why doenst amd follow intels lead

[reconviperone1]

I read that intel can have a eight core cpu by yeats end by fusing 2 quad core xeons, why cant or wont amd do the same? We all know that amd is a innovative company with good designs, but we also know that marketing and being first is important. An x8, some variant of a fx with 2 8 core cpu's would definately keep amd in the game.

 

[BaldEagle]

Lets boil this down to the three bare essentials.
1. Money -Intel has cash and AMD doesn't
2. Money -AMD Has crushing debt and Intel has very little
3. Money -Intel is making more money and AMD isn't

 

[petevsdrm]

Lets boil this down to the three bare essentials.
1. Money -Intel has cash and AMD doesn't
2. Money -AMD Has crushing debt and Intel has very little
3. Money -Intel is making more money and AMD isn't

Sooo...what would you say is the main reason out of those three?
:lol:

 

[reconviperone1]

Perhaps they would make more money if they cheated a little like intel. Remember those lame ass pentium d processor that made it to market b4 the x2's, imagine, they sold a crapload of inferior pentium d's because they got to markey first. Amd just needs to chat, just to level the playing field.

 

[ajfink]

Intel would need two Penryn (native quad-core) cores to do that - just like their current quad-cores are essentially two Conroe cores (native dual-cores).

But yeah, they could do it by year's end. AMD could do it at earliest mid '08.

 

[djgandy]

Perhaps they would make more money if they cheated a little like intel. Remember those lame ass pentium d processor that made it to market b4 the x2's, imagine, they sold a crapload of inferior pentium d's because they got to markey first. Amd just needs to chat, just to level the playing field.

Well AMD had the lead. It was a strong lead, and they had it for quite a long time too.
Not really sure what happened though, maybe what they have done is the best they could do, or maybe they could have produced a better processor before now. We'll never know...I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have taken the chance to really crush intel performance wise when they had it.

 

[Mex]

I've asked the same question myself. I believe the integrated memory controller is what prevents AMD from creating a multi-die CPU. Why? I have no clue - the IMCs must conflict with each other, or something like that. The other issue is volume. Intel has it, AMD doesn't. This doesn't actually stop AMD from making a multi-die chip, but it makes it harder, since you now need two dies just to create one functioning chip.

 

[nukemaster]

I think its more about power and heat

Think about it. how much power(heat) would it take to run 2(let alone 4) FX74's on one socket. Think of the heat?

Intel did just this with the PD's they where nothing more than 2 P4's slapped together. And boy did they heat up(and blow voltage regulators). At this time AMD redesigned for 2 cores in 1 die to cut heat and lower power usage. Since at this time they can not do that again(they are working on it), they released 4X4(quadFX).

Currently Intel has the power advantage with there .64nm process. But even they would not put 2 quad cores together. 200+ watts of heat is just too much. you are still better off with a dual socket xeon board.

Point in case. Intel and AMD have some nice tricks up there sleeves. I see 4 cores on 1 die from both companies in the near future and 8 in a year or so, but this is just my guess.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Intel would need two Penryn (native quad-core) cores to do that - just like their current quad-cores are essentially two Conroe cores (native dual-cores).

But yeah, they could do it by year's end. AMD could do it at earliest mid '08.

The problem would be that that would come out to 240W per chip.

 

[MU_Engineer]

EDIT: Jack pretty well summed it up. I am a little surprised that AMD didn't at least put out an MCM with two dies, each with a single-channel memory controller, talking over an on-chip ccHT NUMA link. Of course, the most common PC operating system has cruddy NUMA support, as the FX-7x tests show. So the quad-core MCM wouldn't perform nearly as well as a monolithic quad would, even if they contained the same number of cores at similar clock speeds and internal/external bandwidth. I guess you can place the blame for that one on software that's 32-bit extensions to a 16-bit window manager for an 8-bit OS originally coded for 4-bit processors made by a two-bit company with not one bit of common sense.

 

[reconviperone1]

Is there actually a name for quadfx when it goes octo, octo fx somes kinda lame, perhaps they should have fx for am2+, and a ultra fx for dual cpu setups.

 

[joefriday]

Perhaps they would make more money if they cheated a little like intel. Remember those lame ass pentium d processor that made it to market b4 the x2's, imagine, they sold a crapload of inferior pentium d's because they got to markey first. Amd just needs to chat, just to level the playing field.

That "lame ass pentium d processor that made it to market b4 the X2's" you're referring to is a dual core, single die product, just like the AMD X2. There was no "glueing" going on for the Smithfields.

Also, for everyone in this thread, I hardly find Intel's approach to be cheating. There's more than 1 right way to get the job done, and while Intel's approach might not seem to be the most technological, is sure is beating the crap out of AMD's "refined" dual core CPUs, and that my friends, is the ultimate goal of the game.

Lastly, I highly doubt AMD can just whip together a dual die CPU at a moments notice. Don't be foolish. Though it may look rudimentary, I'm sure Intel spent more than just a couple weekends designing the Presler Pentium D.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I guess you can place the blame for that one on software that's 32-bit extensions to a 16-bit window manager for an 8-bit OS originally coded for 4-bit processors made by a two-bit company with not one bit of common sense.

A quote like this......
Priceless.

