Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What if?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 8, 2008 12:37:41 PM

What if intel sold a chip like the amd 6400+ ???? That is clocked to its near max - as amd has done for years fx-60 was no different, that is it did not budge much over 3ghz.

lets take the new 8500 cpu and move the multiplier up too 10 or 11 and unlock it? what would we have?

intel x8800 what if intel sold them for $300 - seeing has its half a quad with less parts???

what if they sold a 4ghz chip? wow would that put the hurt on amd?


Since amd has been selling cpu's at their max and intel has been selling very underclocked cpu's for 2 years this tells me that intel really wants amd to stay around???

what if?

More about : question

January 8, 2008 12:58:47 PM

Intel's intention was to outperform AMD to the point where its near impossible for AMD to make a come back. There's really no point in forcing AMD out of business.

If Intel really sells a chip like FX-74 (let's assume 4Ghz C2D Penryn), AMD simply won't have anything to counter against it. 4Ghz C2D will easily surpass AMD's fastest quad at the moment, in almost every single workload. Of course, by doing so, Intel need to bin their CPU much more aggressively (4Ghz, 3.6Ghz, 3.2Ghz, so forth), and this means less yield, less ASP, less profit, and more targets for EU and FTC.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2008 1:04:55 PM

The equivalent to the 6400+ is essentially a high end P4 ... is it not?

End of the thermal line ... end of the process ... performance curve impacted by process, manufacturing, and design constraints.

Intel's process has given us cpu's with much higher headroom ... the multiplier is locked ... that's all they can do. I am sure they don't want you to have the headroom either.

Mind you ... If I owned the company I'd wind the fsb up to 1600 and lower the multiplier ... that would stuff up the cheap assed overclockers !!! heh heh ... just joking ... or are their motives for increasing the fsb partly driven by this?

Tests on increasing the fsb for the core2 line don't generate any where near the gain compared to lifting the core speed .. because the cache / prefetch / pipeline is already so efficient.

Anything Intel does at present hurts AMD ... even yawning.

It is a sad time for an AMD fanboi ... back of the bus for me.

Related resources
January 8, 2008 1:17:37 PM

or maybe intel are out of ideas for the next few so are leaving headroom if they cant come up with anything?

not to mention if amd go bust the monopoly commission will be on intels back instantly
January 8, 2008 3:18:29 PM

gow87 said:
or maybe intel are out of ideas for the next few so are leaving headroom if they cant come up with anything?

not to mention if amd go bust the monopoly commission will be on intels back instantly


PLUS something overclockers seem to discount... some people must have rock solid systems and are not willing to overclock. Not even 100Mhz.

(I know that people claim that their overclocked systems are rock solid stable... but can you be 100% sure? Can Intel? Would you bet your life on it? If not they won't push the chip to that frequency.)
January 8, 2008 3:24:54 PM

keithlm said:
PLUS something overclockers seem to discount... some people must have rock solid systems and are not willing to overclock. Not even 100Mhz.

(I know that people claim that their overclocked systems are rock solid stable... but can you be 100% sure? Can Intel? Would you bet your life on it? If not they won't push the chip to that frequency.)


I can say the system I'm using now (Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz) is rock solid. Its been running F@H for the past three weeks, full load, with no faults.

The reason why Intel clock them at varying frequency is because of binning. Every die has the potential of clocking a lot higher. It is downclocked to, 1. lower TDP 2. lower power consumption 3. fit the binning Intel designed.
January 8, 2008 3:48:48 PM

Intel wants to stay one or two steps ahead... not the whole field.
January 8, 2008 3:54:52 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I can say the system I'm using now (Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz) is rock solid. Its been running F@H for the past three weeks, full load, with no faults.

The reason why Intel clock them at varying frequency is because of binning. Every die has the potential of clocking a lot higher. It is downclocked to, 1. lower TDP 2. lower power consumption 3. fit the binning Intel designed.


I always have fun overclocking any new system I build.

After I'm done playing with that it then goes back to the stock settings.

Some people consider that "stupid". I don't care. I need stability more than I need bragging rights. Sure I lose a few hundred MHz of frequency that I could probably call 100% stable... but I don't care. I don't NEED that added speed; saving 10 seconds in a job that takes over a minute is not enough to bother with. Getting 5 more fps in a game when I'm already over 60fps is not important.

What is important is being able to hit "Load optimized defaults" and be good to go.

(And just because you've had 3 weeks of stability F@H... I wouldn't consider the 3.0Ghz to be completely stable in all situations... you'll probably have to lose a few hundred MHz to be stable in ALL situations.)
January 8, 2008 4:18:20 PM

dragonsprayer said:
What if intel sold a chip like the amd 6400+ ???? That is clocked to its near max - as amd has done for years fx-60 was no different, that is it did not budge much over 3ghz.


