Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel... You'd have to be nuts to think AMD can catch us

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 14, 2006 11:08:40 PM

Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

Senior execs touted Intel's lead in manuf process and declared that their newly christened "tick-tock" product schedule will keep the not-so fledgling competitor at bay and win back some of the share lost to the Green Team.

Linkage!

More about : intel nuts amd catch

December 14, 2006 11:24:23 PM

"I was very pleased to read that a number of analysts have downgraded AMD," Gelsinger said.
:twisted:
More specifically, he is doubting AMD's ability to catch up at least on nanometers. I would agree, we're hearing an awful lot of talk from them about 45nm when they haven't even had 65nm available.
December 14, 2006 11:28:20 PM

Intel needs to not flood the chip market, yet produce enough that AMD chips aren't needed to supplement demand that is not being met.

It will be a difficult balancing act.
Related resources
December 14, 2006 11:33:14 PM

Quote:
Intel needs to not flood the chip market, yet produce enough that AMD chips aren't needed to supplement demand that is not being met.

It will be a difficult balancing act.


looks like someones changing their tune since the last thread :roll:
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2006 11:35:46 PM

Quote:
Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

Senior execs touted Intel's lead in manuf process and declared that their newly christened "tick-tock" product schedule will keep the not-so fledgling competitor at bay and win back some of the share lost to the Green Team.

Linkage!


lol meanwhile ATi, recently acquired by AMD has lost what, 20% of its share?

WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

hahahahaha
December 14, 2006 11:48:11 PM

Quote:
Intel needs to not flood the chip market, yet produce enough that AMD chips aren't needed to supplement demand that is not being met.

It will be a difficult balancing act.


looks like someones changing their tune since the last thread :roll:

Your ignorance is only second to your poor reading comprehension.
December 14, 2006 11:54:50 PM

Quote:
Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

Senior execs touted Intel's lead in manuf process and declared that their newly christened "tick-tock" product schedule will keep the not-so fledgling competitor at bay and win back some of the share lost to the Green Team.

Linkage!


lol meanwhile ATi, recently acquired by AMD has lost what, 20% of its share?

WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

hahahahaha


I guess that felt good, huhn?
:oops: 
December 14, 2006 11:58:16 PM

Quote:
Intel needs to not flood the chip market, yet produce enough that AMD chips aren't needed to supplement demand that is not being met.

It will be a difficult balancing act.


looks like someones changing their tune since the last thread :roll:

Your ignorance is only second to your poor reading comprehension.

Oh boy...
December 14, 2006 11:59:58 PM

But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?
December 15, 2006 12:00:20 AM

Four years from now history will be taught as:

ATI bought AMD then got rid of the AMD cpu division to concentrate on making Graphic processors.
December 15, 2006 12:18:55 AM

Quote:
Your ignorance is only second to your poor reading comprehension.

or second to those 1337 economic skills of yours.

Quote:
Four years from now history will be taught as:

ATI bought AMD then got rid of the AMD cpu division to concentrate on making Graphic processors.

followed by huge price hikes in the latest intel lineup. the industry creeps to standstill as Intel cant figure out which direction to turn next because its competitors arent there to point them in the right direction.

$2000 10Ghz CPU's with 32 Cores that are all fighting over the same thread. That is if they dont completely shoot themselves in the foot by flooding the market with CPU's and annihilating themselves in the process.
December 15, 2006 12:48:01 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?

wes
December 15, 2006 12:54:36 AM

Quote:

followed by huge price hikes in the latest intel lineup. the industry creeps to standstill as Intel cant figure out which direction to turn next because its competitors arent there to point them in the right direction.

$2000 10Ghz CPU's with 32 Cores that are all fighting over the same thread. That is if they dont completely shoot themselves in the foot by flooding the market with CPU's and annihilating themselves in the process.


Eh, it probably won't be as extreme as you paint it. Why did Intel bother to update the 8086/286/386/486/Pentium 1 in the place? AMD was hardly a competitor in those days.

One thing to keep up innovation even in a near monopolistic market is that if you don't update your products what the heck are consumers meant to buy down the track?

Apart from Open Source (which in the overall scheme of things is rather minor), MS is unchallenged in the OS space. Why did they release Vista?
December 15, 2006 12:58:50 AM

I believe it was. And the only thing that saved the industry back then was Intel falling on its face at 1Ghz.
December 15, 2006 1:00:59 AM

Well i sure hope it doesnt go down that way. Our only hope would be the government at that point. And we all know what thats good for :x
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 1:05:04 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?
December 15, 2006 1:08:21 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?

