Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wow- i did not know AMD could sink this low!

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 6, 2007 2:52:36 PM

x.... tested the new AMD 4800+++++ and has lower performance and no new features wow amdati or adti or amai or amti, ya amti has release the new slower 4800 but it does cost less to make!

xbit (can i quote them i hope i don't get banned) wrote:

"The new 65nm Brisbane core can’t provoke a revolution on the CPU market. From an ordinary user’s point of view, the processors based on the new core differ but little from their predecessors. The new core doesn’t feature any improvements on the micro-architecture level and its frequency potential doesn’t differ much from that of the older Windsor core."


"But is this enough to make the new CPUs appealing in the eyes of the rapidly dispersing crowd of AMD fans? We guess, not. Especially as the Brisbane’s drawback – it works slower than the previous core with data in memory– may outweigh the good points mentioned."


jsut to be fair it does appear it has some improvements:

"As for consumer properties of the new CPUs, the Brisbane core does offer something positive. First of all, the 65nm CPUs have become more economical (if you don’t compare them with the older models from the Energy Efficient series) – all the new CPU models on the Brisbane core will fit within a TDP of 65W. Second, the new CPUs may be somewhat better to deal with for an overclocker."


ok, i admit it when intel came out with the 800 series and 900 series - sure i was still using 3.6j for 4.25 systems - i am die hard intel! i did build 2 965 systems! never owned a 800-series.

800 series :twisted: + core 2 :lol:  = quadcore :idea: (foot note in history)


as a final thought:

if a amti 4800 = intel p4 at 4.8ghz
then intel e6400 = amd 4800 @ 6.4ghz????

More about : wow amd sink low

January 6, 2007 3:11:38 PM

im disappointed in amd as well for not continuing 939 support however i wouldnt get too worked up. amd is in the middle of its cycle right now and for 5 years they beat up intel. its going to swing back and forth more now that intel finally woke up and will redesign their chips more frequently.

im hoping that they offset eachother nicely. odd numbered years intel kicks ass and even numbered years amd kicks ass. that way they keep eachother motivated and keep prices down. im admittedly an ati fan and to a lesser extent amd fan, however im also a cheap bastard and i want the most performance for my money. the future looks bright indeed.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 6, 2007 3:17:19 PM

(yawn) I didn't think the new 4800's were ever intended to "provoke a revolution in the market"
Blah, blah, blah mixed with a little SPAM is all I see in your post, sorry.
Related resources
January 6, 2007 3:30:17 PM

typically intel adds features and larger cache with size changing
90-->65nm p4 double cache.

i think its interesting the amd bios and lov affair has ended it took 6 months!


it would appear amd had nothing to offer - so on top of the 4x4 mess - delayed.
January 6, 2007 3:35:35 PM

Ya - while the media has been really nice to amd. As u say, 4 socket changes little criticism. The media amd lov affair is ending it appears- very little criticism of the underdog. I am almost feeling bad for amd after being a diehard intel user.
January 6, 2007 3:37:03 PM

Just wondering, were you spewing this same crap when Intel was pushing Netburst as the future of CPUs?
January 6, 2007 3:44:59 PM

old news
January 6, 2007 4:04:44 PM

netburst is dead - until a major material change occurs - which is never.

si/ga metal has been around 40 yrs and still not in production.

raw silicon is raw silicon and the leakage issue could but likely will never be resolved so netburst will die as last under $100 chips are phased out!

ok die hard amd guys! i am sorry!

and the spam was a bad joke with the photos!

now i am off to work no more fun!
January 6, 2007 4:04:50 PM

am2 is a joke. They should have just scraped that idea in the first place. Intel at leasts knows they're going to defeat that last chipset w/ their launches. I'd buy a 939, but eh, I'm going for intel this time.
January 6, 2007 4:51:56 PM

Bah, pick on AMD all you want. I used them up until this last build, C2 E6600 after being a die hard intel fan for years.

All I can say to anyone that feels the need to rip apart AMD now....one word.....RAMBUS.

