter how good their desktop/notebook chips are....

ps. not starting a fight, I am just bringing up the business/money aspect of the next 3 years.... It is no secret intel is having financial hardships, because of it big size....

^^^^^^^^
Baseless BS

Intel is not in dire financial straights. I dont know where youre getting this from, but I can guess

Your statements are somewhat indicative that you’ve been studying Shari-morons malarkey.

If that’s the case, lets clear up some things about Shari-headuphisass

Sharikou is not a PHD as his header implies
Sharikompoop has a personal ax to grind with Intel as the FIRED him i.e. he is a digruntled discharged employee
Sharipoopoo couldnt reason his way out of a wet paper bag if he had a pair of sissors and an Xacto razor knife as proved by his time posting here at THG when he was owned, countless times, even by the likes of a moron such as me. This is the guy who claimed laptops were blowing up not because of faulty LiON batteries but because of Intel processors.
Sharikou is the moron who claims Intel will be bankrupt soon. I don’t remember how long he’s been claiming that, but its been as long as Ive had the displeasure of knowing he existed. Well----Intels still not Bankrupt.

When you make claims that Intel is in dire financial straights, you put yourself in the same class as the moron Shariboob.

If its not from Sharimbecile, Its certainly not from the profits as Intel is in the black and has been for some time.

It could be from the stocks, which is absolutely meaningless but as long as were at it, if you haven’t noticed, the INTC trend has been UP since July 20 from $17.09 to close at $20.57 today.
It could be from laying off unneeded employees. Laying off employees is not a hard and fast sign of financial stress. Especially in this day and age when ruthless BODs have zero conscience about maximizing profit (and their EOY "bonus") by eliminating useless overhead. Guess who Intel layed off? Useless middle management level personnel.

You’d best check your sources before pulling that kind of statement form your arse, because I haven’t seen a single shread of evidence to support the claims your making
October 4, 2006 2:59:44 AM

I went there once. I don't speak about what happened there.
Sometimes it gives me flashbacks.
October 4, 2006 3:26:36 AM

Quote:
CM1 is all you boys and girls need

$140 price tag, 400MHZ AMD CPU, 1200x900 LCD, Audio, Wif-Fi, built-in web cam, SD slot.

I think CM1 is a case of reverse discrimination. Now 3rd world kids get the cutting edge technology with automatic peer-to-peer WiFi grid network, while American businessmen get bulky and hot Core Duo notebooks that explode during conferences.

I tried to find out whats so bad about a Core Duo laptop, and he keeps rejecting my comments. He's also saying that because of the Intel chips, laptops keep exploding.
He's making my head hurt.
Someone please try to make sense of this.

By the way AMD only has 29% market share. To be able to gain at least 40% market share in only 3 years would be down right impossible.
they don't have the necessary name recognition among non computer enthusiasts.
That's where the real markets are.
Of course, someones going to tell me I'm wrong...
October 4, 2006 6:00:43 AM

Quote:
I guess the point I would make would be that Intel has responded to a trend in the their revenue stream, which, if given no attention, could lead to dire financial consequences :)  ....

I don't think I would argue (and, knowing you, you would not either) that the trend has not been positive for Intel... no doubt, AMD is taking share. Nonetheless, it is not even close to the point of 'dire' :) 

Jack


No, and judging the two companies by actions and actions alone, if I had to label one's situation as "dire", it certainly would not be Intel

Much as I respect AMD, the past 5 months have been disappointing.
-You and I are both of the same opinion regarding 4x4: that it was a knee jerk stop gap response to Core 2.
-IMO most people (non-horde oriented) would agree that any "moral" high ground AMD may have held (as a matter of opinion) has to some extent been forfeited through the BS PR tactics AMD has been using lately (i.e the companies have reversed roles)
-AMD has been failing to produce on its promotion, and has been much more guilty than Intel of “paper-launching” this year
-And perhaps the worst: The recent flood of AMD road maps. IMO, This is demonstrative not of changes in direction, but in a lack of direction.

