Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 65nm Product Plans Unveiled

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2006 8:42:00 PM

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4942

The 4400 and 4800 X2's are set to be released this December with a clock speed of 2.2GHz and 2.5GHz respectively.

5400+ 2.8 GHz
5200+ 2.7 GHz
5000+ 2.6 GHz
4800+ 2.5 GHz

Whats not impressive is that the the between the difference between 4800 and 5000 is only 100mhz, how is that worth your money to pay for 100mhz extra, and worst of all is that the 4800 and 5400 have difference in clock speed of only 300mhz, i mean what gives they raise the number system 600 but only clock it 300mhz. i only mention this as with there past naming scheme the clock speed was relative to the number system. I mean atleast intel's naming scheme only represents a better model with a decent increase in clock speed. This is very disappointing to me.

I'll waive this train bye and keep waiting for K8L.

UPDATED INFO BELOW


MORE UPDATED INFO

More about : amd 65nm product plans unveiled

November 14, 2006 9:07:32 PM

Quote:
I'll waive this train bye and keep waiting for K8L.


Gotta wonder what the 4400+ EE will cost... That should be a fine CPU for a HTPC or a quiet PC but I will not be surprised if it's pricey.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2006 9:30:19 PM

The naming scheme might be disappointing, but it is pretty cool to see AMD embrace the half multiplier. But yeah 100mhz isn't going to change performance a whole lot, it's gonna be funny to see the usual money gap (like between the E6600 ~300 and E6700 ~500) for a 100mhz increment!
Related resources
November 14, 2006 9:32:21 PM

Quote:
The naming scheme might be disappointing, but it is pretty cool to see AMD embrace the half multiplier. But yeah 100mhz isn't going to change performance a whole lot, it's gonna be funny to see the usual money gap (like between the E6600 ~300 and E6700 ~500) for a 100mhz increment!


That's not funny.
November 14, 2006 9:47:28 PM

AMD's rating system is completely messed up again. They must drop it with K8L .
November 14, 2006 10:19:39 PM

Quote:
I'll waive this train bye and keep waiting for K8L.


I wonder how much room is there for OC, with AMD's new 65nm process; they shouldn't disappoint IBM... :wink:


Cheers!
November 14, 2006 10:27:27 PM

UPDATE:

It seems like AMD is flooding the news channel of late especially with their release of the ATi's Desktop Chipset Roadmap

Now AMD leaked some more info on their Desktop CPUs beyond Brisbane
Too bad this doesn't show much besides what we already knew.
The processor to watch for apparently (K8L) is the Agena,. It will be a native 65nm quad core cpu on socket AM2+ which will feature HT3.0 and only DDR2 apparently, which is kind of surprising. Make sure to check out the ATi Deskptop Chipset Roadmap

Even complete with pictures!


Would have created another thread but the topics were so similiar to discussion and so close in time just might as well continue on with some updated info!
November 14, 2006 10:29:09 PM

Quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4942

The 4400 and 4800 X2's are set to be released this December with a clock speed of 2.2GHz and 2.5GHz respectively.

5400+ 2.8 GHz
5200+ 2.7 GHz
5000+ 2.6 GHz
4800+ 2.5 GHz

Whats not impressive is that the the between the difference between 4800 and 5000 is only 100mhz, how is that worth your money to pay for 100mhz extra, and worst of all is that the 4800 and 5400 have difference in clock speed of only 300mhz, i mean what gives they raise the number system 600 but only clock it 300mhz. i only mention this as with there past naming scheme the clock speed was relative to the number system. I mean atleast intel's naming scheme only represents a better model with a decent increase in clock speed. This is very disappointing to me.

I'll waive this train bye and keep waiting for K8L.


Just like they did with their Socket A products AMD is dishonestly marketing them because they're behind. The problem is some people are dumb and they think a 5400 must be better than Intel's offerings because none of the Intel CPU's are clocked at 5.4Ghz which is what some twits will think AMD's naming convention means. Why can't they just give their products appropriate numbers?
November 14, 2006 11:32:16 PM

Quote:
Wait, I thought Barcelona was the whole shebang.


