Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD having problems....how will they fight back?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2006 9:47:27 AM

I'm just wondering...Nvidia allready caused heavy financial damage on AMD's company called ATI and say that ATI is throwing in the towel. >>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4891

If this is true, Intel could make it really hard for AMD on the financial course. AMD missed out on the dual core market while Intel is allready stunting with prices and showing of their quad core. Will this be the financial dead penalty for company AMD/ATI? How will they be able to fight back....Anyone got a clue? I hope my point of view is wrong...
November 12, 2006 10:35:19 AM

I dont think AMD are doing as badly as you seem to be suggesting, the main problem they are having at the moment is meeting demand. Dell are eating up a large number of AMD's chips now that they have signed a deal [url = http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33462]Inquirer article[/url]. If AMD are having trouble meeting demand then I would assume they are selling lots of chips and thus doing very well.
AMD's profits for the forth quater of 2005 was $96Million..doesn't sound to bad to me? They have also just moved to the 65nm process which shoul make production costs cheaper.

I dont know why Nvidia are suggesting that ATI is throwing in the towel, by all accounts the R600 (ATI's DX10 graphics chip due for release in Q1 2007) is faster than the G80.
November 12, 2006 10:38:39 AM

AMD is fine, they are just going thruh alot of stuff right now. They will be ok, dont worry. They didn't get to where they are today by always having the performance crown. They have always been the underdog but have survived. AMD is here to stay. And ATI has an awnser to the 8 series nV card coming up in like 4 to 5 months supposably.
Related resources
November 12, 2006 10:45:23 AM

yeah jammydodger is right. :) 

Its like tennis, if you bring something new out the other will bring something out and the ball is back on your side and however hard you try to get your opponent out they will always still fight back with something new. It's intels turn right now (core uarch) and AMD has had its turn before (athlon 64, K8 uarch) it just has to get ready for annother go to have a hold of the crown.


until the other wins....


....not sure about what I said above because in tennis one person wins at the end so i guess it wasn't a very good metaphor was it?.... :lol: 
November 12, 2006 11:47:39 AM

Yes, you might be right indeed about AMD sales (maybe they should build another factory?) but the reason why Nvidia is saying this ''ATI throwing the towel'' is that they allready released their DX10 card and are allready working on new DX10 cards so they will be able provide the 8800gtx much cheaper by the time ATI releases their 1st DX10 card. Also will nvidia release a much faster card soon after ATI´s first DX10 card comes to show.

But I do hope you are right about AMD having too many demands ;)  Still they have to come with a good quad core responce.
November 12, 2006 12:12:11 PM

IMO, "fighting back" isn't as urgent as it seems. Even when Intel's NetBurst was getting pummeled by K8 Pentiums still sold well. AMD's made a name for itself, and the average consumer won't know that a Core 2 Duo performs better. Even though their spending is a bit high recently, what with acquiring ATI and building new Fabs and all, but it will definitely pay off a few years down the line. Don't forget, it wasn't until 2003 that K8 was introduced, and AMD's been around since 1969. They've survived worse.
November 12, 2006 12:48:03 PM

Quote:
IMO, "fighting back" isn't as urgent as it seems. Even when Intel's NetBurst was getting pummeled by K8 Pentiums still sold well. AMD's made a name for itself, and the average consumer won't know that a Core 2 Duo performs better. Even though their spending is a bit high recently, what with acquiring ATI and building new Fabs and all, but it will definitely pay off a few years down the line. Don't forget, it wasn't until 2003 that K8 was introduced, and AMD's been around since 1969. They've survived worse.


I pretty much agree with this. Also, things might seems worst since AMD was on top for the last 2 - 3 years till C2D come out. Seeing them taking the second sit again certainly has an influence on the preception people have of them but it might not reflect the reality. I might be wrong on this since I don't have hard numbers, it's just my feelings.
November 12, 2006 12:55:35 PM

Quote:
I'm just wondering...Nvidia allready caused heavy financial damage on AMD's company called ATI and say that ATI is throwing in the towel. >>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4891

If this is true, Intel could make it really hard for AMD on the financial course. AMD missed out on the dual core market while Intel is allready stunting with prices and showing of their quad core. Will this be the financial dead penalty for company AMD/ATI? How will they be able to fight back....Anyone got a clue? I hope my point of view is wrong...


