Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD: Stubborn or just Dumb?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Dual Core
Last response: in CPUs
February 26, 2008 1:10:22 AM

Any AMD fans out there that (the few that are left, me being one :(  ) wish AMD taped two dual core cpu's together to bide them time and also allow R&D more time to develop a superior quad core chip? Now that I think about it, maybe I should have named this thread INTEL: DUMB or DUMB LUCK? :pfff:  Does it boil down to AMD refusing to eat crow OR is it technically not possible to duck tape two x2's together and put out a pseudo quad like Intel?

I know it’s been said over and over "competition is good for the consumer" blah blah blah, the non-believers should check out what is happening over in the ATI vs. Nvidia world. (2 - 3870's in Xfire sub $399, nice, but still too rich for my blood!)

I think both sides need to start rooting for AMD, because competition is good, but more importantly, disposable income and I are having a tiff, so I can't justify paying for a half assed phenom with a "potential" flaky 3rd core right now....

Me = Bored Feel free to attack or agree. :) 

More about : amd stubborn dumb

a c 118 à CPUs
February 26, 2008 2:46:35 AM

redboy33 said:
Any AMD fans out there that (the few that are left, me being one :(  ) wish AMD taped two dual core cpu's together to bide them time and also allow R&D more time to develop a superior quad core chip? Now that I think about it, maybe I should have named this thread INTEL: DUMB or DUMB LUCK? :pfff:  Does it boil down to AMD refusing to eat crow OR is it technically not possible to duck tape two x2's together and put out a pseudo quad like Intel?


It's the latter, not the former. AMD can't just "duct-tape" two AM2 X2s together to get a 4-core MCM like Intel can put two C2Ds together to get a Core 2 Quad MCM. The reason is the integrated memory controller in the Athlon 64/X2s. If you want the specifics, there are older threads that have exactly this same topic that you should look for.

AMD *is* planning to make MCMs in the future with the 45 nm "Shanghai" Opterons. They will be 8-core MCMs made of two quad-core CPUs. However, it takes a new socket pinout (which means a new socket) to make an MCM made of chips with integrated memory controllers function correctly- socket G3. If AMD wanted to do the same on the desktop, they'd need to wait for whatever is beyond Socket AM3 as AM3 processors can work in AM2 and AM2+ boards, meaning the pinout between those, the AM2s, and the AM2+s are the same.

Quote:
I think both sides need to start rooting for AMD, because competition is good, but more importantly, disposable income and I are having a tiff, so I can't justify paying for a half assed phenom with a "potential" flaky 3rd core right now....


Wait for the B3 revision. Rumor (Fudzilla) has it that they will be showing up at Cebit shortly.
February 26, 2008 3:00:16 AM

Love the thread title.. because it's like playing with matches at the gas station.. loads of fun.
Intel waited patiently and broadsided AMD with C2D which jumped intel from last to first in performance. AMD seems to have shoved Phenom out the door to compete.. bad news still can't compete really... sad.. always one company on top anymore. Takes my 5000+ BE@3.2 to take on a E6550 running stock.
Related resources
February 26, 2008 3:56:08 AM

Blackra1n said:
Love the thread title.. because it's like playing with matches at the gas station.. loads of fun.
Yup, I'm waiting for the 25 page sh!tstorm.
February 26, 2008 4:57:41 AM

In b4 NERD RAAAAAGGGGE
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2008 6:07:20 AM


Nerd Rage...

Woohoooooo

Just thought I would add my 5 cents worth....or 2.5 p as im British......

Intel just keeps on bringing out processors that impress.... I am afraid that AMD needs IBM's help if it is to sustain any market competitiveness or new technologies.....

They are obviously stricken for cash as the bug would have been well and sorted by now as techinicians would have been "bought in" to solve the issue....

I feel from AMD 64 being one of the greatest processors ever released in its time ( the socket 939 version anyway) being the first mainstream 64 bit processor due to their purchase of Nextgen, then leading to the first dual core which was even better to one of the most dissapointing..... Sad but true.....

Ati have lied over the years, then AMD have lied, but im not saying that Nvidia have, nor Intel but the AMD banner have mis-lead all of us saying how great the Phenom was when it really wasnt much more of an advancement over the AMD64.

High end people in AMD have departed, left, for whatever reason, lost billions, bought ATI - which I could see why, but knowing the Phenom had troubles wasnt necessary a good move when they couldnt afford it.

Theyre will no doubt be a buy out somewhere along the line and the people that will make it work with an X86 license is AMD and Intel....

