Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Retail Phenoms slower than review samples + more errata info

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 4, 2007 5:14:36 AM

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13724

Quote:
To recap, the erratum is a chip-level issue involving the TLB logic for the L3 cache that can cause system hangs in specific circumstances. AMD has a fix for the problem in the works, but it degrades performance. AMD has stated publicly that the workaround can lower performance by as much as 10%, although one source characterized the performance hit to TR as 10-20%.


Quote:
Saucier clarified the exact nature of the workaround for the erratum that AMD has provided to motherboard makers and PC manufacturers. The fix comes in the form of a BIOS update, and this BIOS patch includes an update to the CPU microcode. This update disables the portion of the chip's TLB logic that is problematic. Saucier noted that the L3 cache "still works" with this logic disabled, and he said AMD has no plans to implement the fix for existing chips in a different way.


Quote:
We don't yet have a BIOS with the workaround to test, but we've already discovered that our Phenom review overstates the performance of the 2.3GHz Phenom. We tested at a 2.3GHz core clock with a 2.0GHz north bridge clock, because AMD told us those speeds were representative of the Phenom 9600. Our production samples of the Phenom 9500 and 9600, however, have north bridge clocks of 1.8GHz. We've already confirmed lower scores in some benchmarks.

Given everything we've learned in the past few days, our review clearly overstates Phenom 9600 performance, as do (more likely than not) other reviews of the product. We can't know entirely by how much, though, until we can test a Phenom system with the TLB erratum workaround applied.


Poor form, AMD. Phenom should NEVER have been released in this state, B2 is clearly a problematic and immature stepping. AMD should do the honourable thing and recall these processors IMO, their customers deserve better than this. :non: 

Also, handing out review samples that are faster than retail versions borders on unethical conduct. Say what you will about Intel and they shady business practices, but AMD is no saint either.

I just can't fathom what AMD was thinking here. Surely they realise people would notice a 200MHz discrepancy in the NB speed... was the small performance gain in reviews really worth the bad PR image they are getting now? I think not.
December 4, 2007 7:33:31 AM

I also think they shouldnt have released immature stepping, but AMD was hard pressed for the roadmap timing and probably couldnt allow yet another postponement of launch. Imagine 1000s of threads how "AMD lied again! No cpu's released!!!!" Another reason - its possible AMD found out too late about this, and recalling would be heavier hit on finances than letting it go 10% slower in certain cases.

BTW, C2D also had a bug, but cpu's werent recalled either, same approach of microcode update.

"Also, handing out review samples that are faster than retail versions borders on unethical conduct."
Yes its not the best way, but name ONE company who doesnt do that? You wont find any.
December 4, 2007 7:40:52 AM

That is sad...
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2007 10:32:51 AM

The sad part is the Fanbois will still claim that Rabbit Turd is really delicious coffee bean...
December 4, 2007 11:39:37 AM





Harrisson wrote :

BTW, C2D also had a bug, but cpu's werent recalled either, same approach of microcode update.



True... but.....

The C2D microcode update actually fixed the issue and there was no performance hit....

That is a meanngful qualitative difference IMHO.
December 4, 2007 11:42:08 AM

lol at your anology there :) 
December 4, 2007 2:54:15 PM

First you should change the title. That's not what Tech Report said. They sid the WORKAROUND in the BIOS lowered performance NOT the retail revision.

Second, wow. I guess with all of the negative AMD posts, I guess my positive ones kind of level the field.
December 4, 2007 3:22:48 PM

""workaround can lower performance by as much as 10%"" that's too much i guess. I want maximum return of value for money. I hope everthing will be alright for AMD otherwise everone knows what will happen
December 4, 2007 3:43:41 PM

wow AMD wow

lets see here

AMD: **** processors but great upgradeability in its AM2 platform
Intel: really awesome processors but **** upgradeability since it keeps switching chipsets every new processor iteration it creates: p965 now pretty much useless, p35+ good for penryn but screwed for 1666mhz?, yay new chipset for nehalem when it comes out. WTF intel, take some notes from AMD
December 4, 2007 4:17:36 PM

BaronMatrix said:
First you should change the title. That's not what Tech Report said. They sid the WORKAROUND in the BIOS lowered performance NOT the retail revision.

Second, wow. I guess with all of the negative AMD posts, I guess my positive ones kind of level the field.



You are rediculous Baron. People have to apply the fix so that their AMD Crapron system won't hang and crash. So therefore, your system will be slower than all the fancy benchmarks you've seen.

If Intel had an issue like this you would have an electronic orgasm on these forums and would break into song and dance.

Phenom is a disaster of a release with recalls, sub-par performance, it didn't live up to AMD's promises, and the fact that Phenom systems will need a BIOS update that source are quoting as making the systems 10-20% slower...

Phenom = Phailure

Title is accurate, unless you want me to make up one of my creative titles!
December 4, 2007 4:19:22 PM

BaronMatrix said:
First you should change the title. That's not what Tech Report said. They sid the WORKAROUND in the BIOS lowered performance NOT the retail revision.


How about you reread the article? Retail Phenoms have a NB speed of 1.8GHz instead of the 2GHz used in reviews.

I even QUOTED the bit where they clearly say a retail Phenom would underperform the reviewer samples. Must have been filtered out by those huge fanboy glasses or something...
December 4, 2007 8:12:33 PM

This would be why I never jump right on to new processors or hardware until there has been at least one revision cycle on the process since release. And if I remember correctly it was stated in one of the reviews, Anandtech, if I remember correctly that the phenoms he had were running on 1.8ghz nb memory plane speed. I believe this may likely be due to the chipset used, or the platform. For example they were supposed to run on a 1.8ghz memory controller speed on any regular AM2 board, but could be upped to 2Ghz on the AM2+ boards that used the newer spider platform chipsets.
December 4, 2007 9:29:09 PM

Mathos said:
This would be why I never jump right on to new processors or hardware until there has been at least one revision cycle on the process since release. And if I remember correctly it was stated in one of the reviews, Anandtech, if I remember correctly that the phenoms he had were running on 1.8ghz nb memory plane speed. I believe this may likely be due to the chipset used, or the platform. For example they were supposed to run on a 1.8ghz memory controller speed on any regular AM2 board, but could be upped to 2Ghz on the AM2+ boards that used the newer spider platform chipsets.


Anandtech did use the new 790FX based motherboard, which is the Spider platform chipset of choice, if I remember correctly.
As you can see in the test configurations in the link: Anandtech's Test platform.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2007 9:43:52 PM

eviltwin17, same can be said about AMD taking notes from Intel. Don't release a product with claims that it is better then underperforms badly.

Intels upgrade right now is pretty bad compared to AMD but as I have said before if you want HT3, CFX and the latest and greatest you will need the newer chipset/mobo.

And the P965 is not useless. Asus shows support for Penryn on their mobos using the P965. Its more a BIOS update than the chipset. The P965 supports up to 130wTDP. It can run a 1333MHz FSB. Its just an official support.

Yes Nehalem will need a newer chipset but hey same thing happened when AMD moved to a IMC so that is expected.

As for the retail versions performing slowr than the tests versions that just goes to show AMD was trying to make their setuo look better than it truly was. And Anandtech can use a 790FX chipset but what about those who use a older AM2 mobo? Does this mean that the chip will perform even slower? Thats just sad to me.
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2007 9:45:15 PM

This is very bad news.........could cause Intel to raise prices.

PS: This all started to happen after AMD brought off ATI......maybe it's a curse?
a c 139 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2007 10:05:43 PM

Shadow703793 said:
PS: This all started to happen after AMD brought off ATI......maybe it's a curse?

That was for the most part a bad idea IMO too

@ NMDante \/ - Yes its more a timing thing then anything else....
December 4, 2007 10:17:25 PM

nukemaster said:
That was for the most part a bad idea IMO too


Actually, it was a good move for AMD, but the timing was very bad. It put AMD in a large debt, that it never had before, and when Core 2 was introduced, it limited their profits, which made that debt even worse for them.

If they had gotten ATI during the K8 heyday, it might have been a very good thing for AMD, unfortunately, they did the buyout at the worse possible time for them, and now they are feeling the after effects of the deal.
December 4, 2007 10:26:01 PM

I agree with NMDante. To compete effectively with Intel, AMD needed to get their own chipset in house and not leave it to third part vendors. I also agree that they could not have bought ATI at a worse time.

I will go on record that the AMD + ATI acquisition will go down in the business annuals as a text case on how not to do a acquisition with issues of timing being the main theme.
December 4, 2007 10:31:31 PM

dude please AMD dont die i dont want intel to increase their prices dude cuz damn no man hell no
December 4, 2007 10:33:59 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Title is accurate, unless you want me to make up one of my creative titles!

I think you should. I've been a fan of your creative titles. What will you call it this time? "Another Phenomenally Phantastic Phailure Phrom Phenom" LOL :D 

A noob question here but NB speed? I never knew there was one...does it change with the FSB?
December 4, 2007 10:39:23 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You are rediculous Baron. People have to apply the fix so that their AMD Crapron system won't hang and crash. So therefore, your system will be slower than all the fancy benchmarks you've seen.

If Intel had an issue like this you would have an electronic orgasm on these forums and would break into song and dance.

Phenom is a disaster of a release with recalls, sub-par performance, it didn't live up to AMD's promises, and the fact that Phenom systems will need a BIOS update that source are quoting as making the systems 10-20% slower...

Phenom = Phailure

Title is accurate, unless you want me to make up one of my creative titles!



So you mean I make posts about Intel? NOT!!! If they had a problem with 400M transistors, I'd say that's what happens. NONE OF THE REVIEWERS HAD THE PATCH APPLIED IN TAHOE AND NO ONE REPORTED CRASHES.

But I've got an idea. Stop thinking about it and don't plan to buy one.
December 4, 2007 10:43:09 PM

epsilon84 said:
How about you reread the article? Retail Phenoms have a NB speed of 1.8GHz instead of the 2GHz used in reviews.

I even QUOTED the bit where they clearly say a retail Phenom would underperform the reviewer samples. Must have been filtered out by those huge fanboy glasses or something...



I've heard enough doom and gloom, I guess. I guess we'll see what B3 runs at. It is possible that the error is exacerbated by the higher link speed. But the Tech Report also said that early samples were B3 so I guess they had to pull the trigger with the BA and B2 revs.

I'm confident that the makers of X2 will sort out the problems. You all act like this is AMDs first chip and it means they can't make CPUs.
December 4, 2007 10:48:36 PM

1767224,21,55572 said:
So you mean I make posts about Intel? NOT!!! If they had a problem with 400M transistors, I'd say that's what happens. NONE OF THE REVIEWERS HAD THE PATCH APPLIED IN TAHOE AND NO ONE REPORTED CRASHES. quotemsg]

1) The systems were hand selected and controlled by AMD. They could have found the 5-10 most stable chips out of 10,000s they had built.

2) Even under these controlled settings, the reviewers were not allowed to attempt any Overclocks on the systems they were benchmarking. There was a single system they were allowed to OC, but they were not allowed to put any software on the system to test it. This indicates AMD feared placing any type of load on the systems. Not a good sign when you stage an event and can't even build a handful of powerful systems for folks to test.

3) The tested chips do not even match what is being shipped. They have adjusted the shipping chips to lower the NB speed, most likely to try and address the TLB issues but even that has not worked. They now need to shutdown parts of its functions. Once that is done, it will have little if any Clock for Clock performance advantage of the old K8 chips except for applications that can make use of all 4 cores.
December 5, 2007 1:07:47 AM

BaronMatrix said:
NONE OF THE REVIEWERS HAD THE PATCH APPLIED IN TAHOE AND NO ONE REPORTED CRASHES.


Tahoe was a freaking joke. AMD wasn't confident enough in their product to ship it out to reviewers and forced them to come to Tahoe and wouldn't let them raise voltages (read: OVERCLOCK).

We'll have to see Baron. I'm not convinced by one TechReport article, but I fear more will follow this week, if so, look to see AMD @ 8.50 a share
December 5, 2007 1:24:13 AM

Quote:
NONE OF THE REVIEWERS HAD THE PATCH APPLIED IN TAHOE AND NO ONE REPORTED CRASHES.
This wouldn't be the same AMD supervised Tahoe "exhibit" Anandtech was referring to would it?
December 5, 2007 1:35:29 AM

BaronMatrix said:
You all act like this is AMDs first chip and it means they can't make CPUs.


The truth is that AMD is acting like it is their first chip. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. I hope they get their B3 stepping out soon.
December 5, 2007 3:45:36 AM

BaronMatrix said:
You all act like this is AMDs first chip and it means they can't make CPUs.

I cant help but see the irony in that comment. It is in fact not AMDs first chip meaning AMD should have:
-Been able to deliver the product they claimed they were making
-Known enough not make claims they couldnt fulfill.
-Released a product which was..........ready for release, rather than ready for recall
-Known enough to know that they were subject to the same difficulties they gloated their competitors would experiance (which, ironically enough, their competitors did not experiance)
-Known enough to not commit the same acts they stood on their 'podium' pontificating their comptition was guilty of

One would expect an experianced manufacturer would have realized these simple things.
December 5, 2007 4:03:56 AM

yes amd did not due their homework we all know
they bought ati to help solve their issues but the true quad has been harder then the cell it appears
December 5, 2007 1:34:20 PM

zenmaster said:
1767224,21,55572 said:
So you mean I make posts about Intel? NOT!!! If they had a problem with 400M transistors, I'd say that's what happens. NONE OF THE REVIEWERS HAD THE PATCH APPLIED IN TAHOE AND NO ONE REPORTED CRASHES. quotemsg]

1) The systems were hand selected and controlled by AMD. They could have found the 5-10 most stable chips out of 10,000s they had built.

2) Even under these controlled settings, the reviewers were not allowed to attempt any Overclocks on the systems they were benchmarking. There was a single system they were allowed to OC, but they were not allowed to put any software on the system to test it. This indicates AMD feared placing any type of load on the systems. Not a good sign when you stage an event and can't even build a handful of powerful systems for folks to test.

3) The tested chips do not even match what is being shipped. They have adjusted the shipping chips to lower the NB speed, most likely to try and address the TLB issues but even that has not worked. They now need to shutdown parts of its functions. Once that is done, it will have little if any Clock for Clock performance advantage of the old K8 chips except for applications that can make use of all 4 cores.
said:




Tahoe was the same as the Nehalem, Penryn and even Conroe first reviews. People were allowed to use the OverDrive application and some reviewers did do a test or two they brought on flash drives.

But if they did mean to defraud then someone should be punished. The fact remains that everyone sat quietly up until C2D like little sheep. I guess AMD would have to making $5B a quarter for you all to give it a rest. Well, with the increased share and XMas they may break $2B for Q4.

And since we insist, I can say that at least there are production problems unlike NetBurst which just sucked. And hey that so-called Hi-K is doing a great job at getting hotter than the 9650. Intel screamed from the top of their lungs how much better it was. And they do have enough money to throw at problems. I guess they just talk a good tick.
December 5, 2007 1:38:53 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Tahoe was a freaking joke. AMD wasn't confident enough in their product to ship it out to reviewers and forced them to come to Tahoe and wouldn't let them raise voltages (read: OVERCLOCK).

We'll have to see Baron. I'm not convinced by one TechReport article, but I fear more will follow this week, if so, look to see AMD @ 8.50 a share



Maybe Hector is taking a page from the Steve Ballmer book. Microsoft was at $120 seven years ago and they make even more money now at barely $30.

AMD shipped Barcy to lots of reviewers. BTW, do you work for Intel and have to punish yourself for buying AMD?
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2007 1:44:27 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Maybe Hector is taking a page from the Steve Ballmer book. Microsoft was at $120 seven years ago and they make even more money now at barely $30.



Baron: Please do us all a favor and educate yourself on what a Stock Split is. Then look up how many Microsoft has had in the last 7 years. Once you have accomplished those two things, you will understand how asinine your statement is.
December 5, 2007 1:55:08 PM

turpit said:
I cant help but see the irony in that comment. It is in fact not AMDs first chip meaning AMD should have:
-Been able to deliver the product they claimed they were making

Why don't we talk about the effect of the losses? Can we not imagine that Intel knew full well that the price war would affect K10 by giving AMD less cushion to make less Brisbane and Turion.



-Known enough not make claims they couldnt fulfill.


Well, no matter what, a person can buy a functioning 9500 or 9600 from Newegg as of yesterday. I'd rather they pulled Opteron since SQL servers have mission-critical data


-Released a product which was..........ready for release, rather than ready for recall


If they had waited, it would be something else. Native quad core is more product differentiation than anything else. That's why Intel WILL do it. Then they have what AMD does. I have no doubt that AMD will quickly move to B3 now, which is said to not have the errata and to be a better stepping.


-Known enough to know that they were subject to the same difficulties they gloated their competitors would experiance (which, ironically enough, their competitors did not experiance)


Intel was the company without the guts to make it work. The losses contributed as I expected to this release.



-Known enough to not commit the same acts they stood on their 'podium' pontificating their comptition was guilty of


Which acts are those?



One would expect an experianced manufacturer would have realized these simple things.

December 5, 2007 2:11:39 PM

Scotteq said:
Baron: Please do us all a favor and educate yourself on what a Stock Split is. Then look up how many Microsoft has had in the last 7 years. Once you have accomplished those two things, you will understand how asinine your statement is.



Well, as a former employee who watched the stock reach 120, I know that after splits the stock usually goes back up when Wall St is happy. Splits ALWAYS occur after the stock RISES consistently. MS' 5year is between 22 and 37. A stock that traded at 120 doesn't split when it's stuck at 25% of its former high. If MS did a 2 for 1, the stock would be at 16.

But then, what do I know?
December 5, 2007 2:22:43 PM

BaronMatrix said:
You all act like this is AMDs first chip and it means they can't make CPUs.



Whelp, in a sense, it is their... First.... Native... Quad... CPU. :whistle: 
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2007 2:36:49 PM

Nice Tapdance there, BM.... Infering that MSFT would do a split now, when I was pointing out that they have previously split.

What you have done is take a PRE-split $120, claimed the current $30 is indicative of the stock's performance, and completely ignored the effect of the the splits which have occurred in the same timeframe. What this does is make stock that's more or less flat look like it's trading at 25%. It's bullsh*t, and you know it d*mned well. You are smarter than that, therefore I must conclude you are intentionally lying.

Besides - Microsoft *MAKES* money. AMD is currently not doing so.

But what do I know...
December 5, 2007 3:43:59 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Tahoe was the same as the Nehalem, Penryn and even Conroe first reviews. People were allowed to use the OverDrive application and some reviewers did do a test or two they brought on flash drives.

Nope. Tahoe was a controlled test environment for their soon to be released CPU.
Conroe results were done independently, and were not believed by many when the initial testing results were released. Same with Penryn (Yorksfields). There was no Intel controlled event.
Nehalem hasn't been reviewed by anyone, and was shown at IDF, which is an event by Intel for more than just benchmarking or testing.

But if they did mean to defraud then someone should be punished. The fact remains that everyone sat quietly up until C2D like little sheep. I guess AMD would have to making $5B a quarter for you all to give it a rest. Well, with the increased share and XMas they may break $2B for Q4. said:
But if they did mean to defraud then someone should be punished. The fact remains that everyone sat quietly up until C2D like little sheep. I guess AMD would have to making $5B a quarter for you all to give it a rest. Well, with the increased share and XMas they may break $2B for Q4.

$2B in Q4? They can only hope. And no, they don't need to make $5B a quarter, but even breaking even would be good for them.

And since we insist, I can say that at least there are production problems unlike NetBurst which just sucked. And hey that so-called Hi-K is doing a great job at getting hotter than the 9650. Intel screamed from the top of their lungs how much better it was. And they do have enough money to throw at problems. I guess they just talk a good tick. said:
And since we insist, I can say that at least there are production problems unlike NetBurst which just sucked. And hey that so-called Hi-K is doing a great job at getting hotter than the 9650. Intel screamed from the top of their lungs how much better it was. And they do have enough money to throw at problems. I guess they just talk a good tick.


You really don't read well, do you. Is the QX9770 released? No. It's still an ES CPU. If the QX9770 is still consuming more power when released, then you can laugh all you want, until then, that's just silly.

Netburst might have sucked, but it was still profitable. And I'd rather have a sucky working CPU, than production problems anyday. A process can only be tinkered so much, until a new process development is needed. Oh, and Intel isn't screaming about Hi-K, they don't need to. If it wasn't so great, why is IBM and AMD thinking about using it?

You have a knack of blaming everyone but the actual problem - AMD.
December 5, 2007 4:10:50 PM

Scotteq said:
Baron: Please do us all a favor and educate yourself on what a Stock Split is. Then look up how many Microsoft has had in the last 7 years. Once you have accomplished those two things, you will understand how asinine your statement is.


Thanks, you saved me the time and typing.
December 5, 2007 4:13:12 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Tahoe was the same as the Nehalem, Penryn and even Conroe first reviews. People were allowed to use the OverDrive application and some reviewers did do a test or two they brought on flash drives.


You are not correct. This was the freaking week before the product was recalled, opps, I mean launched, not recalled. Conroe was shipped to reviewers and they were allowed to use and abuse the chips on their own hardware and in their own labs.

AMD knew it had a dud and that is why the Tahoe event was staged instead of sending the chips to reviewers.
December 5, 2007 4:13:36 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Tahoe was the same as the Nehalem, Penryn and even Conroe first reviews. People were allowed to use the OverDrive application and some reviewers did do a test or two they brought on flash drives.

But if they did mean to defraud then someone should be punished. The fact remains that everyone sat quietly up until C2D like little sheep. I guess AMD would have to making $5B a quarter for you all to give it a rest. Well, with the increased share and XMas they may break $2B for Q4.

And since we insist, I can say that at least there are production problems unlike NetBurst which just sucked. And hey that so-called Hi-K is doing a great job at getting hotter than the 9650. Intel screamed from the top of their lungs how much better it was. And they do have enough money to throw at problems. I guess they just talk a good tick.


Interesting that you claim netburst sucked. It was a power house in terms of wattage, also in terms of heat. But hey..Taking my extremely hot 3.2 prescott to 4ghz was not a problem what so ever, at least it worked. It may have taken/produced a lot of wattage/heat....But atleast there weren't architectural issues that completely destroyed the value of their processor. Even compared to the Athlons at the time...The intel solutions were still better for video editing (single core era). Compared to the current barcelona's we have from AMD...Which were run through countless delays, only to be released faulty. It doesn't clock high, it has leekage issues, and MANY other issues which I feel bad to even mention. The K8 series were simply fantastic processors, I love the X2 series as well. But stating Netburst sucked, when AMD is having some massive technical issues with a retail Barcelona, is flat out childish. Netburst wasn't the best processor, we all know that. But atleast it worked without issues and clocked high to provide some competition.

I pray that a new stepping does help out bring Phenom to competition. But I can't understand how you can spew this garbage of netburst sucking and all this other garbage, when at the time they had processors retailing at the thousand dollar mark. Their processors worked, they could clock higher even though they demanded lots of power/heat, unlike the current Phenom which can't even clock above 2.3 ghz. Compared to now, the most expensive phenom is 260-300 dollars, which might I add is overpriced for it's performance.

Regarding High-K. if you want to be ignorant and ignore the fact that the QX6850, like the QX9650, is also rated at 130TDW, then that's your fault. The QX6700 is rated at 130W TDP, mean while the q6600 is listed as 95W TDP. These extreme edition processors always have a high TDP, unlike their desktop consumer based platforms which run cooler with the less voltage. Those 45nm desktop yorkfield processors have not been released to market yet, and will surface in january 2008. We have no idea what the power drawHonestly man, you really need to think about what your saying and look a little deeper before you just spout nonsense that makes you look even worse. We also know how AMD/Intel both rate power draw differently.

Hopefully AMD can fix these issues. I'm rooting for them, but I don't understand how you can not look at the facts and just admit it for once. The article approval concept and NDA which amd adopted before showing off barcelona, due to their inferior processor, was a complete joke. Not allowing reporters to post a legitimate review? Forcing them to submit it to AMD to approve the article before it can be posted? AMD unfortunately bit off more then they can chew. I will admit gladly that Intel has adopted decisions that AMD has taken in their design. Soon will have Nehalem with a IMC and their Quick Connect interface which is basically AMD's HT link. AMD always plans to innovate which I respect and approve of, but they bit more than they can chew, this time. They acquired ATI, they split their R&D staff and funding among vast amounts of projects, and blindly followed their Native Quad core ideology too far.

Regarding C2D, it gave enough of a reason for consumers to sit in front of it like little sheep. It was a fantastic processor architecture, and it still is. Everyone waited patiently for AMD to release Barcelona, no one was angry. But once a delay, after another multiple delays were laid on top of each other, people got angry. With good reason too, the product was hyped to no end, and failed to meet expectations. I won't even comment on their actual current retail products. They were forced to work on all these issues, but still couldn't get it done quick enough. With all the delays, AMD had no choice but to release a unfinished product if they wanted any chance to make profit. Even if that meant selling a incomplete product, which you cannot deny, is incomplete due do these issues. We have production samples for a reason, but the actual retail product which has been delayed for so long has become the production sample, which is outrageous. I do not doubt that IF AMD can solve these problems, and get their Barcelona architecture clocking high, that there competitiveness will rise. There faster clocked products will rise in price to compete with intels offerings. Will this happen soon?, we have no idea, but if it doesn't, AMD is in big trouble, and you have to at least admit that. It's not that difficult to look at all the facts, which there are many, and admit it. Penryn isn't a big issue, it's just the "Tick" in the "Tick Tock" program, which is the perfect way to go about the x86 market. Once the "Tock" (Nehalem) is released, AMD will either face the most difficult and worst scenario for them ever, or, if they can fix their issues before hand, they might make some money before Nehalem hits market. We have no idea how much of a dent this mass focus of R&D staff/funding on Barcelona has affected their entire road map. But it would be foolish to think it hasn't. If they don't fix these issues and make some money before Nehalem hits, there is a large chance AMD will go under without support from other companies/investors. That's a fact, and plainly visible, if you just sit down, look at the situation, and think rationally, it's easy to admit. There is nothing wrong in doing so, it doesn't mean you are insulting a company that you respect. Blind love, gets you no where.

It's all up to AMD, if they can solve the problems and get some higher clocked phenoms out. They might make it through with some profit. If not, Nehalem will end up sealing the coffin, they have around 12 months...Let's see how well they do.
December 5, 2007 4:17:43 PM

Bah..double post, my bad.
December 5, 2007 7:02:07 PM

the_vorlon:

Your avatar is simply amazing!!!!
December 5, 2007 7:10:34 PM

AMD stock has dropped 4.43% and dropping quickly. Although it does pick up for a second then drop back down.... almost like someone is buying stock....
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2007 7:20:58 PM

May be AMD should sell ATI and use the money to improve CPU's?
December 5, 2007 8:21:54 PM

They are in it for the long haul. Purchasing ATI was a smart move considering what AMD's aim is for. They just happened to purchase it at the worst possible time, around the release of Core which completely killed their earnings and has driven them into debt.

I just hope a simple stepping revision can fix their issues to attain higher clocks up to the 2.8/3 ghz mark. Cause if they can't raise some competition to pull in some funds before Nehalem is released, sad to say, it might be the end for AMD. They probably won't vanish, downsize tremendously and become a smaller company. But I don't think that will happen...Unless the situation is even worse than it seems....Which in that regard..is a very sad sight..

The day competition dies in the x86 market, the more we will pay for our products, and the slower the drive for innovation will become.
December 5, 2007 8:29:39 PM

very true Kamrooz. But at the rate that AMD is going, we may not be able to see what they aimed for when purrchasing ATi. I for one, am really saddened by these turn of events.
December 5, 2007 8:45:16 PM

Same, the B3 stepping from what I've heard will have a March 2008 launch. This is a very scary ordeal. If AMD can't fix these issues and get Barcelona clocked high and performing at 100% capacity...They won't be able to turn some profit for more R&D...If that does indeed happen. We may see AMD fall out of the x86 race during mid/late 2009. I really hope this does not come to be. With the acquisition of ATI as well..it will be a very large consequence in the x86 and graphics card markets.
December 5, 2007 9:24:32 PM

Kamrooz said:


I just hope a simple stepping revision can fix their issues to attain higher clocks up to the 2.8/3 ghz mark. Cause if they can't raise some competition to pull in some funds before Nehalem is released, sad to say, it might be the end for AMD. They probably won't vanish, downsize tremendously and become a smaller company...


...and, Turpit would say, become a wallmart pc supplier of choice! (jk)
December 6, 2007 12:51:06 AM

BaronMatrix said:

turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cant help but see the irony in that comment. It is in fact not AMDs first chip meaning AMD should have:
-Been able to deliver the product they claimed they were making

Why don't we talk about the effect of the losses? Can we not imagine that Intel knew full well that the price war would affect K10 by giving AMD less cushion to make less Brisbane and Turion.

No, why dont we stick to the subject and talk about AMD:
Since it is the product AMD made which does not perform up to claims which were made by...AMD, not Intel.
Since it was AMDs R&D that created the product, not Intel's
Since it was AMD which released a product which was so far from being ready for release that one half of the product family has been recalled while the other half has been limited to minimize the impact of the problem affecting the design.

Baron, once again you use one of your typical tactics, attempting to divert attention from the problem by laying blame for the problem elsewhere.....and it is still a failing tactic. AMD designed, manufactured, promoted, and released the product, not Intel. That AMD failed to live up to their claims or provide a quality product is AMDs responsibility, not Intels.

BaronMatrix said:

turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Known enough not make claims they couldnt fulfill.


Well, no matter what, a person can buy a functioning 9500 or 9600 from Newegg as of yesterday. I'd rather they pulled Opteron since SQL servers have mission-critical data



And after 18 months of deciept and lies, failure to meet claims, a preemptive product halt, and an entire product line recall, exactly how many people do you expect will buy this flawed product? As many as purchased QFX perhaps?

BaronMatrix said:

turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Released a product which was..........ready for release, rather than ready for recall

If they had waited, it would be something else. Native quad core is more product differentiation than anything else. That's why Intel WILL do it. Then they have what AMD does. I have no doubt that AMD will quickly move to B3 now, which is said to not have the errata and to be a better stepping.


(A)
If they had waited, they would have saved money: They would not have produced retail silicon which had to be recalled...silicon which cannot be "fixed" but must go to the waste column
If they had waited, they would have saved face: Now, instead of rumours of difficulties, they through their own actions have established it as fact they they are having difficulities

(B)
Native quad core is 2 things to AMD:
1- Face saving.After all the pontificating they did on the 'failings' of MCM, they would have looked like buffoons for producing a MCM. But you know this.
2-The easier path. IMC does not lend itself to MCM. In order for AMD to go to an MCM, the easiest, fastest and most succesful route would have been to got to an off die memory controler...again, another blow to their "PR" ego/image. But again, you know this.

(C)
I find it oddly amusing that you would make the statment
Quote:
Native quad core is more product differentiation than anything else. That's why Intel WILL do it.

When you know:
AMD reps have said they should have gone with an MCM prior to native
AMD has already said they are going to be producing an MCM.
Intel already has, and has had for over 12 months, a working quadcore.

(D)
Native quad at 90nm on SOI was so prohibitive as to be impossible. Native quad at 65nm on SOI was foolish.


BaronMatrix said:


turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Known enough to know that they were subject to the same difficulties they gloated their competitors would experiance (which, ironically enough, their competitors did not experiance)


Intel was the company without the guts to make it work. The losses contributed as I expected to this release.

"Guts to make it work"?
First, let me say Im sorry that I didnt realize this was a measure of the 2 companies penises rather than the value and quality of the products they produce. Since that is the approach you choose to take in response, allow me to provide you with a small dose of facts regarding your comment. AMD, in fact, did not make "it" work. Had they made "it" work, they would not now be recalling thier products, and in fact, the 2.6/2.8GHz products would have been released on schedule.

Now, that said, dont confuse foolhardiness with courage....they are not the same. It is more likely that AMD took the path they choose because of the negative press they would have recieved had they gone MCM, only because of their own PR regarding MCM.

Second, what, pray tell, does Intel have to do with AMD making anything "work"? Did Intel loan AMD one of its R&D teams? No? Did they let AMD borrow a research facility? No? Did they sell AMD the SOI technology? NO? Did Intel design K10 for AMD? No?

Please stop trying to divert attention away from AMDs difficulties by trying to blame Intel for them.


BaronMatrix said:

turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Known enough to not commit the same acts they stood on their 'podium' pontificating their comptition was guilty of


Which acts are those?


Oh please Baron, dont play dumb, you know quite well.
BaronMatrix said:

turpit wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One would expect an experianced manufacturer would have realized these simple things.

!