That AMDs 65nm parts are not going to be what everyone (at least the AMD fans) were hoping is no big deal. Advancement takes time and patience.
That AMD is going to be back-of-the-bus in performance for awhile(at least) is no big deal. Hell, Intel did it for 3 years.
That AMD has not been able to deliver its upper-midrange products (I think we can officially lay Barons OEM Back-to-School hording fantasy to rest) is annoying, and definitely indicates some production problems, but hell, they just don’t have the capacity or manufacturing tech Intel does (regardless of the “flexible" Fab PR)
That AMD cannot stick to a plan as of late indicates that all has not proceeded according to plan, and they don’t know what to do about it. This is more worrisome than any other factor, as lack of a plan/direction leads to 0 progress/wasted effort.

The more these new roadmaps pop up, the more it seems that AMD’s "surprise" at Core 2 may have been bigger than thought. Could they really have been that smug in their superiority that they didn’t have something competitive closer to market? Frankly, that’s the way things are beginning to seem to me.
October 4, 2006 7:34:04 AM

nice comment!

My 2cents
For the last 12 years, Intel have not had 1 red quarter. They generate more than 60 billion in profit. Intel stock price is the same as 5 years ago and it sucks.
October 4, 2006 1:53:11 PM

Quote:
The irony to all this is(ignoring anti-competitive factor) - AMD had the faster chip for 3 years, but most the system manufacturers used intel....

^^^
truth

Quote:
now

lets say intel may take the performance lead for 3 years - but the system manufacturers seem hot on swiching to AMD now....

No - AMD may not overtake intel in units sold, but you get my point.... But in an sense maybe intel is too late giving the system manufacturers(dell/lenova etc.) a GOOD product at a CHEAP price.... We may see more hardships financially for intel, no matter how good their desktop/notebook chips are....

ps. not starting a fight, I am just bringing up the business/money aspect of the next 3 years.... It is no secret intel is having financial hardships, because of it big size....

^^^^^^^^
Baseless BS

Intel is not in dire financial straights. I dont know where youre getting this from, but I can guess

Your statements are somewhat indicative that you’ve been studying Shari-morons malarkey.

If that’s the case, lets clear up some things about Shari-headuphisass

Sharikou is not a PHD as his header implies
Sharikompoop has a personal ax to grind with Intel as the FIRED him i.e. he is a digruntled discharged employee
Sharipoopoo couldnt reason his way out of a wet paper bag if he had a pair of sissors and an Xacto razor knife as proved by his time posting here at THG when he was owned, countless times, even by the likes of a moron such as me. This is the guy who claimed laptops were blowing up not because of faulty LiON batteries but because of Intel processors.
Sharikou is the moron who claims Intel will be bankrupt soon. I don’t remember how long he’s been claiming that, but its been as long as Ive had the displeasure of knowing he existed. Well----Intels still not Bankrupt.

When you make claims that Intel is in dire financial straights, you put yourself in the same class as the moron Shariboob.

If its not from Sharimbecile, Its certainly not from the profits as Intel is in the black and has been for some time.

It could be from the stocks, which is absolutely meaningless but as long as were at it, if you haven’t noticed, the INTC trend has been UP since July 20 from $17.09 to close at $20.57 today.
It could be from laying off unneeded employees. Laying off employees is not a hard and fast sign of financial stress. Especially in this day and age when ruthless BODs have zero conscience about maximizing profit (and their EOY "bonus") by eliminating useless overhead. Guess who Intel layed off? Useless middle management level personnel.

You’d best check your sources before pulling that kind of statement form your arse, because I haven’t seen a single shread of evidence to support the claims your making

I said "It is no secret intel is having financial hardships, because of it big size"

NOT "dire financial straights"

So your whole rant makes no sense? I never said that.... You put words i my mouth, and then went off about it....
October 4, 2006 2:05:29 PM

Heres what he ment. All pentium chips are volted at a range between 250-500watts. Since most batteries used in laptops can only supply 249watts... Intel had to increase the Ohms and induce resistance. The Processors used today are 4Ohms 250watt 16inch direct reflecting processors, and that DaSickNinja, is why Intel's laptops expode during conferences.
!