If you know what happened to AMD when P4C came out, you will not start this thread. :wink:
November 12, 2006 12:59:24 PM

To say that ATi is 'throwing in the towel' is such a bold claim to make. AMD has said in numerous press releases that they have an interest in maintaining ATi's leadership in discrete performance graphics. On top of that, the logic that ATi is throwing in the towel because nVidia just released their first DirectX10 GPU to market before ATi is totally flawed because ATi has already designed and brought to market a DirectX10 GPU... The Xbox360's Xenos GPU. R600 will in fact be ATi's second generation of DirectX10 chips, and they wont be comming to market with an inferior product. I hate threads like this, so much speculation.
November 12, 2006 1:28:31 PM

Quote:
To say that ATi is 'throwing in the towel' is such a bold claim to make. AMD has said in numerous press releases that they have an interest in maintaining ATi's leadership in discrete performance graphics. On top of that, the logic that ATi is throwing in the towel because nVidia just released their first DirectX10 GPU to market before ATi is totally flawed because ATi has already designed and brought to market a DirectX10 GPU... The Xbox360's Xenos GPU. R600 will in fact be ATi's second generation of DirectX10 chips, and they wont be comming to market with an inferior product. I hate threads like this, so much speculation.


You could be right on that yes. The hardware is capable of it. Right now it's basically DirectX9c. They just need to patch the software to DirectX10 level shaders I guess. And indeed it's a very hard speech nvidia is producing there. I wonder if they can make their statement true. ;) 

Well, after reading all these posts I'll guess AMD doesn't have to worry afterall....I'm glad to hear this. We'll just wait and see when they will be able to strike back on Intel as for now Intel is the top of the cream atm.
It's like the song from snoop...Ups and downs round and round :D 
November 12, 2006 1:32:39 PM

Quote:
To say that ATi is 'throwing in the towel' is such a bold claim to make. AMD has said in numerous press releases that they have an interest in maintaining ATi's leadership in discrete performance graphics. On top of that, the logic that ATi is throwing in the towel because nVidia just released their first DirectX10 GPU to market before ATi is totally flawed because ATi has already designed and brought to market a DirectX10 GPU... The Xbox360's Xenos GPU. R600 will in fact be ATi's second generation of DirectX10 chips, and they wont be comming to market with an inferior product. I hate threads like this, so much speculation.



I actually think he meant "throwing in the towel" about Intel chipsets. SUposedly R600 will be the last one. ATi can still sell more chispets as AMD supply increases, people will still want ATi chipsets for Intel. There is at least one mobo due next month.
November 12, 2006 2:06:01 PM

Quote:
IMO, "fighting back" isn't as urgent as it seems. Even when Intel's NetBurst was getting pummeled by K8 Pentiums still sold well. AMD's made a name for itself, and the average consumer won't know that a Core 2 Duo performs better. Even though their spending is a bit high recently, what with acquiring ATI and building new Fabs and all, but it will definitely pay off a few years down the line. Don't forget, it wasn't until 2003 that K8 was introduced, and AMD's been around since 1969. They've survived worse.


Pummeled is what C2D is doing to K8, since the only thing that K8 wins is at memory(AKA the BS HT link). But if i remember corrently Netburst VS K8 was more of a fight, since Intel would actually win some of the test, while AMD would win most of the test. Yeah K8 is supperior to Netburst, but it was not pummeling Netburst.
November 12, 2006 2:08:00 PM

Here is a very interesting take on things.

Quote:
In July of this year Intel launched Core 2 Duo and then it backed this superb dual-core processor up with the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 in November. In a matter of months gamers switched from AMD to Intel. However, they had a problem, as LGA775 motherboards used either an Intel or ATI chipset, and therefore could not support nVidia graphics cards in SLI. When AMD bought ATI it put the kibosh on the ATI-Intel relationship, reducing the options still further.

Hardcore gamers could run a Core 2 Duo on an Intel 975X motherboard provided they were content to use Radeon X1950 XTX graphics, but that also changed this week when nVidia launched its GeForce 8800 GTS and GTX. These stunning new graphics cards have moved the goalposts so far, that anyone building a gaming PC would be desperate to combine a Core 2 Duo and GeForce 8800, which means that they also want an nForce 680 SLI motherboard which leaves AMD and ATI in the lurch.

If you follow that line of thinking then AMD is going to sink without trace, although the ATI R600 graphics chip may change part of that picture early next year.

Except that it’s all nonsense.

The sort of gamer who moves from Athlon 64 X2 to Core Duo and has the £400 or £500 for a GeForce 8800 is a tiny percentage of the PC market. One in a thousand perhaps, or maybe one in ten thousand.