It was called Prescott.
January 8, 2008 4:28:24 PM

keithlm said:
I always have fun overclocking any new system I build.

After I'm done playing with that it then goes back to the stock settings.

Some people consider that "stupid". I don't care. I need stability more than I need bragging rights. Sure I lose a few hundred MHz of frequency that I could probably call 100% stable... but I don't care. I don't NEED that added speed; saving 10 seconds in a job that takes over a minute is not enough to bother with. Getting 5 more fps in a game when I'm already over 60fps is not important.

What is important is being able to hit "Load optimized defaults" and be good to go.

(And just because you've had 3 weeks of stability F@H... I wouldn't consider the 3.0Ghz to be completely stable in all situations... you'll probably have to lose a few hundred MHz to be stable in ALL situations.)


Pretty much the same with my E4400 @ 3ghz... Been folding for over 4 weeks, but had reboots on expected stuff (some software updates). And what I want to point out, is MS. Seems as though my new system will reboot after 6 days. My old system P4 3ghz, would reboot in about 3-5 days, and had weird problems every now and then, and it was at stock settings. (when it was running XP)

Now my old system is running linux folding, and it ran 27 days straight folding. :lol: 

So being stable is one thing hardware wise... software wise.. is another story. :whistle: 
January 8, 2008 4:45:04 PM

what if i had not written this after being up for 20 hours?

As far as prescott being the 6400+ we not talking history here we are talking today and in the future.

The e8500 will 4.25ghz on air - why not market it a 3.8ghz or 4ghz?
January 8, 2008 4:50:27 PM

I think the company that is lagging behind typically eliminates all headroom and clocks to the max. That's what Intel did when AMD was schooling them with K8 vs Netburst.

Now that AMD is FARRR behind (more so than Intel was) you see AMD's products clocked to the max, and you start to see "Black Editions" that force you to buy your own premium cooling solution.
January 8, 2008 4:51:56 PM

keithlm said:

(And just because you've had 3 weeks of stability F@H... I wouldn't consider the 3.0Ghz to be completely stable in all situations... you'll probably have to lose a few hundred MHz to be stable in ALL situations.)


F@H is probably the most stressful program for a desktop CPU, even more so than Prime 95. If what you mean by all situations is every task I would ever do on my computer, then yes, my computer is rock solid at 3.0Ghz.

Now, can we stop playing this stupid word game?
January 8, 2008 5:12:30 PM

not true mr Tc - i like you by the way .....but:

the fx-60 was the farthest amd got ahead - way way out

fx-60 when first released did not clock much over 2.8ghz - might been chipset issues ??/
January 8, 2008 5:21:17 PM

If Intel did this, it would literally wipe out AMD. I don't think they would want that.

Consider this - the upcoming E8200 at $163 already trumps the X2 6400+. AMD's entire dual core lineup is essentially worth less than $150. If Intel puts any more pricing pressure on AMD. . . well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the consequences. ;) 

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I think the company that is lagging behind typically eliminates all headroom and clocks to the max. That's what Intel did when AMD was schooling them with K8 vs Netburst.

Now that AMD is FARRR behind (more so than Intel was) you see AMD's products clocked to the max, and you start to see "Black Editions" that force you to buy your own premium cooling solution.


True, the difference is that AMD was not so far ahead with K8 that they could afford to sandbag their own processors. The FX-60 @ 2.6GHz was pretty much at the limit of what AMD could do at the time, and has a 125W TDP to show it.

This time around, Intel is releasing Wolfdales that consume ~30W of power under load whilst wiping out the competition. Intel could easily release 3.6GHz+ Wolfdales that fits under the standard 65W TDP, but there is no need to.
January 8, 2008 7:06:47 PM

epsilon84 said:
If Intel did this, it would literally wipe out AMD. I don't think they would want that.

Consider this - the upcoming E8200 at $163 already trumps the X2 6400+. AMD's entire dual core lineup is essentially worth less than $150. If Intel puts any more pricing pressure on AMD. . . well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the consequences. ;) 



True, the difference is that AMD was not so far ahead with K8 that they could afford to sandbag their own processors. The FX-60 @ 2.6GHz was pretty much at the limit of what AMD could do at the time, and has a 125W TDP to show it.

This time around, Intel is releasing Wolfdales that consume ~30W of power under load whilst wiping out the competition. Intel could easily release 3.6GHz+ Wolfdales that fits under the standard 65W TDP, but there is no need to.



ya thats the point of my post - intel could wipe out amd and its not in their best interest? the eu would blaim intel and mke intel buy amd a new company!
!