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?    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.  

 
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.
 

 
Wait for the B3 revision. Rumor (Fudzilla) has it that they will be showing up at Cebit shortly.

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.

Yup, I'm waiting for the 25 page sh!tstorm.

In b4 NERD RAAAAAGGGGE

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
 
 
 
 
 

 
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)

DUMB

 
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...
 

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.

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

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.

 
This is more your style ain't it runswindows95          
 

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.

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.

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.