By borrow you mean cross licenced and by AMD's IMC you mean Alpha's IMC?
a c 99 à CPUs
December 15, 2006 1:32:18 AM

Not exactly. I'd almost venture a guess to say that since 1990, Intel has been trailing more than they'd been ahead. Cyrix's chips beat the 80486 and Intel didn't even make the fastest 486 chip- AMD did (120 MHz vs. Intel's 100.) The original 5-volt Socket 5 Pentium 60 and 66 had the notorious FDIV bug and was egg on Intel's face. Intel did have the fastest chips on the market with the 3.3 V socket 7 Pentium as Cyrix imploded and the Am5x86 wasn't quite as fast as the Pentiums. The Pentium Pro was a fast 32-bit chip, but except for the few that ran NT 3.1, 386BSD, or a *very* early Linux build, everybody ran 16-bit OSes and these chips performed like the much cheaper Pentiums. Motorola's PowerPC 600 series CPUs battled with the Pentium MMX and Pentium II pretty closely until Motorola hit a wall at about 400 MHz. (Granted that the PPC 600 chips aren't x86, but this was the time that the Common Hardware Reference Platform was being developed and Windows ran on PPC. So they did compete.)

The Deschutes Pentium IIs and Katmai slotted PIIIs were top of the x86 heap as the K6 series couldn't beat them. But when AMD introduced the first K7 Athlon in the middle of 1999, Intel did not outright regain the performance crown until the Pentium 4 Northwoods shipped in 2002. The PIII-S Tualatin made a decent effort, as did the higher-clocked Williamette P4s, but they did not really definitively beat the K7s. Intel's crown lasted a year until AMD released the Hammer K8 Athlon 64s in late 2003. AMD had held it until this July when the Core 2 Duo shipped.

So for those of you with short memories (or short lifespans) and can't remember much before the Pentium 4 Northwoods ruled the roost, AMD's just-ended dominance over Intel wasn't new nor was it the first time. That's why I look at any predictions of perpetual dominance as a farce. It's true that past performance does not guarantee future returns as the stock prospectuses say, but it is very much more right than wrong. The semiconductor industry is full of very intelligent, resourceful, and competitive engineers and companies. To think that one has a definitive and perpetual lead on that market is absurd and basically means that the smart money will be against them as they're delusional.

Spud: DEC went under. AMD simply nabbed a lot of DEC's engineers after that happened. That's how the Alpha's EV6 bus got put in the K7 and how the Alpha's IMC got put in the K8. They also bought out NexGen to get the Am5x86 (K5) design too. AMD seems to like to purchase the best in the business to bring new ideas in RIGHT NOW as it was easier than doing it in-house and does not divert those resources. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that- in fact I'd say it's good as it leads to new, innovative things getting put into products. When everything is done in-house, there tends to be one way to do/design things and it never changes unless it has to. I'd point the finger at Intel's old frontside bus arrangement for that one. Yes, it does currently work, but they'll be damned if they get rid of it one second before they're absolutely forced to even though it would help performance some.
December 15, 2006 1:35:19 AM

Quote:
Four years from now history will be taught as:

ATI bought AMD then got rid of the AMD cpu division to concentrate on making Graphic processors.


No, AMD will incorporate ATI GPU's into specialized multicores by the end of the decade. Thus, Sony will have a competitor to the Cell. Intel will probably chug along with multicores, moving to the next generation by slapping two together a la Smithfield or the latest quad cores.

Eventually, Intel will get it. It took them years to ditch Netburst and by the time they finally get rid of all their Netburst stock through Emachines and Lenovo discount PC's (not to mention Fry's bundles with ECS mobos), they will stubbornly refuse to go beyond generalized multicores.

Me, I'm starting to become an AMD booster after they acquired ATI. They seem to be on to something good, while Intel is just playing leapfrog. Now, why doesn't Intel buy Nvidia?

My PC:

P4 Northwood 533 fsb
D865PERL
2 gigs Corsair VS DDR 400 in four sticks
100 gig Maxtor SATA
160 gig WD SATA
300 gig Maxtor IDE
16x Lightscribe DVD RW
16x DVD R/RW
Intel PCI networking card for broadband
ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9800 Pro
Windows XP Home

This PC will get one last upgrade to an X1950 Pro AGP and a Theater 550 or 650 card so I can finally get H.264 support for unlicensed anime fansubs, and so Oblivion will finally look decent and run at better than a slideshow in the battle for Bruma.