There’s no doubt that Intel has reclaimed the high-end of the PC market and it will likely turn the tide in the server market, which means that AMD has no choice apart from going mainstream. That means a PC with acceptable performance, integrated graphics and a low price, which is territory that has been dominated by Intel with its Celeron and ludicrously named Extreme graphics.

AMD hopes to be saved by some fortuitous timing - Windows Vista is about to hit the streets. The Premium version with the 3D Aero interface puts a heavy demand on your graphics and AMD thinks that it has the edge on Intel in this department. There’s no problem getting ATI graphics to run Aero but Intel has all of its money backing a single horse in the shape of the 965G chipset. Not the Q965, which uses the feeble GMA 3000 graphics core (an update of GMA 950) but the G965 which uses the all-new GMA X3000 core. Make no mistake about it, GMA X3000 will run Windows Vista but AMD is betting that the punters will see the difference when they run Vista in its graphics.

Where will you buy a PC with AMD/ATI silicon? Well, the channel is complaining that it can’t get AMD processors because AMD is shipping everything that it can make to Dell, AMD’s new best friend. Dell has reason to be hacked off with Intel after the fiasco of Pentium 4 and it was none too pleased that Intel decided to jump into bed with Apple.

So let’s recap.

Earlier this year most budget PCs were powered by Intel while AMD ruled the world of gaming but in 2007 AMD expects that Windows Vista will turn that situation on its head thanks to the power of its integrated graphics.

On paper that argument makes perfect sense but ask yourself this. Based on your personal experience of what people will put up with - think CRT monitors flickering at 60Hz, overhead lights reflecting on the screen like crazy and a screen that is full of toolbars and other Spyware infested junk – do you really think that the punters will notice that Aero isn’t quite as slick as it ought to be? I have a horrible feeling that AMD is putting far too much faith in the buying public.

I also have a horrible feeling AMD is putting too much faith in Vista and the power of their IGP - if Intel embraces Nvidia's IGP solution even that advantage will disappear.
November 12, 2006 2:25:36 PM

Quote:
I also have a horrible feeling AMD is putting too much faith in Vista and the power of their IGP - if Intel embraces Nvidia's IGP solution even that advantage will disappear.


Everythng is always dramatic when comparing AMD/Intel. Intel has two choices, go with their own lower perf IGPs or adopt nVidia or ATi. If they do the first the experience for Vista may not be so thrilling ( Imean Intel has been creating Extreme Graphics for years that always sucked worse than the specs) which will push OEMs to AMD/ATi.

If they go with nVidia, they can't sell their own chipsets - unless they make a deal to integrate the IGP into 975/965.

As a marketing tool for selling IGPs, saying the other guy's sucks and being right is good.
November 12, 2006 2:28:34 PM

Quote:
And ATI has an awnser to the 8 series nV card coming up in like 4 to 5 months supposably.


That's an eternity in the graphics business. Has ATI traditionally been this late in announcing a competing product?

Quote:
Right now [AMD] cant keep up with demand, so how bad can it be?


It would seem to defy common sense that a company can be in trouble yet see consumer demand outpacing supply. But in the chip business that's exactly what has set Intel apart. You can certainly design the highest performing, hardest-to-manufacture CPU of the time. But when you can't get any yields because the fabs are hopelessly behind, that's going to adversely affect your return on investment. That's why so many others in the past have left the chip business. There's a fine line in design complexity which ultimately revolves around available process technology.
November 12, 2006 2:37:59 PM

Quote:
Pummeled is what C2D is doing to K8, since the only thing that K8 wins is at memory(AKA the BS HT link). But if i remember corrently Netburst VS K8 was more of a fight, since Intel would actually win some of the test, while AMD would win most of the test. Yeah K8 is supperior to Netburst, but it was not pummeling Netburst.


I think pummeling means having a 2.2GHz X2 beating a 3.2GHz PD. CHeck any benches. Core 2 is only 3-400MHz better than X2, meaning that a 2.8GHz X2 is needed to beat a 2.4GHz Core 2.
November 12, 2006 2:52:41 PM

That's a moot point when after three years you're still topping out at 2.8GHz and they reach 2.93 with the very first release. There is no such thing as a 2.8GHz X2 anyway.
November 12, 2006 3:00:06 PM