 

[reconviperone1]

I'm not disagreeing, they(intel) used they re vast resources to whip something together, amd cant seem to do that, then intel actually made a intelligently designed processor , now amd is really hurting. I'm not a fan boy, I'm just a guy who wants to playing field to stay level so i can get a $266 quad core chip. Truth be known, I didnt like intel ,amd, or cyrix computers when amigas were made, so no fan boyism here

 

[Retardicus]

I think its more about power and heat

Think about it. how much power(heat) would it take to run 2(let alone 4) FX74's on one socket. Think of the heat?

Intel did just this with the PD's they where nothing more than 2 P4's slapped together. And boy did they heat up(and blow voltage regulators). At this time AMD redesigned for 2 cores in 1 die to cut heat and lower power usage. Since at this time they can not do that again(they are working on it), they released 4X4(quadFX).

Currently Intel has the power advantage with there .64nm process. But even they would not put 2 quad cores together. 200+ watts of heat is just too much. you are still better off with a dual socket xeon board.

Point in case. Intel and AMD have some nice tricks up there sleeves. I see 4 cores on 1 die from both companies in the near future and 8 in a year or so, but this is just my guess.

AMD will beat Intel to 8 cores in a box (not a socket) with the 4x4 and the release of Bracelona. And, with the new socket and new HT 3.0, it will be a great rig.

Jack

What what what? I'm sorry, but ever since the quad core Xeons came out, you could get an 8-core server or workstation solution using Intel chips. In fact, my brother uses one right now for 3D Graphics work.

 

[Retardicus]

Intel would need two Penryn (native quad-core) cores to do that - just like their current quad-cores are essentially two Conroe cores (native dual-cores).

Penryn is a dual-core chip.

 

[Retardicus]

Ha... good catch, I forgot about the V8.... wow, I coulda' had a V8
*slaps top of head* :lol: :lol:

It happens to the best of us

 

[BaronMatrix]

I've asked the same question myself. I believe the integrated memory controller is what prevents AMD from creating a multi-die CPU. Why? I have no clue - the IMCs must conflict with each other, or something like that. The other issue is volume. Intel has it, AMD doesn't. This doesn't actually stop AMD from making a multi-die chip, but it makes it harder, since you now need two dies just to create one functioning chip.

The coordination of two IMCs would only cause "packaging issues." Whereas when plugging the chip into the socket, it would have to present itself as one set of requests and not two(similar to the SRQ -system request queue) but would have to arbiter the requests from both cores either simultaneously or sequentially.

The way AMD designed K8 it is actually easier to work with the XBar internally rather than externally. Especially since as I said there is a cost factor involved and Intel wants to make sure there always is.

 

[bobby6k34]

i dont know if its been said before and this may just be all roomers but

amd das have a 8 core CPU on the plans its meant to be on the am3 socket this link meantions it but how reliabile it is i dont know

http://amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7432

 

[crazywheels]

How do you guys know what AMD is doing. Do any of you work for AMD? Don't believe everything you read. I think that AMD has got something up their sleeve.

 

[corvetteguy]

I thought of another reason to hope AMD comes out with a killer cpu for reasonable prices.

So that Apple feels like shit for choosing Intel :twisted:

 

[T800-101]

That "lame ass pentium d processor that made it to market b4 the X2's" you're referring to is a dual core, single die product, just like the AMD X2. There was no "glueing" going on for the Smithfields.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentium-xe-840/index.x?pg=1

 

[dragonsprayer]

u got it, it is a: amd 8x8 only 300w

amd is following just as intel followed - its too bad so many people have been brain washed that amd is this magical company. i use many amd chips and they are almost as good as intel.

amd is over rated - why!

1) your an IT guy that got a nice x2 or op chip in your server, and loved it, now u can not bare to go back to intel or

2) your a enthusiast, possibly a gamer that was blinded by the bias reviews of the athlon's ability - its a single task-er - sure it won the game tests but when u multi task in the real world its slower then intel.

3) your an x2 user and it kicks azz but u need the best - the media and reviews are killing u. or your friend with the C2D is fragging u!

so now you expect amd to deliver! what happened? well unforeseen gate leakage to net-burst and amd shorter instructions worked out well for 18 months.

amd got lucky!


buy a C2D then drop in a quad core in a few months!

 

[corvetteguy]

u got it, it is a: amd 8x8 only 300w

amd is following just as intel followed - its too bad so many people have been brain washed that amd is this magical company. i use many amd chips and they are almost as good as intel.

amd is over rated - why!

1) your an IT guy that got a nice x2 or op chip in your server, and loved it, now u can not bare to go back to intel or

2) your a enthusiast, possibly a gamer that was blinded by the bias reviews of the athlon's ability - its a single task-er - sure it won the game tests but when u multi task in the real world its slower then intel.

3) your an x2 user and it kicks azz but u need the best - the media and reviews are killing u. or your friend with the C2D is fragging u!

so now you expect amd to deliver! what happened? well unforeseen gate leakage to net-burst and amd shorter instructions worked out well for 18 months.

amd got lucky!


buy a C2D then drop in a quad core in a few months!

8O

Your seriously the biggest idiot I've seen on these forums.

Dragonslayer = Squirrel = 25 IQ = Idiot

 

[MU_Engineer]

I am sorry to say that I can't claim ownership of that one as it's been around a while- just ask linux_0 :lol: