Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is AMD starting to get their act together finally?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 4, 2008 4:41:03 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080304/20080304005451.html?.v=1

Well, first I read the THG review for the new 780g chipset, which looks good. And then while reading another forum, someone posted that link over on extreme systems.

Ultimately sometimes I wonder what the state of things would be if AMD actually fully used the cross license they acquired from ATI and made Intel compatible chipsets. I bet there are some Intel fans that would like to have a 780g, or 790fx for their c2d's if they did it.
March 4, 2008 5:33:14 PM

I certainly hope AMD gets it together again. I bought their stock while it was way down, lol. I actually do have faith they'll improve, and perhaps one day I'll buy an AMD again. But not today.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2008 5:37:54 PM


Its about time isn't it folks...

I mean how long has it taken for them to move forward...


Now AMD produce a decent processor... Doh......
Related resources
March 4, 2008 5:43:13 PM

is that why intel stock is down today? probably not, but if AMD can start hitting some launch dates, they may be making a comeback.
March 4, 2008 5:49:46 PM

No, I doubt that AMD has finally gotten their act together. So they demo a few chips. Seems that I remember AMD doing something like that at Lake Tahoe with a a few handpicked Phenoms. Even then, the news people were highly limited in what they were allowed to do. And the release schedualed for the second half of 2008? When was the last time that AMD released a chip on schedual?

When I see these processors in the hands of Tom's Anandtech, etc, and read reviews that tell of good performance for a change, and see the chips advertised on Newegg, then I'll believe it. Until then, its just an AMD fantasy to me, and I prefer reality.
March 4, 2008 6:14:39 PM

alot of what AMD showed at Cebit seems very promising, but only time will tell.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2008 6:26:51 PM

sailer said:
No, I doubt that AMD has finally gotten their act together. So they demo a few chips. Seems that I remember AMD doing something like that at Lake Tahoe with a a few handpicked Phenoms. Even then, the news people were highly limited in what they were allowed to do. And the release schedualed for the second half of 2008? When was the last time that AMD released a chip on schedual?

When I see these processors in the hands of Tom's Anandtech, etc, and read reviews that tell of good performance for a change, and see the chips advertised on Newegg, then I'll believe it. Until then, its just an AMD fantasy to me, and I prefer reality.


I agree. But seeing as how the entire series of chipsets so far was all ATI with AMD's logo on them, and yes hybri CF was part of ATI's plans as well, it may well be something good AMD can use from AIT.

Of course if so I will give ATI more credit than AMD as ATI's chipsets normally turned out quite nice and they worked hard on it.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2008 6:27:26 PM

It's not that they have their act together, after all the Phenom cpus still suck. They are just continuing their goal....mid/low level computers. Basically the majority of the sells. It is good news for standard NON-gamers, but bad for gamers and high end users.
March 4, 2008 6:49:19 PM

Rome wasn't built in a day. :sarcastic: 
March 4, 2008 7:01:09 PM

AMD certainly hasn't hit the ball out of the park, but the last two product introductions have been solid hits. Times are changing for the PC industry, I hope that AMD strategy follows these changes.
March 4, 2008 7:12:58 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Of course if so I will give ATI more credit than AMD as ATI's chipsets normally turned out quite nice and they worked hard on it.


I should clarify that I was talking about the 45nm chips that were in the referred article in the original post. As for the chipsets, which are in the ATI division, they have been doing fairly well from what I have seen.
March 4, 2008 7:13:33 PM

If they would release a phenom with a quad-channel memory controller then maybe integrated graphics would make more sense. They are going to have to find a way to vastly increase their memory bandwidth if fusion is going to be worth anything.
March 4, 2008 8:06:05 PM

Seems to me that the new chipset is very good for AMD, it's not going to max out games at any resolution, but it will play them at low resolution and it does HD video, so it is a solid solution for an HTPC.
March 4, 2008 8:15:20 PM

sailer said:
I should clarify that I was talking about the 45nm chips that were in the referred article in the original post. As for the chipsets, which are in the ATI division, they have been doing fairly well from what I have seen.


I believe this is the reason why people still regard AMD and AMD, and ATI as ATI. ATI's executions has been fairly well (except R600), and with competitive products.

AMD on the other side, has been delaying launches, shifting schedules, and launching uncompetitive products. Maybe they should've asked ex-ATI CEO David Orton to lead the company than Hector Ruiz.
March 4, 2008 8:47:14 PM

Toms has a review of the 780 up now.


Looks VERY promising.


Couple this with Griffin and AMD may be on a bigtime winner in the laptop market with the Puma platform.
March 5, 2008 12:28:00 AM

rhorwitz said:
AMD certainly hasn't hit the ball out of the park, but the last two product introductions have been solid hits. Times are changing for the PC industry, I hope that AMD strategy follows these changes.



AMD hit the ball outa the park many times. It's just people like you who either refuse to admit it or maybe you are unaware.

The Barcelona sold out in 3 days at newegg.com

Some reported that they are over clocking it to 4.7Ghz. (liquid)

March 5, 2008 12:47:10 AM

Amiga500 said:
Toms has a review of the 780 up now.


Looks VERY promising.


Couple this with Griffin and AMD may be on a bigtime winner in the laptop market with the Puma platform.


One problem: Most people only recognize Centrino... :lol: 
a c 99 à CPUs
March 5, 2008 2:47:54 AM

yomamafor1 said:
One problem: Most people only recognize Centrino... :lol: 


It doesn't carry much cred here unless the laptop is a second or third or nth system as the graphics in the notebooks branded as Centrino suck. Even as far as IGPs go, the latest-and-greatest X3100 is at the bottom of the pack compared to the Radeon x1270 and GeForece 7150M.

Plus, most of us are desktop guys anyway and I haven't heard squat basically anywhere about VPro or VIIV for desktops. I've probably heard more people talk about AMD's Spider platform than any Intel desktop platform to tell the truth.
March 5, 2008 3:32:51 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD hit the ball outa the park many times. It's just people like you who either refuse to admit it or maybe you are unaware.

Man, A64 was 5 years ago... and the new guy (Ruiz) tends to strike out instead. ;) 

Quote:

The Barcelona sold out in 3 days at newegg.com

Some reported that they are over clocking it to 4.7Ghz. (liquid)


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  "No comment required"
March 5, 2008 4:42:27 AM

Quote:
Man, A64 was 5 years ago... and the new guy (Ruiz) tends to strike out instead. ;) 


In all honesty, I'm surprised Intel lived to release the Core 2 Duo.
Here's a chart of Intel's crappy products: 486sx, pentium pro, pentium 2, pentium 3, pentium 4.

Amd's crappy products:
R600
Phenom

Although, note that AMD's crappy products have the right price whereas I remember all of intel's products selling a lot higher than AMD's overpowered toys.

So AMD had 2 so-so products.... so what?
March 5, 2008 5:10:59 AM

enigma067 said:
The Barcelona sold out in 3 days at newegg.com

Some reported that they are over clocking it to 4.7Ghz. (liquid)


At first I wondered what you were smoking when I read that "over clocking it to 4.7Ghz. :pt1cable: 

Then I realized that there are four cores, so multiplying an overclock of 1.175Ghz per core times the four cores would come up with a total clock of 4.7Ghz for the entire chip. Now, is that what you really meant? Otherwise...ROFL... :lol:  :lol: 
March 5, 2008 7:56:38 AM

MU_Engineer said:
It doesn't carry much cred here unless the laptop is a second or third or nth system as the graphics in the notebooks branded as Centrino suck. Even as far as IGPs go, the latest-and-greatest X3100 is at the bottom of the pack compared to the Radeon x1270 and GeForece 7150M.

Plus, most of us are desktop guys anyway and I haven't heard squat basically anywhere about VPro or VIIV for desktops. I've probably heard more people talk about AMD's Spider platform than any Intel desktop platform to tell the truth.


That's definitely true. I hate to bring this up, but Joe Sixpack does not know what AMD is. I once told my friend, who's looking for a new laptop, that she can use AMD to save some bucks. She just looked at me as if I just said Marsian.

I agree Intel's IGP sucks compared to ATi and Nvidia's IGPs. I guess Intel still needs to work on making a higher performing graphic chipset.

Most people talk about AMD's Spider platform because its new. Centrino has been on the market since...2002? VPro and VIIV are basically craps, with VPro being slightly salvageable. VIIV is just an utter failure, and Intel pulled the plug on it a while back.

To be honest, this is where AMD is seriously falling behind: public appeal. Although more people are getting introduced to AMD system, majority of them still have no clue what AMD is.
March 5, 2008 7:59:15 AM

epsilon84 said:
Man, A64 was 5 years ago... and the new guy (Ruiz) tends to strike out instead. ;) 

Quote:

The Barcelona sold out in 3 days at newegg.com

Some reported that they are over clocking it to 4.7Ghz. (liquid)


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  "No comment required"


The last I heard the 65nm Barcelona could do 3.6Ghz on air, according to a Newegg customer (who did not purchase the product from Newegg)

So 4.7Ghz sounds really plausible for me... in terms of a Newegg user. :lol:  :lol: 
March 5, 2008 8:59:52 AM

Mathos said:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080304/20080304005451.html?.v=1

Well, first I read the THG review for the new 780g chipset, which looks good. And then while reading another forum, someone posted that link over on extreme systems.

Ultimately sometimes I wonder what the state of things would be if AMD actually fully used the cross license they acquired from ATI and made Intel compatible chipsets. I bet there are some Intel fans that would like to have a 780g, or 790fx for their c2d's if they did it.


They got their act together months ago, it just takes time to get products ready for production. Likewise their act wasn't together alot earlier than you might otherwise think. Yeah they've only demo'd a few chips, but its proof of progress nonetheless. The next 3-4 months are C R U C I A L for them.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2008 11:28:49 AM

bluekoala said:
Quote:
Man, A64 was 5 years ago... and the new guy (Ruiz) tends to strike out instead. ;) 


In all honesty, I'm surprised Intel lived to release the Core 2 Duo.
Here's a chart of Intel's crappy products: 486sx, pentium pro, pentium 2, pentium 3, pentium 4.

Amd's crappy products:
R600
Phenom

Although, note that AMD's crappy products have the right price whereas I remember all of intel's products selling a lot higher than AMD's overpowered toys.

So AMD had 2 so-so products.... so what?


Actually you forget K6 which wasn't that great and K7 was nice but very hot. Back during the Pentium - P3 era AMD and Intel had good competition. And the P4 Northwoods were great as were the Pentium D based on Ceadermill and Presler but they were over shadowed by Core2.

And if you think its just Intel putting the prices high you are wrong. Back before Core2, K8 was over priced especially the FX series which was over $1K. SO don't try to make AMD as if they really don't care about money.

As for Intel living, they do more than just CPUs. They were one of the main innovators of WiFi, they make and help push flash memory and many other products so even if their CPU area is not doing as well the rest of their products will sell. Their next innovation is WiMax and that looks just awesome.

But AMD does not have the same area of technology. They dealt mainly in CPUs befdore they bought ATI. And since they did buy ATI, Phenom flopping is bad cuz they need cash to help cover that cost.

The only reason why Phenom worrys me is that it is stalling competition thus the prices don't go down for us as fast. But this looks good and hopefully will push Intel to do the same that way we can have better IGP's so PC gaming can push off and start to get the attention we deserve. We have been rejected and ignored when all gaming now owes its dues to PC's.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2008 11:37:47 AM

yomamafor1 said:
That's definitely true. I hate to bring this up, but Joe Sixpack does not know what AMD is. I once told my friend, who's looking for a new laptop, that she can use AMD to save some bucks. She just looked at me as if I just said Marsian.

I agree Intel's IGP sucks compared to ATi and Nvidia's IGPs. I guess Intel still needs to work on making a higher performing graphic chipset.

Most people talk about AMD's Spider platform because its new. Centrino has been on the market since...2002? VPro and VIIV are basically craps, with VPro being slightly salvageable. VIIV is just an utter failure, and Intel pulled the plug on it a while back.

To be honest, this is where AMD is seriously falling behind: public appeal. Although more people are getting introduced to AMD system, majority of them still have no clue what AMD is.


This much is all true. Except I think vPro has a lot more possibilities. I have seen it in action and its nice. Will help a lot of network admins do their job more efficiently and even from home.

Spider has promise but is not mature enough yet. But right now what Spider consist of is all ATI. ATI had CFX in the works before AMD along with Hybrid CF which would have been for both AMD and Intel.

Once it matures it will be interesting to see if it helps at all. But once Intel gets Larabee up and running it may be ineteresting as well. They may even make Larabee based IGPs. Then the market will get interesting.
March 5, 2008 11:44:18 AM

jimmysmitty said:
As for Intel living, they do more than just CPUs. They were one of the main innovators of WiFi, they make and help push flash memory and many other products so even if their CPU area is not doing as well the rest of their products will sell. Their next innovation is WiMax and that looks just awesome.

But AMD does not have the same area of technology. They dealt mainly in CPUs befdore they bought ATI. And since they did buy ATI, Phenom flopping is bad cuz they need cash to help cover that cost.



Indeed, hence why longer term AMD's buy of ATI continues to make sense.

They now do CPUs, GPUs, and chipsets - a good strong diversification. Where would AMD's product portfolio be now without the Radeon 38XX series and their chipsets?


AMD are also looking to get away from pure computer (think ye olde cream desktop box) based chips and into the low power area.



Growing pains are a bitch, but they will get there in the end - I think they are still the best innovator of the big 3 (Nvidia, Intel & AMD) this millenium.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2008 11:56:48 AM

1799220,28,142837 said:
Growing pains are a bitch, but they will get there in the end - I think they are still the best innovator of the big 3 (Nvidia, Intel & AMD) this millenium.[/quotemsg]

Take out the current ATI technology as that was all set in stone before the purchase and take out a lot of the CPU area since they just purchase most of their technologies from IBM.

Intel has released HK/MG, 45nm, has 32nm, WiMax and much more in many many other market areas. I think soon AMD will be able to innovate on their own but right now they have very little that they fully developed themselves without buying and or obtaining.

Hopefully sooner than later as that will help push competition and give us some nice low priced products.
March 5, 2008 12:02:35 PM

jimmysmitty said:
1799220,28,142837 said:

Take out the current ATI technology as that was all set in stone before the purchase and take out a lot of the CPU area since they just purchase most of their technologies from IBM.
said:



Irrelevant IMO.


If it weren't for AMD bringing the stuff across from IBM, we wouldn't have it. :) 


(yeah, AMD are a back door to the x86 market for IBM, but we are benefitting)
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2008 1:47:05 PM

Amiga500 said:
Irrelevant IMO.


If it weren't for AMD bringing the stuff across from IBM, we wouldn't have it. :) 


(yeah, AMD are a back door to the x86 market for IBM, but we are benefitting)



This may be true but then the innovation goes to IBM for me. But if AMD wasn't they wouldn't have survived and would have gone the way of Cyrix and such. But then IBM would have probably come in the x86 market.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad AMD does that but I believe the company that creates it should get the credit.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 5, 2008 4:12:16 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Actually you forget K6 which wasn't that great and K7 was nice but very hot. Back during the Pentium - P3 era AMD and Intel had good competition. And the P4 Northwoods were great as were the Pentium D based on Ceadermill and Presler but they were over shadowed by Core2.


Guys:

- I agree, the 486SXes were not the best chips, but the worst part about the 486SX was that the math coprocessor was in fact a fully functional 486DX that disabled the original 486SX. That was the part that pissed most people off about the 486SXex.

- The Pentium Pro was not a crappy chip at all. In fact, it was the best x86 chip of its day. The reason people said it sucked is that it was very expensive due to the off-die, full-speed MCM L2 cache, required a new socket that was one of the more short-lived ones in Intel's history and that the new P6 arch was primarily set up for 32-bit performance rather than 16-bit performance like the P5 Pentiums. Those who ran 16-bit DOS and Windows 3.x felt shorted but those running 32-bit UNIX or Windows 3.11s or later got their money's worth.

- The Pentium II didn't really suck either. Yes, it was expensive for a decent one but so were almost all of Intel's chips until about a year and a half ago. It was generally the fastest chip on the market when it was current and spawned one of the best all-time overclocking chips ever, the SMP-capable Celeron 300A.

- The Pentium III line was a mixed bag. The PIII Katmai was generally faster than AMD's offerings and introduced SSE. The low-clocked Coppermines were good as they were the first Intel chips with on-die full-speed L2 but the high-clocked ones like the 1.13 GHz unit were notoriously hot and unstable. They also wore out the welcome of Slot 1 when the heatsinks couldn't cool the chips well enough at the high speeds. The last PIIIs, the Tualatins, were very highly regarded, particularly the 512 KB PIII-S models. They ran cool and overclocked quite well. It's no surprise that they outsold the P4 line until the Northwoods were introduced.

- I agree that the P4s were on average not very good chips. The 180 nm Willamettes were crud. The original ones used the shortest-lived socket Intel has used (IIRC), used super-expensive RDRAM and were hard-pressed to outperform less-expensive and cooler-running PIII Tualatins. The Northwoods were decent desktop chips for their day, although the mobile implementations were absolutely terrible. The Prescott was of course pretty rotten and Smithfield was completely ridiculous ("hey, we have trouble cooling one Prescott, why not put two of them in one socket?") The Cedar Mill and Presler chips were often given a worse rap than they deserved because of the previous stinker in the P4/PD line but overall were only okay. The biggest problem with the Prescott/Smithfield line, heat, was addressed quite a bit in the 65 nm parts but they were still priced too high for what performance that they delivered. The Cedar Mills/Presler parts were not so much overshadowed by the Core 2s as they were by the AMD K8s- Intel largely stopped making NetBurst parts when the Core 2s became common.

Quote:
And if you think its just Intel putting the prices high you are wrong. Back before Core2, K8 was over priced especially the FX series which was over $1K. SO don't try to make AMD as if they really don't care about money.


The worst part about the K8 prices before the Core 2s came out is that Intel still managed to not be competitive with price-per-performance with the NetBurst parts. When I bought my X2 4200+ for $360, Intel had just introduced the Preslers and was selling the PD 930 for the same price as the X2 4200+ even though the ~$800 PD 950 performed similarly to the X2 4200+. About the only price-for-performance parts Intel had at the time would be the PD 805 which was pretty slow but was pretty cheap.

Quote:
As for Intel living, they do more than just CPUs. They were one of the main innovators of WiFi, they make and help push flash memory and many other products so even if their CPU area is not doing as well the rest of their products will sell. Their next innovation is WiMax and that looks just awesome.

But AMD does not have the same area of technology. They dealt mainly in CPUs befdore they bought ATI. And since they did buy ATI, Phenom flopping is bad cuz they need cash to help cover that cost.


Yes, Intel makes things that do not depend on their CPUs to sell, like discrete NICs, disk controllers and IOPs, some EEPROM memory, various embedded ICs and a few consumer products like their NAS box and the Classmate PC. But most of Intel's business is desktop/laptop/mobile CPUs and chipsets for those CPUs.

IMHO, AMD has a better chance of selling more products if their CPUs fall flat than Intel does simply because AMD makes chipsets for other peoples' CPUs (although that will probably stop since Intel nixed any more bus licenses for ATi chipsets) as well as discrete GPUs that will work in any computer with the correct slot. BTW, AMD has had its hands in bunches of different businesses in the past as well. The ATi chipsets aren't their first run at chipsets as they had to make chipsets for the first Athlons (760 Irongate anybody?) and continue to make certain chipsets for the Opterons that they have made for years, such as the 8111 and 8131. They also were really big into Flash memory before they spun off the unit as Spansion and they'd made bunches of little RISC processors in the 2900 and 29K series. They've also made other ICs as well- I remember using a serial port I/O control chip that was made by AMD in one of my classes.

Quote:
The only reason why Phenom worrys me is that it is stalling competition thus the prices don't go down for us as fast. But this looks good and hopefully will push Intel to do the same that way we can have better IGP's so PC gaming can push off and start to get the attention we deserve. We have been rejected and ignored when all gaming now owes its dues to PC's.


Prices aren't as issue as AMD has proven they are willing to compete on price-per-performance throughout the whole Core 2 affair. If their chips are not quite as fast, they sell them for less. About the only issue would be that Intel can charge a bunch for the highest-end chips since there is no competition there, but people who want to buy the highest-end chips can choose to pay an extra $700+ for a few hundred extra MHz or not. The real issue to look out for here would be that performance increases would stagnate. Intel certainly seems to be holding back on the clock speed of the 45 nm parts as the TDPs are not very high and also people are getting them to overclock like mad. They're likely holding back such that they don't shoot the prices of their own chips in the foot and also because they've got their processes tuned for better yields instead of higher speeds to make a bigger margin.
March 5, 2008 4:16:05 PM

bluekoala said:
So AMD had 2 so-so products.... so what?



Well, they've been on the verge of financial insolvency and got rated as junk bond status, posted a year and a half of humongus consequetive loses, and also bought a company and the combined companies are now worth far less than what just the one was purchased for, but other than that it's not a big deal.
March 5, 2008 6:38:21 PM

Oh,yet a nother bash AMD party.
March 5, 2008 6:43:20 PM

ro3dog said:
Oh,yet a nother bash AMD party.



I hope I am invited!
March 5, 2008 7:09:15 PM

You are the guess of honor,lol.
March 5, 2008 7:31:40 PM

I do th AMD is plaining somthing in the future.
March 5, 2008 8:35:41 PM

Mathos said:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080304/20080304005451.html?.v=1

Well, first I read the THG review for the new 780g chipset, which looks good. And then while reading another forum, someone posted that link over on extreme systems.

Ultimately sometimes I wonder what the state of things would be if AMD actually fully used the cross license they acquired from ATI and made Intel compatible chipsets. I bet there are some Intel fans that would like to have a 780g, or 790fx for their c2d's if they did it.


I'm thinking the cross licenses expired when ATI was bought by AMD, just as AMD's x86 license would expire if the company was bought by IBM or Samsung. It would be nice for Intel fans if they could have a genuinely great chipset, one that beats anything by Intel at the moment. If Nvidia does a good job with their 8200 chipset, then it might breath new life into the Phenom market, because the 780G, at least, shines with a Phenom instead of an Athlon X2.

That said, I like the new AMD chipsets. My wife will get a B3 Phenom on a 780G, later getting a 4870 in June, and I'll get a B3 Phenom with a 790FX board for future CrossfireX. Too bad the B3's couldn't have been released the same day as the 780G.

AMD always had it together technology wise, so has ATI. The B2 errata is rare, and the core 2 issues are undocumented issues that should be investigated professionally, but probaby won't occur if anyone tries to overclock a B3 black edition when it arrives. At any rate, not many have reported it (sort of like the temp sensing issues of Intel's Wolfdales)

Enthusiasts need to get focused on reality. It's not all about the high end in terms of a company having it all together. What makes or breaks your choice does not always make a product bad for the price segment and market it's aimed at. AMD can be profitable with what it has going, and it seems that things are improving.

B2 Phenom's might lose to Q6600's by around 14%, but they make good OEM budget quad cores. The Phenom 9100 65 watt 1.8 gigahertz CPU should do well in HTPC's (I want one with a 780G and a 3470 for HTPC hybrid Crossfire!), and while B3 won't be clocked as high as Deneb 45nm Phenom's later this year, they will be good enough for a mainstream budget gaming system.

A Phenom clocked at 2.4 or 2.6 should prevent my system from being CPU limited next month (of course, I'd need that 790 motherboard). If I don't go CrossfireX, then I'll just get a 780G board like my wife, then I'll upgrade both systems when Deneb arrives between December and February.

jimmysmitty said:
Actually you forget K6 which wasn't that great and K7 was nice but very hot. Back during the Pentium - P3 era AMD and Intel had good competition. And the P4 Northwoods were great as were the Pentium D based on Ceadermill and Presler but they were over shadowed by Core2.


Shall I send you a virtual straw? I don't think that the 486DX, the Pentium, Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 were bad on Intel's part, and I'd add the K5 to AMD's bad list, but the K62 was good for budget gaming and there's no way anyone in their right mind would say that Cedarmill and Pressler were good; except as improvement to Smithfield. Let's face it, when I say that Phenom is a core to core improvement over Athlon X2, it doesn't cut it with you guys, so be consistent when looking at Intel's wins and losses.

Maybe my motto should be:

AMD because they bought ATI and ATI's worth the mild tsouris AMD brings.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 5, 2008 11:07:44 PM

yipsl said:
I'm thinking the cross licenses expired when ATI was bought by AMD, just as AMD's x86 license would expire if the company was bought by IBM or Samsung. It would be nice for Intel fans if they could have a genuinely great chipset, one that beats anything by Intel at the moment. If Nvidia does a good job with their 8200 chipset, then it might breath new life into the Phenom market, because the 780G, at least, shines with a Phenom instead of an Athlon X2.

That said, I like the new AMD chipsets. My wife will get a B3 Phenom on a 780G, later getting a 4870 in June, and I'll get a B3 Phenom with a 790FX board for future CrossfireX. Too bad the B3's couldn't have been released the same day as the 780G.

AMD always had it together technology wise, so has ATI. The B2 errata is rare, and the core 2 issues are undocumented issues that should be investigated professionally, but probaby won't occur if anyone tries to overclock a B3 black edition when it arrives. At any rate, not many have reported it (sort of like the temp sensing issues of Intel's Wolfdales)

Enthusiasts need to get focused on reality. It's not all about the high end in terms of a company having it all together. What makes or breaks your choice does not always make a product bad for the price segment and market it's aimed at. AMD can be profitable with what it has going, and it seems that things are improving.

B2 Phenom's might lose to Q6600's by around 14%, but they make good OEM budget quad cores. The Phenom 9100 65 watt 1.8 gigahertz CPU should do well in HTPC's (I want one with a 780G and a 3470 for HTPC hybrid Crossfire!), and while B3 won't be clocked as high as Deneb 45nm Phenom's later this year, they will be good enough for a mainstream budget gaming system.

A Phenom clocked at 2.4 or 2.6 should prevent my system from being CPU limited next month (of course, I'd need that 790 motherboard). If I don't go CrossfireX, then I'll just get a 780G board like my wife, then I'll upgrade both systems when Deneb arrives between December and February.



Shall I send you a virtual straw? I don't think that the 486DX, the Pentium, Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 were bad on Intel's part, and I'd add the K5 to AMD's bad list, but the K62 was good for budget gaming and there's no way anyone in their right mind would say that Cedarmill and Pressler were good; except as improvement to Smithfield. Let's face it, when I say that Phenom is a core to core improvement over Athlon X2, it doesn't cut it with you guys, so be consistent when looking at Intel's wins and losses.

Maybe my motto should be:

AMD because they bought ATI and ATI's worth the mild tsouris AMD brings.


I will only fute one thing here. Ceader Mill and Presler did show great improvement in both heat and performance. Yea they were no X2 killer but they still were much better than the Prescott/Smithfeild Pentiums.

As for it improving clock per clock over X2, thats great but most enthusiast who are not bound to a specific brand want the best. What doesn't cut it for me is that clock per clock it shows no improvement over a Q6600.

K62 wasn't bad but I remember when learning about them they were a bit hotter than Intels offerings. Both companies will have their good and bad. Happens everywhere with every company. No company yet has successfully released 100% of their product as the best or always good.
March 6, 2008 12:14:39 AM

bluekoala said:
Quote:
Man, A64 was 5 years ago... and the new guy (Ruiz) tends to strike out instead. ;) 


In all honesty, I'm surprised Intel lived to release the Core 2 Duo.
Here's a chart of Intel's crappy products: 486sx, pentium pro, pentium 2, pentium 3, pentium 4.

Amd's crappy products:
R600
Phenom

Although, note that AMD's crappy products have the right price whereas I remember all of intel's products selling a lot higher than AMD's overpowered toys.

So AMD had 2 so-so products.... so what?


The Pentium Pro might be the best x86 CPU design of the last 20 years. It introduced OoO execution and superpipelining to the desktop. It also had a vastly improved FPU compared to the 586. Today's Core processors still borrow from its heritage.
March 6, 2008 12:17:15 AM

yipsl said:
I'm thinking the cross licenses expired when ATI was bought by AMD, just as AMD's x86 license would expire if the company was bought by IBM or Samsung.


I've actually read most of the license agreement that is available online. There are ways around the x86 license, such as AMD would first have to hand off the license agreement to IBM, then leave the x86 processor business, at which point IBM would acquire the AMD brand via buyout or merger for it's intellectual property copyrights and patents. AMD's cross license itself I believe gives AMD the right to make chipsets for intel processor, or if when they bought ATI, if they did like above the license would also still exist.

But, one thing you don't wanna do while you don't have the high end, or around equal ground in performance, is make your best chipset available for your competitions higher performing processors, if they did, there would be absolutely no reason to buy AMD processors at all. I'd seriously be interested to see what a 790fx/x 780/740g could do with an ICH9R southbridge.

jimmysmitty said:
As for it improving clock per clock over X2, thats great but most enthusiast who are not bound to a specific brand want the best. What doesn't cut it for me is that clock per clock it shows no improvement over a Q6600.


Well I don't know if it stands true with other Benchmarks, but I do know from 3dmark06, that while my Phenom BE is clocked at 2.6Ghz Core, 2.4Ghz NB/IMC my CPU score is on par with the qx6700. Which more or less shows it's like I've been saying the bottleneck with the phenom is the low NB/IMC clock, not the cores themselves. The more bandwidth you give em with the NB/ the more the core performance shines.

@wickedmonster,
I agree completely, a person I use to do Lan parties with had a Pentium Pro 220Mhz up until after I upgraded to the Thunderbird k7, then I think he eventually upgraded to either a Xeon or something else.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 6, 2008 1:30:11 AM

Mathos said:

But, one thing you don't wanna do while you don't have the high end, or around equal ground in performance, is make your best chipset available for your competitions higher performing processors, if they did, there would be absolutely no reason to buy AMD processors at all. I'd seriously be interested to see what a 790fx/x 780/740g could do with an ICH9R southbridge.


The AMD 700-series chipsets for Intel would have to be quite a bit different due to the fact that they'd need a memory controller in the northbridge and that would at the least push prices and heat production up. I don't doubt that AMD could build a good one as the CrossFire 3200 for Intel wasn't a bad chipset. However, I bet that AMD would use the SB700 southbridge instead of an Intel IC as they make the SB700 and the NB-SB link would be native HyperTransport instead of trying to implement Intel's DMI NB-SB communication.

Quote:
Well I don't know if it stands true with other Benchmarks, but I do know from 3dmark06, that while my Phenom BE is clocked at 2.6Ghz Core, 2.4Ghz NB/IMC my CPU score is on par with the qx6700. Which more or less shows it's like I've been saying the bottleneck with the phenom is the low NB/IMC clock, not the cores themselves. The more bandwidth you give em with the NB/ the more the core performance shines.


I have two questions:

1. Can your RAM run at DDR2-1066 in your setup?
2. If it can, does it make much of a difference running at DDR2-800 vs. 1066 with the various northbridge settings?

I am asking these questions as you noted increased performance with upping the northbridge frequency, which would decrease RAM-to-core latency and increase NB-to-core bandwidth. I am curious if the same is also true with the RAM as well or if the Phenom isn't all that "hungry" for memory bandwidth at DDR2-800+ speeds.
March 6, 2008 1:46:25 AM

Quote:
1. Can your RAM run at DDR2-1066 in your setup?
2. If it can, does it make much of a difference running at DDR2-800 vs. 1066 with the various northbridge settings?


I must say that I'm curious about this myself. I have noticed that some of the motherboard manufacturers list support for DDR2-1066 but say that the support is dependent on processor and my downgrade to DDR2-800. What I haven't seen anywhere is a list of the processors that will enable the use of the DDR2-1066
a c 99 à CPUs
March 6, 2008 1:48:47 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
1. Can your RAM run at DDR2-1066 in your setup?
2. If it can, does it make much of a difference running at DDR2-800 vs. 1066 with the various northbridge settings?


I must say that I'm curious about this myself. I have noticed that some of the motherboard manufacturers list support for DDR2-1066 but say that the support is dependent on processor and my downgrade to DDR2-800. What I haven't seen anywhere is a list of the processors that will enable the use of the DDR2-1066


All of the Phenoms are capable of running RAM at DDR2-1066 whereas the Athlon 64 X2s can only run it at DDR2-800 without overclocking.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 6, 2008 1:54:28 AM

endyen said:
I think maybe the reg got it's facts mixed up, but if they are right, 45nm is looking like comeback time.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/03/05/amd_heralds_45nm_cpus/
The part about metal gates and high k die-electric must be wrong.


Thats interesting. So all of the Phenoms right now that people bought might have been a total waste of money and AMD is banking that this chip will be faster and use less power. We shall see.Can't take their word for it, have to wait until the ES samples start hitting the review sites. I am not expecting them anytime soon though. Maybe a week before release?
March 6, 2008 3:22:40 AM

@MU
Honestly they're just plain hungry for more memory bandwidth, and intracpu bandwidth. I don't have any 1066 memory to test, that and I'm not using a BIOS that recognizes it properly. In order to do that I'd need to update to a bios that has the TLB fix enabled and I don't feel like trying to have to mess with doing all the workarounds to disable the fix completely if I do. MSI are being butts about giving the ability to disable the TLB fix via bios in the release versions. And with their P0 performance beta bios's they give the ability to disable it, but it currently only effects the fix on one core. I think KTE over on extremesystems is running similar speeds on the same board with 1066 ram, and i know his scores are higher than mine. I'd even get better scores on memory intensive stuff just by buying some cas4 pc6400 ram instead of cas5. The only thing I like about my current ram is it's 1.8v so no worries of the bios setting too low of a voltage.

Actually just read that MSI put out another performance bios P0J for the k9a2 plat, that allows you to completely disable the TLB fix in bios, so I may try that one.
March 6, 2008 9:20:24 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Thats interesting. So all of the Phenoms right now that people bought might have been a total waste of money and AMD is banking that this chip will be faster and use less power. We shall see.Can't take their word for it, have to wait until the ES samples start hitting the review sites. I am not expecting them anytime soon though. Maybe a week before release?


Oy, this is the first I've read that 45nm Deneb (I mistakenly called the desktop part Shanghai before) is at least 3 months away. I'd thought it was 11 months away, more or less. I can see going B3 for a year, but not for 3 months or so. I guess I should wait for Deneb after all? I guess I can stand being CPU limited for as long as it takes for 45nm Phenom's to arrive.

I'd linked to The Inquirer before about the upcoming 45nm CPU's reaching 3.2, and first gen will be SOI, but second will be your beloved HK process (can't stop thinking about HK-47 though). So, would a second generation Deneb with HK/MK clock higher than a first with SOI?

If AMD burned fans with 65nm Phenoms clocked no higher than 2.6 @ 125 watts, then will they burn fans with 45nm SOI Phenom's clocked at 3.0? That is, if 45nm Phenoms with HK/MK arrive six months later clocked at 3.6 or 4.0 to match Nehalem?
March 6, 2008 12:36:24 PM

I don't know I'm still worried that Nehalem won't be the super cpu that everyone thinks it is. Guess it really depends on how Intel works the technology in it. I don't really think AMD did that intentionally, I think they released 65nm phenom under industry pressure to get a new chip out to try and compete. They most likely knew full well in it's release state it wouldn't beat c2d.

I'm thinking b3 probably won't release at higher than 2.7ghz, but may still end up being NB/IMC speed limited if they decide to release it at higher clocks. I think 45nm under the lowk germanium process might be able to push up to around 3.2ghz, but I really don't see AMD chips gaining much OC headroom above the theoretical max that AMD gives the cores, regardless of process used. 45nm will probably lower the wattage and heat dissipation down a lot over the current 65nm run though, and hopefully lower voltage requirements. But when that happens we'd end up with the same problem that the e8000 series is having with frying themselves while being overvolted.
!