If Samsung or Nvidia bought them, AMD would lose Intel's license then its not worth having, its down to IBM or Intel ( which I doubt but you never know ), my monies on IBM as they used to make chips based on Cyrix.

Its a shame to see such a innovative company in such a state, the processors are only just been released through the channels and being compatible with all AM2 motherboards would have really boosted sales.. I mean how easy is it to drop another lump in to a socket to get extra speed..... The answers a no brainer isn't it.

Now after reluctently the socket 939 being dropped like the Titanic, many people were miffed to loose support of a processor that in most peoples circumstances still could cut it..I vowed to my self that I would never buy AMD again for my own computer, due to the fact that I got dumped when clearly there was still life left......

Hint processor manufacturers - look after your old tried and trusted customers first......

I have been using one for 3 years, ended up with a 4800x2 then my hard disk packed up in my raid array the other day so now im on a Q6600 over clocked...never looked back... yes I know new chips are comming and yes I will get one, but a 4800x2 lasted me all those years and still did what I wanted to do, played all the games at a reasonable frame rate with my 7800GTX....Never had an issue when it came to speed.... Just went through a- might as well stage.

The Q6600 is still the best processor for the dollar / pound.....

Lets just hope something can be sorted soon otherwise Intel will clear up....

All the best

HB





February 26, 2008 9:02:29 AM

redboy33 said:
Any AMD fans out there that (the few that are left, me being one :(  ) wish AMD taped two dual core cpu's together to bide them time and also allow R&D more time to develop a superior quad core chip?


I'd thought that the nature of hypertransport prevented AMD from doing that, but Intel, with their outdated fsb could do it. Intel seems to be having issues at 45nm, so if AMD can get 45nm out the door with no issues, then they're at least back in the competition. IMHO, and I'm no engineer chip designer, so I could be wrong; AMD should have waited for 45nm to do native quad core, even if that meant no quad core till the middle of 2008.

redboy33 said:

I know it’s been said over and over "competition is good for the consumer" blah blah blah, the non-believers should check out what is happening over in the ATI vs. Nvidia world. (2 - 3870's in Xfire sub $399, nice, but still too rich for my blood!) :) 


For the first time in my life, I spent $450 for a GPU. I used to spend $250 on cards, but I just wanted a 3870x2 and I'm happy with it. Then, of course, I found out that Nordic Hardware predicts the 4870 and 4870x2's arrive in June. Oh well, that means CrossfireX down the line for me.

Hellboy said:
Ati have lied over the years, then AMD have lied, but im not saying that Nvidia have, nor Intel but the AMD banner have mis-lead all of us saying how great the Phenom was when it really wasnt much more of an advancement over the AMD64.


What a fanboy for Nvidia! Kudos for blindly following the herd with aplomb.

Nvidia has lied too, about FX's performance vis a vis ATI's 9xxx series. Nvidia's fudged more demos, more recently than ATI ever had, just to get a few extra frames per second so they could say Nvidia's faster than ATI. The generation before the Crysis demo mishegoss, Nvidia blurred image quality on the 7xxx series to get a few extra fps. Nvidia's also paid developers in their "The way it's meant to be played" program, which impacts the first benchies from Tom's or Anandtech, so it's not been a level playing field.

Don't worry, I'm an ATI fan, but I don't deny the company has fudged 3DMark 03 and one of the later Doom demos. Nvidia's just gotten away with that kind of stuff for far longer with much fan love. Sort of like Intel with Netburst or with the reported Wolfie issues (that really need to be confirmed in independent testing)
February 26, 2008 9:27:37 AM

DUMB
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2008 9:40:03 AM

yipsl said:
I'd thought that the nature of hypertransport prevented AMD from doing that, but Intel, with their outdated fsb could do it. Intel seems to be having issues at 45nm, so if AMD can get 45nm out the door with no issues, then they're at least back in the competition. IMHO, and I'm no engineer chip designer, so I could be wrong; AMD should have waited for 45nm to do native quad core, even if that meant no quad core till the middle of 2008.



For the first time in my life, I spent $450 for a GPU. I used to spend $250 on cards, but I just wanted a 3870x2 and I'm happy with it. Then, of course, I found out that Nordic Hardware predicts the 4870 and 4870x2's arrive in June. Oh well, that means CrossfireX down the line for me.






What a fanboy for Nvidia! Kudos for blindly following the herd with aplomb.