Well, so did I! (And everyone else, I guess); but, Agena matches some K8L claimed specs; humm... they didn't run out of cities... but probably out of [alphanumeric] revs by now, if the Inq.'s date is worth as a reference; maybe that's why they've gone to the stars'... names, I mean! :wink:


Cheers!
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2006 12:09:44 AM

AMD no longer claims that the model numbers are based off of frequency. They haven't done that for quiet some time. The official line is that its based off of "industry standard benchmarks" with lower performing chips getting a lower rating. Feel free to prove me wrong, but me and another person went all of AMDs website, and every page claimed what I just told you. The only place you get that clock speed rumor is at review websites. (so find me a current link from AMD that claims that to be true.)
November 15, 2006 12:11:10 AM

Dailytech isn't one to lead us on the rumor train...but yeah i was wondering the samething,

Can't really say what exactly is going on, all we can really say is that its all codenames and such which in the end doesn't mean much , i mean we could call it the 2nd coming, as titled by many amd enthusiasts :wink: , but what really matter is the product name and specs right?

Maybe they changed Agena for 65nm which supports DDR2 and maybe Barcelona, will support DDR3...

I doubt thats the case but they maybe AMD just switched it up because the engineers just felt like it :roll:
November 15, 2006 12:12:38 AM

Is it just me or do others think the name vAgena sounds stupid?
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2006 1:13:52 AM

Quote:



So, is it only me or did anyone else notice the core codenamed "Rana" is neither a Dual core nor a Quad core, but rather a Duad core?!

WTF is a duad core? I just hope this isn't what AMD actually released to the general public and just some DailyTech's flunky intern mispelling!
November 15, 2006 2:33:46 AM

Quote:
AMD no longer claims that the model numbers are based off of frequency. They haven't done that for quiet some time. The official line is that its based off of "industry standard benchmarks" with lower performing chips getting a lower rating. Feel free to prove me wrong, but me and another person went all of AMDs website, and every page claimed what I just told you. The only place you get that clock speed rumor is at review websites. (so find me a current link from AMD that claims that to be true.)


Without going into great detail about this is for another topic question, let me explain

AMD awhile back claimed that they're CPUs were rated at say 2700+ when they were clocked at 2.0GHz, this was rating system to show that AMDs 2.0GHz was equivalent to Intels 2.7GHz processor, after that it became more of a rating system like you have mentioned but what i said is that when rate each of the current 90nm processors 4200, 4400, 5000 or 5200 or FX-60 FX-62, regardless of their names each processor gained a 200mhz increase in speed, which is what i would call worthy of a new processor name, so the point system went in line with the speed increase.

Now AMD seems to think that just a 100mhz increase in speed merits a 200 point increase in the naming scheme. it is very tricky in part especially when you see that the difference between a 4800 and 5400 is only 300mhz
but in the point system the difference is 600points, leading the average consumer to believe the 5400 is considerably better than the 4800 when in reality its not at all.

If you take a look at intel's E6600 vs the E6700 the clockspeed is 2.4Ghz vs 2.66GHz, thats a difference of 266mhz between 1 processor while AMD has stuffed 2 other processors in between theres

On top of all that the 5200+ 90nm cpu clocked at 2.6GHz will be faster than the 5200+ 65nm since its clocked at 2.5GHz, now besdies the minimal power savings you get this (as far as i know) will not give any boost in performance there fore leading the old 5200+ on 90nm to be FASTER than the new one...now what kind of bs is that...

Sometimes i thought intel had some shady marketing, but this is a low blow in my book and really puts me off of amd's products
November 15, 2006 3:44:27 AM

Quote:



So, is it only me or did anyone else notice the core codenamed "Rana" is neither a Dual core nor a Quad core, but rather a Duad core?!