I'll go AMD/ATI DX10 integrated video and a discrete DX10 ATI card by mid to late 2007, probably a 65nm dual core, as quad core will be priced too high.
December 15, 2006 1:43:22 AM

shhh, dont let the secret out :D 
December 15, 2006 1:57:37 AM

Quote:
Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

I didn't like that one bit. It reminds me of the arrogance AMD has been displaying during the past few years. He might be right but I still don't like it.

Did you see how AMD closed up 12.59% today? Nice! I hope that portends good things for 2007.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 1:59:59 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?

By borrow you mean cross licenced and by AMD's IMC you mean Alpha's IMC?

Quote:
Spud: DEC went under. AMD simply nabbed a lot of DEC's engineers after that happened. That's how the Alpha's EV6 bus got put in the K7 and how the Alpha's IMC got put in the K8. They also bought out NexGen to get the Am5x86 (K5) design too. AMD seems to like to purchase the best in the business to bring new ideas in RIGHT NOW as it was easier than doing it in-house and does not divert those resources. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that- in fact I'd say it's good as it leads to new, innovative things getting put into products. When everything is done in-house, there tends to be one way to do/design things and it never changes unless it has to. I'd point the finger at Intel's old frontside bus arrangement for that one. Yes, it does currently work, but they'll be damned if they get rid of it one second before they're absolutely forced to even though it would help performance some.

Yeah, what he said!!!!!

And, if you really wanna get picky about it, in 1994 when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of AMD as a result of the breach of contract lawsuit from 1987, Intel and AMD "agreed" to share, without licensing fees, enhancements to the x86 architecture; hence AMD using Intel's SSE instructions and Intel using AMD's 64bit instructions.
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 15, 2006 2:02:25 AM

sandmanwm is right. Competition is good for us.

Back in the 1 ghz PIII days, I was upgrading from a 400 mhz PII Celeron.

A 1 ghz Intel cpu was $460 if you could find one. $460 also bought a 1 ghz amd chip, an Asus mb, and 128 mb of Crucial ram.

Next box was built around Athlon XP2400 (32 bit, forget the family name), an inexpensive MSI mb, and an nVidia 5700 video card.

Newest box is an e6600, 680i mb, an 8800GTS, and 2 gb of PC1000 Crucial ram - assembled, tested, disassembled, and repacked for shipment. GIANT leap forward.
December 15, 2006 2:08:46 AM

Competition is good..it makes things cheaper..I'd rather have AMD not completely beaten by Intel

2 years ago.. I'd rather buy a very cheap Athlon Xp or even a sempron on socket A than a hot p4 2.0 on socket 478

now I'd rather buy a very cheap e6400 than a FX-62
December 15, 2006 4:56:29 AM

Quote:
Your ignorance is only second to your poor reading comprehension.

or second to those 1337 economic skills of yours.

Quote:
Four years from now history will be taught as:

ATI bought AMD then got rid of the AMD cpu division to concentrate on making Graphic processors.

followed by huge price hikes in the latest intel lineup. the industry creeps to standstill as Intel cant figure out which direction to turn next because its competitors arent there to point them in the right direction.

$2000 10Ghz CPU's with 32 Cores that are all fighting over the same thread. That is if they dont completely shoot themselves in the foot by flooding the market with CPU's and annihilating themselves in the process.


Lol, I wouldnt worry bout it too much. With MS needing to drop a new DTPC OS on the market every 3-4 years to help keep its revenue up, and with every successive MS bloatbeast OS along with continual game and 2D/3D/CAD/CAM/video software improvement bringing hardware to its knees, Intel (or AMD, were they the only game out there) will have a fairly clear direction in which to keep progressing.

Now pricing....well thats a different pot of tea. :wink:
December 15, 2006 6:36:20 AM

This is how AMD and core-shrinking will be untill 2011:
Present: 65nm, 1 year behind Intel
Mid-2008: 45nm, 6 months behind intel
22nm by 2011, all with IBM's help.
WTF is intel thinking? It's almost like they are fearing something.....
December 15, 2006 7:34:50 AM

Well,

you can look this up as well, AMD has been stating this for a little while now. But who knows, Intel has said they will have 45nm out in 07, which could be December 31st. AMD has stated they will accelerate the 45nm roadmap to ship in the middle of 08. Just google it, you will find it. But, there is no telling, this is just what both companies are saying, so the 45nm cpu's from either company might not make it out when they are supposed to. They will get here when they get here.

wes
December 15, 2006 9:01:58 AM

Quote:
But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?