Nvidia has lied too, about FX's performance vis a vis ATI's 9xxx series. Nvidia's fudged more demos, more recently than ATI ever had, just to get a few extra frames per second so they could say Nvidia's faster than ATI. The generation before the Crysis demo mishegoss, Nvidia blurred image quality on the 7xxx series to get a few extra fps. Nvidia's also paid developers in their "The way it's meant to be played" program, which impacts the first benchies from Tom's or Anandtech, so it's not been a level playing field.

Don't worry, I'm an ATI fan, but I don't deny the company has fudged 3DMark 03 and one of the later Doom demos. Nvidia's just gotten away with that kind of stuff for far longer with much fan love. Sort of like Intel with Netburst or with the reported Wolfie issues (that really need to be confirmed in independent testing)


In not saying that Nvidia have not lied when they have, what I am saying is, it is sad that we have been lied to by the manufacturers of all hardware to raise us hopes of performance which clearly isnt....

I repeat again and again I am not a fanboy, I just have used Nvidia in my machines over the years due to the fact that the drivers have been and still are in my opinion more stable and better than any version ATI / AMD have released...

I use whats best for me, I dont care if a company called Dog Crap makes it as long as it works.

Look the Ipod is so successful due to its interface rather than its hardware configuration, Archos for example hardware wise are much better pieces of kit, but Apple won due to it actually working very well, and easy to use. How much more difficult is it to transfer a mp3 to a cheap one compared to an I-pod.

ATI drivers have in the past been very problematic and slow on the update compared to Nvidia.. Nvidia seem more in touch talking to the rest of the world compared to ATI, talking to developers which ATI should of done ages ago.

Now Im not knocking ATI video cards, I have owned on in the past, one with a TV tuner built in... But I feel ATI being bought out has hampered the progress of their video cards whilst AMD try and sort out other issues..
I find it ironic it was a video card that started making AMD real money in the end with their 2000 series and 3000 series and not the real bread winner which should of been the Phenom...
February 26, 2008 10:43:37 AM

That Phenom would have never shiped if it was not for fiscal terrorism on the part of Intel. It is very easy to get away with murder and theft if you commit crime world wide. Its much harder to do so if you stay local because it is alot easier for people to find you. On an international level Intel is in deep **** more so then any single company on the planet I might argue atm.

Coming in second place is great. If they came in 3rd I would worry. Someone always has to take the top. The question is how far in 2nd is AMD going to fall. Instead of bashing the company people should be promoting them. If AMD ever fell your q6600 grade chips would cost over 700$$$ easy. Your high end chips in the 3-4k$ range. AMD came this far without theft. Intel can not say the same. I fear the day a company like Intel can run around the world free to do harm such as they have show themselfs perfectly capable of flaunting in the last 4 years.
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2008 10:58:46 AM

Hey, JonnyRock, that is one monkey you don't spank!
February 26, 2008 11:01:50 AM

I just dont know what AMD are doing with phenom, since core 2 the only advantage AMD have had is in memory performance, with Phenom the benchies I've seen they have thrown that away as well.
Its strange if you read all the glossy AMD info on the new technologies they have built into phenom it sound logical and well designed but then it just flops.
February 26, 2008 12:03:20 PM

runswindows95 said:
Hey, JonnyRock, that is one monkey you don't spank!


This is more your style ain't it runswindows95 :bounce:  :kaola:  :lol:  :D 


February 26, 2008 1:03:20 PM

Hellboy said:
In not saying that Nvidia have not lied when they have, what I am saying is, it is sad that we have been lied to by the manufacturers of all hardware to raise us hopes of performance which clearly isnt....


Well, the only reason I said you were was the way you phrased it: "Ati have lied over the years, then AMD have lied, but im not saying that Nvidia have, nor Intel". That logically implies you weren't saying Nvidia lied, or Intel. All companies market. Sometimes, marketing can shade over into outright lies when they're trying to hide poor performance, like AMD with Phenom or Nvidia with the FX series.

Hellboy said:

I repeat again and again I am not a fanboy, I just have used Nvidia in my machines over the years due to the fact that the drivers have been and still are in my opinion more stable and better than any version ATI / AMD have released...


AMD got a bad rep for drivers many years ago, but their drivers improved. Nvidia had a good rep with drivers, but they couldn't get Vista drivers stable for how long? Everything changes over the generations. Crossfire scales better than SLI and I suspect that CrossfireX will scale better than Triple SLI, with the caveat that games in Nvidia's paid developer program won't be as affected by Triple SLI issues. CrossfireX also won't have drivers perfected upon release, which affects early benchies, but new releases catch up.