WTF is a duad core? I just hope this isn't what AMD actually released to the general public and just some DailyTech's flunky intern mispelling!They're trying to coin new names...like they are doing with "platformance." I guess they think it makes it sound like they're innovating. :roll:
November 15, 2006 3:46:15 AM

Quote:
They're trying to coin new names...like they are doing with "platformance." I guess they think it makes it sound like they're innovating. :roll:


Don't you mean "innovulating"?
November 15, 2006 3:54:20 AM

Quote:
more like intel ovating or lame ovating.
we dont need the fluff and flutter,just give us a damn good cpu that will compete with c2d :twisted:


You never know, after flooding the market with a bajillion CPUs that vary by one KHz from each other, maybe AMD will get off the pot and hit an octacore home run.
November 15, 2006 5:20:43 AM

I have a sure fire way of finding those needles. I get my friend Arnie to sit on the haystack. The needle always ends up in his butt.
He's also great to take camping. Mosquitos love him, leave everyone else alone.
November 15, 2006 8:02:41 AM

I see it this way. The AMD PR system, say for instance an A64 3000+ was supposed to perform on par with the pentium 4 3.0 GHz. Then Intel released the Core 2 Duo processors, which has devalued AMD's naming scheme. A Core 2 Duo at 3.0 GHz would outperform an A64 X2 at the same speed, and there is no longer any parity to AMD's naming scheme, and AMD must change it to show an acurate performance rating comparison.

Kinda like the U.S. dollar, it used to be valued better against other nations dollars, but other nations economies have done better and their money, like the Euro or Pound is valued more than the U.S. dollar.
November 15, 2006 8:02:57 AM

Quote:
or maybe it was a test market name,like these codenames are on the map. what comes after agena,angina,angioplasty,antipasta? :p 
barcelona is a server chip an opteron.read the eetimes article.

http://www.channelinsider.com/article/AMD+Unveils+Barce...

i believe the map icy has provided is desktop.so barcelona wouldnt be on it.


ok... then what is amd's answer to C2D? i understand they had some foils to cover this but what is the real world answer? what is their answer to C2Q? i dont see a valid answer in the road maps to either c2d or c2q and thought the sort of answer was barfelona. but i guess i was wrong they actually dont have and answer. nice amd and thanks for the higher proc prices
the ceo released a video blurb a while back that claimed a 60% boost over this gen,he may have meant that 4x4 would give that boost.aside from that performance was on the 08 end of the map.that map is at anandtech somewhere.i guess ill have to look it up.

i suspected early on than am2 ddr2 was just an uncomfortable passage to am3 ddr3 for amd,and its looking like i was correct.Vern!!! That sounds like it came right out of BM's mouth. :o 
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2006 9:33:46 AM

Quote:
Without going into great detail about this is for another topic question, let me explain

AMD awhile back claimed that they're CPUs were rated at say 2700+ when they were clocked at 2.0GHz, this was rating system to show that AMDs 2.0GHz was equivalent to Intels 2.7GHz processor, after that it became more of a rating system like you have mentioned but what i said is that when rate each of the current 90nm processors 4200, 4400, 5000 or 5200 or FX-60 FX-62, regardless of their names each processor gained a 200mhz increase in speed, which is what i would call worthy of a new processor name, so the point system went in line with the speed increase.

You are thinking WAY TOO much about the AMD naming model naming schemes. The average Dell, HP, or Gateway pc buyer doesn't know Intel from AMD let alone the decipher their model naming. Just look at the model names for cars, like the names Jetta, Integra, or Fusion are an accurate representation of the actual product. Processor model naming schemes lost any and all meaning a long time ago, for real enthusiasts anyway...

