Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd Is going the intel route

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2007 10:02:54 PM

Seems like amd is gonna play intels game, should make for a sweet quadfx with 16 cores in the near future.http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38634

More about : amd intel route

April 2, 2007 10:05:44 PM

Thread about this already started:

This link
April 3, 2007 12:04:29 AM

I think AMD should go Intels route by pricing nvidia out of the market :p 
They need to be first at least one of the markets :p 
Related resources
April 3, 2007 12:30:10 AM

looks like a replay of the terrible 4x4, since r600 could be link endlessly it could be as 8x8x8x8x8xatix....
April 4, 2007 2:00:32 PM

Quote:
I'd say Intel is going AMD's path for those reasons:

1- 64bits?? Who was first?
2- do you remember Operations per cycle king ? Intel optimized that in core uArch
3- AMD was more power-efficient than Intel for a long being now. Intel is now better than AMD at this.
4- Who was first to know that FSB would be bottleneck for multi-cpus. Now Intel want an IMC and graphics in their cpus

AMD got the brain and Intel got the cash and enough fab to make the world go round. I don't mean a flame war it's just my opinion on that.

EDIT: and 4x4 is the worst concept ever. What a waste to buy 4 graphic cards....when you can get a single 8800gtx :-)


Well all the thing's you have listed are just what happens in competition.
If AMD make a more efficient cpu does that mean they copied Intel?
It's chicken and egg. Comparing anything to netburst ... well, netburst was awful. AMD did do a good job on 64bit, but what about everything else of Intel's they have taken over the years?

Intel have made FSB last, I'm pretty sure they could have changed it if they wanted to. There is plenty of life in FSB for most users.

4x4: I don't get why people are going on about it being a "Great platform".
It's total crap, its just some cpu sockets and some graphics slots. Hardly invention of the century. It provides more bandwidth, but then it costs more because of that.
Why on earth you'd want 4 graphics cards is beyond me anyway. To stay up to date you'd have to buy 4 of the top new graphics cards every 6 months.
April 4, 2007 2:07:22 PM

I see 4x4 as a great investment in heating homes up north.
April 5, 2007 9:14:03 PM

I dont think the concept of quadfx is bad, just the presentation. I agree no one needs four graphics cards, and the people that do would probably buy a workstation from sgi or sun. I think a diffrent motherboard and lower power requirements would have gone a long way in making the quadfx fly. I know a few people with dual socket dual core 940 systems and they are sweet, plus cheaper I think. They did drop the ball, but it doesnt mean they cant pick it up and stay in the game.
April 5, 2007 9:26:34 PM

4x4 = MCM alternative
Only one of those concepts can exist and since MCM will come true, 4x4 has to (officially) die. I think AMD does know that.
April 5, 2007 9:47:50 PM

Quote:
I'd say Intel is going AMD's path for those reasons:

1- 64bits?? Who was first?
2- do you remember Operations per cycle king ? Intel optimized that in core uArch
3- AMD was more power-efficient than Intel for a long being now. Intel is now better than AMD at this.
4- Who was first to know that FSB would be bottleneck for multi-cpus. Now Intel want an IMC and graphics in their cpus

AMD got the brain and Intel got the cash and enough fab to make the world go round. I don't mean a flame war it's just my opinion on that.

EDIT: and 4x4 is the worst concept ever. What a waste to buy 4 graphic cards....when you can get a single 8800gtx :-)


1. Intel had Itanium long before AMD had Athlon64
2. As has been said, P4 was a failure, duh. Pentium 3 and Pentium M were competitive, if not better in this area than AMD's offering.
3. Again, you seem to have forgotten Pentium M.
4. Implementing an on-board memory controller long before there is a bottleneck doesn't mean that you considered the issue first. It just means you made the change first. In the time that Intel has had lga775, AMD has gone through 754, 940, 939, AM2, and soon to be AM3. FSB has value, and AMD probably jumped too soon because they weren't in the chip-set manufacturing business, not because they had "foresight".

AMD has certainly done some good things, but these arguments as proof that Intel is following AMD require that facts be ignored. The fact is, we really don't have the proper perspective to determine who is copying whom. There are way too many trade-offs they are making for us to know without being in the meetings at both companies.
April 5, 2007 10:43:14 PM

The HT bus will let them set up a much better MCM setup as cpu to cpu traffic will not tie up the cpu to chip set bus.
!