AMD and ATI are pretty strong... despite them not being on top of the game. AMD, compared to Intel, have been rather stable in the face of C2D, acting accordingly by making the right decisions and proceeding with their own roadmap. Of course, AMD has had its hiccups, but I think compared to Intel's staff layoff hiccup, I can be sure that AMD doesn't have much to worry about. As long as they can sell lots of their processors whilst providing decent performance for the punters, AMD will make enough money to allow them to bring a new performance-crown holder into the midst. Plus, with ATI, they cannot afford to stop the Radeon range, doing so would destroy them and drag AMD down with them. ATI, with all the extra funds from the merger, will use that money to expand their capabilities, by producing better IGPs and chipsets to provide AMD with the platform they need in order to compete with Intel. As long as AMD/ATI can provide not only decent processors and graphics card, but also a decent platform, then Intel will also have to work harder in order to keep up. All in all, there's nothing going wrong, it's all just healthy competition between two companies.
November 12, 2006 3:01:37 PM

Quote:
There is no such thing as a 2.8GHz X2 anyway.
The FX62 does come clocked at 2.8GHz, does it not? Or do you mean the X2 line of CPUs? :?

Either way, AMD will bounce back eventually; Intel has been lazy for the last 3 years and now they're back up and moving, bring some excellent new products and serious competition for AMD.
November 12, 2006 3:13:43 PM

I meant the X2 line of CPUs.
November 12, 2006 4:32:04 PM

AMD has a significant advantage over Intel when it comes to marketing and nomenclature.

The AMD quad is known as:

4x4

Quadfather

etc...

The Intel Quad is known as:

Core 2 Extreme. Ya. So is an Intel Dual. So what's the difference? Couldn't they have come up with another name for the damn thing? No, let's come up with a first-in-market breakthrough and name it so nobody knows that it's there.

DUH!

Dear Intel. My marketing resume is in the mail. Signing bonus: One million US Dollars and a few dozen QX6700s OCd to 5GHz!

:lol: 
November 12, 2006 5:07:04 PM

If you are an enthusiast or in the business of SMP, you'll know what quad-core means no matter what it's called. If you aren't, then you shouldn't be purchasing either Kentsfield or 4x4, should you? :) 

AMD is marketing as if it has the upper hand on the release of 4x4. It is a good platform, and certainly AMD in the future could have the better performing system, but right now that's simply not the case because they lack the processors to go with it.
November 12, 2006 6:11:23 PM

Quote:
If you are an enthusiast or in the business of SMP, you'll know what quad-core means no matter what it's called. If you aren't, then you shouldn't be purchasing either Kentsfield or 4x4, should you? :) 


Well, by that logic, GM should call its Corvette the Aveo since anyone with the bucks to buy it will know the difference. That runs counter to every basic marketing tenet taught in the first week of college!

:lol: 
November 12, 2006 6:16:16 PM

Quote:
If you are an enthusiast or in the business of SMP, you'll know what quad-core means no matter what it's called. If you aren't, then you shouldn't be purchasing either Kentsfield or 4x4, should you? :) 

AMD is marketing as if it has the upper hand on the release of 4x4. It is a good platform, and certainly AMD in the future could have the better performing system, but right now that's simply not the case because they lack the processors to go with it.

Well, from what I've heard, Barcelona is going to be similar to what Intel did to Core to Core 2, an incrimental increase. It's going to increase performance a bit, sharpening AMD's competative edge so to speak. Here is the source.

EDIT: Extraneous tag removed
November 12, 2006 6:35:37 PM

Quote:

Well, from what I've heard, Barcelona is going to be similar to what Intel did to Core to Core 2, an incrimental increase. It's going to increase performance a bit,


I dunno, dude. Core 2 is one hell of an incremental increase. That's a damn rocketship. :lol: 
November 12, 2006 6:41:49 PM

Quote:
AMD has always been the underdog since day 1. They are just fine. You dont have to be on top to be successful. As long as your selling product, thats business. Right now they cant keep up with demand, so how bad can it be?


That's, probably, one of the best statements of yours, up until now.
I do agree: AMD/ATi doesn't have (and won't, most probably, for a very long time) to be number one in order to be highly successful; after all, they've got more potential now, in all fronts, than they haver had before. And, AMD does have some very interesting solutions coming out, in the near-term to mid-term; actually, AMD has two options which it can drive simultaneously:

1. Product/Platform differentiation: They've set some standards (either using licensed technology, either developing upon existing process and, of course, doing its own in close cooperation with IBM); HTX & IMC are two good examples. Different approaches to computing platforms, might be a very interesting strategy and, it might widen AMD's platform leveraging, on what concerns more specific market niches;

2. HPC competition: With ATi & IBM, AMD has the potential to bring up leveraged platforms, as said, in all computing areas & with highly performant alternatives; that's, actually, an area where Intel has full dominace (future proof, in my opinion) but where AMD will have a strong word to say; AMD is late in almost all respects and, so far, hasn't shown any process potential to menace its main competitor; price-wise, the competition doesn't look that good, as well; then again, there's no third chip manufacturing company which could menace the two top giants. So, realistically, being second to Intel is nothing to worry about, as long as AMD can deliver.

Now, one of the biggest problems AMD is facing, right now, is it's chip short supply to retaillers; I have no reason to doubt of their scrupulous supply to OEMs (they've got to comply with compromises...) but, that means trouble: It'll leave AMD in a very far 2nd place from Intel; and, the later will try to take advantage of whatever AMD leaves behind, like timing, for instance. Of that, I am sure.

My opinion.


Cheers!
November 12, 2006 7:11:13 PM

Quote:
AMD has a significant advantage over Intel when it comes to marketing and nomenclature.

The AMD quad is known as:

4x4

Quadfather

etc...

The Intel Quad is known as:

Core 2 Extreme. Ya. So is an Intel Dual. So what's the difference? Couldn't they have come up with another name for the damn thing? No, let's come up with a first-in-market breakthrough and name it so nobody knows that it's there.

DUH!

Dear Intel. My marketing resume is in the mail. Signing bonus: One million US Dollars and a few dozen QX6700s OCd to 5GHz!

:lol: 


4x4 is a platform, not the chip itself. we still are waiting to see what AMD will call it's quad core (athlon 64 x4 maybe?). since 4x4 will be an enthusiast part, marketing isn't a big deal. it's overall numbers will be small, and the ones buying it will be informed users knowing exactly what they're getting.

quadfather? isn't that something the industry made up? a nickname.

true core 2 extreme for the quad isn't the greatest indication of what you're getting, but again, those shelling out $1000+ for a cpu aren't relying on the name to know what they're buying. it's the enthusiasts purchasing it and they know what they're getting without looking at the name. when quad core becomes more mainstream they're marketing makes sense with "core 2 quad".
November 12, 2006 7:11:52 PM

Quote:
I'm just wondering...Nvidia allready caused heavy financial damage on AMD's company called ATI and say that ATI is throwing in the towel. >>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4891


I think your reading the article wrong.

WHile its nice for NVIdia to say ATI threw in the towel by letting themselves be aquired, they are purposefully ignoring the fact that ATI is going to continue to compete, the only difference at this time is they are a part of AMD. Nvidia is in a tough spot, they are going to capture chipset market on Intels platforms on the one hand, but will probably see large losses on the AMD side. And competing with Intel in the chipset market isn't much fun.

Where discrete cards are concerned combining with AMD may give ATI access to better technology for their cards. If AMD can wither cause faster die shrinks for ATI or give them access to technology necissary to design better cards then Nvidia is again going to be in trouble.

The article is Nvidia putting a brave face on what could be a huge challenge for them. It is unlikely that ATI will compete any less than before, and is somewhat likely that the competiition will actually be tougher. Executives at Nvidia need ot put a bold face forward if only to reassure investors that they don't need ot dump their Nvidia stock. The statements mean very little (forward looking statements can basically be anything you make up that is reasonably possible).
November 12, 2006 7:43:40 PM

Quote:
If you are an enthusiast or in the business of SMP, you'll know what quad-core means no matter what it's called. If you aren't, then you shouldn't be purchasing either Kentsfield or 4x4, should you? :) 

AMD is marketing as if it has the upper hand on the release of 4x4. It is a good platform, and certainly AMD in the future could have the better performing system, but right now that's simply not the case because they lack the processors to go with it.

Well, from what I've heard, Barcelona is going to be similar to what Intel did to Core to Core 2, an incrimental increase. It's going to increase performance a bit, sharpening AMD's competative edge so to speak. Here is the source.

EDIT: Extraneous tag removed
While Core 2 Duo shares some similarities with Core Duo, the C2D is actually a completely new architecture, and as such, cannot be called an 'incremental upgrade'. Also keep in mind that the Core Duo name was used exclusively for Mobile CPUs.
November 12, 2006 9:35:35 PM

Quote:
I'm just wondering...Nvidia allready caused heavy financial damage on AMD's company called ATI and say that ATI is throwing in the towel. >>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4891


I think your reading the article wrong.

WHile its nice for NVIdia to say ATI threw in the towel by letting themselves be aquired, they are purposefully ignoring the fact that ATI is going to continue to compete, the only difference at this time is they are a part of AMD. Nvidia is in a tough spot, they are going to capture chipset market on Intels platforms on the one hand, but will probably see large losses on the AMD side. And competing with Intel in the chipset market isn't much fun.

