I like the way you put it better than Lordpope's thread, he was asking to get flamed.... ....
Two thoughts here --- Barcelona will likely be great in server but the desktop will not fair as well -- probably parity in desktop or very slightly behind. My take anyway.
Second, I would be a little skeptical to translate this to broad applications, the wordsmithing here is a bit ambiguous and, likely, purposefully vague.
Jack
I don't necessarily think that this should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, to make claims like, "This is going to be the biggest enhancement to the x86 architecture since we released Opteron. It will take the power-per-watt equation to levels people have never seen before." and then not perform to those standards is worse than not having a competitive product.
It seems like Barcelona was created for server, and if we get a cpu initially meant to make a horse of a server, then I cannot complain. I look forward to a Conroe killer, that would just be ironic, don't ya think? It would be like a cruel joke. I'm not a fanboy, I just think if amd stole back the crown after having it for 3 years and losing it for less than one, that would be funny in a nerdy sort of way.
And if it kills a Conroe and uses a max of 65w there's no stopping it. I look forward to it. Anyone else? Admittedly I am a bit biased because I have AMd products, but I also have Intel products, and I don't think one company is better than the other, but I kind of want Amd's solution to be a winner.
"Customers don't care whether chips are monolithic or combine separate processors, Allen said, but they do care about performance. "We came to the conclusion that, given the capabilities and performance with the monolithic design, it was clearly the right answer," Allen said."
Jack,
The problem I see with the monolithic quad core is going to be the cost. The bigger you make the silicon the more it is going to cost. They will probably achieve the performance target "40%" "across a wide variety of workloads" but at what cost? The Intel quad core servers may still be the better value by then they will probably be into round one of price cuts. I didn't get anything from that on desktops though so how do you say the dekstop will not fair as well when they haven't given a solution for the desktops. I would have to believe they are working on a desktop solution to the Core2Duo's but I don't see it in this article.
turpit... your problem is you want the glory and the respect jack gets
but u lack his substance
dont shoot the messenger
LMAO.
I dont have his "substance", I never have and I never will. You should go back and read aways. Search "turpit" and read how many times Ive made mistakes, how many times Ive posted "what a ($#@#@) I am" and " ", and how many times Ive had to say "sorry". While your doing that, you should also note that when the BS levels are low, I dont post much. So much for the glory theory.
But you should also read how many times Ive said I despise people who misrepresent the truth for their own purposes, and how I despise both the horde and the intelliots.
Sorry friend...your barking up the wrong tree, but very nice try. Go ahead and feel free to keep phishing.
Please, do not carry rants from one thread to another, it hurt's.Plus it is disrespectful to the OP. What was disagreed on one thread should stay in that thread.
I'm beginning to wonder if Fusion isn't just a way for AMD to take IGP market share away from Intel. And that's it.
I seriously doubt that any iteration of Fusion will be able to compete with a video card from nVidia or (AMD's own) ATI. So if the aim isn't to outperform, what is the aim? Money? I must admit, I'm not sure what AMD's grand scheme is here. I can't see how combining a GPU and CPU will make anyone any more money.
For 90% of users, the IGP is good enough. Who exactly are they targeting?
I did a quick scan but I wasn't going to waste time on it since I don't find this info to be all that informative. Even before Core 2 came to market, all the claims I didn't really listen to because the companies tend to exacerbate the claims. I feel the same way about this one, until I see actual benches I don't care what they say. I do find it interesting, but I wouldn't be willing to invest emotion or money on it.
I'm beginning to wonder if Fusion isn't just a way for AMD to take IGP market share away from Intel. And that's it.
I seriously doubt that any iteration of Fusion will be able to compete with a video card from nVidia or (AMD's own) ATI. So if the aim isn't to outperform, what is the aim? Money? I must admit, I'm not sure what AMD's grand scheme is here. I can't see how combining a GPU and CPU will make anyone any more money.
For 90% of users, the IGP is good enough. Who exactly are they targeting?
Any input would be welcomed.
No, I personally don't think ATI was acquired just for IGP or chipset .... Fusion has much more utility than just doing raw graphics, a well tuned GPU core is also a very efficient and parallel computations on simple FPU code..... if a GPU makes it into the CPU (and likely before) you will see generic non-graphics code running through the GPU at some point.
Also, the industry is heading toward this in some fashion I am convinced... it is just a matter of time. AMD has talked about it before fusion (modular, stamp it out designing), Intel has published papers about it, and IBM has built one and it is currently being used in the PS3 .... look for 'application' specific CPUs and less and less emphasis on general purpose CPUs. There will be multicore chips with cores and cores of video optimized cores for video encoding, multimedia, etc. or scores and scores of graphics oriented cores for 3D simulations, etc. etc. AMD is simply working to positioning themselves for the future --- Intel can afford and has the resources to build from within, on the timescale needed I don't think AMD had any other choice --- but honestly, I have not thought it completely through, the ATI acquisition was a bit of a surprise to me so my 'thought' process on this has really only just begun.... hence, my opinions are subject to change as more data comes in ....
Jack
Amds move to 64-bit looking us in the mirror, except a few years older?
", and how many times Ive had to say "sorry". While your doing that, you should also note that when the BS levels are low, I dont post much. So much for the glory theory.