Why are yu buying a 4X4? It has worse performance and uses more power than a QX6700. Seriously, is your brand loyalty THAT deep?
December 15, 2006 9:05:14 AM

Quote:
But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?


Why are yu buying a 4X4? It has worse performance and uses more power than a QX6700. Seriously, is your brand loyalty THAT deep?Does a bear sh!t in the woods? :p 
December 15, 2006 9:10:48 AM

Quote:
But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?


Why are yu buying a 4X4? It has worse performance and uses more power than a QX6700. Seriously, is your brand loyalty THAT deep?Does a bear sh!t in the woods? :p 

Well I mean I generally love intels and all, but if I were to buy a new system during the AMD era, I would have bought an AMD, since, well, I'm not an idiot.

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?

You mean like how Intel introduces IMC's FIRST but threw the idea out in like 2000? AMD hardly ever invents anything new. Seriously. **cough** Timna** Which, btw, came before the Alpha IMC, which was introduced in the 21364 in 2003.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 9:32:33 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?

You mean like how Intel introduces IMC's FIRST but threw the idea out in like 2000? AMD hardly ever invents anything new. Seriously. **cough** Timna** Which, btw, came before the Alpha IMC, which was introduced in the 21364 in 2003.

Hey djkrypplephite-come-lately! Try reading the previous posts in a thread before replying.
December 15, 2006 9:47:32 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?


Yes. It is.

It will be interesting to see how this translates into actual products. I just hope it's more interesting than beefing the cache and increasing the fsb. I wonder if they'll "borrow" AMD's IMC design like they did 64bit instructions?

You mean like how Intel introduces IMC's FIRST but threw the idea out in like 2000? AMD hardly ever invents anything new. Seriously. **cough** Timna** Which, btw, came before the Alpha IMC, which was introduced in the 21364 in 2003.

Hey djkrypplephite-come-lately! Try reading the previous posts in a thread before replying.

Hey chunkymonster-also-doesn't-read-posts. Should I just quote the one where someone said that the Alpha invented the IMC? Cause that was actually Intel.

Correcting my first post; Timna was Intel's 2nd attempt to integrate a memory controller onto the CPU, and in fact began with the 386 SL and 486 SL back in 1991.

Quote:
In the race for more speed, the Intel 80486 was
another major leap forward. The 80486 brings an
improved 80386 DX microprocessor, high
performance 80387 coprocessor, and a 82385
cache memory controller together in a single
package.


http://utica.edu/faculty_staff/qma/5.microprocessor.pdf

Like I said, neither DEC nor AMD invented the IMC. AMD copies a LOT of their tech.
December 15, 2006 9:49:33 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of attitude that got Intel in trouble in the first place?

wes
Yeah, i've always said that when someone is winning/in a better position(for whatever the situation is), as soon as they start "flapping"(boasting/bragging)...it usually backfires on them, or comes around and bites them in the *ss. It's almost like a "Murphy's Law" type thing... and usually happens. :?
December 15, 2006 11:25:01 AM

The conclusion of the matter having been said, its useless to try to predict the future. Now about that tea...
December 15, 2006 11:33:03 AM

Quote:
Well,

you can look this up as well, AMD has been stating this for a little while now. But who knows, Intel has said they will have 45nm out in 07, which could be December 31st. AMD has stated they will accelerate the 45nm roadmap to ship in the middle of 08. Just google it, you will find it. But, there is no telling, this is just what both companies are saying, so the 45nm cpu's from either company might not make it out when they are supposed to. They will get here when they get here.

wes


No, actually, Intel I believe stated their 45nm procs would come Mid-07. But guess we will se more when IDF Spring comes around.
December 15, 2006 12:42:54 PM

Quote:
Yeah, i've always said that when someone is winning/in a better position(for whatever the situation is), as soon as they start "flapping"(boasting/bragging)...it usually backfires on them, or comes around and bites them in the *ss. It's almost like a "Murphy's Law" type thing... and usually happens. :?


The company is probably in the strongest and best shape that it has ever been in.

Ken Lay, Enron CEO.

:lol: 
December 15, 2006 1:01:01 PM

Quote:
But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?