I miss the AIW cards. Because I went AIW exclusively in the P4 AGP generation, I didn't go Nvidia, but with my first X2, I had a 7600gs on an Nvidia 405 chipset board that "due to chipset limitations" could not use an ATI card. When my wife and I compared the image quality of her X1650 Pro to the 7600gs in the Morrowind CS, in graphics programs where she modded textures and in games we both played; we noted the Nvidia images were blurry.

Nvidia did that in the 7xxx series generation for extra framerates, and since people don't go around picking alchemy components in FPS, I guess that's why Nvidia's always had more fans among gamers attracted to a Crysis than gamers attracted to an Oblivion, or The Witcher. Nvidia corrected their image quality issues with the 8xxx series, so that isn't a problem today.

A recent review of the 9600gt crowed that in SLI, it was faster than the 3870x2, but that's almost apples to oranges comparison today. Since AMD and Intel chipsets support Crossfire and only Nvidia chipsets support SLI, it mostly affects the choice of people building a new system. An apples to apples comparison would be if it's worth it replacing an 8800gts 320 with two 9600gts on an existing SLI board.

Anyone who goes SLI on a new build should not go two 9600gt, they should spend the extra $50 for a 9800gx2 and hope to go Triple SLI with a 9800gtx down the line, or they could just go 9800gtx for a later SLI. It's also an apples to apples comparison between a 9800gx2 and a 3870x2, since they're both aimed at the same market. In that race, I believe the 9800gx2 would win (but wait for the 4870x2 in June!).

Since it's a nuisance getting Nvidia and ATI cards to work on the other's chipsets in the current generation, absolute fps speed wins are less of a good benchmark than comparisons within a series for upgraders. Of course, there should be benchies between ATI and Nvidia for new system builders, but that needs to take into account benefits and limitations of the chipsets available with each choice.
February 26, 2008 1:04:29 PM

Well, you also gotta remember that the Phenom was designed as an improvement to the k8/9 core. Which was designed to counter the Pentium 4 pentium D. I can't call it a total failure, they did improve core for core performance over the k8.

What people don't realize is that core architecture R&D is started about 5 years in advance at least of product release. Phenom likely would of released when it was suppose to if Intel hadn't dropped a big ol core2 bomb. Once that happened they had to go back and try to get more performance out of the core design. For example, I can think of articles that mention Intel having been working on 45nm Nehalem for at least 9 years back so far.

AMD tends to get stuck behind on some processor design stuff because they have to almost force Intel to release the tech specs and design notes for things like SSE instructions that are part of the cross license agreement. Which is why AMDs chips when it comes to SSE some times get a generation or two behind.

AMD can't currently do glued MCM because of how the Memory controller and crossbar switch in the processors work. They may change that in Shanghai.

Like others have said, I'd wait for b3 revision. B2 is ok if you just like messing around with chips and pushing them. I've had fun with my 9600be with OCing since I've been able to experiment with OCing the NB/IMC to close to core speed, it seems to have a visible effect on overall system and processor performance, for example it raises the 3dmark06 cpu score at 2.6ghz by almost 500 points when running imc at 2.4ghz instead of 2.0ghz. So for now as far as I'm concerned the retail phenoms come factory bottlenecked, due to the lower than necessary IMC/NB clock, at least if they're gonna clock it that low they should lower the voltage too for less heat and power usage. It'll run at 2ghz at 1.09v on mine, stock for 1.8ghz is 1.25v.
February 26, 2008 1:27:09 PM

I guess its both: AMD is stubborn about staying dumb, or w/e...
February 26, 2008 2:05:14 PM

jerseygamer said:
That Phenom would have never shiped if it was not for fiscal terrorism on the part of Intel. It is very easy to get away with murder and theft if you commit crime world wide. Its much harder to do so if you stay local because it is alot easier for people to find you. On an international level Intel is in deep **** more so then any single company on the planet I might argue atm.


This is a joke post, right?
February 26, 2008 2:13:24 PM

redboy33 said:
wish AMD taped two dual core cpu's together to bide them time.


Taped? Now... it should be glued to be properly copied. But even Intel won't share the ingredients of da GluE.

:oops: 
February 26, 2008 2:17:35 PM

Mathos said:

What people don't realize is that core architecture R&D is started about 5 years in advance at least of product release. Phenom likely would of released when it was suppose to if Intel hadn't dropped a big ol core2 bomb. Once that happened they had to go back and try to get more performance out of the core design.


