Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why doenst amd follow intels lead

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 19, 2007 9:00:57 PM

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.
March 19, 2007 9:05:23 PM

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
March 19, 2007 9:27:25 PM

Quote:
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: 
Related resources
March 19, 2007 9:48:32 PM

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.
March 19, 2007 9:51:40 PM

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.
March 19, 2007 9:54:51 PM

Quote:
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.
March 19, 2007 9:55:41 PM

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.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 19, 2007 9:58:18 PM

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.
March 19, 2007 10:53:10 PM

Quote:
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.
a c 100 à CPUs
March 19, 2007 11:51:22 PM

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.
March 20, 2007 12:14:55 AM

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.
March 20, 2007 12:19:43 AM

Quote:
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.
March 20, 2007 12:30:08 AM

Quote:
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.
March 20, 2007 12:32:37 AM

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
March 20, 2007 1:12:14 AM

Quote:
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.
March 20, 2007 1:13:44 AM

Quote:
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.
March 20, 2007 1:20:52 AM

Quote:

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


It happens to the best of us :wink:
March 20, 2007 1:23:08 AM

Quote:
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.
March 20, 2007 2:11:24 AM

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.
March 20, 2007 2:15:37 AM

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:
March 20, 2007 2:56:59 AM

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!
March 20, 2007 3:02:50 AM

Quote:
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
a c 100 à CPUs
March 20, 2007 3:06:07 AM

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: 
March 20, 2007 3:11:58 AM

lol u amd people are so weird!

why does amd not do this...
will amd go broke...
gaming will end when amd dies...

lol

get a real systems dude!

why are u a noob:

Aerocool ExtremEngine 3T
AMD x2 3800 EE Overclocked to 2.7ghz
Asus Crosshair
Zalman 9500
EVGA 8800GTS
Team Group Xtreem DDR2-800 4-4-4-10 RAM at 1100
Western Digital 250gig SE16 Hard Drive
Logitech G15 Keyboard, G7 Mouse
Samsung 997DF 19" CRT
_________________


you paid $60 for a zalman cooler ! omg! a $28 thermal right blows it away.
why is zlaman junk - the air flow is not forced through the heat sinks at all, 2, the pipes are not at optimum right angles!

you know nothing if u use a zalman

----------------
the case is junk - its going to blow dust all over the mobo parts - how did u filter it? not!
------------

WD drives crash more then any - i have a stack of them -- ok fine you site this and that. segate rules
raptors or ok! i use them
-------------------

wow 2.7ghz not bad!
March 20, 2007 4:09:19 AM

Quote:
lol u amd people are so weird!

why does amd not do this...
will amd go broke...
gaming will end when amd dies...

lol

get a real systems dude!

why are u a noob:

Aerocool ExtremEngine 3T
AMD x2 3800 EE Overclocked to 2.7ghz
Asus Crosshair
Zalman 9500
EVGA 8800GTS
Team Group Xtreem DDR2-800 4-4-4-10 RAM at 1100
Western Digital 250gig SE16 Hard Drive
Logitech G15 Keyboard, G7 Mouse
Samsung 997DF 19" CRT
_________________


you paid $60 for a zalman cooler ! omg! a $28 thermal right blows it away.
why is zlaman junk - the air flow is not forced through the heat sinks at all, 2, the pipes are not at optimum right angles!

you know nothing if u use a zalman

----------------
the case is junk - its going to blow dust all over the mobo parts - how did u filter it? not!
------------

WD drives crash more then any - i have a stack of them -- ok fine you site this and that. segate rules
raptors or ok! i use them
-------------------

wow 2.7ghz not bad!


Intel people are even weirder...
Intel had its a$$ handed to them by AMD for along time and what did you have to say then??? If it wasnt for compitition from AMD none of us could afford a decent computer cause Intel would charge $500 for a celeron. I just hope AMD can come up with something soon to keep Intel in check and keep prices down for everyone. I'm holding off on upgrading till they have a unified quad core or better, and I dont care who gets it first AMD or Intel I will buy whichever ends up to be the better product. I just wouldn't count AMD+ATI out just yet they just need to time to get in a grove again. It couldnt have been easy to bring those 2 companies together, and I'm sure in time they will bring out some kick ass products.
March 20, 2007 4:26:05 AM

Are you sure we can put him waaay up there with the squirrels? I saw this special on them last week on discovery and they are damn smart animals...
March 20, 2007 5:11:42 AM

Quote:


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/ind...

Thank you for proving my point: two cores, 1 die; just like AMD's X2.
March 20, 2007 4:47:18 PM

Quote:
Thank you for proving my point: two cores, 1 die; just like AMD's X2.