Where discrete cards are concerned combining with AMD may give ATI access to better technology for their cards. If AMD can wither cause faster die shrinks for ATI or give them access to technology necissary to design better cards then Nvidia is again going to be in trouble.

The article is Nvidia putting a brave face on what could be a huge challenge for them. It is unlikely that ATI will compete any less than before, and is somewhat likely that the competiition will actually be tougher. Executives at Nvidia need ot put a bold face forward if only to reassure investors that they don't need ot dump their Nvidia stock. The statements mean very little (forward looking statements can basically be anything you make up that is reasonably possible).

Well, I was not reading it wrong and I agree on most with that your writing but....also it's widely understood that Nvidia over the past few years was the best performer on the graphics market. The real benchmark test proof that readers knew what they are buying....Nvidia cards mostly.
The thing is that this for sure has cost ATI a huge amount of incomming money. Maybe this is why Nvidia is trying to convince their clients that ATI will not be a real contender anymore in this war. Like you were telling it could be indeed a strategy game they are playing with ATI (If I understood you rightly that is). But then again...don't underestimate Nvidia as in 2008 they will also aim to launch their own CPU's. I'm looking forward to that time. Also Intel is working on cpu's that will fight spyware/malware and viruses. There are just a lot of things going on in the next 2 years.....It will be a huge battle for sure.
November 12, 2006 10:29:47 PM

Quote:
Pummeled is what C2D is doing to K8, since the only thing that K8 wins is at memory(AKA the BS HT link). But if i remember corrently Netburst VS K8 was more of a fight, since Intel would actually win some of the test, while AMD would win most of the test. Yeah K8 is supperior to Netburst, but it was not pummeling Netburst.


I think pummeling means having a 2.2GHz X2 beating a 3.2GHz PD. CHeck any benches. Core 2 is only 3-400MHz better than X2, meaning that a 2.8GHz X2 is needed to beat a 2.4GHz Core 2.

More Baron AMD BS as always. Show me a review where a 2.8GHz FX62 beats a 2.4GHz E6600. :roll:

Face it - Intel beats AMD in every benchmark bar synthetic memory bandwith tests, which relate in no way to real world performance.
November 12, 2006 11:34:22 PM

Quote:
To say that ATi is 'throwing in the towel' is such a bold claim to make. AMD has said in numerous press releases that they have an interest in maintaining ATi's leadership in discrete performance graphics. On top of that, the logic that ATi is throwing in the towel because nVidia just released their first DirectX10 GPU to market before ATi is totally flawed because ATi has already designed and brought to market a DirectX10 GPU... The Xbox360's Xenos GPU. R600 will in fact be ATi's second generation of DirectX10 chips, and they wont be comming to market with an inferior product. I hate threads like this, so much speculation.



I actually think he meant "throwing in the towel" about Intel chipsets. SUposedly R600 will be the last one. ATi can still sell more chispets as AMD supply increases, people will still want ATi chipsets for Intel. There is at least one mobo due next month.

Before you open your month, you want to back thinks up with data and facts. You are such an idiot!
November 13, 2006 12:26:21 AM

Quote:
While Core 2 Duo shares some similarities with Core Duo, the C2D is actually a completely new architecture, and as such, cannot be called an 'incremental upgrade'. Also keep in mind that the Core Duo name was used exclusively for Mobile CPUs.


Right, and with C2D the performance per clock increased maybe 25% over CD while the maximum stock frequency went up nearly 40%. You multiply those two to get the actual performance increase, which no longer looks incremental at a staggering 60%+.

Barcelona and K8 are both 3-issue designs with similar pipeline complexity. I find it extremely unlikely that we'll see a ~40% increase in clock efficiency, and based on the design I think it would be just as hard as the K8 to clock ramp, meaning AMD is left to how much they can refine their process.

Quote:
I think pummeling means having a 2.2GHz X2 beating a 3.2GHz PD. CHeck any benches. Core 2 is only 3-400MHz better than X2, meaning that a 2.8GHz X2 is needed to beat a 2.4GHz Core 2.


Big oversight in the analogy: The Pentium4 is also clocked higher, so the P4 unfortunately didn't quite get "pummeled" by A64. At the end of the P4 line is a 3.73GHz dual-core part, and we saw a nice portion of benchmarks (around 1/3??) where it edged out a 2.8GHz A64 part. That's something I was surprised by and attests to the extremity of Intel's refinements on an inferior design.

With the C2D, a 2.8GHz A64 doesn't exactly keep up with a mainstream 2.4GHz part. The problem is that the C2D doesn't just max out at 2.5GHz stock or hit an overclocking wall at 2.8GHz. If it did, then the situation would resemble A64 versus P4.

Quote:
Well, by that logic, GM should call its Corvette the Aveo since anyone with the bucks to buy it will know the difference. That runs counter to every basic marketing tenet taught in the first week of college!


That is a nice rebuttal, but you do buy a Corvette not only for decent performance but to show around. :)  Otherwise your $100k car still loses embarassingly to some heavily modified beat-up Nissan worth barely $10k. The point is at the end of the day you still look much more graceful than the faster-running neighborhood tweak.

The real analogy is buying a Dell XPS700 with flame casing - perhaps Dell could name it better - and there are in fact quite a few videos on Youtube with customers bragging about their new XPS systems. But who's going to brag about the tangle of wires and possibly water tubing that is the Quadfather or 4x4? When it doesn't even beat a stock Kentsfield?
a c 100 à CPUs
November 13, 2006 3:08:04 AM

Pentium D -> Core 2 is a huge increase, but if you look at the notebooks with Core Duos and then Core 2 Duos, the Core 2 models are a little faster, but not by much. Netburst had just been pushed too far on the desktop and kept too long by Intel- that's why when they came out with a modern chip that it looked so much better.

I am frankly surprised that upon seeing Prescott not perform up to what they thought it should, Intel did not release the Pentium M Dothan on the desktop. And then Core Duo. If you look at those chips, it's a nice gradual increase from PIII Tualatin -> P-M Banias -> P-M Dothan -> Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo. The P4 Williamette was no better than the PIII Tualatin it replaced. Only the Northwoods were really competitive against the P6-line chips and the AMD Athlon K7. But the Northwood really tapped out the speed increase that Intel could mine from Netburst and thus Intel had only a 400 MHz speed increase on (basically) the same arch from early 2004 to the middle of this year. Thus their performance didn't change all that much. Couple that with AMD pushing performance up with the Athlon 64 and that made the NetBurst look really bad.

But I'm not Craig Barrett, so I guess it wasn't in my hands :D 
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2006 4:19:23 AM

Quote:
And ATI has an awnser to the 8 series nV card coming up in like 4 to 5 months supposably.


That's an eternity in the graphics business. Has ATI traditionally been this late in announcing a competing product?

Quote:
Right now [AMD] cant keep up with demand, so how bad can it be?


It would seem to defy common sense that a company can be in trouble yet see consumer demand outpacing supply. But in the chip business that's exactly what has set Intel apart. You can certainly design the highest performing, hardest-to-manufacture CPU of the time. But when you can't get any yields because the fabs are hopelessly behind, that's going to adversely affect your return on investment. That's why so many others in the past have left the chip business. There's a fine line in design complexity which ultimately revolves around available process technology.

Try January...

R600 is and will be the most powerful graphics processor in the world. It is more powerful then nVIDIA's pathetic attempt with G80. If that's truly all nVIDIA can muster then they might as well throw in the towel.

As for the Intel vs AMD debate... I haven't posted on THG in a while because it got old..lol.
November 13, 2006 8:16:55 AM

Quote:
That is a nice rebuttal, but you do buy a Corvette not only for decent performance but to show around. :)  Otherwise your $100k car still loses embarassingly to some heavily modified beat-up Nissan worth barely $10k.


I dunno about that expensive swoopy Viper-like thing that passes by the name Corvette, but my $6,000 '69 427 box stock out of the dealership would likely still chew up anything made in Japan in the quarter mile! :D 

If only I hadn't lost it in my first divorce and it ended up being sold to some whacked out 17 y.o. who wrapped it around a post....

:cry: 

As for what AMD's gonna finally call the 4X4, (and yes, I'm aware it's just two FX chips side by side) whatever the heck it is it will definitely have the number 4 in it! Calling a Quad a 2 is just plain dumb (especially since it has the exact same name as a particular dual). To bring back the sportscar analogy, it's like calling a V-8 a 4! What was the problem? Was Core 4 taken at the copyright office? DUH! Or better yet, what about coming up with another name. The vast majority of people out there never heard of the first iteration of Core, so who cares if it's a Core 2? Intel should have heeded these suggestions:

FXquasher
AMDestroyer
Athlonburner
AMWho?

or if you really wanna get punny...

Igentbuy

:lol: 
November 13, 2006 8:45:20 AM

Actually, it's just called Core 2 Quadro.
November 13, 2006 6:13:40 PM

Quote:
Try January...

R600 is and will be the most powerful graphics processor in the world. It is more powerful then nVIDIA's pathetic attempt with G80. If that's truly all nVIDIA can muster then they might as well throw in the towel.

As for the Intel vs AMD debate... I haven't posted on THG in a while because it got old..lol.


Preposterous, to say the least.
To state that the G80 is a «pathetic attempt» is pathetic, at best; but, saying that the «R600 is and will be the most powerful graphics processor in the world.» is something else, usually backed up by benchmarked comparisons. Where are they?

I believe 'ageing' is not an issue in this forum; rather, the lack of humility of some who prefer to claim that 'x is better than y', without going through any background support for their claims, is an attitude which grows old inside of some.
Excuse my words; I beg to differ.

Facts: Intel & nVidia have already delivered.


Cheers!
November 13, 2006 8:10:21 PM

Quote:
Actually, it's just called Core 2 Quadro.


That's what I thought too, but I have yet to see any marketing or packaging materials with the Quadro name on it. Has anyone actually seen it anywhere?
November 13, 2006 8:33:06 PM

Quote:


Facts: Intel & nVidia have already delivered.


Cheers!


This is a key point.... all we keep hearing from AMD is demo this, on track for that, new roadmaps, wishy-washy dates.... all AMD has really delivered this year is a socket change, a few speed bumps, and some down clocked/under volted CPUs nobody can buy.

:) 

Frustrating, indeed, from an outsider's point-of-view... but true. :wink:


Cheers!
November 13, 2006 8:41:00 PM

Quote:
Actually, it's just called Core 2 Quadro.


That's what I thought too, but I have yet to see any marketing or packaging materials with the Quadro name on it. Has anyone actually seen it anywhere?
I think it will be Quadro when non-"Extreme" versions are released - right now the Q will have to suffice.
November 13, 2006 8:49:53 PM

Quote:
While Core 2 Duo shares some similarities with Core Duo, the C2D is actually a completely new architecture, and as such, cannot be called an 'incremental upgrade'. Also keep in mind that the Core Duo name was used exclusively for Mobile CPUs.


Right, and with C2D the performance per clock increased maybe 25% over CD while the maximum stock frequency went up nearly 40%. You multiply those two to get the actual performance increase, which no longer looks incremental at a staggering 60%+.

Barcelona and K8 are both 3-issue designs with similar pipeline complexity. I find it extremely unlikely that we'll see a ~40% increase in clock efficiency, and based on the design I think it would be just as hard as the K8 to clock ramp, meaning AMD is left to how much they can refine their process.
Well, fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter so long as there continues to be a price war. I like cheap stuff! Do you?

Thought so. Even if they extract 20-30% more performance from the original K8 architecture, the move to 65nm will help sharpen AMDs blades to put them back in the league, using increased clock speeds. This helps perpetuate the price war and helps keep us consumers from getting ripped off. Remember how much an X2 3800+ was pre-pricewar? 300 dollars or so? How much is it now? 150? Sounds good to me!
November 13, 2006 11:52:13 PM

Quote:
edited due to image not diong what it was told



ha ha!!! take that ya...dumb......(realizing everyone is staring at someone who is yelling at his pc.) :oops: 


:lol: 

(And the picture still looks tiny & illegible at the hosting site...) :lol: 


Cheers!
November 14, 2006 12:36:40 AM

Quote:
(smoke rolling ou of verndewd's ears)AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHH!"ouch! i think i blew a capacitor" 8O

well maybe someone else will do it right :evil: 

any way i didnt see r600 as bieng dx10,that was the 790,in fact the whole 600 line is listed in that roadmap as bieng dx9. :?

kind of curious,since were not past 500.This g80 may be a burr like comroe was to am2.whats with the friggen milk it for what its worth idea at AMD?

http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4477

linkage(stupid photo)



790 is the next card(discrete) and the 600 series is looking like chipsets,you see 580 listed in crossfire then its 790 ,740 is dx9 and that would do for IGP but it would be a joke as a new release 4 discrete.


:lol: 

Worry not; ATi (or is it AMD?!) will have their DX10 as well; what I seem to miss is the R600 & R790 discretes (the picture is all about chipsets & IGPs...).


Cheers!
November 14, 2006 12:44:06 AM

Quote:
I think it will be Quadro when non-"Extreme" versions are released - right now the Q will have to suffice.

It's not Quadro. That one's already taken. :)  It's Core 2 Quad.
!