Quote:
Sometimes i thought intel had some shady marketing, but this is a low blow in my book and really puts me off of amd's products

That's really funny! Because of this, you're put off to AMD products...hahahaha...If you choose not to qualify 50% of the processors on the market, might as well send in your Intel Fanboy membership right now...
November 15, 2006 9:42:35 AM

Quote:
AMD no longer claims that the model numbers are based off of frequency. They haven't done that for quiet some time. The official line is that its based off of "industry standard benchmarks" with lower performing chips getting a lower rating. Feel free to prove me wrong, but me and another person went all of AMDs website, and every page claimed what I just told you. The only place you get that clock speed rumor is at review websites. (so find me a current link from AMD that claims that to be true.)


I never said that AMD is claiming it now. But that's what people think of.
November 15, 2006 11:26:03 AM

Quote:
I doubt they are sticking with 512 on the whole product line. They said they were dropping the 1mb 90nm chips too several months ago, but they are back already.

They will stick at the 512kB or less L2 cache per core on the 65nm K8 node. The extra 512kB of L2 cache is replaced with +100MHz clock on the 4000+, 4400+, 4800+, 5200+ and the 5400+ X2 models. AMD must have cheap production if they want to have competetive prices on the market.
November 15, 2006 12:26:12 PM

Not to mention production capacity.
Since at the moment they're having problems supplying enough chips, also thanks to the DELL deal.
November 15, 2006 1:02:06 PM

:lol:  I'll stick with my e6600 for now
November 15, 2006 1:10:38 PM

Quote:
Without going into great detail about this is for another topic question, let me explain

AMD awhile back claimed that they're CPUs were rated at say 2700+ when they were clocked at 2.0GHz, this was rating system to show that AMDs 2.0GHz was equivalent to Intels 2.7GHz processor, after that it became more of a rating system like you have mentioned but what i said is that when rate each of the current 90nm processors 4200, 4400, 5000 or 5200 or FX-60 FX-62, regardless of their names each processor gained a 200mhz increase in speed, which is what i would call worthy of a new processor name, so the point system went in line with the speed increase.

You are thinking WAY TOO much about the AMD naming model naming schemes. The average Dell, HP, or Gateway pc buyer doesn't know Intel from AMD let alone the decipher their model naming. Just look at the model names for cars, like the names Jetta, Integra, or Fusion are an accurate representation of the actual product. Processor model naming schemes lost any and all meaning a long time ago, for real enthusiasts anyway...

Quote:
Sometimes i thought intel had some shady marketing, but this is a low blow in my book and really puts me off of amd's products

That's really funny! Because of this, you're put off to AMD products...hahahaha...If you choose not to qualify 50% of the processors on the market, might as well send in your Intel Fanboy membership right now...

You are a complete dick.

Why don't you read what other posters said in what i was replying to. All i was saying was AMDs past product naming scheme was based on a system where there processors were given numbers higher than there speed to represent how they would perform compared to an Intel processor since AMDs processors were much more efficient.

All i am saying is that AMD needs to get rid of their naming scheme as it misrepresents the performance difference between each model. Its easy to see that it could be misleading to think that the 5400 is a lot better than the 4800 but in reality its only 300mhz higher. If amd would have never practiced increase the point system with the clock speed i would have never commented but they have in the past and i not talking about enthusiasts as any enthusiasts would know the difference between any processor but about the mainstream market. When AMD does stuff like this it leads 18 yr old Best Buy employees to say if you think you need a better cpu take a look at our 5400+ X2, and the cosumer, not an enthusiasts, thinks wow that cpu must be alot better only to find out it cost 500 bucks with very little performance gain more just because there are so many processors cramped so close together.


Why don't you fill out your asshole application cause you seem to be very qualified,
all i was doing was expressing my opinion about the situation, and like i said intel's had shady marketing with the GHz war and AMD is no holy saint either like some point them out to be.

i just pointed out that it discourages me from amd products, i never said i wouldn't buy one myself if i knew the performance was better.
don't plan on getting anything new in that time span anyway, my current 4200 X2 is doing just fine..
November 15, 2006 1:15:05 PM

Did you say "Rana", coz
"RANA IS A KIND OF WEED VERY STRANGE THAT MAKES FEEL YOUR BODY LIKE YOU ARE FLYING" taken from here
Its a title used in india/pakistan
November 15, 2006 1:22:42 PM

UPDATE
AMD ATi Crossfire Xpress Chipsets Get Renamed, Again

Nothing too interesting, just the effects of AMD taking over ATi, but interesting nonetheless.

Quote:
The ATI CrossFire Xpress 1600 chipset will be renamed to AMD 480X CrossFire. This is the second time the RD480 chipset has been renamed. It was previously named Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire until ATI changed it to CrossFire Xpress 1600 to match the then newly released RD580 Radeon Xpress 3200 nomenclature. Features of the AMD 480X CrossFire remain unchanged. The chipset still supports two half-speed PCI Express x16 slots in CrossFire with a PCIe link to the SB450, SB460 or SB600 south bridges.

The enthusiast ATI RD580 CrossFire Xpress 3200 will be renamed AMD 580X CrossFire. Features of the AMD 580X CrossFire will remain the same. The chipset will continue to support two full-speed PCIe x16 slots with a PCIe link to the SB450, SB460 or SB600 south bridges.
November 15, 2006 1:39:41 PM

Quote:
The problem is some people are dumb and they think a 5400 must be better than Intel's offerings because none of the Intel CPU's are clocked at 5.4Ghz which is what some twits will think AMD's naming convention means. Why can't they just give their products appropriate numbers?


Except that the base C2D right now has a model number of 6300, so when someone that doesn't know whats better goes in and compares a 5400 system to a 6300 system they would say the 6300 is a bigger number so it must be better, even though not over clocked the 5400 would be better. Computers don't advertise actual clock speed anymore, just processor model number.
November 15, 2006 1:43:45 PM

That is kind lame because I actually like seeing CPUs advertised by their frequency
November 15, 2006 1:50:14 PM

Quote:
The problem is some people are dumb and they think a 5400 must be better than Intel's offerings because none of the Intel CPU's are clocked at 5.4Ghz which is what some twits will think AMD's naming convention means. Why can't they just give their products appropriate numbers?


Except that the base C2D right now has a model number of 6300, so when someone that doesn't know whats better goes in and compares a 5400 system to a 6300 system they would say the 6300 is a bigger number so it must be better, even though not over clocked the 5400 would be better. Computers don't advertise actual clock speed anymore, just processor model number.

There quite a difference between the complete model number which is what you have to take into account...Intel's is E6300 or E6600 while AMDs is 4800+ and 5400+, when looking at Intel's its fairly recognizable thats its a model number and not the speed, AMD is only represented by a number which would be more likely to be misinterpreted but that would be a fairly ignorant customer.
November 15, 2006 2:05:29 PM

Quote:
:lol:  I'll stick with my e6600 for now
lucky you....I am still using Venice 3200+ s939 :cry: 
November 15, 2006 2:32:37 PM

Quote:
I recall you mentioning something like this before, could you throw up a link where 2x1 Meg chips are now available?


Here is a list of all non-Opteron, AMD processors with 2x1MB of cache.
November 15, 2006 2:54:34 PM

The FX series doesn't count as they have always come with the 2mb shared L2 cache, the 4400 and 4800 are out of stock cause they are not produced anymore, the only one relevant is the 5200+ X2 which one of AMDs new 2x1mb L2 Cache cpus,

i'm gonna go on a limb here and say these are re-branded FX-60s actually once you think about it, but i'm sure someone else could shed some some light..
November 15, 2006 3:19:34 PM

Quote:
There quite a difference between the complete model number which is what you have to take into account...Intel's is E6300 or E6600 while AMDs is 4800+ and 5400+, when looking at Intel's its fairly recognizable thats its a model number and not the speed, AMD is only represented by a number which would be more likely to be misinterpreted but that would be a fairly ignorant customer.


When you include both the + and the E it doesn't really change the image much because the plus implies that the 5400 would be better than the competitions 5400 and since the numbers presented are the model number and it is a 4 digit number it follows logic that that is what is being compared.

The only way I could see that the customer would be assuming the 5400+ was implying it's clock speed would be if the AMD system was advertised as a 5400+ and the Intel was being advertised as a E6300 running at 1866 MHz. Which would be a very strange way to advertise.

With P4 model numbers it was a bit different because the models numbering was so different that you couldn't really compare one model against another with out knowing something.
November 15, 2006 4:45:03 PM

Quote:
Vern!!! That sounds like it came right out of BM's mouth. :o 


gee tank 8O 8O ya think :?: i hate it when people are right about stuff like that.

ya couldnt leave well enough alone could you?ya had to go and spoil my fun with some uncomfortable facts.

i thought we were buddies ,pals ;not real friends just the kind of friends that would lie to ya and say stuff like "oh yeah youre right",while running the other direction, to avoid guilt by association.

ya had tuh be real.

happy now?calling me verndewd matrix and all?LMAO :lol:  :lol: 
thanks for the heads up tank,ill keep that in mind. :wink: god knows we dont need another baron. :roll:Sowwy. :oops:  hehehe :p 
November 15, 2006 4:59:28 PM

What gains are you talkin about?
At best, there will be a small gain in clock speed... that's all.
November 15, 2006 5:06:01 PM

Quote:
believe me id rather get a heads up than none,there is some truth in any joke.kind of a friendly red flag next to the edge of reality.
I'm just razzin' ya. Everyone does this from time to time, one does it quite frequently to try and inflate his ego. :wink:
November 15, 2006 5:15:32 PM

65nm products for socket 939? it's possible this?
a c 105 à CPUs
November 15, 2006 5:42:45 PM

Quote:
The FX series doesn't count as they have always come with the 2mb shared L2 cache, the 4400 and 4800 are out of stock cause they are not produced anymore, the only one relevant is the 5200+ X2 which one of AMDs new 2x1mb L2 Cache cpus,

i'm gonna go on a limb here and say these are re-branded FX-60s actually once you think about it, but i'm sure someone else could shed some some light..


Nope, the 5200s cannot be rebranded FX-60s as the FX-60 is a socket 939 chip with a DDR memory controller etched on the die and the 5200+ is a socket AM2 CPU with a DDR2 memory controller etched on the die. The two are physically different in too many ways to be rebranded- rebranding the FX-60 as a 5200+ would require changing the pinout on the chip (probably doable to some extent) and changing the memory controller (would require an external MC- not very possible.)

Oh, and the 2MB L2 is *not* shared. There are two completely distinct 1MB banks of L2, one for each processor. AMD has not made any CPUs with shared L2 caches and it is likely that they will not do so. The L2s will remain relatively small and dedicated to one CPU and there will be a shared L3 cache accessible by all 4 cores on their 4-core CPUs. However the L3 will not be used quite in the same manner as Intel uses their L2 caches; L3 is generally used as a buffer between the core and the memory interface rather than an inter-core communications bus of sorts.

Epsilon: Socket 939 is a dead socket, no new parts for it. Yeah, I feel for you, though as I have a nice 939 setup too..
a c 105 à CPUs
November 15, 2006 5:47:40 PM

If that's the case, they should be called Jackies for obvious reasons...
November 15, 2006 7:31:15 PM

Quote:
The FX series doesn't count as they have always come with the 2mb shared L2 cache, the 4400 and 4800 are out of stock cause they are not produced anymore, the only one relevant is the 5200+ X2 which one of AMDs new 2x1mb L2 Cache cpus,

i'm gonna go on a limb here and say these are re-branded FX-60s actually once you think about it, but i'm sure someone else could shed some some light..


Nope, the 5200s cannot be rebranded FX-60s as the FX-60 is a socket 939 chip with a DDR memory controller etched on the die and the 5200+ is a socket AM2 CPU with a DDR2 memory controller etched on the die. The two are physically different in too many ways to be rebranded- rebranding the FX-60 as a 5200+ would require changing the pinout on the chip (probably doable to some extent) and changing the memory controller (would require an external MC- not very possible.)

