Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Too smart or too stupid?!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is AMD just too ashamed or too smart?!

Total: 89 votes

  • Too ashamed by their performance
  • 62 %
  • Too smart, and try to cover up as much as they can
  • 39 %
June 4, 2007 11:11:35 AM

DISCLAIMER: This poll is only meant to measure the general opimion; please hold yourself from turning it into a flame. If you are in a flaming mood, please, just vote and don't post anything. Thanks.
Since more or less all of us are pretty angry about the ever missing K10 benchmarks, I was wondering about the reasons this might have and there are actually only 2 of them:
1-K10 is such a bad performer compared to Conroe/Penryn that AMD want's to lie as much as they can before real benches are out. This looks pretty possible also in the light of the famous, but maybe missinterpreted POV-Ray demo.
2-K10 performs well compared to the competition, but they are so smart that they want to put Intel into alert state as late as possible and they are even faking their own performance down, to make Intel fall asleep.
What do you guys think?!

More about : smart stupid

June 4, 2007 11:35:23 AM

I don't think K10 is a bad performer..... it just isn't a knock your socks off (or your teeth out) conroe killer.
June 4, 2007 11:39:00 AM

I think you just wasted 15 seconds of my life.
Related resources
June 4, 2007 12:15:45 PM

lol, mine too
June 4, 2007 12:21:58 PM

I guess we’ll know soon enough ... AMD will reveal something at Computex ... at least that's the general feeling
June 4, 2007 12:27:24 PM

I hope more threads like this pop up, great way to boost my post count without typing anything constructive or interesting.
June 4, 2007 12:50:12 PM

Cheers :) 
June 4, 2007 1:24:52 PM

I'll sneek one in as well... i want my avatar :p 
June 4, 2007 1:37:35 PM

Don't you all just love amd? :tongue:

So that was my smart move for today, im going to bed again
June 4, 2007 1:41:22 PM

:roll: No time like the present to stop lurking and start posting :p 

TBH, I hope that AMD are just being smart and that they will either kick Intel's
ass or at least be on par with them. But who knows :lol: 
June 4, 2007 1:50:47 PM

Welcome to the forums!

Couldn't agree more. It works out best for us consumers when a new piece of hardware wipes the floor with its competitor. More competition = better hw!
June 4, 2007 1:53:35 PM

Quote:
I hope more threads like this pop up, great way to boost my post count without typing anything constructive or interesting.

Do you really care about your post count :roll:
June 4, 2007 1:54:14 PM

hehe Thanks :) ...

And cheaper HW 8)
June 4, 2007 1:54:55 PM

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: This poll is only meant to measure the general opimion; please hold yourself from turning it into a flame. If you are in a flaming mood, please, just vote and don't post anything. Thanks.
Since more or less all of us are pretty angry about the ever missing K10 benchmarks, I was wondering about the reasons this might have and there are actually only 2 of them:
1-K10 is such a bad performer compared to Conroe/Penryn that AMD want's to lie as much as they can before real benches are out. This looks pretty possible also in the light of the famous, but maybe missinterpreted POV-Ray demo.
2-K10 performs well compared to the competition, but they are so smart that they want to put Intel into alert state as late as possible and they are even faking their own performance down, to make Intel fall asleep.
What do you guys think?!


I realy don't care truthfully. I hope they improve K8 significantly, but it won't make or break my day. I always say that AMD can't be as flamboyant as Intel because of their size.
But I also say that they hire Alpha and Itanium engrs and IBM managers to make sure they can do what they say.

If they really got 1.8x Opteron, we will see shortly. It maybe possible that they added something last minute, like single core OCing. Who knows?

I did vote for the least bad choice which was too smart. At least this should be the last one of these as Agena should be benched during the week at Computex.
June 4, 2007 1:57:43 PM

Quote:
hehe Thanks :) ...

And cheaper HW 8)

How much I wish I could put my hands on a less-than-$300 quad this year :twisted:
June 4, 2007 1:59:31 PM

Quote:
Do you really care about your post count :roll:

Only until I have 100 so I can get my avatar. After that I'm not bothered.
June 4, 2007 2:06:02 PM

Quote:
hehe Thanks :) ...

And cheaper HW 8)

How much I wish I could put my hands on a less-than-$300 quad this year :twisted:

I´m certain you can. It´ll be an intel though. :!:
June 4, 2007 2:36:07 PM

Glad u did this poll, since I'm curious to see if the vocal opinion is actually the majority, marginal majority, or even a minority. I think it will take a day or two to get 40-80 votes, so the thread should be bumbed up this evening.
June 4, 2007 2:47:19 PM

Quote:
I´m certain you can. It´ll be an intel though. :!:

I really don't care what it is; I will just get the best price performance and will probably go for the cheapest one. Probably will be a Q6600 if the Phenom line shines, because they'll be too expensive in that case, however, I don't want to get anything lower than a Q6600 (and a lovely 3.0GHz OC) if Phenom sucks :evil: 
June 4, 2007 2:52:47 PM

It would have to be an Intel, because there is no way that AMD would be so crazy as to debut a quad core at anything less than $900. I hope.
June 4, 2007 3:03:24 PM

This will be worth for all barcelona chips matching or exceeding the performance of a $900 Intel chip; otherwise, they will be forced to adhere to the price/performance position they belong.
June 4, 2007 3:06:05 PM

I'm not sure that they will truly take back the performance crown. They might extend the lead in places that they already "owned", but I doubt that they will flip Blue.
June 4, 2007 3:11:25 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure that they will truly take back the performance crown. They might extend the lead in places that they already "owned", but I doubt that they will flip Blue.

We're missing everything here to have a picture of the future positions; they claim a lot of goodies, including breaking into Intel's last fortress, the laptop but until they play this stupid game of claiming without proofing, what can we say? :roll: !
June 4, 2007 3:35:39 PM

I bet they'll hue to the price/performance ratios also, and therefore you'll have a choice at that $200-300 range, with similar performance. That's a reasonable guess. It might take a month or two for the initial flunctuation to move there, but I think it will. Let's hope AMD has good sense enough to make their product mix weighted toward quads. I think single cores should now be relegated to speciality chips.
June 4, 2007 3:53:56 PM

Quote:
I think single cores should now be relegated to speciality chips.

While I think that single core is still what ~70% of the whole PC users need and most of the people that buy dual cores, do it only because they find them cheap and think that 2 is better than 1.
June 4, 2007 4:11:07 PM

yeah me tooo. cant wait till my avatar and signature are being displayed
June 4, 2007 4:31:45 PM

I don't care who is faster in the end. I just want a close enough competition that prices come down as fast as possible.

As far as amd goes, I don't see them over taking intel anytime soon.
June 4, 2007 4:48:06 PM

You forgot the option "I don' Know." At this point who really knows what AMD is up to. We are all hoping for a good competition however.
June 4, 2007 5:07:53 PM

Quote:
I think single cores should now be relegated to speciality chips.

While I think that single core is still what ~70% of the whole PC users need and most of the people that buy dual cores, do it only because they find them cheap and think that 2 is better than 1.

My laptop runs pretty much the same stuff as my desktop -- same security, same sites, same java, etc. The laptop has 768MB ram, a 7200rpm hard drive, and a fairly fast amd 2800 mobile chip. The desktop is 1.5GB ram, but that only means I load less on the laptop at a time -- I don't bog the laptop with too much stuff at once. BUT...The background resident load (security and such) is the same. The dual core desktop is much faster often, because the resident load of security, occasional automatic updates, etc. bog down the single core, while the dual core just cruises right through that. Upshot is the dual core is *much* better for daily use.

I would recommend against a single core for anyone building now.
June 4, 2007 6:11:07 PM

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: This poll is only meant to measure the general opimion; please hold yourself from turning it into a flame. If you are in a flaming mood, please, just vote and don't post anything.


...this is such an obvious troll post why do you even bother putting that retarded disclaimer on it? There are two options in your poll:
1. Flame AMD
2. Flame AMD


...flame on. :roll:
June 4, 2007 6:17:41 PM

This one's too easy. I voted number 1. I'm not sure that AMD is smart enough to do anything right, much less form a cohesive plan of action to sneak one over Intel. Ok, I still have some hope for the Agena/Puma/ Barcelona series of promised chips, but until AMD starts actually showing some benches and producing some cpus, they will not have any affect on my purchases.

On a sidenote, I'm waiting for more news on Intel's P38 and DDR3. By building that, I avoid the DDR2 phase of ram entirely. From what I read in the TGDaily, AMD is putting off the move to DDR3 until customers request it. That leaves me with another question, are customers not requesting it, or has AMD turned a deaf ear to the requests, along with the continuing march of technology.
June 4, 2007 6:50:16 PM

There isn't really an incentive to move to ddr3 yet; IIRC Intel traditionally adopts a new memory first, then AMD follows when there's actually a performance gain to be had from it. Like ddr2 Netburst vs ddr k8.
June 4, 2007 7:26:01 PM

Re DDR3, is isn't cost efficient, so that systems using it right now are not as cost efficient as DDR2 systems -- measure bang for the buck.

AMD tries to maximize bang for the buck as a selling point. They say that eventually DRR3 will be a better choice (not yet) and then their platforms will have it (e.g.--AM3).

So if you want to buy a less efficient DDR3, AMD is ruled out for now.
June 4, 2007 9:56:04 PM

Quote:
...this is such an obvious troll post why do you even bother putting that retarded disclaimer on it? There are two options in your poll:
1. Flame AMD
2. Flame AMD

...flame on. :roll:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  ......I wrote it for people like you:
Quote:
If you are in a flaming mood, please, just vote and don't post anything.

but, too obviously, your kind does not understand the difference between opinion and flame. If you wanted to be interesting, you ended up making the first useless post, and first insult in this thread; welcome!
June 4, 2007 10:09:11 PM

In part, I'm thinking of the new DDR3 ram announced by Corsair today, along with an increasing number of motherboards that are appearing. I'm not in a great rush, so if prices fo down a bit and capabilities improve during the next couple months, then I'll be happy.
June 5, 2007 1:40:59 AM

wow who cares - you need more choices - "who cares" - or other?

all we need is amd make a few crappy chips to keeep in intel making the good stuff!

after all i was still using the 560j in 2006! lol! i waited for c2d - p4's work fine for normal usage.

this is a 3.0c i am typing on - the music is cranked, i have 9 browser windows up and spysweepr and avg on! my quad core and x6800 systems with in a few feet - the old type writer still works fine

o ya amd? did amd make good chips - i think the fx-60 was good?

who cares!

:evil:  I flamed didn't I :twisted: sorry!

But, you need more choices!

like who cares!
June 5, 2007 1:43:45 AM

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: This poll is only meant to measure the general opimion; please hold yourself from turning it into a flame. If you are in a flaming mood, please, just vote and don't post anything.


...this is such an obvious troll post why do you even bother putting that retarded disclaimer on it? There are two options in your poll:
1. Flame AMD
2. Flame AMD


...flame on. :roll:

agreed!



Is AMD just too ashamed or too smart?!
Too ashamed by their performance
Too smart, and try to cover up as much as they can
who cares! X
other!
June 5, 2007 2:39:52 AM

I concur.
June 5, 2007 1:40:58 PM

Quote:
wow who cares - you need more choices - "who cares" - or other?
all we need is amd make a few crappy chips to keeep in intel making the good stuff!

You're such an irreversibly sick Intel fanboy; please CHANGE :roll:
You still don't understand that till AMD does not get the same status and sales level of Intel, we're ALWAYs in danger from Intel's monopoly. You are supposedly a PC enthusiast but you still don't see any thing beyond intel; just like a casual, uninformed moron who still thinks AMD makes chips for consoles or kids' PCs. Please, grow up!
June 5, 2007 2:15:14 PM

Quote:
I hope more threads like this pop up, great way to boost my post count without typing anything constructive or interesting.

And I'm thinking the same thing about YOUR post!
June 5, 2007 2:26:29 PM

let's look at what happend on intel's side.

the e6600 is out first. 2.4ghz 2mb/core
the 6400/6300

they're getting LOWER then with
E4400 and 4300 which have 1mb/core

finally, they get the 2140/2160 with a tiny 512k/core.

ALL WORKING ON THE SAME FREQUENCIES
cache size/multi/fsb freq

i personnally think they were supposed to show the 2140/2160 FIRST then, the 4400/4300, and then the 4mb cache big guy.

they just wanted their market share back so they showed their best technology first. now they show us a quad core with the same specs but is uses over 200W on full load. if you use a quad-thread apps on this, you'll have to change the stock fan. it's too hot.

intel have nothing more to show off right now. it's time for amd to delay benches and ensure that intel won't have anything stronger. i'm not sure if they're to succeed and i don't think they'll get past 2015 but next year, they'll come back stronger than ever... i think they're not to underestimate. there's good deals in both sides for consumers
June 5, 2007 3:13:57 PM

Quote:
i don't think they'll get past 2015 but next year, they'll come back stronger than ever...

Good reasoning, butAMD will probably not sink for another decade or two at least if they get past 2010; if they get something really competitive late this year/early next, and with partners like Dell, recently Toshiba and many others being added to the list every day, they will more likely get in an equilibrium position with Intel and that is what we all hope for.
June 5, 2007 3:15:43 PM

Man, this guy is f'n crazy! I can only assume he's an AMD stock owner or employee worried that the next thing produced by AMD will be a large stack of pink slips.
June 5, 2007 3:23:41 PM

:lol:  Man, I want a $200-300 quad late this year, and Intel/AMD won't cut it's price in half for charity, AMD has to show something good to fit into the price scale and compress prices for this to happen; of course I am worried :wink:
June 5, 2007 5:19:09 PM

This isn't a flame but...your stupid poll needs more options. Deciet isn't smarts, and maybe they're proud of their work but just aren't able to compete. The poll shows your own one-sidedness towards AMD. Quit being a flamer yourself, this whole stupid post is just that.
June 5, 2007 6:24:53 PM

Quote:
Man, this guy is f'n crazy! I can only assume he's an AMD stock owner or employee worried that the next thing produced by AMD will be a large stack of pink slips.


well, i'm not... i wanna see good offers on both sides...

i decided to wait before to buy a C2D. i only hope i didn't wait for nothing...
i actually have a 3700+ s939 OC'ed to 2.86 async.
133% hardware hack over a 333mhz ram and a 200mhz cpu fsb
leading to 433mhz ram 260mhz cpu fsb.
works only with 4 ram sticks ( samsung cheap TCCC chips )
but i don't play games right now...

i almost forgot...

Too smart or too stupid?!... neither... it's just too late
barcelona is comming... but... barcelona is server stuff
what i'm looking for is the phenom. which will come a few months later...

how long may i keep my 2.86ghz single core A64 ?
that is the question... by the way, intel will bring some better chips...
i hope so... cause if not. prices will go up again... it's good to see Intel with a good CPU... i'm not on intel's or amd's side ... i'm just curious about what is comming while they got a huge ammount of money. they will want to get something BIG BIG BIG then, intel will want to get something bigger bigger bigger.


********spoiler******** (joke)
then we'll see gaming servers with 4x 300$ worth quad core CPU running multi-core ready games and apps... yes... 16 cores using 15Watt each working at about 1.2ghz with 64MB total cache memory with a modular multi-GPU graphic device.

in order to use virtualization of up to 16 separate instances of windows running on a flash boot-speed booster hard drive and 4x4gb ddr3 2400mhz ram... at 9-9-9-36 latency specs ( wow, 1200mhz fsb with a 1200mhz cpu...

still, gaming servers is already a reality...
while quad core desktops begins
June 5, 2007 6:38:12 PM

Quote:
commanderspockep
You forgot the option "I don' Know." At this point who really knows what AMD is up to. We are all hoping for a good competition however.


It's a mistery... hope Computex helps *craving for news*
Quote:

DaSickNinja
I'm not sure that they will truly take back the performance crown. They might extend the lead in places that they already "owned", but I doubt that they will flip Blue.


I agree, and remembering that it is a very big market with portables, desktops and servers of every kind without forgetting the motherboard, chipset and GPUs. Regarding desktops most of the people around the world are still with Athlon xp and Pentium4 series, near my house there is a store that anouces a P4 as the next big thing even though Intel is advertising on tv all the time.
AMD doesent have the lead of the processor power, but in the value market AMD is the "Smarter choice" :lol:  :lol: 
The point is thai it realy is and in other countries these processor prices go way up taking them away from the reach of many possible buyers. Below that there isin't much doubt that an x2 will be better than a P4/D or Celeron D.

________________________________
Hope i haven't blabbed too much :roll:
________________________________
June 5, 2007 6:55:10 PM

I'm just not sure why you're looking to Intel for more performance... they currently hold the crown and if no one is willing to push the issue, they're likely to slow down the rate they're offering faster CPUs. If you want a fast Intel CPU... one faster than what is currently offered, the best thing you can do is pull for AMD to release something better.
!