That should shut the intel fanboys up, LOL. :p 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 6, 2007 6:14:14 PM

This is AMD's first 65nm core revision, subsequent revisions may clock higher. If AMD can keep prices down, the end result could be a good value for overclockers.
January 6, 2007 7:52:02 PM

Quote:
Bah, pick on AMD all you want. I used them up until this last build, C2 E6600 after being a die hard intel fan for years.

All I can say to anyone that feels the need to rip apart AMD now....one word.....RAMBUS.

That should shut the intel fanboys up, LOL. :p 
Nothing really wrong with RAMBUS... the technology was (and still is) good. Just expensive.
January 6, 2007 8:04:08 PM

Quote:
if a amti 4800 = intel p4 at 4.8ghz
then intel e6400 = amd 4800 @ 6.4ghz????


I died a little inside when I saw this.
January 6, 2007 8:07:41 PM

Quote:
Bah, pick on AMD all you want. I used them up until this last build, C2 E6600 after being a die hard intel fan for years.

All I can say to anyone that feels the need to rip apart AMD now....one word.....RAMBUS.

That should shut the intel fanboys up, LOL. :p 
Nothing really wrong with RAMBUS... the technology was (and still is) good. Just expensive.

Missed the point.....but ok.
January 6, 2007 8:13:22 PM

Quote:
Bah, pick on AMD all you want. I used them up until this last build, C2 E6600 after being a die hard intel fan for years.

All I can say to anyone that feels the need to rip apart AMD now....one word.....RAMBUS.

That should shut the intel fanboys up, LOL. :p 
Nothing really wrong with RAMBUS... the technology was (and still is) good. Just expensive.

Missed the point.....but ok. What was your point? I don't really think RAMBUS was a huge blunder on Intels part... now if you mentioned the 1.13GHz P3...
January 6, 2007 9:48:36 PM

You're right, RAMBUS was a huge success, what was I thinking. :roll:
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 6, 2007 10:21:05 PM

PC800 RDRAM worked great at a time when DDR-400 was not yet available.
January 6, 2007 10:23:00 PM

Quote:
You're right, RAMBUS was a huge success, what was I thinking. :roll:
Well, I doubt it hurt Intel much financially... there are a lot of RAMBUS based PCs around. Besides its not like they have bad performance. What are you trying to say? That RAMBUS (RDRAM, actually) was a horrible blunder because it didn't have as much market acceptance as DDR? So it didn't go as Intel wanted... big deal. I can think of much better examples of Intel mistakes than RAMBUS.
January 6, 2007 11:19:52 PM

Pointless thread, why do people insist on trying to start wars? This thread served no purpose but to start a war.

wes
January 9, 2007 2:26:40 AM

Quote:
Pointless thread, why do people insist on trying to start wars? This thread served no purpose but to start a war.

wes



After getting banned yesterday what i see this morning! AMD headlines THG!

First, I wish I could retract the thread, the fact is its poorly written - in fact i even got banned for spamming was it this thread? Today what i see! I see today THG has an article on this same issue! O-boy, now, I am now going try to make the original point.

To summarize my point: AMD offers nothing, you are wasting your money if you buy a new amd mobo or computer and the media is still biased with amd favoritism! AGAIN a total waste! I do not own intel stock work for them or does anyone i know own their stock or work from them.

Second, I did try to retract this thread. Yes, I am new, I did not know you can not edit the original thread post or retract it. I started this thread for people who are trying to decide amd or intel, not for current amd or most certainly not for die hard AMTI fans. I have responded in bulk to many of the positive and negative posts.

> StrangeStranger wrote: ( bias response, rude and ugly)---> "your a few weeks late and also a troll. stfu and go away" my response ---> Ya this thread may sux, yes it was poorly written. BUT IT IS FOR people who are trying decide to go amd or intel in their next build, NOT AMD GROUPIES. Even consider AMD is waste and because of media bias!

>turpit wrote (bias response) -->"old news" truth-->It looks like I wrote this 2 days before THG article, old new?

THG excellent well written article, but still with favorable bias towards AMD, in my opinion: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/08/can-amds-65-nm-c...