Why are yu buying a 4X4? It has worse performance and uses more power than a QX6700. Seriously, is your brand loyalty THAT deep?


I'm buying it because I'm not asking ANY OF YOU to pay for it. It is incredibly faster than my current system. FX70 will be $100s less than C2Q unless Intel makes those a fire sale item too so the total cost of the system should be less.

I didn't buy my current system based on anything other than what the system can do. I don't need to have the fastest, just faster than what I have.
December 15, 2006 1:19:59 PM

Quote:
I didn't buy my current system based on anything other than what the system can do. I don't need to have the fastest, just faster than what I have.
You forgot your little disclaimer..... As long as it's AMD.
December 15, 2006 1:42:03 PM

Read your post.. Good one. Brought back some memories.

I can remember when the Intel and AMD were racing to get to 1GHz processors. Reading up on the pilosophies of the two companies, I knew that as some point, Intel would have to rethink their "make it run faster" ideas. And sure 'nough, that's what we've seen. Intel realized they couldn't continue that road. They had to start making their chips smarter and more efficient. (Code efficient, not power efficient). And they did.

FWIW, Intel benefitted from Digital's Alpha engineers too....

Now I see Intel having to make another quantum change in philosophy. Memory management. They're going to have problems going beyond quad cores until they rethink how they do their memory management.
December 15, 2006 2:09:56 PM

Quote:
Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

Senior execs touted Intel's lead in manuf process and declared that their newly christened "tick-tock" product schedule will keep the not-so fledgling competitor at bay and win back some of the share lost to the Green Team.

Linkage!



Such arogance!

Intel seem to have forgotten that AMD beat them in the Gz race or the fact tha AMD had copper interconects a whole year before Intel ...

I do hope they pay dearly for their arogance!
December 15, 2006 2:27:49 PM

Quote:
Eh, it probably won't be as extreme as you paint it. Why did Intel bother to update the 8086/286/386/486/Pentium 1 in the place? AMD was hardly a competitor in those days.

One thing to keep up innovation even in a near monopolistic market is that if you don't update your products what the heck are consumers meant to buy down the track?

Apart from Open Source (which in the overall scheme of things is rather minor), MS is unchallenged in the OS space. Why did they release Vista?

Let's see- NEC had a V20 that was 30% faster than the 8086/88. The 286 was copied by AMD, Weitek made math co-processors for 286/386/486sx variants. AMD built a superior 486 (133Mhz) that brought it within spitting distance of the new Pentiums at the time. AMD competed with a 586 variant that unsuccessfully challenged the Pentium. Cyrix, Next Gen and eventually AMD's K6-2 were all able to beat beat Intel clock per clock. However, Intel math core proved unbeatable until the release of the Athlon.

I've been building systems since 1985. I consider myself a veteran, not some teeny bopper fan boy. I remember that a decent sound card cost almost $200 back in 1992. A crappy VGA card with 2 megs of memory cost the same. A 200 Meg HD was $400. A Texel 3024 2x CDROM drive (I was one of the designers on this one) was almost $350. A 486-66 MHz Intel CPU cost also $350. If you think this was a lot of money, I paid $200 for a hercules monochrome graphic card back in '86.

It is competition that reduces prices and gives these companies incentives to innovate and improve. The IBM PC was first released in 1981 using a 8088 processor. Although the 80286 was released in 1982 (the 8086 released in 1978), it was not used in a PC until 1984. Why this lag innovation? Because IBM was the only business in town. Compaq was the first to release the 80386 into a PC (or PC compatible/clone). That was the beginning of the end for IBM.

Compete or die. Hayes, Hercules, IBM, Media Vision, were all the biggest names on the block. Where are they now???

If you think for a moment that getting rid of Intel's only competition is good for the consumer, you are deadly wrong!!!

BTW- Aren't you glad that we don't wait two years anymore to integrate and release new technology to the PC market?
December 15, 2006 2:28:05 PM

Quote:
Funny thing is, AMD doesnt have to catch Intel to be successful and they never have had to. They got where they are by being second in the business, not first.
Intels strategy of doubling cores every six months will fail just as their strategy of the gigahertz war failed. Fact is nobody needs more than 4 cores even for the next 5 years, but you'll likely see Intel keep pushing it and pushing it, 8, then 16, then 32. Thats great for server market but does nothing for us.
I mean aMD just purchased a company for 5 billion dollars and now are in the top 5 or maybe its top 10 semiconductor manufacturers in the world. Id say they are doing fine. They have lots of plans in store for the semiconductor business other than CPU's. I mean when you cant even make enough chips for the demand, things must be going pretty well.