Oh, and the 2MB L2 is *not* shared. There are two completely distinct 1MB banks of L2, one for each processor. AMD has not made any CPUs with shared L2 caches and it is likely that they will not do so. The L2s will remain relatively small and dedicated to one CPU and there will be a shared L3 cache accessible by all 4 cores on their 4-core CPUs. However the L3 will not be used quite in the same manner as Intel uses their L2 caches; L3 is generally used as a buffer between the core and the memory interface rather than an inter-core communications bus of sorts.

Epsilon: Socket 939 is a dead socket, no new parts for it. Yeah, I feel for you, though as I have a nice 939 setup too..

Yeah thanks for the refreshing. i kind of went blank when thinking about it not even paying attention to the different sockets, completely forget the FX-60 was 939 and FX-62 was AM2, but thanks for the explanation.

I guess my real question or reason for even saying that is AMD seems to be taken different cpus in different directions. While they completely discontinued the non-FX 2x1MB chips earlier in the year only to bring back another one later, what is there plan here?
November 15, 2006 8:24:24 PM

if this the way AMD is going, i am waiting till the cpu's codenamed after galaxies.
November 15, 2006 8:54:19 PM

Man lots of good info here definately is a wait and see market as Direct x10 is also just rolling out coupled with the new CPU's from AMD we may have a green light Go on an up-grade!!!
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2006 8:58:33 PM

Quote:
You are a complete dick.


Nice reaction. A little touchy, I see? It's a shame you gotta be that way, so with that said, you blow your boyfriend with that mouth? If I'm a dick, then you're an a$$...now bend over and let push those hemorrhoids back in...

I knew exactly what you were getting at with the AMD model naming schemes. And I, like you, am just voicing my opinion that the thought of discounting a product because of a company's naming strategy is just...well, fvcking stoopid...and, that only an idiot fanboy would do such a thing.
November 15, 2006 9:14:52 PM

Quote:
You are a complete dick.


Nice reaction. A little touchy, I see? It's a shame you gotta be that way, so with that said, you blow your boyfriend with that mouth? If I'm a dick, then you're an a$$...now bend over and let push those hemorrhoids back in...

I knew exactly what you were getting at with the AMD model naming schemes. And I, like you, am just voicing my opinion that the thought of discounting a product because of a company's naming strategy is just...well, ******* stoopid...and, that only an idiot fanboy would do such a thing.

I never said that AMD should discontinue there product, where did i say that? i said that AMD should get a new product name, and ditch the vastly outdated misleading point system that they have. I mean they've got new products coming out why not refresh the product line with a new name! Hell they've changed ATi's Chipset names so many times you could lose track.

And unlike you i was voicing my opinion, you on the otherhand turned it into a bs post by having to say "fanboy this fanboy that haha" if you would keep the stupid remarks to yourself and post your actual opinion i would never have said anything and just replied with my opinion but you resort to having to say some shit comment which no one here appreciates.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2006 11:28:27 PM

Quote:
am just voicing my opinion that the thought of discounting a product because of a company's naming strategy is just...


I never said that AMD should discontinue there product, where did i say that?

Your righteous indignation touches my heart. But, you should learn to read and comprehend before getting all high and mighty. You are correct, you did not say that AMD should discontinue their product, because of the naming convention...I said that it is stoopid to DISCOUNT a product because of how a company names their products.

For the definition of the word "discount", click here. But just in case you can't understand the context I used it in, let me help you...
Quote:
To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; bar from attention or consideration


Think before you put fingers to the kb...
November 15, 2006 11:35:22 PM

The Forumz has become a bit harsh in my absence. Where is the love?
November 15, 2006 11:37:14 PM

Quote:
The Forumz has become a bit harsh in my absence. Where is the love?


I think Dell bought it all. :wink:
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!