If you read the article: AMD newest products on new die fab are slower and offer no new features. It sounds like the same point that p4/netburst was in spring of 2004. Anyone who buys a AMD mobo is wasting their money. Title is "Can AMD fight back", wouldn't "AMD offers nothing new" be a better title? If this was intel you know the titlle would be something like: "Intel new fab is slower" or "intel offers nothing new in fab"- my point again is the amd bias.

This thread was intended for people all over this forum are still asking which system amd or intel. If you even considering amd it because 1) your just amd person 2) the media bias towards amd.

>cwj717 wrote: (good question) -----> "What was your point? I don't really think RAMBUS was a huge blunder on Intels part... now if you mentioned the 1.13GHz P3..."

The point of thread was directed to people who do not know, live and eat this stuff. That amd offers nothing, 4 different sockets, a new 4x4 system with 2 coolers? for home marker? Poor performance and nothing of interest coming up in the future.

Look back, If you bought 754- then u need a 939 board - if you just got the new AM2 mobo then you need a 4x4 board. If you did get a 939 board last year now you have get new ram for it, when amd was slow to adopt ddr2.

> NovaThunder wrote: (AMD bias)---> "useless post admin LOCK THIS POST FOREVER its only ****" my response -->if this is useless why THG write article on it on 1/806 2 days later?

> excellent question--->" Pointless thread, why do people insist on trying to start wars? This thread served no purpose but to start a war. wes" My response ----> Is this whole post above and below - to summarize: amd media favoritism, bias reporting and lack or criticism and amd offers only platform confusion and poor products.

> LordSlashstab wrote: (the bottom line is summarized well here)--->

"am2 is a joke. They should have just scraped that idea in the first place. Intel at least knows they're going to defeat that last chipset w/ their launches. I'd buy a 939, but eh, I'm going for intel this time."
JITPublisher wrote: (good responce)---> "yawn) I didn't think the new 4800's were ever intended to "provoke a revolution in the market" Blah, blah, blah mixed with a little SPAM is all I see in your post, sorry." my response ---> intel adds more cache with each die shrink, if amd did not that means their architecture is dead or amd is just lost? Sorry for the spam it was in poor taste!

THG title is "Can AMD fight back" - is this not bias? AMD products offer nothing! I am sorry but the THG is bias it will not conclude the truth that anyone buying amd product is wasting their money! I repeat anyone buying a AMD mobo at this point is wasting their money! Buying a replacement upgrade chip is fine. Shouldn't the THG say something like 'only buy new AMD chip for upgrade"? In my opinion thats the amd favorable bias that confues people.

AMD knows this, that's why they bought ATI to bail themselves out. We will see what this combo offers besides delays - i.e.

my total ban is coming!
January 9, 2007 7:32:29 AM

DragonSprayer,


You say anyone buying ANY AMD based product is wasting money.... this is not true. If someone already owns an AMD setup, upgrading from a single core cpu to a dual core AMD cpu is not a waste of money, rather, it can prove to be a substantial upgrade and less expensive than a new system. For socket 939 you can get an Opty 165 for under $160, and for AM2 you can get a X2 3800 for around the mid $150's. So, like I said, if you already own an AMD based system, it is not a waste to upgrade to a low cost dual core from single core.

Second, the title to your post, as you should know, will just provoke a war. The title alone gives you the disposition of wanting to start a fight, and smell of a fanboy.

Third, you could also define who you are talking about. You, I assume, are referring to enthusiasts. Rather than make blanket statements by saying "anyone buying and AMD product is wasting their money". This is not a true statement. I just bought a $9 Sempron 3000 for 939. I don't think that was a waste of money. I would also buy a 939 165 or an AM2 X2 3800 if I already owned the system or just wanted low end dual core. For all the people buying systems from Dell and HP, you can buy an AMD based system for $100 to $200 less than an Intel based system, so, for them it might be worth it.

And to say that AMD offers nothing new, is close to being correct. They are offering lower power chips that run a bit cooler. I don't think AMD was claiming that the simple 65nm K8 chips would have anything added to them, so, I fail to see why making a big deal about something they didn't claim is warranted. We were all aware that this shrink was just going to be a simple shrink. Of course, there have been a couple of people in here that though otherwise, but the vast majority of the forum was well aware of this,and argued the point.

Question, why do you need to upgrade memory if you own a 939 system? If you wanted to go with AM2 you would have to go with a new mobo, cpu, and memory.... I was just a little confused about that statment.

I just read where you mentioned the replacement chip, which I agree with. But, I still think you should try to be a little less biased yourself. The key in the forums are to state a valid point, use good sources, and no emotion or attacking of either of the companies.

My final point, I think everyone in the forums is completly aware of the fact that Core 2 outperforms K8. And, we were already also aware that K8 65nm, was still just K8 with no improvements. We have been talking about this for months now, and the benchmarks for the 65nm K8 came out last year(within the past 20-25 days). So, that is why I was asking the point of your thread. It seemed to me, that you felt people were unable to interpret the bargraphs which showed Core 2 beating K8(90nm and 65nm). Or maybe we cannot read the graphs of the 1%-5% performance hit when K8 moved to 65nm. But, it is my opinion, that you wanted to rub some dirt into the AMD fanboys eyes which frequent the forum. You did that, and did it well. This post offered no new information which had not already been disussed in great detail in here.

wes


Edit: AMD doesn't just add cache, because it doesn't help like it did with netburst. 4X4 isn't a socket change, it is an added choice. Yeah, they have released a number of sockets, but, who says you have to upgrade to AM2 when it comes out. I didn't, 939 performs quite well, so I didn't bother. 4x4 also isn't a forced upgrade(or really an upgrade in my opinion), it's just an option if you want to hasle with it. 754 to 939 was a forced upgrade if you wanted dual core. They did rush 754 out, that is true.... but, still.... what can you get on AM2 at the moment, that you wouldn't already own on 939? Nothing, so, where is the forced upgrade? Many people were SOL when Core 2 came out, they needed new mobo's for various reasons. My lunch break is over, so, this is all for now.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 9, 2007 7:55:55 AM

Quote:

If you read the article: AMD newest products on new die fab are slower and offer no new features. It sounds like the same point that p4/netburst was in spring of 2004.


I don't see where they're slower, unless you mean they haven't ramped up in MHz yet. But everyone knew that could happen on the first 65nm core revision, it typically takes a couple revisions for a company to fix all the little bugs that prevent them from clocking higher.

Quote:

Anyone who buys a AMD mobo is wasting their money. Title is "Can AMD fight back", wouldn't "AMD offers nothing new" be a better title?


The decreased die size allows AMD to produce more dies per wafer for decreased cost, allowing them to reduce prices over the long term and fight on a price-per-performance basis.

Quote:
my total ban is coming!


I love how you guys work: You start a flame war, get banned for being disruptive, then go to another forum and tell everyone you were banned for badmouthing an article. You shouldn't be banned, you should be flogged...and allowed to stay.
January 9, 2007 9:53:34 AM

I used to be an AMD fan simply because they used to be better than Intel when it came to games... I now own a Intel Core 2 Duo based machine because it is the better CPU at the moment.

However, the underlying reason that Intel created such a good CPU is because they needed to beat AMD.. They needed to be on top again.. They needed to reclaim the throne they previously had...

This "competitive" nature between the two companies is the what its all about.. They strive to be better than the competition, they absolutely have to build/invent/create a BETTER PRODUCT..

So... whats gona happen if/when AMD goes down? Whos gona push the chip manufacturers to improve their product line?

I think that the biggest loser would be the consumers.. I honestly hope that AMD produce something good... VERY SOON!
January 9, 2007 12:03:45 PM

DragonSprayer,

One other thing, I just read through the article in question and was unable to find any info in it which was not accurate or biased. If you could point these points of the article which are biased towards AMD I would appreciate it.

Wes
January 9, 2007 1:32:36 PM

Quote:
THG title is "Can AMD fight back" - is this not bias? AMD products offer nothing! I am sorry but the THG is bias it will not conclude the truth that anyone buying amd product is wasting their money! I repeat anyone buying a AMD mobo at this point is wasting their money! Buying a replacement upgrade chip is fine. Shouldn't the THG say something like 'only buy new AMD chip for upgrade"? In my opinion thats the amd favorable bias that confues people.


Even before they released the AM2 socket I remember Tom having a review of the new socket and saying they didn't notice any significant improvements over the 939 socket....I am not sure what bias you are looking for but I really don't think there is one.....you just seem a little too preoccupied with trying to start something that most, if not all people here already know about.

As far as it being a waste of money, only time will tell. Right now I have an AMD 939....That I switched to after having a pentium 4. If I bought a system now I would be tempted to get a Core 2 Duo but maybe in another year it will be an AMD processor....I think most people here are smart enough to go with what works best for them and make informed decisions based on benchmarks, price/performance etc......please stop wasting peoples time with fanboyism.
January 9, 2007 1:58:16 PM

Quote:
Exactly. Intel needs to be on top. AMD does not.
AMD got where they are today being number 2, and are more than content at number 2. They are expanding their product lines to much more than cpu's. In fact, they cant even supply enough cpu's for demand. AMD doesnt need to be number one to be successful, however, Intel does.


Have to disagree with you there. AMD now very much wants to be on top. It is unclear what their strategy is, whether or not they are emphasizing the server segment and caring less and less for the desktop (I personally don't think so), but now that they have recognition, I believe they'd like nothing better than to be #1.

As a separate point, Intel has a superior product at this moment, but let's not forget that it's because AMD's 2-year domination that they had to innovate. Without AMD we'd be still running Netburst crap with crazy temps and power consumption, all for poor performance. Point is - we need this lead-switching to continue so that each of the companies is forced to innovate. And there could be nothing worse than one of them going away for good.

DragonSprayer - you are a [insert the most demeaning adjective you can find - there are just too many to chose from]. In case your reading ability is as severely impaired as your thinking, let me quote the Tom's article that says the new process results in up to 11% reduction in total system power consumption - surely a worthwhile achievement. Now, when buying a new AMD proessor, the choice should clearly be the Brisbane core - althought it has modestly higher cash latencies, its impact on the real-life performane is negligible.

I hope you grow up before you make your next post. And if you are grown - sorry, there's no help for people like you yet.
January 9, 2007 2:43:17 PM

My HTPC is AM2 and I appreciate this achievement by AMD. Lower power means I can keep my computer on longer without wasting more electricity. I realize I could have gone with a mobile CPU, but I didn't, and the computer runs great.


Actually I am going with a new computer... a C7 1200mhz cpu ... new car theater PC. Interesting build.


Oh and btw:
Intel sucked for a long while and came back with a inarguably, AMD-fanboy breaking, CPU.

I am glad AMD is in the dog house (sort of), for being under pressure inspires the greatest achievements. I look forward to AMD's revolution, even if it takes two years.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 9, 2007 2:55:33 PM

Hah, a C7. I bet you could run an E6300 at 0.875V or less at 933MHz.

It would still be twice as fast as the C7 1200.
January 9, 2007 2:59:51 PM

ya but the cost is a bit greater.
I will be getting a complete mobo /cpu / psu for $200 with everything I want. mITX boards supporting c2d were costing $250+ w/o the CPU.

I dont NEED anything faster for this application... a C7 will play MP3s and DVD's just as fast as a e6300.
January 9, 2007 3:30:53 PM

Ive always said that AMD kinda should have sticked to 939, their best platform to date.
January 9, 2007 8:44:12 PM

Ycon,

I agree that it was a great platform, but DDR 1 memory is going to be getting hard to find, so AMD couldn't really stick with it. Also, DDR 1 prices have already risen quite a bit. So, they had to change at some point.

wes
January 10, 2007 3:36:13 AM

i said it was bad thread
i said i wish i would not have written it
and i said if you already have a amd plateform then upgrading is fine- its burried in there - look hard u see it!

if u considering new - a whole new system then- you should be thinking
e63000 @2.67hz or stock e6600
or wait for
e6650 - why do this

or buy qx6700 now or wait for q6600 @ 3.2ghz+ oc

ya bad title, bad idea i agree!
January 10, 2007 3:39:16 AM

i pointed out the biased points in another post - i did not want to spam or really push it. this is a copy of that post

iam sure I will be banned again! For this spam!

To quote THG page 1 " can amd fight back?"(THG bias): "because the firm is right now catching up with Intel" My response is: AMD is falling farther and farther, falling further behind. Fact, AMD had done what in the last 6 months? AMD released a slower chip on 65nm fab. While intel launches quad core 3 months ago, plus e6x50 and and low cost quad core next few months. This is media bias and favoritism. My complete ban is coming!

THG wrote: "looking at the overall platform, AMD and Intel are head to head when it comes to offering modern dual core solutions" My response: are u kidding? u can buy a new computer for $500, at burstbuy or criket city (fake names), and drop a quad core in that night! THG says that's "head to head" - ok is that not bias?

THG wrote: "The introduction of Socket AM2 served the purpose of transitioning from DDR400 to DDR2-800 memory." My response, AMD released a new platform for inferior chip to force upgrades. Why did amd not use the old socket? Why did amd not combine with its new 4x4? I really feel back for some with AM2 and no new chips.

THG wrote: "The AMD64 processor design has not changed much since its introduction in 2004." 64-bit with no software drives or os support, even today buggy. Finally truth, AMD offers the same stuff as in 2004 with nothing ne! Well they have 8x8 in 2008 - 4x4 has been proven inferior to existing technology so why bother?

In conclusion in todays 11 page article, THG says how nice the chip is with reduced power levels, but C2D is the better choice.

My Conclusion:

If looking for system now, you should decide between a low end core 2 duo now or highend quad core. Either upgrading to quad core later or waiting for the new c2d e6x50 series or less expensive intel quad core - AMD should not even be on the radar screen. Ok, ban me again, i guess i have to move else where, x....L!
January 10, 2007 3:47:04 AM

Quote:
Exactly. Intel needs to be on top. AMD does not.
AMD got where they are today being number 2, and are more than content at number 2. They are expanding their product lines to much more than cpu's. In fact, they cant even supply enough cpu's for demand. AMD doesnt need to be number one to be successful, however, Intel does.


Have to disagree with you there. AMD now very much wants to be on top. It is unclear what their strategy is, whether or not they are emphasizing the server segment and caring less and less for the desktop (I personally don't think so), but now that they have recognition, I believe they'd like nothing better than to be #1.

As a separate point, Intel has a superior product at this moment, but let's not forget that it's because AMD's 2-year domination that they had to innovate. Without AMD we'd be still running Netburst crap with crazy temps and power consumption, all for poor performance. Point is - we need this lead-switching to continue so that each of the companies is forced to innovate. And there could be nothing worse than one of them going away for good.

DragonSprayer - you are a [insert the most demeaning adjective you can find - there are just too many to chose from]. In case your reading ability is as severely impaired as your thinking, let me quote the Tom's article that says the new process results in up to 11% reduction in total system power consumption - surely a worthwhile achievement. Now, when buying a new AMD proessor, the choice should clearly be the Brisbane core - althought it has modestly higher cash latencies, its impact on the real-life performane is negligible.

I hope you grow up before you make your next post. And if you are grown - sorry, there's no help for people like you yet.


first, amd got lucky with die shrink leakage.

insulting me for be provocative? ok that's class!

o boy - same chip with 11% decrease in power with no new products - again this is for non-technical not the amd groupies like yourself -mean while in the same time period intel has "quad", a ya there power is reduced and half the power requirement.

the sun hits the earth with 1000 times more energy then we need - power is cheap - getting fragged hurts!



wed 10th, 1-07 edit --> picked up 3500+ and 4200+ (am2 65w) and 2 ecs board from frys cheap! we see how the new chips work!
!