This is bogus logic. Fact is nobody NEEDS more than 4 cores right now because nobody HAS more than 4 cores right now (very few of us even have 4 cores - in two processors or otherwise). Available processing power versus processing needs are a self-fulfilling prophesy joined at the hip. Once it is there people will find ways to use it, if it isn't there then they won't. Plain and simple.

We survived a long time on single pipeline CPU's, 64 KB of ram, and very small hard drives (or even just floppies) for a long time and we were happy. Take the processor out of your calculator and bring it back to 1985 and see how "amazingly fast" it really is. Two years from now the average user we will wonder how we ever lived without two cores and most of the enthusiasts will be saying the same thing about their 4 and 8 core boxes.

Never say never, especially when computers are involved. We're still in a revolution here and there is no end in sight.
December 15, 2006 2:29:49 PM

Quote:
Intel fired a shot across the seemingly flagging AMD bow today in a press conference in San Fran.

Senior execs touted Intel's lead in manuf process and declared that their newly christened "tick-tock" product schedule will keep the not-so fledgling competitor at bay and win back some of the share lost to the Green Team.

Linkage!



Such arogance!

Intel seem to have forgotten that AMD beat them in the Gz race or the fact tha AMD had copper interconects a whole year before Intel ...

I do hope they pay dearly for their arogance!

huh?
December 15, 2006 2:50:23 PM

How evil :lol: 
December 15, 2006 2:53:03 PM

Quote:
But seriously....


WHERE ARE THE AMD 65NM CPUS?

Wherever they are. My estimate Dec 19 for OEM availability (2 weeks after shipping announcement)

WHERE ARE THE AMD QUAD CORES?

They were scheduled for Jun/Jul07. They were sampled and demoed so I guess we'll see some more of them next month.

WHERE IS YOUR 4x4 SYSTEM?

At one of 4 shops waiting for the DX10 GPUs to come down in price. There almost down to $400 with rebates. I'll buy only at $350.

Do you need links?


Yes, I want to see where everyone is shopping. I know where I shop, but if you can beat the prices I find...:-)
December 15, 2006 3:20:18 PM

is AMD a religion 2 you? cuz u seem 2 honor it alot.
some people have starwars as religion and it makes me wonder if some also has AMD as religion


buying a FX-70 is waste of money.
December 15, 2006 3:35:11 PM

Quote:

Such arogance!

Intel seem to have forgotten that AMD beat them in the Gz race or the fact tha AMD had copper interconects a whole year before Intel ...

I do hope they pay dearly for their arogance!


huh?
Well, that's true.
AMD was the first to reach the 1 GHz mark, and back then it started to use the copper interconnects (that was also and IBM development) while Intel still used aluminum.
December 15, 2006 3:38:11 PM

Quote:
is AMD a religion 2 you? cuz u seem 2 honor it alot.
some people have starwars as religion and it makes me wonder if some also has AMD as religion


If you check the:

Jedi Census

You'll find that 1.5% of New Zealanders and 0.7% of Britons identify themselves as Jedis in the latest census. If we average that out to 1% and apply the numbers to the world population of 6.6 Billion, we have 66 million Jedi. That is a greater number than installed AMD CPUs in enthusiast PCs. This can only lead to the conclusion that Jedi is a greater religion than AMD. :D 
December 15, 2006 3:42:22 PM

Quote:
However, Intel math core proved unbeatable until the release of the Athlon.

That's partially true.
In fact, as strange as it may sound, K5's FPU was, clock for clock, slightly faster than the FPU of the Pentium.
However, the K5 was regarded as having a weak FPU, because their P-rating was qualifying a 113MHz K5 as competitor to a 166MHz Pentium.
In integer code, that was indeed true, but its FPU, albeit good, was not good enough to make up for such an enormous clock gap.

Quote:

Compete or die. Hayes, Hercules, IBM, Media Vision, were all the biggest names on the block. Where are they now???

Eh?
IBM is very, very healthy at the moment.
Sure they've changed their business model a lot, but in terms of company size and capital, they're neck and neck with Intel and Google.
Only Microsoft is bigger.
December 15, 2006 5:00:43 PM

Quote:
They also bought out NexGen to get the Am5x86 (K5) design too.


I'm pretty sure that the K5 was all-AMD, and the NexGen technology was used to produce the K6.
!