Proving your point? You are either purposely trying to be stupid, or you are a total moron. Smithfield is literally 2 die's side by side, the x2 is a monolithic design. This has been hashed and rehashed to death, but it seems some people are just too stupid to learn. Even Intel admits they're first consumer dual core is a glue together design, hence why Intel came out with a monolithic design with Conroe.

See the division between the die's? Look very closely, I know it's hard for you, but you can do it.

Athlon X2



Smithfield

March 20, 2007 4:51:23 PM

Quote:
lol u amd people are so weird!

why does amd not do this...
will amd go broke...
gaming will end when amd dies...

lol

get a real systems dude!

why are u a noob:

Aerocool ExtremEngine 3T
AMD x2 3800 EE Overclocked to 2.7ghz
Asus Crosshair
Zalman 9500
EVGA 8800GTS
Team Group Xtreem DDR2-800 4-4-4-10 RAM at 1100
Western Digital 250gig SE16 Hard Drive
Logitech G15 Keyboard, G7 Mouse
Samsung 997DF 19" CRT
_________________


you paid $60 for a zalman cooler ! omg! a $28 thermal right blows it away.
why is zlaman junk - the air flow is not forced through the heat sinks at all, 2, the pipes are not at optimum right angles!

you know nothing if u use a zalman

----------------
the case is junk - its going to blow dust all over the mobo parts - how did u filter it? not!
------------

WD drives crash more then any - i have a stack of them -- ok fine you site this and that. segate rules
raptors or ok! i use them
-------------------

wow 2.7ghz not bad!


Totally BS.
March 20, 2007 4:55:09 PM

Tone down the insults newbie.
Quote:
Even Intel admits they're first consumer dual core is a glue together design, hence why Intel came out with a monolithic design with Conroe.

Intel came out with Core 2 Duo not because their dual core option was not a monolithic dual core but because the Netburst arch sucked and was reaching its thermal and performance limits. Saying what you are is attributing Core 2's success to the way the cores are put together and not the arch itself. Glued vs native is just marketing. Its the arch, not the method.

When Intel comes out with its monolithic quad core, if it was at 65nm (I know that its going to be done at 45nm so don't bother), I wouldn't expect the performance to jump in a noticeable way over Kentsfield. Possibly a few hundred points in some bench, but nothing major.
March 20, 2007 5:17:31 PM

With a few notable exceptions the spelling and grammar in this thread are giving me a headache....
March 20, 2007 5:36:11 PM

Quote:
Saying what you are is attributing Core 2's success to the way the cores are put together and not the arch itself. Glued vs native is just marketing. Its the arch, not the method.

Where did I say that? Glued together is just marketing? Then why did Intel bother to do Core2 in a monolithic structure? Glued vs. native is NOT just marking, this notion is absurd. Glued together is done by Intel so they can be first to market, and it has payed off for them. But the preferred and more efficient method is native, duh.

Quote:
When Intel comes out with its monolithic quad core...

Why would Intel waste millions doing this, it's only marketing and has no benefit according to you. :?
March 20, 2007 6:01:28 PM

The stick around and you tell me in a thread addressed to me about how much of a difference having a monolithic quadcore will affect performance. Not power usage, or heat output, but performance.
March 20, 2007 6:07:35 PM

Quote:
The stick around and you tell me in a thread addressed to me about how much of a difference having a monolithic quadcore will affect performance. Not power usage, or heat output, but performance.


Say WHAT? Can you rephrase that? Seriously everything you wrote there makes no sense to me.

The stick around and you.. :?:
March 20, 2007 6:15:58 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he missed the 'n' in "Then". It confused me too- until about 3 seconds and a small amount of brainpower later.

Unless the 3 seconds was your problem, you must be missing out on the brainpower. If it was the 3 seconds, you should read a little more thoroughly before you quote.
March 20, 2007 6:21:07 PM

Must be the bold lettering... :oops: 
March 20, 2007 6:36:10 PM

Quote:
Unless the 3 seconds was your problem...

That was it, those 3 seconds always give me trouble.

Or it could be the fact that the post was a baseless challenge with no real point or any value.

DaSickNinja is I think attempting to corner me into proving that a native dual/quad core is superior. But such a challenge is dumb, because it is blatantly obvious it has its advantages or neither AMD nor Intel would pursue such a design. Unless he thinks he is smarter than AMD, Intel etc.
March 20, 2007 9:05:13 PM

Quote:

Proving your point? You are either purposely trying to be stupid, or you are a total moron. Smithfield is literally 2 die's side by side, the x2 is a monolithic design. This has been hashed and rehashed to death, but it seems some people are just too stupid to learn. Even Intel admits they're first consumer dual core is a glue together design, hence why Intel came out with a monolithic design with Conroe.

See the division between the die's? Look very closely, I know it's hard for you, but you can do it.


Nope, you're the moron. Smithfied is two cpus on one die. So is the X2. It doesn't matter if the two Prescott cores are completely separate (i.e, they can't communicate with each other without using the fsb), they are still on the same die. Are you understanding now? The Presler on the other hand is two dice on one package, which is where the whole glueing controversy started.
March 20, 2007 9:28:19 PM

The X2 is a monolithic dual core.

Pop off the heat spreader of one if you don't believe me.
March 20, 2007 9:38:05 PM

Quote:
Unless the 3 seconds was your problem...

That was it, those 3 seconds always give me trouble.

Or it could be the fact that the post was a baseless challenge with no real point or any value.

DaSickNinja is I think attempting to corner me into proving that a native dual/quad core is superior. But such a challenge is dumb, because it is blatantly obvious it has its advantages or neither AMD nor Intel would pursue such a design. Unless he thinks he is smarter than AMD, Intel etc.
Sorry jackass, I've been around too long to have someone put words in my mouth. Try to use some reading comprehension. No wait.. judging from the last few posts you put out, you apparently lack that.

Prove that a monolithic quadcore offers improvements over performance compared to a dual quadcore single package design with the same core, same speed and same optimizations. I don't want a post telling me it improves on power usage or on heat output, I want proof showing me it improves on performance. Can you do it or are you going to be yet another person that makes a claim and when he can't back it up, moves on to pedantry?
March 20, 2007 9:46:24 PM

Quote:
[Nope, you're the moron. Smithfied is two cpus on one die. So is the X2. It doesn't matter if the two Prescott cores are completely separate

You just don't get it, you really don't. Smithfield is 2 die's put on a wafer. They die's are manufactured separately then minted onto a wafer and interconnected. The X2 is a SINGLE die and was designed that way, and is manufactured as a monolithic structure.

Only a tard is unable to understand the difference.
March 20, 2007 9:47:16 PM

Quote:
When Intel comes out with its monolithic quad core...

Why would Intel waste millions doing this, it's only marketing and has no benefit according to you. :?Oh I don't know... Maybe so they can do a MCM 8 core?

Sure there is going to be a small benefit for going monolithic vs mcm, but like Ninja said, the speed boost from PD to C2D was from the arch changes. Not from being mcm vs native.

Edit: Also i'm sure manufacturing costs are lower on a monolithic dual/quad core then on a mcm.
March 20, 2007 9:56:39 PM

These ought to clear the air for those of you who arn't sure which processors are on one die and which are pasted together.
Intel



Kentsfield



AMD X2/Opteron



Easy as that, and I'll take a monolithic die over paste together anyday.
March 20, 2007 9:59:19 PM

Quote:
Sorry jackass, I've been around too long to have someone put words in my mouth.

Maybe you've been around too long period and your mind is clouded.

BTW, don't give me a hard time for name calling when you resort to the same tactic.

Quote:
Prove that a monolithic quadcore offers improvements over performance compared to a dual quadcore single package design with the same core, same speed and same optimizations. I don't want a post telling me it improves on power usage or on heat output, I want proof showing me it improves on performance. Can you do it or are you going to be yet another person that makes a claim and when he can't back it up, moves on to pedantry?

you have got to be kidding. You are attempting to win an argument by asking for "proof" of something when you know the conditions for such "proof" are basically out of any reasonable scope or practicality for me to produce.

Let's see, I will have to manufacture two processors with exactly the same architecture, except one will be a native, monolithic product, the other will be the same architecture but 2 separate cores that have some type of off core communication. Yea, I'll get right on that.

How about you use your brain and realize that designing a native quad from the start has several advantages such as lower latency, much faster inter-core communications, ability to share a cache pool etc. etc. the list goes on.

But honestly I have no idea why are you pursuing this line, I never brought it up. So calm down and think for a moment. Why would AMD peruse a native quad if they didn't have to? You seem totally convinced that it offers NO advantages, so apparently you are much smarter than AMD or Intel and you better get right on the phone and tell them they are wasting their resources perusing a monolithic design.
March 20, 2007 10:03:12 PM

if intel has so much money, why don't they just buy amd-ati, and nvidia and then call it InVidamti
March 20, 2007 10:07:45 PM

Quote:
if intel has so much money, why don't they just buy amd-ati, and nvidia and then call it InVidamti
No one would allow a buyout of AMD from Intel.
March 20, 2007 10:09:58 PM

Quote:
if intel has so much money, why don't they just buy amd-ati, and nvidia and then call it InVidamti

1. That's a dumb name.
2. That's a dumb name.
3. Monopolies suck.
4. That's a dumb name.

On another note, I always thought Smithfields were MCP chips as well. Guess I was wrong. But they were still terrible.
March 20, 2007 10:15:06 PM

DragonSprayer, you need to get laid.

I don't care if the "slapped die" method is cheating or not. If it gives me more performances, yet, doesn't require mon power than my washing machine to operate, chances are I'll consider that product.
!