I hope they didn't try to patch a 5 year research project, because the result of that is patchwork and that doesn't hold up. Some minor adjustments are usually possible during the early and middle stages, but major changes usually end up messy unless R&D has quite the budget.

Mathos said:

For example, I can think of articles that mention Intel having been working on 45nm Nehalem for at least 9 years back so far.

That was a different chip though. 9 years ago intel started theoretical research regarding a 10GHZ Nehalem based on Netburst. Instead of adjusting or patching it up, they scrapped the whole thing, took what they learned from it and started something else (with the same name though).
February 26, 2008 2:50:14 PM

The Technology gap between Intel and AMD is widening....AMD is still a huge leap ahead of Intel. AMD has Innovated recently while Intel has stuck with ancient FSB technology...AMD left that old relic technology behind ages ago. How can review sites determine Phenom performance by running last generation games?.....Intel is probably paying reviewers to be negative about AMD.
Phenom is a Quad and once all four cores are used, the true powerful Phenom performance will be revealed. Why is Intel copying AMD's K10 for Nehalem?...... Intel realize Native quads are the best way forward....shame Intel couldn't think of this themselves.

I will remain a loyal AMD fan and will keep leading the AMD fans.

AMD4Eternatity!

Intel are Evil!!
February 26, 2008 2:51:14 PM

The Technology gap between Intel and AMD is widening....AMD is still a huge leap ahead of Intel. AMD has Innovated recently while Intel has stuck with ancient FSB technology...AMD left that old relic technology behind ages ago. How can review sites determine Phenom performance by running last generation games?.....Intel is probably paying reviewers to be negative about AMD.
Phenom is a Quad and once all four cores are used, the true powerful Phenom performance will be revealed. Why is Intel copying AMD's K10 for Nehalem?...... Intel realize Native quads are the best way forward....shame Intel couldn't think of this themselves.

I will remain a loyal AMD fan and will keep leading the AMD fans.

AMD4Eternatity!

Intel are Evil!!
February 26, 2008 3:12:18 PM

Even double posting doesn't make your dribble true.
February 26, 2008 3:13:30 PM

Well.. I'm sold on it. It sound so true... Must resist the power of the dark side.

*Nope* sorry.. I'll be getting the Q6600 in a couple of months.
February 26, 2008 3:15:05 PM

thunderman said:
The Technology gap between Intel and AMD is widening....AMD is still a huge leap ahead of Intel. AMD has Innovated recently while Intel has stuck with ancient FSB technology...AMD left that old relic technology behind ages ago. How can review sites determine Phenom performance by running last generation games?.....Intel is probably paying reviewers to be negative about AMD.
Phenom is a Quad and once all four cores are used, the true powerful Phenom performance will be revealed. Why is Intel copying AMD's K10 for Nehalem?...... Intel realize Native quads are the best way forward....shame Intel couldn't think of this themselves.

I will remain a loyal AMD fan and will keep leading the AMD fans.

AMD4Eternatity!

Intel are Evil!!

I like AMD, but you're a disgrace...
February 26, 2008 3:38:58 PM

LukeBird said:
I like AMD, but you're a disgrace...


What's an Eternatity?

Actually I've come to believe that the person in question is really a very big Intel fan. Because if he was really an AMD fan... he'd not post such tripe.
February 26, 2008 3:40:48 PM

Maybe I'm just too much of an AMD fan, but I really don't see why people think Intel has a huge lead on AMD. Just as an example, I was thinking of building a gaming PC/HTPC for my living room. I have a 60 inch HDTV and figure it would be nice for games. I took a quick look at Tom's hardware charts. The Q6600 is about 16% faster than a Phenom 9500 in Supreme Commander and Quake IV. It was 6% faster in Adobe Premier which is what I use for video editing and about equal in Winrar compression. Yet the Q6600 is about 40% more expensive on Newegg ($265 vs $190). To me the 9500 seems like a good deal.
February 26, 2008 3:43:19 PM

Even though AMD is not having it's best period <cough><cough> lately, without them I don't think we'd have the current crop of excellent processors from Intel. AMD has always seemed like the "work smarter not harder" camp, while Intel had played the marketing game. The innovations that AMD has brought to the market all while being the #2 company, with so much less capital than Intel should make us think a little bit. I was really glad when Intel woke up and started making the C2 line of CPUs. Who actually bought a P4 CPU? Did you do it becuase of Intel's marketing or because of their performance? I think Nvidia is following in Intel's marketing example as well. I've been an AMD fanboy for years, and just built a new system with and Intel, but I can't seem to make the switch to Nvidia as long as they feel like charging so much $$$.
February 26, 2008 3:53:43 PM

compy386 said:
Maybe I'm just too much of an AMD fan, but I really don't see why people think Intel has a huge lead on AMD. Just as an example, I was thinking of building a gaming PC/HTPC for my living room. I have a 60 inch HDTV and figure it would be nice for games. I took a quick look at Tom's hardware charts. The Q6600 is about 16% faster than a Phenom 9500 in Supreme Commander and Quake IV. It was 6% faster in Adobe Premier which is what I use for video editing and about equal in Winrar compression. Yet the Q6600 is about 40% more expensive on Newegg ($265 vs $190). To me the 9500 seems like a good deal.


Well.. it makes more sense in getting what you think is best. For example, if you already have an AM2 setup. But then I already have a 775 intel socket setup so I know what I'm going for.

One advantage I'd have, is to OC to 3ghz or lil higher.

But if your not an OC'er or you know the 9500/9600 will do the job best then go for it.

As far as the price on the Q6600, well it should come down lower in, April (40-$50)? I also assume perhaps the 9500 or 9600 may even drop, so that even something else to look forward to.
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2008 4:17:03 PM

thunderman said:
The Technology gap between Intel and AMD is widening....AMD is still a huge leap ahead of Intel. AMD has Innovated recently while Intel has stuck with ancient FSB technology...AMD left that old relic technology behind ages ago. How can review sites determine Phenom performance by running last generation games?.....Intel is probably paying reviewers to be negative about AMD.
Phenom is a Quad and once all four cores are used, the true powerful Phenom performance will be revealed. Why is Intel copying AMD's K10 for Nehalem?...... Intel realize Native quads are the best way forward....shame Intel couldn't think of this themselves.

I will remain a loyal AMD fan and will keep leading the AMD fans.

AMD4Eternatity!

Intel are Evil!!


Yo Thunderman,

How ya doing ya computer ludite.......

What with Tripple Cripple and 4 Go No Go how can even begin to compare Crash Trash thats comming from your greatest toilet store....

So Thankyou again Thunderpants for your disolusioned comments and let us know when the men come to collect you with the white coats and the green logo....

Many thanks in advance

Hellboy Fillius Fog
February 26, 2008 4:19:09 PM

The Q6600 is already selling at $200 if you look around. It can also OC to 3G/1333 by just increasing the FSB. It's a no brainer.
February 26, 2008 4:28:06 PM

MU_Engineer said:
It's the latter, not the former. AMD can't just "duct-tape" two AM2 X2s together to get a 4-core MCM like Intel can put two C2Ds together to get a Core 2 Quad MCM. The reason is the integrated memory controller in the Athlon 64/X2s. If you want the specifics, there are older threads that have exactly this same topic that you should look for.


Yes, but when the redesigned K10 they should have incorporated MCM into the design. Nothing is possible until you make a way to do it. I hope that makes sense; yes, it is not possible now, but engineer some way of doing it and then it will beat possible.



Also, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE K10 Dual-cores? AMD should be cranking high clocked K10 duals, or are they not because K8 would beat it?
February 26, 2008 4:30:41 PM

Ahhh comeon.. you just can't duct tape it. It will catch on fire. Now we wouldn't want that. Their just going to happen to figure out the secret ingredients of the GluE. Its fire proof. Even if the house burns down, the CPU will still be stuck to the..

:oops: . o O (Oh nm)
February 26, 2008 4:40:40 PM

Of course AMD's made a lot of very bad decisions lately, but they've still got a lot to work off of if they just pick up the pieces and make something out of it.

I would personally love to see them merge with IBM... then there would be even stronger competition.

I'm not going to think too much of current events, particularly because in five years nobody will even remember or care who beat out what in one particular cycle. Don't believe me? Think back a few years and see how many people (except for bitter people who used to argue over the internet about this) still give half a **** about it.
February 26, 2008 5:23:32 PM

So it was Intel’s inferior memory controller that allowed them to “glue” two dual core processors onto one chip, sounds like dumb luck to me?

I almost bought a Q6600, man what a deal :love:  , but I hated the idea that my next processor upgrade would require a new motherboard as it seems be with Intel, so I got a 5000+ BE and a new AM2+ 790fx motherboard. Watch AMD screw me on this! :non: 

Hellboy said:
Nerd Rage...

Woohoooooo

Just thought I would add my 5 cents worth....or 2.5 p as im British......

HB


Seriously, what is going on with the dollar? Used to be fun to drive up to Canada and feel Rich (like you brits here in the states) with the sweet exchange rate, now the american dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar. No offense to any up in the great white North, just reliving some fond memories!
February 26, 2008 5:28:00 PM

redboy33 said:
So it was Intel’s inferior memory controller that allowed them to “glue” two dual core processors onto one chip, sounds like dumb luck to me?



Nope, not dumb luck. Intel won't design something for the sake of it being complicated. They design and implement technology based on the end result, and how you get there doesn't matter.

When it was best to stick with FSB, Intel did. They didn't need a hyper-transport like technology (on the desktop side).


I call it wisdom, not dumb luck.


From a consumer perspective, I just look at benchmarks, I don't care how much cache, what frequency, etc... I just want to know how fast it will do the stuff I need it to do.
February 26, 2008 5:34:01 PM

So Intel is clairvoyant. Ahhhh, that makes sense! Now I get it. :kaola: 
February 26, 2008 6:09:05 PM

Don't you think AMD was just unlucky? Surely they didn't imagine Phenom working out like it did... maybe they were counting on improvements to their manufacturing process that never materialized and by that point they were too much committed to the project. No company comes up with an idea with the intent that it will cause their competitor to kick the crap out of them. Intel was a sleeping giant... K8 woke it up and C2D was the response. AMD should have been expecting nothing less out of Intel... but that's easy to say looking back.
February 26, 2008 6:11:07 PM

true.
February 26, 2008 6:37:07 PM

It seems hard to look back at what Intel has done and call it wisdom. Unless lazyness counts as wisdom. AMD has a true dual core, Intel reacts by combining 2 P4's. AMD comes out with 64 bit desktop CPU, Intel reacts by adding the feature to it's CPUs. Maybe they were working on the core 2 architecture and didn't have time to innovate? But from my point of view they were just being reactionary and hoping the masses would go with an Intel based on superior marketing.
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2008 6:46:37 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Yes, but when the redesigned K10 they should have incorporated MCM into the design. Nothing is possible until you make a way to do it. I hope that makes sense; yes, it is not possible now, but engineer some way of doing it and then it will beat possible.



Also, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE K10 Dual-cores? AMD should be cranking high clocked K10 duals, or are they not because K8 would beat it?


Hell, TC .. I like you....

You can go out with my sister :) 
February 26, 2008 7:02:15 PM

wolverinero79 said:
This is a joke post, right?


No its not. Read up a bit. Intel is in hot water. On the legal end they are probably going to be paying a nice chunk to AMD for damages related to fiscal terror and license contract violations.
February 26, 2008 7:31:39 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Yes, but when the redesigned K10 they should have incorporated MCM into the design. Nothing is possible until you make a way to do it. I hope that makes sense; yes, it is not possible now, but engineer some way of doing it and then it will beat possible.


Why?


They have incorporated MCM into the K10 core - thats how they plan to scale next gen - its just they are doing it in blocks of 4, not 2.


Quote:

Also, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE K10 Dual-cores? AMD should be cranking high clocked K10 duals, or are they not because K8 would beat it?



Quads are needed for the workstation, server, and high end markets.

AMD is happy to keep K8 exactly where it is bringing in money. It would be pretty stupid for AMD to try and compete with itself at the moment.
February 26, 2008 7:39:22 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:

Also, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE K10 Dual-cores? AMD should be cranking high clocked K10 duals, or are they not because K8 would beat it?

An interesting point, something I had completely forgotten about.
I guess, with enthusiasts really buying into quads and the generic user getting really pulled in by quad-core marketing (Gateway and Dell are supplying Phenom systems, correct me if i'm wrong) so perhaps they're going to be using 65nm K8's for a little while longer.
Will there even be K10 duals, what with the Phenom's being fairly cheap and the upcoming tri's whereabouts would a dual fit into the set-up?
Unless it was a very basic Sempron-a-like....
February 26, 2008 8:01:56 PM

Hellboy said:
Yo Thunderman,

How ya doing ya computer ludite.......

What with Tripple Cripple and 4 Go No Go how can even begin to compare Crash Trash thats comming from your greatest toilet store....

So Thankyou again Thunderpants for your disolusioned comments and let us know when the men come to collect you with the white coats and the green logo....

Many thanks in advance

Hellboy Fillius Fog


And you say you aren't a fanboy! :lol: 

Fanboys are a subspecies of poster who don't really care about the tech so much as they care about supporting "their" company and either flaming (evil intent) or lampooning (good intent) the arguments of the other side.

Your sister should go out with TC, you'd make a great family of trailer park techies.

