Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I have a negative comment about AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 13, 2007 3:14:27 PM

Way back in June 2005 I was in the market for a new gaming rig and settled on an AMD X2-4400+. At the time there was no comparable Intel system in terms of performance so it was a rather easy choice. To date that system has been rock solid... works great... and it has done all of this while being overclocked to 2.6 Ghz.

So here's my gripe with AMD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You're telling me it's been nearly 2 years and all you're going to offer me is a 400 MHz bump? Yes, I know there was a manufacturing shrink, but that had no benefit on performance and by some accounts had a small performance penalty due to the slower cache being used. By all accounts that "new" CPU is running at close to maximum speed... so that's all I'd have to show for an "upgrade" 400 stinking MHz?!? That's like what... a 15% increase in speed? Come on AMD... throw me a frigg'n bone will ya? In nearly 2 years time that's all you're gonna offer me? Bah.

More about : negative comment amd

April 13, 2007 3:39:52 PM

Until C2D it was enuff. As for their limatations , ask Jack , the soi they use has more limits. Til C2D it was enuff, wasnt it?
April 13, 2007 3:49:05 PM

Well, it happens very often, more than you think lately; in 2004-2005 Intel only ramped the frequency 200MHz and in terms of performance/clock it's equivalent more or less to 140MHz of a K8. And now... Intel is almost 1 GHz below it's previous clocking 8O . Gone are the days when operating frequency doubled each year.
Related resources
April 13, 2007 3:53:20 PM

Quote:
Well, it happens very often, more than you think lately; in 2004-2005 Intel only ramped the frequency 200MHz and in terms of performance/clock it's equivalent more or less to 140MHz of a K8. And now... Intel is almost 1 GHz below it's previous clocking 8O . Gone are the days when operating frequency doubled each year.


I totally accept that we're not going to have 10 GHz chips this year or next... whatever. My gripe is that the 400 MHz bump in processor speed did not come along with other advances (bigger caches, extra instructions, etc). I honestly don't care about the clock speed of a CPU... my Core Duo laptop is wonderful and it's only churning along at 1.66 GHz... a big step back in terms of clock speed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all AMD gave us in nearly 2 years was that 15%.

*edit* I suppose you could say 30% because I'm comparing my OC'd CPU to a non OC'd one... but even at 30%... that's pretty sad given the time frame we're talking about.
April 13, 2007 4:00:39 PM

What AMD did, however, was switch to a much more future-proof platform (939 in general was a stopgap, IMO), buy ATI, sink a significant amount of money into R&D and increase fab capacity.
April 13, 2007 4:10:58 PM

I agree with you that AMD fell into a comfort zone with K8 after X2 and we have not seen much in the way of innovation lately. Barcelona has been slow and I hope that it will be worth the wait and not too little, too late. I think AMD is going to have to commit to an R&D plan (much like what Intel has done) to be able to keep up.
April 13, 2007 4:21:06 PM

At the end, THIS was THE mistake they did; not developing a new arch like Barcelona earlier, the same mistake Intel did with Netburst; they both thought at some point that ramping clock speeds would be enough. However, your reasoning is good in overall performance but if you compare x2s with x2s we have gone from 2.4GHz of the 4800+ to the 3.0 of the 6000+ talking about stock speeds, so the bump is 600MHz :wink: .
April 13, 2007 4:38:27 PM

That's only half true. Rodney's X2 4400+ is a 939 platform while the X2 6000+ is AM2. With the 939, the max is either the X2 4800+ or the FX60 if someone wants to spend a lot of money. The shame of it is that with some serious overclocking, either the 4400+ or 4800+ can get the same clock speeds as the FX60, topping out about 3.1-3.2 ghz, though the FX60 does have a couple other advantages.

I own one machine with an overclocked 4400+ and another with a FX60, and in my opinion, the FX60 is a good cpu, but not worth the money charged. I do wish AMD had continued developement of the 939 series, but they didn't.

@ Rodney, a move to an Opteron 180 or 185 would probably be best if you continue with the 939 platform. If a platform change is done, the only practical options are either to go to the Intel C2D or wait a while and get the AMD Agena cpu which should appear in a couple months. By the way, I was able to get 2860 mhz with my 4400+ using a Zalman 9500 for cooling before I switched to the FX 60, so its possible to get more performance with what you have.
April 13, 2007 5:17:34 PM

:arrow: AMD does not have the money to commit to an R&D plan like Intel(unless they get bought out by Walmart for example - would be a good fit for them).Its to bad they had to drag ATi down the sewer with them.
April 13, 2007 5:30:48 PM

think of it this way, its still good isnt it? It still runs well, it still plays games well, so whats the problem?


besides, amd is coming out with a new architecture soon


on top of that, dual core hasnt been around for 4 years, its been around for 2.

4 years ago they had athlon xp and were just coming out with athlon64
April 13, 2007 5:54:33 PM

His two-year-old chip is faster than one I bought a couple weeks ago, but then, I spent next to nothing on mine.

The justified complaint is that CPU number-crunching power should double every two years. Otherwise, engineers aren't spending their transistor budget well. Right now does happen to be the worst time to calculate how far AMD has come in two years, as they're about to release a new design that will bring a performance jump. Still, I somehow doubt that the best of the new design will be a full 2x faster than the X2 4400+. Moore's Law certainly isn't dead in terms of transistor count, but it seems one team is falling behind in terms of the performance curve.
April 13, 2007 6:11:37 PM

Quote:
think of it this way, its still good isnt it? It still runs well, it still plays games well, so whats the problem?


besides, amd is coming out with a new architecture soon


on top of that, dual core hasnt been around for 4 years, its been around for 2.

4 years ago they had athlon xp and were just coming out with athlon64

I wasn't bitching about my system... it's been a great machine... possibly the best I've ever owned... I'm just griping about the table scraps AMD has thrown out to us here in 2007.
April 13, 2007 6:31:41 PM

Quote:
His two-year-old chip is faster than one I bought a couple weeks ago, but then, I spent next to nothing on mine.

The justified complaint is that CPU number-crunching power should double every two years. Otherwise, engineers aren't spending their transistor budget well. Right now does happen to be the worst time to calculate how far AMD has come in two years, as they're about to release a new design that will bring a performance jump. Still, I somehow doubt that the best of the new design will be a full 2x faster than the X2 4400+. Moore's Law certainly isn't dead in terms of transistor count, but it seems one team is falling behind in terms of the performance curve.

I love it when someone repeats what I was thinking... but says it in a way that is much clearer and more eloquently stated.
April 13, 2007 6:34:52 PM

Quote:
I wasn't bitching about my system... it's been a great machine... possibly the best I've ever owned... I'm just griping about the table scraps AMD has thrown out to us here in 2007.


I understand the sentiment completely. For over a year there hasn't been anything really all that much better offered. Even the 6000+ is only marginally better than an FX60, and that's including the DDR2 ram and all. I keep looking forward to summer and the promise of a new, fast cpu from AMD. I keep fearing that it will be delayed in the manner of the R600 video card.
April 13, 2007 7:40:37 PM

Justified Complaint. At least AMD Chip prices make sense now.
April 13, 2007 9:10:16 PM

Quote:
Way back in June 2005 I was in the market for a new gaming rig and settled on an AMD X2-4400+. At the time there was no comparable Intel system in terms of performance so it was a rather easy choice. To date that system has been rock solid... works great... and it has done all of this while being overclocked to 2.6 Ghz.

So here's my gripe with AMD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You're telling me it's been nearly 2 years and all you're going to offer me is a 400 MHz bump? Yes, I know there was a manufacturing shrink, but that had no benefit on performance and by some accounts had a small performance penalty due to the slower cache being used. By all accounts that "new" CPU is running at close to maximum speed... so that's all I'd have to show for an "upgrade" 400 stinking MHz?!? That's like what... a 15% increase in speed? Come on AMD... throw me a frigg'n bone will ya? In nearly 2 years time that's all you're gonna offer me? Bah.


Here's what I think happened:
This past two years...at least...AMD has been working on the Barcelona architecture. So, while it was doing that, it needed to stall the consumer with new products. Therefore, what they did was, they just clocked their available CPUs a tad faster and made some minor changes on the architecture in order to focus on the K10 architecture.

It might not be true, but it just makes sense to me.
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2007 11:12:00 PM

Quote:
Way back in June 2005 I was in the market for a new gaming rig and settled on an AMD X2-4400+. At the time there was no comparable Intel system in terms of performance so it was a rather easy choice. To date that system has been rock solid... works great... and it has done all of this while being overclocked to 2.6 Ghz.

So here's my gripe with AMD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You're telling me it's been nearly 2 years and all you're going to offer me is a 400 MHz bump? Yes, I know there was a manufacturing shrink, but that had no benefit on performance and by some accounts had a small performance penalty due to the slower cache being used. By all accounts that "new" CPU is running at close to maximum speed... so that's all I'd have to show for an "upgrade" 400 stinking MHz?!? That's like what... a 15% increase in speed? Come on AMD... throw me a frigg'n bone will ya? In nearly 2 years time that's all you're gonna offer me? Bah.


Also you can't install that CPU on your system.. it's socket AM2 and my guess is yours is socket 939... :p 
April 13, 2007 11:30:47 PM

Quote:
Way back in June 2005 I was in the market for a new gaming rig and settled on an AMD X2-4400+. At the time there was no comparable Intel system in terms of performance so it was a rather easy choice. To date that system has been rock solid... works great... and it has done all of this while being overclocked to 2.6 Ghz.

So here's my gripe with AMD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You're telling me it's been nearly 2 years and all you're going to offer me is a 400 MHz bump? Yes, I know there was a manufacturing shrink, but that had no benefit on performance and by some accounts had a small performance penalty due to the slower cache being used. By all accounts that "new" CPU is running at close to maximum speed... so that's all I'd have to show for an "upgrade" 400 stinking MHz?!? That's like what... a 15% increase in speed? Come on AMD... throw me a frigg'n bone will ya? In nearly 2 years time that's all you're gonna offer me? Bah.


Also you can't install that CPU on your system.. it's socket AM2 and my guess is yours is socket 939... :p 
No, I wasn't griping about the new socket. You are correct I do have a Socket 939 system, but I totally understand a new platform was needed... not sure AM2 was the right one considering its minimal performance boost... the relatively minor boost in performance in nearly 2 years... that's what irks me.
April 13, 2007 11:34:11 PM

Quote:
Way back in June 2005 I was in the market for a new gaming rig and settled on an AMD X2-4400+. At the time there was no comparable Intel system in terms of performance so it was a rather easy choice. To date that system has been rock solid... works great... and it has done all of this while being overclocked to 2.6 Ghz.

So here's my gripe with AMD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You're telling me it's been nearly 2 years and all you're going to offer me is a 400 MHz bump? Yes, I know there was a manufacturing shrink, but that had no benefit on performance and by some accounts had a small performance penalty due to the slower cache being used. By all accounts that "new" CPU is running at close to maximum speed... so that's all I'd have to show for an "upgrade" 400 stinking MHz?!? That's like what... a 15% increase in speed? Come on AMD... throw me a frigg'n bone will ya? In nearly 2 years time that's all you're gonna offer me? Bah.



According to that logic, Intel should be in the doghouse since they have lowered clocks by more than 1GHz.(3.73GHz - 1.83GHz)
April 13, 2007 11:45:38 PM

You friggin ijit. We're talking about processing power, and last I checked, architecturally speaking the X2 is pretty similar to the X2, which means the IPC is about the same, which means comparing frequency is completely valid. How is it that you say this is like comparing frequencies of two completely different Intel architectures? You'd think that by now you'd have learned something about computers with all the time you spend in these forums!
April 13, 2007 11:48:25 PM

lol genius, comparing last gen's highest clock vs this gen's lowest. Let me translate to you what he's saying. It's nearly two years and AMD has barely progressed (though soon to change) in performance. Considering that an X2 of 2005 is not much different than an X2 of 2007, it was appropriate to synoymize +GHz=+performance. Intel might not have higher clocks now but they certainly have higher performance by a long shot.
April 14, 2007 12:04:18 AM

Quote:
last I checked, architecturally speaking the X2 is pretty similar to the X2,


Ok, I know I'm a bit tired and might not be reading things right, but I'd think that the X2 should be similar to a X2, like identically similar. Did you by chance mean a 939 X2 and an AM2 X2?
April 14, 2007 12:15:00 AM

Well, yes, the X2 939 vs X2 AM2 is a close enough comparison. I really mean any X2 is similar, architecturally, to any other X2.
!