I'm rooting for AMD to return to innovation, but Thunderman is a bit too extreme in his support. Thunderman, at least acknowledge that Intel's giving up the fsb soon and actually has better processors right now, despite "old" tech. It's not a matter of superior technology automatically winning if that superior technology isn't implemented well. AMD dropped the ball with the Phenom's but not by as much as Hellboy and TC claim.

AMD will get the errata fixed and might avoid new errata at 45nm. Intel will get their 45nm sensors fixed, but will compete against AMD with lowered prices on year old tech. Intel has no competition at the enthusiast high end, which I think is a bunch of silly rich guys with way too much time on their hands who get techgasms from overclocking regardless of what they use their PC's for when they aren't trying to get in the 3DMark Hall of Fame or crowing 'OMG, me Wolfie gets to 5 gigahertz on liquid nitrogen coolin' and beats yer gaming rig' Maybe someday they'll have a cure, but until then, support Overclockers Anonymous meetings near you. :kaola: 

LukeBird said:

Will there even be K10 duals, what with the Phenom's being fairly cheap and the upcoming tri's whereabouts would a dual fit into the set-up?
Unless it was a very basic Sempron-a-like....


There will be, but don't expect them until April, and they might go to OEM's first. AMD is definitely targeting the B2 triple cores towards OEM's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/26/amd_triple_core_...

There will be, but don't expect them until April. AMD is also targeting the B2 triple cores towards OEM's. That's because the dude who buys a Dell has no interest in overclocking and would probably need to look up virtualization in the dictionary. That's the market I've said AMD is relying on now.

AMD's budget gamer market is X2 still. If the B3 dual cores don't have issues, then they'll do well for budget gaming. Each Phenom core is 17% to 25% faster than an equivalent X2 core, but can't compete against higher clocked Conroes and Wolfies, though they'll compete against lower clocked Conroes and Wolfies.

That's because the dude who buys a Dell has no interest in overclocking and would probably need to look up virtualization in the dictionary. That's the market I've said AMD is relying on now.

AMD's budget gamer market is X2 still. If the B3 dual cores don't have issues, then they'll do well for budget gaming. Each Phenom core is 17% to 25% faster than an equivalent X2 core, but can't compete against higher clocked Conroes and Wolfies, though they might compete against lower clocked Conroes and Wolfies, because the quad cores already do.

AMD won't truly be able to compete against Intel in the enthusiast market unless 45nm Phenom arrives with no errata, better thermals, a core per core boost over B3, and higher native clocks with some headroom for overclockability. The Intel fanboys will create facts based on AMD's screwups this past year and claim that no way will 45nm Phenom redeem the design because of SOI, but if the Phenom moves to that hk process, then it might be a winner by the middle of 2009; as should Swift with 780G in the notebook market
February 26, 2008 8:28:24 PM

yipsl said:
The Intel fanboys will create facts based on AMD's screwups this past year and claim that no way will 45nm Phenom redeem the design because of SOI, but if the Phenom moves to that hk process, then it might be a winner by the middle of 2009; as should Swift with 780G in the notebook market



Mid 2009 has a problem.

Nehalem.

AMD's next big step will come from fusion I think, and that could be sensitive to the success of Larrabee - but I'm willing to bet Intel cannot catch and pass ATI at their first try.


February 26, 2008 9:28:44 PM

All dumb luck aside, Intell came up with a superior design and it works well in dual or quad and soon six cores. They made a logical progression with their CPU's. Since they have a good design all they need to to is tweak it here and there and it will probably last them quite a long time.

AMD on the other hand I guess figured they would jump right to the Quad core and leave Intell in the dust. Well we know what happened with that idea. I agree that K8 was great but AMD should have come up with a new design for K10 and tried it as a dual core first. You would think that would have been the most logical thing to do.

What I can't figure out is they (AMD) must have had working CPU's of the K10 and tested it and saw that there were problems but I guess at that point they were beyond the point of no return and had not choice but to release it. I think they can recover but it will be an uphill battle. I feel like I am beating a dead horse.
February 26, 2008 9:37:00 PM

caamsa said:
What I can't figure out is they (AMD) must have had working CPU's of the K10 and tested it and saw that there were problems



I know for a fact that engineering samples of Barcelona beat, and I mean destroyed Intel quads in Q2 of 2007.


I guess there are IMC and clock problems with the production runs.



Although, to be fair, even B2 Barces beat out the Intels comfortably (clock-for-clock) in benchmarks reflecting the kinda software being run.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest