Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD: Smoke and Mirrors?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 14, 2008 12:41:14 AM

Very interesting if true. First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01360/

Quote:

More Smoke and Mirrors . . .
Ed Stroligo - 7/12/08

As we mentioned yesterday, AMD is writing off another $880 million off its investment in ATI.

What should you make of this?

In all likelihood, AMD has been shopping around the consumer products part of what used to be ATI and found that it isn't going to get much money for it, nowhere near what they paid for it.

So what they did was the accounting equivalent of slashing the price for the division before actually selling it.

Why would they do that? Well, if they hadn't done this, if they sold the division next week or month, they would have to show a huge loss on the sale of the division. So instead, they're taking the loss now, so when the sale happens, it will look like AMD broke even or maybe even "made" money.

Of course, if you have a memory that lasts more than a week and math ability greater than a gnat's, you'll realize that six is one-half dozen of the other, and it is, but many have neither and will get fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

Another game AMD appears ready to play involves the sale of the fabbing equipment from Dresden.

Quick accounting lesson: If you're a business and you buy equipment for the purpose of making money, you are generally allowed to deduct a portion of what you paid for the equipment against your profit/tax each year as you use. This is usually called depreciation, the idea being that you gradually lose the value of the asset as you use it.

Depreciation is only a very rough measurement of this loss, and very often, a business can depreciate the entire cost of an item, but can still sell it and get some money for it. When that happens, the business has a gain on the sale of the property, and must add that gain to their profit/tax.

So, for instance, if AMD bought $1.5 billion of fab equipment for Fab30, depreciated $1.2 billion of that over the course of years, then sold it for $500 million, they would have a gain of $200 million, which is roughly what AMD actually did.


Such an event is perfectly normal and natural. It only becomes funny business when it comes to characterizing the nature of the gain/profit.

Say you own an auto repair shop, and you own a lot of expensive equipment. Making money by using the tools is one thing, making money by selling the tools is quite another. For one thing, once you sell the tools, you aren't going to be making any more money by using them in their business. You had a one-time gain, as opposed to a regular day-in, day-out income.

It is a general, basic accounting principle that you are supposed to separate any one-time gains and losses from your regular, ongoing income/losses. This is to let people easily see how the regular ongoing business is doing.

To put it mildly, AMD has been playing fast and loose with these rules in their public presentations the last couple years, calling ongoing expenses one-time and vice versa, and it looks like they're going to do it big-time again next week.

This report indicates that AMD plans to add the gain from the sale of its Fab30 equipment to its gross margin. That's accountantese for saying that they're going to treat the sale of fab tools like it were the sale of CPUs, treating a one-time gain like it were regular ongoing income.

Why would they want to do that? Well, a few quarters ago, the executives said that they would reach "operational breakeven" point fairly shortly. First, it was around the middle of the year, then it was 3Q.

To make a long story short, there's no way AMD can hit "operational breakeven" for Q2 legitimately, but they probably "would" if they included the fab equipment gain as regular income. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is exactly what AMD will do when it releases its earnings next Thursday, and they'll try to spin this into a great triumph (and maybe hand themselves some extra bonuses and stock options afterwards).

Now I'm sure that at least some, maybe most of those reading this have had their eyes glaze over. Unfortunately, at least some, maybe most of those who will end up writing about this, even the "financial" reporters, will have their eyes glaze over, too.

Unfortunately, that's what some people in certain high positions are counting on, and even more unfortunately, they'll be assisted by some who can see, but are more than happy to help to pull the wool over their own eyes and those of others.

The Big Bias

The very sad fact is that with not many exceptions, there's a bias in favor of AMD in the computer hardware press. Some don't even pretend otherwise. This is mostly because there a bias in favor of AMD in the computer hardware press readership.

Why? The argument is as follows: It is in our best interest to have AMD around to compete against Intel, so we will slant the news in favor of AMD, or repeat whatever they tell us without question or thought, or ignore/minimize the bad news or deceptions.

I'm sure many of you reading this are saying something like, "What's wrong with that?"

Well, what was wrong with Enron doing what it did? What was wrong with Worldcom? What was wrong with all the financial institutions that have gone belly-up or are halfway there lately? They all played the same kind of smoke-and-mirror games we see from Green, and eventually, they all got burned.

What's wrong with that is that when you live by smoke and mirrors, eventually it catches up with you, no matter how complacent those watching are. And people get hurt, hurt badly as a result. Ask the former Enron and WorldCom and Bear Stearns employees and stockholders about their pensions and 401K plans and life savings.

You see, when people find out they can get buy and even prosper with smoke and mirrors rather than real success, they get hooked on them. It's just so much easier and rewarding than doing the hard job, especially if the hard job means firing yourself.

But if it stays all smoke and mirrors, eventually it catches up with you and suddenly blows up in your face, and then all the people who let you get away with it for so long jump up and down and say, "I never dreamed this would happen!"

Sometimes, it's cruel to be kind. You've heard of "enablers," people who allow others to do bad or destructive to themselves or others.

Isn't that what we're really talking about here?


Ed

More about : amd smoke mirrors

July 14, 2008 4:09:06 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Very interesting if true. First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01360/


You're kidding yourself if you think most companies don't play these kinds of accounting games when they have to take a loss. Once upon a time I worked for Tyco International (a company that definitely knows how to lose money), and this kind of stuff happened all the time. Whenever a company has a acquisition or a contract on which it loses a tremendous amount of money it is usually dubbed a "legacy project" and steps are taken to spread the losses out over several quarters instead of taking a huge hit in the quarter the loss was actually incurred. This is very common for companies that deal with construction projects.

As for adding the revenue gained from the sale of equipment to the gross margin, this makes perfect sense. Every company does this. Depreciation is applied to all company assets so that it can be claimed on the tax return as a capital loss. If assets are sold for a higher price than their depreciated value on the company's asset list then the difference is taken as a profit. Pretty standard stuff.

The author of this article is trying to make it sound like a big conspiracy but really this is nothing unusual.
July 14, 2008 4:17:56 AM

Since you asked, I think that is incredibly boring and couldn't care less. :) 
Related resources
July 14, 2008 4:28:31 AM

Technology Coordinator this thread is very trollish


back to your bridge!!!!
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2008 4:55:30 AM

Someone is foaming at the mouth.

The "press bias" bit is especially good. Apparently, the OP hasn't read a magazine or visited a tech website since 2006.
July 14, 2008 6:00:23 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Very interesting if true. First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01360/

Quote:

More Smoke and Mirrors . . .
Ed Stroligo - 7/12/08

As we mentioned yesterday, AMD is writing off another $880 million off its investment in ATI.

What should you make of this?

In all likelihood, AMD has been shopping around the consumer products part of what used to be ATI and found that it isn't going to get much money for it, nowhere near what they paid for it.

So what they did was the accounting equivalent of slashing the price for the division before actually selling it.

Why would they do that? Well, if they hadn't done this, if they sold the division next week or month, they would have to show a huge loss on the sale of the division. So instead, they're taking the loss now, so when the sale happens, it will look like AMD broke even or maybe even "made" money.

Of course, if you have a memory that lasts more than a week and math ability greater than a gnat's, you'll realize that six is one-half dozen of the other, and it is, but many have neither and will get fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

Another game AMD appears ready to play involves the sale of the fabbing equipment from Dresden.

Quick accounting lesson: If you're a business and you buy equipment for the purpose of making money, you are generally allowed to deduct a portion of what you paid for the equipment against your profit/tax each year as you use. This is usually called depreciation, the idea being that you gradually lose the value of the asset as you use it.

Depreciation is only a very rough measurement of this loss, and very often, a business can depreciate the entire cost of an item, but can still sell it and get some money for it. When that happens, the business has a gain on the sale of the property, and must add that gain to their profit/tax.

So, for instance, if AMD bought $1.5 billion of fab equipment for Fab30, depreciated $1.2 billion of that over the course of years, then sold it for $500 million, they would have a gain of $200 million, which is roughly what AMD actually did.


Such an event is perfectly normal and natural. It only becomes funny business when it comes to characterizing the nature of the gain/profit.

Say you own an auto repair shop, and you own a lot of expensive equipment. Making money by using the tools is one thing, making money by selling the tools is quite another. For one thing, once you sell the tools, you aren't going to be making any more money by using them in their business. You had a one-time gain, as opposed to a regular day-in, day-out income.

It is a general, basic accounting principle that you are supposed to separate any one-time gains and losses from your regular, ongoing income/losses. This is to let people easily see how the regular ongoing business is doing.

To put it mildly, AMD has been playing fast and loose with these rules in their public presentations the last couple years, calling ongoing expenses one-time and vice versa, and it looks like they're going to do it big-time again next week.

This report indicates that AMD plans to add the gain from the sale of its Fab30 equipment to its gross margin. That's accountantese for saying that they're going to treat the sale of fab tools like it were the sale of CPUs, treating a one-time gain like it were regular ongoing income.

Why would they want to do that? Well, a few quarters ago, the executives said that they would reach "operational breakeven" point fairly shortly. First, it was around the middle of the year, then it was 3Q.

To make a long story short, there's no way AMD can hit "operational breakeven" for Q2 legitimately, but they probably "would" if they included the fab equipment gain as regular income. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is exactly what AMD will do when it releases its earnings next Thursday, and they'll try to spin this into a great triumph (and maybe hand themselves some extra bonuses and stock options afterwards).

Now I'm sure that at least some, maybe most of those reading this have had their eyes glaze over. Unfortunately, at least some, maybe most of those who will end up writing about this, even the "financial" reporters, will have their eyes glaze over, too.

Unfortunately, that's what some people in certain high positions are counting on, and even more unfortunately, they'll be assisted by some who can see, but are more than happy to help to pull the wool over their own eyes and those of others.

The Big Bias

The very sad fact is that with not many exceptions, there's a bias in favor of AMD in the computer hardware press. Some don't even pretend otherwise. This is mostly because there a bias in favor of AMD in the computer hardware press readership.

Why? The argument is as follows: It is in our best interest to have AMD around to compete against Intel, so we will slant the news in favor of AMD, or repeat whatever they tell us without question or thought, or ignore/minimize the bad news or deceptions.

I'm sure many of you reading this are saying something like, "What's wrong with that?"

Well, what was wrong with Enron doing what it did? What was wrong with Worldcom? What was wrong with all the financial institutions that have gone belly-up or are halfway there lately? They all played the same kind of smoke-and-mirror games we see from Green, and eventually, they all got burned.

What's wrong with that is that when you live by smoke and mirrors, eventually it catches up with you, no matter how complacent those watching are. And people get hurt, hurt badly as a result. Ask the former Enron and WorldCom and Bear Stearns employees and stockholders about their pensions and 401K plans and life savings.

You see, when people find out they can get buy and even prosper with smoke and mirrors rather than real success, they get hooked on them. It's just so much easier and rewarding than doing the hard job, especially if the hard job means firing yourself.

But if it stays all smoke and mirrors, eventually it catches up with you and suddenly blows up in your face, and then all the people who let you get away with it for so long jump up and down and say, "I never dreamed this would happen!"

Sometimes, it's cruel to be kind. You've heard of "enablers," people who allow others to do bad or destructive to themselves or others.

Isn't that what we're really talking about here?


Ed


While normally I treat Ed's articles with the same large grain of salt that I reserve for Fuad's, Theo's or Charley's articles, I do think that that in this case he makes some valid points. Whether anyone listens may be the issue, every bit as much of an issue as was Worldcom or Enron, or Bear Stearns. One can only do 'creative accounting' for so long, then there is nothing left to account for. What does AMD use next quarter? Another write-down on ATI? Seems impractical as ATI may very well be making money. Sell another FAB? How many do they really have left?

When does their next financial report come out? End of this week? Patiently waiting...

I only hope that they don't take ATI down with them....
July 14, 2008 6:07:09 AM

Is this for real? AMD...smoke and mirrors? Playing fast and loose surviving off marketing hype and feeding false specs to review writers?

1) AMD has almost no marketing at all
2) they are very very very close mouthed about any technical details or performance comparisons even comparing current AMD hardware against upcoming, let alone comparisons against competition
3)No takes AMD's performance estimates at face value. Not the tech journalists, the hardware manufactures, or any consumer semi-knowledgable in the hardware world.

There have been countless times that AMD has released performance stats, power consumption and overall price/performance ratio only to be ignored, taken out of context or straight out sabotaged.

Intel didn't make a chip that possessed any kind of worthwhile design advancements for a 6-7 year period (1999/2000 being the PIII series launch releasing the P4 in the end of 2000 up until the release of the core 2 series in the end of 2006)

How has Intel always managed to keep such a huge market share regardless of quality, performance, or even progress? Marketing smoke and mirrors and strong-arming vendors.

AMD began stomping intel going alll the way back to the PIII/thunderbird days in 99/2000. Thus began the megahertz war. Throughout which AMD was consistent in being the better chip. While intel went from 1.3ghz - 3.6 ghz. AMD needed only to go from 1.2ghz -2.2ghz in the same time frame, staying on the same socket design, with the only major changes being die shrinks and cache increases with higher clocks and lower power consumption.

Intel's only brief lead was in releasing the 800mhz FSB flavor of the P4, which enjoyed minor performance gains in the 4 or 5 months between it's release and the release of the Athlon 64 line. But the overclocked bartons still stomped the 800mhz fsb p4's.

But what was Intels delightful claim about Netburst....oh yes "netburst will scale to 10ghz" It topped out at...3.6? hmmm seems to be a small margin of error there.

It took a 5.2ghz clocked P4 to tottally out perform a stock AMD 2.6ghz FX-55.

Now lets see, the core 2 chips, are based off the p6 series (pentium - pentium 3) So intel pretty much admits that the 6 year span of netburs was just them putting out crap that would have been better off never existing. But intel prefers to phrase it as "having the performance king laying around for 7 years without knowing it"

Hmm what other smoke and mirror magic has intel worked.

after the conroe was released intel said

There is no reason for an on-die memory controller. They attempted it and came to the conclusion that it created to many problems with little benifit for the increased production cost and in turn an increased cost to the consumer

In reality, they attempted an IMC for what was supposed to follow the PIII series, years of research and development, hundreds of millions spent and it was scrapped after numerous failed production runs. Intel thought it was a good idea 10 years ago. They just couldn't make it work. Still can't make it work, 5 years after AMD did it. So in reality, it's not a good idea until intel can make it too.

The same can be said for native dual-core and quad-core chips. Intel couldn't get 2 cores on a single die so they did two seperate cores in a single package, then upon getting 2 cores on one die, couldn't get 4 cores to work thus the two dual-cores in a single package for their "quad-core" chips. Note that they have been working on the IMC, and native quad core's while telling the world, there's no good reason to do it.

But the best of all. Their biggest con, 64bit? Who needs it?

They had to license the 64bit extenstions from AMD to get in the 64bit game. Once they got there, no one wanted them. Intel is horrible when it comes to 64bit computing.

So three years after the 64bit desktops come out from AMD, 11 years after the first 64bit processor was made by the Alpha team who also worked on the AMD barton's and 939 opterons.

Intel says who needs it?

It had nothing to do with their server chips not being reconized as 64bit compatible despite the claim of it being so. It had nothing to do with Opterons stomping the Xeons. Nothing to do with AMD performace gaining an addition 15-20% in 64bit applications.

They just thought it was silly. Microsoft was silly for making 64bit OS's, all those software developers were just wasting everyones time adding 64bit support to little things like 3D studio max, Cinema 4D, maya and softimage., file compression, video/audio encoding and of course The game developers. All just silly.

Because Core 2 does best in 32bit Xp, just like the PIII chips it's based off of. They will shoddily support 64bit software. So the motherboard makers can sell boards with 4, 8 or 16gig supported RAM capacity. Even though only 2gigs is addressable in 32bit.

Then of course Intel never really seems to get benchmarked in 64bit, despite supporting, thus niether does AMD because how would that be fair? Intel chips are reviewed against completly unbalanced AMD chips. But they'll boast about the $1500 intel quad having a 15-30% performance gain over an $180 AMD dual core, or the $1800 intel quad's 20-30% gain over the $200 AMD quad in real world benches.

But they never seemed to focus to much on AMD's $60 chips having 25-30% better memory performance over the $1500+ intel chips.

The fact that intels synthetic mathmatic benches are so high only because of the huge cache sizes which have no actual performance benifit in real world computing as rendering/encoding/photo editing requires a minimum of 80 or 90 megs cache.

AMD bought ATI 2 years ago, they doubled their company workload, and by golly they have a pair of video cards out that stomp the competitions and they do it at 1/4 - 1/2 the price.

Of course there is going to be an adjustment period. But hey, i guess intel and nvidia are just knocking 25% -60% off their prices after AMD/ATI launches because it's fashionable.




July 14, 2008 6:15:32 AM

nice rant iocedmyself.

much more interesting than the original article you posted in reply to :-)

i concur, amd is still kickin ^^
July 14, 2008 6:36:59 AM

+1 iocedmyself :) 
July 14, 2008 6:51:27 AM

:bounce:  PREACH IT iocedmyself :bounce: 

I agree with you. If AMD spent HALF as much money as INTEL on marketing. Then AMD wouldn't have to relie on "Word of Mouth" to sell their chips (they forget word of mouth spreads all the good and the bad about something).

People who know NOTHING about computers :pfff:  know the name INTEL. It's a household name.

And iocedmyself, I could almost here the church organ playing "that song" in the background, AMD fanboys getting worked up and someone who's not Familiar with the Gospel of AMD looking confused.
July 14, 2008 6:56:35 AM

wow i had a vision - i saw sugar plums and intel buying ati!
i dreamed of spider renamed scorpion and the all intel gaming platform with nehalem and triple 4870's running 50k 3dmark

it flashed before my eyes when i saw the tech c post - what if? what if amd sold ati who would buy it? intel!

i really hate nvidia! i never forgave them for my x975 systems with out sli
July 14, 2008 7:01:07 AM

iocedmyself said:
Is this for real? AMD...smoke and mirrors? Playing fast and loose surviving off marketing hype and feeding false specs to review writers?

1) AMD has almost no marketing at all
2) they are very very very close mouthed about any technical details or performance comparisons even comparing current AMD hardware against upcoming, let alone comparisons against competition
3)No takes AMD's performance estimates at face value. Not the tech journalists, the hardware manufactures, or any consumer semi-knowledgable in the hardware world.

There have been countless times that AMD has released performance stats, power consumption and overall price/performance ratio only to be ignored, taken out of context or straight out sabotaged.

Intel didn't make a chip that possessed any kind of worthwhile design advancements for a 6-7 year period (1999/2000 being the PIII series launch releasing the P4 in the end of 2000 up until the release of the core 2 series in the end of 2006)

How has Intel always managed to keep such a huge market share regardless of quality, performance, or even progress? Marketing smoke and mirrors and strong-arming vendors.

AMD began stomping intel going alll the way back to the PIII/thunderbird days in 99/2000. Thus began the megahertz war. Throughout which AMD was consistent in being the better chip. While intel went from 1.3ghz - 3.6 ghz. AMD needed only to go from 1.2ghz -2.2ghz in the same time frame, staying on the same socket design, with the only major changes being die shrinks and cache increases with higher clocks and lower power consumption.

Intel's only brief lead was in releasing the 800mhz FSB flavor of the P4, which enjoyed minor performance gains in the 4 or 5 months between it's release and the release of the Athlon 64 line. But the overclocked bartons still stomped the 800mhz fsb p4's.

But what was Intels delightful claim about Netburst....oh yes "netburst will scale to 10ghz" It topped out at...3.6? hmmm seems to be a small margin of error there.

It took a 5.2ghz clocked P4 to tottally out perform a stock AMD 2.6ghz FX-55.

Now lets see, the core 2 chips, are based off the p6 series (pentium - pentium 3) So intel pretty much admits that the 6 year span of netburs was just them putting out crap that would have been better off never existing. But intel prefers to phrase it as "having the performance king laying around for 7 years without knowing it"

Hmm what other smoke and mirror magic has intel worked.

after the conroe was released intel said

There is no reason for an on-die memory controller. They attempted it and came to the conclusion that it created to many problems with little benifit for the increased production cost and in turn an increased cost to the consumer

In reality, they attempted an IMC for what was supposed to follow the PIII series, years of research and development, hundreds of millions spent and it was scrapped after numerous failed production runs. Intel thought it was a good idea 10 years ago. They just couldn't make it work. Still can't make it work, 5 years after AMD did it. So in reality, it's not a good idea until intel can make it too.

The same can be said for native dual-core and quad-core chips. Intel couldn't get 2 cores on a single die so they did two seperate cores in a single package, then upon getting 2 cores on one die, couldn't get 4 cores to work thus the two dual-cores in a single package for their "quad-core" chips. Note that they have been working on the IMC, and native quad core's while telling the world, there's no good reason to do it.

But the best of all. Their biggest con, 64bit? Who needs it?

They had to license the 64bit extenstions from AMD to get in the 64bit game. Once they got there, no one wanted them. Intel is horrible when it comes to 64bit computing.

So three years after the 64bit desktops come out from AMD, 11 years after the first 64bit processor was made by the Alpha team who also worked on the AMD barton's and 939 opterons.

Intel says who needs it?

It had nothing to do with their server chips not being reconized as 64bit compatible despite the claim of it being so. It had nothing to do with Opterons stomping the Xeons. Nothing to do with AMD performace gaining an addition 15-20% in 64bit applications.

They just thought it was silly. Microsoft was silly for making 64bit OS's, all those software developers were just wasting everyones time adding 64bit support to little things like 3D studio max, Cinema 4D, maya and softimage., file compression, video/audio encoding and of course The game developers. All just silly.

Because Core 2 does best in 32bit Xp, just like the PIII chips it's based off of. They will shoddily support 64bit software. So the motherboard makers can sell boards with 4, 8 or 16gig supported RAM capacity. Even though only 2gigs is addressable in 32bit.

Then of course Intel never really seems to get benchmarked in 64bit, despite supporting, thus niether does AMD because how would that be fair? Intel chips are reviewed against completly unbalanced AMD chips. But they'll boast about the $1500 intel quad having a 15-30% performance gain over an $180 AMD dual core, or the $1800 intel quad's 20-30% gain over the $200 AMD quad in real world benches.

But they never seemed to focus to much on AMD's $60 chips having 25-30% better memory performance over the $1500+ intel chips.

The fact that intels synthetic mathmatic benches are so high only because of the huge cache sizes which have no actual performance benifit in real world computing as rendering/encoding/photo editing requires a minimum of 80 or 90 megs cache.

AMD bought ATI 2 years ago, they doubled their company workload, and by golly they have a pair of video cards out that stomp the competitions and they do it at 1/4 - 1/2 the price.

Of course there is going to be an adjustment period. But hey, i guess intel and nvidia are just knocking 25% -60% off their prices after AMD/ATI launches because it's fashionable.



TIME TO FAN THE FAN BOYS FIRES!

WHAT KIND OF AMD SYSTEMS DO YOU HAVE? your opertrons are worthless!

AMD got lots a of false media postives on single tasking cpus - pentiums blow pre-amd dual cores. the FX-60 was the start of the amd lead in may 05, it ended in july of 06 with core2

a pentium 965 running 4.5ghz with hyperthreading is bad boy mutlitasker that still gets $250 on ebay, i have seen dual cpu opertron systems selling for the same price!

lol! amd fan boy's - all the amd fan boys left to some low life extrme cpu site

IFB #1 amd is always #2 (accept for may 06-july 06)
July 14, 2008 7:04:51 AM

And FYI, my last INTEL chip was the Pentium III @ 700mhz.

Ever since then I've been with AMD, made sure my wife has AMD, my dad, my sisters, my cousins, my mom and some of my easily influenced friends. So I'm a Uber-Fan boy. :D 
July 14, 2008 7:15:23 AM

dragonsprayer said:
wow i had a vision - i saw sugar plums and intel buying ati!
i dreamed of spider renamed scorpion and the all intel gaming platform with nehalem and triple 4870's running 50k 3dmark

it flashed before my eyes when i saw the tech c post - what if? what if amd sold ati who would buy it? intel!

i really hate nvidia! i never forgave them for my x975 systems with out sli



And that's why AMD has to pull it together. They have to put up some sort of fight. I can admit just saying "skulltrail" makes me lightheaded to think of that much INSANE :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff:  power. You'd need a WMD just to power that thing :lol: 

If AMD dies tomorrow, INTEL will start charging $400 just for a 2.0 Ghz chip. Without AMD's presence INTEL will start defecating on consumer's bank accounts.

If ATI became available, INTEL will buy it two seconds after AMD let's the company go. I know Intel has spies working for AMD at corperate (like hector Ruiz :fou:  ).
July 14, 2008 7:42:33 AM

Will somebody please tell me where all those AMD Native quad design adds came from again, they ain't cheap and they weren't paid for by Intel.
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2008 8:27:31 AM

iocedmyself said:
Is this for real? AMD...smoke and mirrors? Playing fast and loose surviving off marketing hype and feeding false specs to review writers?

1) AMD has almost no marketing at all
2) they are very very very close mouthed about any technical details or performance comparisons even comparing current AMD hardware against upcoming, let alone comparisons against competition
3)No takes AMD's performance estimates at face value. Not the tech journalists, the hardware manufactures, or any consumer semi-knowledgable in the hardware world.

There have been countless times that AMD has released performance stats, power consumption and overall price/performance ratio only to be ignored, taken out of context or straight out sabotaged.

Intel didn't make a chip that possessed any kind of worthwhile design advancements for a 6-7 year period (1999/2000 being the PIII series launch releasing the P4 in the end of 2000 up until the release of the core 2 series in the end of 2006)

How has Intel always managed to keep such a huge market share regardless of quality, performance, or even progress? Marketing smoke and mirrors and strong-arming vendors.

AMD began stomping intel going alll the way back to the PIII/thunderbird days in 99/2000. Thus began the megahertz war. Throughout which AMD was consistent in being the better chip. While intel went from 1.3ghz - 3.6 ghz. AMD needed only to go from 1.2ghz -2.2ghz in the same time frame, staying on the same socket design, with the only major changes being die shrinks and cache increases with higher clocks and lower power consumption.

Intel's only brief lead was in releasing the 800mhz FSB flavor of the P4, which enjoyed minor performance gains in the 4 or 5 months between it's release and the release of the Athlon 64 line. But the overclocked bartons still stomped the 800mhz fsb p4's.

But what was Intels delightful claim about Netburst....oh yes "netburst will scale to 10ghz" It topped out at...3.6? hmmm seems to be a small margin of error there.

It took a 5.2ghz clocked P4 to tottally out perform a stock AMD 2.6ghz FX-55.

Now lets see, the core 2 chips, are based off the p6 series (pentium - pentium 3) So intel pretty much admits that the 6 year span of netburs was just them putting out crap that would have been better off never existing. But intel prefers to phrase it as "having the performance king laying around for 7 years without knowing it"

Hmm what other smoke and mirror magic has intel worked.

after the conroe was released intel said

There is no reason for an on-die memory controller. They attempted it and came to the conclusion that it created to many problems with little benifit for the increased production cost and in turn an increased cost to the consumer

In reality, they attempted an IMC for what was supposed to follow the PIII series, years of research and development, hundreds of millions spent and it was scrapped after numerous failed production runs. Intel thought it was a good idea 10 years ago. They just couldn't make it work. Still can't make it work, 5 years after AMD did it. So in reality, it's not a good idea until intel can make it too.

The same can be said for native dual-core and quad-core chips. Intel couldn't get 2 cores on a single die so they did two seperate cores in a single package, then upon getting 2 cores on one die, couldn't get 4 cores to work thus the two dual-cores in a single package for their "quad-core" chips. Note that they have been working on the IMC, and native quad core's while telling the world, there's no good reason to do it.

But the best of all. Their biggest con, 64bit? Who needs it?

They had to license the 64bit extenstions from AMD to get in the 64bit game. Once they got there, no one wanted them. Intel is horrible when it comes to 64bit computing.

So three years after the 64bit desktops come out from AMD, 11 years after the first 64bit processor was made by the Alpha team who also worked on the AMD barton's and 939 opterons.

Intel says who needs it?

It had nothing to do with their server chips not being reconized as 64bit compatible despite the claim of it being so. It had nothing to do with Opterons stomping the Xeons. Nothing to do with AMD performace gaining an addition 15-20% in 64bit applications.

They just thought it was silly. Microsoft was silly for making 64bit OS's, all those software developers were just wasting everyones time adding 64bit support to little things like 3D studio max, Cinema 4D, maya and softimage., file compression, video/audio encoding and of course The game developers. All just silly.

Because Core 2 does best in 32bit Xp, just like the PIII chips it's based off of. They will shoddily support 64bit software. So the motherboard makers can sell boards with 4, 8 or 16gig supported RAM capacity. Even though only 2gigs is addressable in 32bit.

Then of course Intel never really seems to get benchmarked in 64bit, despite supporting, thus niether does AMD because how would that be fair? Intel chips are reviewed against completly unbalanced AMD chips. But they'll boast about the $1500 intel quad having a 15-30% performance gain over an $180 AMD dual core, or the $1800 intel quad's 20-30% gain over the $200 AMD quad in real world benches.

But they never seemed to focus to much on AMD's $60 chips having 25-30% better memory performance over the $1500+ intel chips.

The fact that intels synthetic mathmatic benches are so high only because of the huge cache sizes which have no actual performance benifit in real world computing as rendering/encoding/photo editing requires a minimum of 80 or 90 megs cache.

AMD bought ATI 2 years ago, they doubled their company workload, and by golly they have a pair of video cards out that stomp the competitions and they do it at 1/4 - 1/2 the price.

Of course there is going to be an adjustment period. But hey, i guess intel and nvidia are just knocking 25% -60% off their prices after AMD/ATI launches because it's fashionable.


Heh remind me who's on top atm?

Remind me who's platform is more reliable and respectable for corporate/business?

Remind me which company sells more cpus in the end?

AMD aint this glorious company, there as bad as Intel, and dont get my wrong, both companies can kiss my a$$, ill buy whats best at my price range.
July 14, 2008 9:39:55 AM

Is this for real? AMD...smoke and mirrors? Playing fast and loose surviving off marketing hype and feeding false specs to review writers?

Yes, to some extent it seems to be true. I’d refer to all of the Phenom hype prior to the launch, and the debacle that came after.

1) AMD has almost no marketing at all

Less than Intel, but certainly ‘almost no’ marketing is a bit of hyperbole.

2) they are very very very close mouthed about any technical details or performance comparisons even comparing current AMD hardware against upcoming, let alone comparisons against competition

What? They may be a bit close-to-the-chest when it comes to detail, but they certainly shoot off their collective mouths when it comes to hyping new technologies. Intel, OTOH, tends to give out too much detail.

3)No takes AMD's performance estimates at face value. Not the tech journalists, the hardware manufactures, or any consumer semi-knowledgable in the hardware world.

AMD is a member of the SPEC org., and as such ‘should’ submit samples for testing. Check out the SPEC charts.

There have been countless times that AMD has released performance stats, power consumption and overall price/performance ratio only to be ignored, taken out of context or straight out sabotaged.

Refer to above.

How has Intel always managed to keep such a huge market share regardless of quality, performance, or even progress? Marketing smoke and mirrors and strong-arming vendors.

OEM’s seem to like stability of supply… Intel had fabs, AMD did not. Intel was concerned with over-supply, AMD was concerned with fulfilling contracts, and the resulting penalties.

after the conroe was released intel said

There is no reason for an on-die memory controller. They attempted it and came to the conclusion that it created to many problems with little benifit for the increased production cost and in turn an increased cost to the consumer


Speculating here, but many of the Alpha team that they inherited from Compaq (along with the IP and the DEC engineers that they hired prior to the fire-sale) had reached that conclusion from their efforts on the EV8 (?).

In reality, they attempted an IMC for what was supposed to follow the PIII series, years of research and development, hundreds of millions spent and it was scrapped after numerous failed production runs. Intel thought it was a good idea 10 years ago. They just couldn't make it work. Still can't make it work, 5 years after AMD did it. So in reality, it's not a good idea until intel can make it too.

The IMC issue needed to be re-visited once Intel started thinking about 8 core and 16 core chips. 4 cores just didn’t gain (or in AMD’s case, lost) performance

The same can be said for native dual-core and quad-core chips. Intel couldn't get 2 cores on a single die so they did two seperate cores in a single package, then upon getting 2 cores on one die, couldn't get 4 cores to work thus the two dual-cores in a single package for their "quad-core" chips. Note that they have been working on the IMC, and native quad core's while telling the world, there's no good reason to do it.

What a beautiful engineering solution! Cheap, and less lost product. A disabled core is still worth something, even AMD finally got on that bandwagon. Phenom 3 cores, anyone?

But the best of all. Their biggest con, 64bit? Who needs it?

They had to license the 64bit extenstions from AMD to get in the 64bit game. Once they got there, no one wanted them. Intel is horrible when it comes to 64bit computing.

So three years after the 64bit desktops come out from AMD, 11 years after the first 64bit processor was made by the Alpha team who also worked on the AMD barton's and 939 opterons.

Intel says who needs it?


Any of the original Alpha team that I knew would either be laughing, or looking for a new rope. Their main goal was to replace the 32 bit VAX family of processors with a 64 bit RISC processor that could emulate the VAX instructions. They also managed the same feat, same processor family, running NT. EV7, I believe.

It had nothing to do with their server chips not being reconized as 64bit compatible despite the claim of it being so. It had nothing to do with Opterons stomping the Xeons. Nothing to do with AMD performace gaining an addition 15-20% in 64bit applications.

Neither AMD not Intel make a 64 bit chip, unless you count the IA-64 based on the Alpha processor. A 64 bit extension for memory, and some extended instructions does not a 64 bit chip make. Now you’ve got the SPARC, PowerPC etc. engineers looking for new rope.

They just thought it was silly. Microsoft was silly for making 64bit OS's, all those software developers were just wasting everyones time adding 64bit support to little things like 3D studio max, Cinema 4D, maya and softimage., file compression, video/audio encoding and of course The game developers. All just silly.

Because Core 2 does best in 32bit Xp, just like the PIII chips it's based off of. They will shoddily support 64bit software. So the motherboard makers can sell boards with 4, 8 or 16gig supported RAM capacity. Even though only 2gigs is addressable in 32bit.

Then of course Intel never really seems to get benchmarked in 64bit, despite supporting, thus niether does AMD because how would that be fair? Intel chips are reviewed against completly unbalanced AMD chips. But they'll boast about the $1500 intel quad having a 15-30% performance gain over an $180 AMD dual core, or the $1800 intel quad's 20-30% gain over the $200 AMD quad in real world benches.


Please show me an AMD chip that can run a 64 bit OS. Why do you think Apple went to Intel x86-64 chips? Lack of supply from IBM for the PowerPC? Cost? How about lack of coders that were willing to write 64 bit only programs….???

But they never seemed to focus to much on AMD's $60 chips having 25-30% better memory performance over the $1500+ intel chips.

The fact that intels synthetic mathmatic benches are so high only because of the huge cache sizes which have no actual performance benifit in real world computing as rendering/encoding/photo editing requires a minimum of 80 or 90 megs cache.


OK, once again I suggest a look at SPEC.org.

AMD bought ATI 2 years ago, they doubled their company workload, and by golly they have a pair of video cards out that stomp the competitions and they do it at 1/4 - 1/2 the price.

Of course there is going to be an adjustment period. But hey, i guess intel and nvidia are just knocking 25% -60% off their prices after AMD/ATI launches because it's fashionable.


Kudos to ATI. About the only thing in your whole rant that you have somewhat correct. But Intel does not dabble these days in the discreet graphics market, and their IGP chipsets don’t seem to be taking much of a hit.
July 14, 2008 10:55:43 AM

This should be no surprise to anyone since AMD has ALWAYS been all about smoke and mirrors ever since it was founded.
Best example of this is the infamous Athlon64 that seemed to do a nice job at benchmarking on sterile test systems but drowned against the HT-enabled P4 & PEE processors when used in a regular users everyday PC, because they were less able to handle all the parallel workloads (most importantly internet security software).
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2008 12:38:08 PM

TC fanning the flames after starting a thread encouraging people to rate people down who deliberately engage in this sort of behavior.
You can't rate the OP down and make the thread disappear ... PITY.
That would be interesting ... don't you think?

This typical TC post is why nobody took him seriously with the last thread.


Ed's rant does have some interesting comments ... though you have to realize Ed is one of those disgruntled original overclocker crowd who the world passed by several years ago.

Why ??

Well he had nothing to say ... bar bashing the old blue drum ... over and over again.

Bit like the old guy on the side of the road with the sign that says "The end is Nigh ... for AMD".

After a while nobody looks at the sign.

But they do notice the old guy smells and hasn't changed in several weeks ... and has a beard Moses would envy ...

That's Ed.

Plus his site layout is as boring as batsh!t.

I do recommend reading what he has to say ... along with Anad, Sander, and Scott ...they just make a lot more sense.

Ed is just a bit out on the fringe these days ... and you can tell from the style.

He has an account here too.

Hi Ed !!




July 14, 2008 12:58:01 PM

Reynod said:
TC fanning the flames


I'm not fanning anything. I thought it was an interesting article and acknowledged that I had some doubts about some of it and put it on the table for discussion.

The first words of my post:

Quote:
Very interesting if true.



Unlike AMD fanboys (who link to posts from other forums and quote them as gospel truth), I don't believe anything out on the Internet.

I thought it was very interesting information from Ed, especially with AMD's earnings coming out this week. AMD's going to continue to hurt until they can make a better processor and thus charge more for it.
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2008 2:01:14 PM

I was referring to the following statements you made TC.

First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

These were your words.

Your just stirring up the sh!t as usual.

Like I said before .. pity we can't rate a thread down so it disappears.

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2008 2:15:30 PM

JDocs said:
Will somebody please tell me where all those AMD Native quad design adds came from again, they ain't cheap and they weren't paid for by Intel.


More than likely IBM. Like where AMD gets the bulk of its technology including the IMC and their 64Bit.

Funny thing is when I built a PC back in 2002/2003 (just before the release of Athlon 64) I built a system with a Pentium 4. My reasoning? Well at the time Athlon XP ran very hot, wasn't as fast as Pentium 4 (performance wise) and my friends who had them had the worst time getting them to just run at the stock speeds they were supposed to run at due to horrible chipsets and mobos. Heck I had to overclock a friends so it would be seen as a 2700+ (think it ran at like 1.4GHz) but it would only be seen at 700MHz if you left the BIOS as is.

I don't even want to say this but Terascale. 80 cores naitive. Intel has a buisiness plan. It turned out that 65nm naitve quad would not have be profitable for them. Considering the problems that AMD has gone through so far with it it seems Intel made a smart move waiting till 45nm where it will benefit them and the consumer, especially since they used Core 2 to get most of the kinks out of their new HK/MG 45nm process so that means they will be able to produce more per waffer and cut costs as well.

Its kind of funny how that post y iocedmyself is so anti Intel. Its funny because he doesn't realize how many of those nice features he enjoys on his mobo (PCIe, SATA, WiFi ect) that Intel helps create. Either way fanboyism is just stupid. You limit yourself from experiencing a whole world of different abilities and you also limit yourself to the best price/performance. But meh.

If I were iocedmyself and all the AMD fans I would take this a bit more seriously. If this is true its a very big problem as unfortunately not all problems revolve around the product but also the financials. If AMD does not run things right financially and looses too much money you soon will not have an AMD to praise.
July 14, 2008 2:20:18 PM

Much of the write-off is because Intel canceled AMDs chipset license. That was a large part of ATis income. They are doing pretty good with product launches. 9950BE is available at Newegg as is the 3GHz Brisbane (5800+). Puma is everywhere. Between just HP and Toshiba there are about 12 models, though the 2.4GHz chips aren't around yet.

I remember saying that AMD should have stopped dropping prices before they lost 80% of their X2 prices. That's their major problem. But they had to respond to a $183 E6300. Even funnier is that, according to Newegg, the 9850BE is the best selling AMD chip.
July 14, 2008 2:23:50 PM

How exactly is that stirring or fanning the flames? TC's opening statement is clearly his opinion of what the article he link might be referring to, and the latest hits on AMD stocks are simply his way to confirm his opinion.

So, what did he say that was so "anti-AMD"? Where is the "stirring up the sh!t as usual"?

Sounds like another case of "it's against AMD, so it's got to be untrue or bad" syndrome. How is this any different than linking an article from Fudzilla or the Inquirer?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2008 2:25:37 PM

OMG.......................................................................................................................................................................................

:o  :o  :o 
July 14, 2008 2:29:20 PM

Reynod said:
I was referring to the following statements you made TC.

First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

These were your words.

Your just stirring up the sh!t as usual.

Like I said before .. pity we can't rate a thread down so it disappears.



That's odd, why don't you react so harshly when someone creates a "FSB IS LIMITED ON INTEL" thread?

Geee..... I wonder why.....



My statements were fair. Intel has done well. They continue to rake in profits even in rough markets. AMD's K10 launch was a bunch of smoke and mirrors, AMD decieved the public and their following and launched something that didn't meet what they hyped, and it was buggy on top of it.

If what Ed says in the article is true, AMD stockholders should be upset that AMD is just playing with numbers instead of making the company stronger and closer to proitability.

Please don't tell me you're oblivious to the fact that AMD was trading for $40 in 2006 and now in 2008 has gone down 88% to $5? Even in just the last year AMD is down 70%.

http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...


But then again stating the reality of AMD makes me an INTC fanboy in your eyes. Oh well!
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2008 2:35:46 PM

Am I the only one who seems to be kinda seeing BM here?

Either way, reynod TC is right in a lot of ways. He is not trying to bash AMD more than open some peoples eyes to the fact that they just might be in a lot of financial troubles.

Now if this is true AMD is in a lot of financial troubles then its bad for everyone, not just the fanboys. My major problems are this. AMD paid way too much for ATI. Yes I have always prefered ATI due to better drivers and better quality for the same performance but lets face it their marketshare was not worth what AMD paid. Second this will of course either drag ATI down with them which would cause two monopolies and then the Federal Governmanet will step in split companies up and cause all kinds of havok with the PC hardware industry. Its not hard having 2 GPU/CPU companies but imagine 3,4 or even 5 of each. Benefit of it would be lower prices on products but badside would mean learning a lot more crap.
July 14, 2008 2:44:14 PM

apache_lives said:
AMD aint this glorious company, there as bad as Intel, and dont get my wrong, both companies can kiss my a$$, ill buy whats best at my price range.


I think that statement is very true. AMD is a profit hungry, lieing, cheating, stealing, corporation just like any other in the world. They'll do anything they can get away with to make money. Some people here don't think to understand that. They think that AMD is the perfect lamb of the coporate world, NOT TRUE. If what Ed writes is true, then AMD is in BIG financial trouble.

In the end, it's a dog eat dog world and I'll buy whatever is best that's at my price range, I don't care if it is AMD or Intel. When I built my Athlon 64 3200+ system AMD was the way to go. Then I upgraded and stayed with AMD because I was able to reuse my S939 motherboard and DDR1 RAM. However, when I do a system overhaul (motherboard, CPU, RAM) in the next year or so, guess what? I'll probably go Intel if AMD doesn't have a product that is more enticing than Intel in the $200-$300 range.
July 14, 2008 2:49:48 PM

iocedmyself said:

How has Intel always managed to keep such a huge market share regardless of quality, performance, or even progress? Marketing smoke and mirrors and strong-arming vendors.



No, but manufacturing capability. As far as I know, there's no other manufacturer with the same capability to supply over 70% of the world with high performance processors and chipsets.
July 14, 2008 2:55:32 PM

Wow it looks like the baron is back.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2008 2:56:28 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I think that statement is very true. AMD is a profit hungry, lieing, cheating, stealing, corporation just like any other in the world. They'll do anything they can get away with to make money. Some people here don't think to understand that. They think that AMD is the perfect lamb of the coporate world, NOT TRUE. If what Ed writes is true, then AMD is in BIG financial trouble.

In the end, it's a dog eat dog world and I'll buy whatever is best that's at my price range, I don't care if it is AMD or Intel. When I built my Athlon 64 3200+ system AMD was the way to go. Then I upgraded and stayed with AMD because I was able to reuse my S939 motherboard and DDR1 RAM. However, when I do a system overhaul (motherboard, CPU, RAM) in the next year or so, guess what? I'll probably go Intel if AMD doesn't have a product that is more enticing than Intel in the $200-$300 range.


Thanks to this line I now have a old school Offspring song stuck in my head....... hehe

True word for word though.

Its too bad AMD had to change to AM2 just for DDR2 support. Imagine when they add in a triple channel DDR3 support. I doubt they will be able to stick with AM2+ or S940 design.
July 14, 2008 3:04:51 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Much of the write-off is because Intel canceled AMDs chipset license. That was a large part of ATis income. They are doing pretty good with product launches. 9950BE is available at Newegg as is the 3GHz Brisbane (5800+). Puma is everywhere. Between just HP and Toshiba there are about 12 models, though the 2.4GHz chips aren't around yet.

I remember saying that AMD should have stopped dropping prices before they lost 80% of their X2 prices. That's their major problem. But they had to respond to a $183 E6300. Even funnier is that, according to Newegg, the 9850BE is the best selling AMD chip.


Here comes the greatest FUD king of all...

I remembered seeing a report that despite Puma's launch, only two ~ three companies decided to carry it. I'll dig that review up.

EDIT: Here you go
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

How do you know that, according to Newegg, 9850BE is the best selling chip? If you're basing that argument on reviews, perhaps you should take a look at Q6600's....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
July 14, 2008 3:08:44 PM

To be fair, BM did say that the 9850BE was AMD's best selling chip, not for all chips sold.

As for PUMA, I haven't looked for anything using it.

Just being fair, since he didn't really say anything that was false.
July 14, 2008 3:10:09 PM

True that. I guess I got too excited seeing BM coming back :p .
July 14, 2008 3:15:03 PM

LOL.

Yeah, I know. It was surprising to see a BM post. But I think this was his 2nd post I have seen lately.

What is interesting is that he has a point about the write-offs being part of Intel canceling their license, but AMD should have factored that in the buyout price, imo, because they should have known that Intel would not give ES CPUs to AMD/ATI for chipsets. The saving grace is that AMD/ATI's Crossfire is more embraced by Intel than SLI, only due to nVidia's arrogance. Just imagine if nVidia allowed SLI with Intel chipsets. Alas, that won't happen anytime soon, and Crossfire will be the standard that Intel will push, I imagine.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2008 3:16:20 PM

yomamafor1 said:
No, but manufacturing capability. As far as I know, there's no other manufacturer with the same capability to supply over 70% of the world with high performance processors and chipsets.


Bingo. Its like asking why Coke has the most market share of all the sodas. Easy answer. Much larger manufacturing capabilities.

uguv said:
Wow it looks like the baron is back.


I am glad someone else noticed it too.

BTW yomama, I like your new sig. It just looks pretty, the bike I mean.
July 14, 2008 4:04:21 PM

NMDante said:
Sounds like another case of "it's against AMD, so it's got to be untrue or bad" syndrome. How is this any different than linking an article from Fudzilla or the Inquirer?



I think there's been a lot of that. Reality has been harsh to AMD, and anyone who brings up reality on this board is labeled as an Intel fanboy. Just like back in the day when reality showed that AMD had the better products, I was called an AMD fanboy.

I think the big difference is back in AMD's glory days they were better than Intel, however, the gap between the two companies is much larger now, AMD can't even sell it's top binning desktop processors for much more than $200 while Intel still has a full product range.
July 14, 2008 8:20:54 PM

Reynod said:
I was referring to the following statements you made TC.

First the smoke and mirrors with product releases, and now perhaps financials? Intel may be ruthless to competitors, but Intel does show extreme loyalty to its stockholders; an area where AMD has left much to be desired which is evidenced by AMD's sub $5 stock price.

These were your words.

Your just stirring up the sh!t as usual.

Like I said before .. pity we can't rate a thread down so it disappears.



its easy to spot die hard AMD users by their response!

what kind of amd are you still using? lets guess - athlon was superior, when fx-60 was released intel was about to go of biz. lets see? core 2 was a copy of amd as in nehalem

i don't fan the flames i just toss a good VOC on it!

TC, the site article and reply is accurate - but the defending of AMD's complete incompetence is not.

I really hope amd survives as it is, the ati thing has worked out fine with intel - nvidia is the problem
July 14, 2008 8:22:41 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I think there's been a lot of that. Reality has been harsh to AMD, and anyone who brings up reality on this board is labeled as an Intel fanboy. Just like back in the day when reality showed that AMD had the better products, I was called an AMD fanboy.

I think the big difference is back in AMD's glory days they were better than Intel, however, the gap between the two companies is much larger now, AMD can't even sell it's top binning desktop processors for much more than $200 while Intel still has a full product range.


we have not this much fun for months - well i guess if your intel fan boy its been a fun 2 years - for you amd guys i do feel your pain!
July 15, 2008 12:24:42 AM

Bbbbbbbbbaron Matrix? The one and only legendary Baron? Are you going to follow Mark Twain in publishing in the New York Journal that "the report of my death was an exaggeration"?

I don't agree with any of your legendary AMD bias, but I am sooooooooo happy to see you back! Welcome! Don't go away this time!!!!
July 15, 2008 1:17:21 AM

Wow! I did not realize AMD had dropped that low.
It has been months since I even looked at their stock price.
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 1:24:23 AM

antonmadcow said:
Bbbbbbbbbaron Matrix? The one and only legendary Baron? Are you going to follow Mark Twain in publishing in the New York Journal that "the report of my death was an exaggeration"?

I don't agree with any of your legendary AMD bias, but I am sooooooooo happy to see you back! Welcome! Don't go away this time!!!!


=! hmm... Baron...

How's the kool-aid?
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 1:13:11 PM

The rating system seems a bit harsh?

Lets get beyond that hey?

And for the record I made no negative comments regarding Intel being FSB limited ... it clearly isn't ... for single or double socket systems.

After that well it's Opteron land.

Not of any interest here ... as most of us are single socket enthusiast's ... are we not?

I thought I dealt fairly harshly with the AMD fanatic ... note "fanatic" ... not fanboi ... I am hardly a fanatic.


a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 8:24:52 AM

Ycon said:
This should be no surprise to anyone since AMD has ALWAYS been all about smoke and mirrors ever since it was founded.
Best example of this is the infamous Athlon64 that seemed to do a nice job at benchmarking on sterile test systems but drowned against the HT-enabled P4 & PEE processors when used in a regular users everyday PC, because they were less able to handle all the parallel workloads (most importantly internet security software).


Second that one, HT made systems sparky and more lively compared to a single threaded cpu, the stuff you cant benchmark.
July 16, 2008 1:49:28 PM

AMD gave almost no tech specs for the 939/opteron launch, the AM2 launch and as for the phenom

they made performance comparisons against their own existing chips. To be fair i do recall a few

overzealous assumptions, though they were stated as such with refuseal to produce benchmarks. But

intel is the one who likes to get creative with benchmarks...

It has been stated for years that part of AMD's downfall's is due to lack of any strong matketing

campaiegn. Intel has ad's running in every branch of the media constantly whether they have a

product that justifies it or not. AMD is limited largely to the internet, and even that was

scarce up until the past couple of years.

Yes i've looked at SPEC.org. I've also read numerous accounts of intel "mixing up" systems in

which they would do things like run double the cpu cores, double the disk RPM speed along with

the number of disks in raid 0 compared to the AMD rig and run benches in 32bit while the AMD

system was runing 64bit. That didn't happen to long ago actually and i'm fully aware that it

merits links reciting these occurances. As it's 3am, i'm just going to respond and will make sure

to post links ASAP. I'm just loathe to take any internet benches at face value, especially since

my phenom 9850 BE is benching 15%-20% above reported benches.

When intel is court in numerous countries across the globe for unfair bussiness practices i

hardly think their sales are simply a matter of excess stock.

The engineers from the alpha team that AMD inherited are responsible for the socket A chips as

well as the opteron and in turn the 939 desktop chips which have an IMC. Considering the fact

that when the $1500 core 2 extreme qx6850 launched AMD's fastest chip was the $180 6000 x2 which

had 750mhz memory speed 6.25% slower then the qx6850, the AMD ended up with 7.5% slower memory

performance in PC mark 05 memory test. Bumping the memory up to 800mhz cut the difference down to

less than 2% in pcmark05.however in Sandra's memory integer and floating point benches the 6000x2

@ 750mhz has a 34% lead despite the 6.25% speed handicap. That's pretty much a clear cut win with

the IMC. Which is part of the reason that the opteron/939 earned AMD the crown in june of 2004

with the launch of the 939 with improved IMC and support for server and desktop chips.

Intel should have revisited the IMC long before considering pushing out 8 and 16 core chips to a

market that has almost no software supporting anything beyond a dual core. They just did not have

the ability to impliment it despite working on it for the past 3.5 years.

Beautiful engineering solution? Engineering shortcut would be more accurate. Intels initial

"multi-core" chips are little more than a shrunk down version of a multi-socket board. two die's

that not only share cache, which creates a bottle neck, but having to comunicate between cpu

die's, to the northbridge, to the memory, and back on down the path to the shared cache. Nothing

pretty about it, it's dirty and limited, balanced only by ridiculous cache size. You act like the

phenom x3 is the first example of amd using imperfect silicon. Going back to the 939 chips the

manchester dual core was a toledo with half the L2 cache disabled. I'm also fairly certain that

some of the semperons were x2's with a damaged core.

The Dec 2000 AXP ran NT, not the EV7. The EV7 was the first implimentation of an IMC though.

Those workstations also introduced PCI bus and the VGA standard. In fact im actually typing this

on a 22inch compaq qvision monitor that was the standard for one of the Alpha workstation

revisions. But i'll explain how i know that and how i came to get the monitor a bit later.

An amd chip that can run a 64bit OS. Hmm well lets see first off while your comment on the IA-64

may be technically accurate well reffering to the original anyway...there is a reason why x86-64

won out for desktop. It's the same hardware jump that was made when going from 16bit - 32bit

computing. Running 32bit apps on the first release of IA-64 required that it be emulated or have

a dedicated processor just for 32bit code. Which translated into ssssssllllllllooooooowwwwwwww

performance. It was horrible. An exsclusive 64bit code cpu...that didn't have 64bit support

enabled. It was a 64bit chip emulating 32bit code. Talk about progress.... but even in 64bit the

arch was terrible. Which is why intel had to license x86-64 from AMD. But you say nothing else is

64bit cpu..well you're wrong and you're right. But first the history lesson.

Most people would say that 32bit computers weren't around until windows NT 3.1 and 95. Sadly,

it's true in the sense that there was no 32bit software supported until then, but the reality is

the first 32bit cpu was....the 386. Yes the first x86 32bit cpu was the 386. Which was launched

in 1986. I was 3 ffs. The 386 ran 16bit software at full speed in hardware along with 32bit

application and ported apps to 32bit when available.

This is the same thing with the A64 chips. Also almost identical with the new IA-64 intel chips,

though intel did change a few things which of course run a bit slower then A64. Well documented

differences if you actually look for them, the easiest find is probably wikipedia.

The intel IA-64 based MAC os machines do almost the same thing. 64bit GUI apps are supported

using openGL, x11 quartz and something else i can't remember. Non gui 64bit frameworks are

supported as well, and 64bit POSIX and math libraries are supported in the command line. Though

it's a 32bit kernel. Hmmm just like the 386 was implimented.

AMD64 adresses 48bits of the available 64bit address while IA-64 only uses 32bits (i know the new

server chips are upping it to 44bits but havne't caught anything regarding the Nehalem)

So AMD chips that have run 64bit OS's. My 144 Venus opteron, 165x2 Toledo core opteron, Athlon

4400x2 Toledo core have all run/ currently running 64bit XP, 64bit Server 2003, 64bit Vista

ultimate, 64bit Linux. The 165 opty currently is running 64bit Server 2008, though it ran fine on

the 144 opteron as well. Currently am running 64 bit vista ultimate on my phenom 9850 BE DFI LP

UT 790FX with 2x2gig 1066mhz Giel and 4870xt with a Windows performance index rating of 5.8 (the

5.8 being my hard disks atm, CPU, GPU, RAM are rated at 5.9) Those are as 64bit as you get short

of running a 64bit long server envirorment which doesn't do me much good, though i'll try 64bit

long linux just for S&G's.


Quote:
Funny thing is when I built a PC back in 2002/2003 (just before the release of Athlon 64) I built a system with a Pentium 4. My reasoning? Well at the time Athlon XP ran very hot, wasn't as fast as Pentium 4 (performance wise) and my friends who had them had the worst time getting them to just run at the stock speeds they were supposed to run at due to horrible chipsets and mobos. Heck I had to overclock a friends so it would be seen as a 2700+ (think it ran at like 1.4GHz) but it would only be seen at 700MHz if you left the BIOS as is.


Wow jimmy...just wow. Are you serious? Because there is no part of that paragraph that isn't horribly wrong and albiet painfully funny. It feels like bait...but oh well, the 700mhz boot speed i actually saw, though i knew why it happened.

It was a chip with an unlocked multi and the board didn't support changing multipliers at all (which probably could have been fixed with a bios update) it didn't support changing them manually, but did support Cool & quite (if the microcode identifying the chip wasn't detected and C&Q was left on it would default to the lowest multi FSB, usually 100mhz x 7 or 133x6 which is looking pretty likely) The advanced features menu where the multiplier option was located in the bios was only visble after pressing F1 (true of gigabyte and abit boards) If it happened to be a Gigabyte GA-700NA pro NF2 board there were 5 little dip-switches that let you hard set the multi before even powering up the board. Having all of them in them On/off set it at either Auto/x7. Or maybe the chip decided 700mhz was all you two deserved.

Yes, actually i do realize that intel has a hand in creating I/O standards and peripheral's. But those aren't what put them in the spot light, nor are those things that they misrepresent. I loved nvidia chipsets long after i disliked their gpu's.It's kind of like saying everyone hates the nazi's but they don't realize that if it weren't for them we wouldn't have the jet engine. Doing good in one area doesn't mean they do everything right.
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 3:24:43 PM

iocedmyself said:


The engineers from the alpha team that AMD inherited are responsible for the socket A chips as well as the opteron and in turn the 939 desktop chips which have an IMC. Considering the fact that when the $1500 core 2 extreme qx6850 launched AMD's fastest chip was the $180 6000 x2 which had 750mhz memory speed 6.25% slower then the qx6850, the AMD ended up with 7.5% slower memory performance in PC mark 05 memory test. Bumping the memory up to 800mhz cut the difference down to less than 2% in pcmark05.however in Sandra's memory integer and floating point benches the 6000x2 @ 750mhz has a 34% lead despite the 6.25% speed handicap. That's pretty much a clear cut win with the IMC.


(still reeling from wall of text...)

Memory integer and floating point? Congratulations, it won in an artificial benchmark designed to only stress memory. Now, what programs are actually bottlenecked by this that people use aside from HPC applications and multi socket?

iocedmyself said:


Intel should have revisited the IMC long before considering pushing out 8 and 16 core chips to a market that has almost no software supporting anything beyond a dual core. They just did not have the ability to impliment it despite working on it for the past 3.5 years.

Did I miss something? Last I checked, they are using an IMC for the chips that they are considering in the 8 and 16 core region.

iocedmyself said:

Beautiful engineering solution? Engineering shortcut would be more accurate. Intels initial "multi-core" chips are little more than a shrunk down version of a multi-socket board. two die's that not only share cache, which creates a bottle neck, but having to comunicate between cpu die's, to the northbridge, to the memory, and back on down the path to the shared cache. Nothing pretty about it, it's dirty and limited, balanced only by ridiculous cache size.

Beautiful engineering solutions are beautiful because they have a minimum of overhead, are easy, and they work. Unlike beautiful theoretical solutions, which might be tremendously elegant on paper, but run smack into the brick wall of reality when you try to produce them.

iocedmyself said:

You act like the phenom x3 is the first example of amd using imperfect silicon. Going back to the 939 chips the manchester dual core was a toledo with half the L2 cache disabled. I'm also fairly certain that some of the semperons were x2's with a damaged core.

It isn't the first example of imperfect silicon. It is however a perfect illustration of the relatively low yields of a native quad with the current 65nm process, and a perfect example of why the 2x2 core dies is actually a better engineering solution.

iocedmyself said:

The Dec 2000 AXP ran NT, not the EV7. The EV7 was the first implimentation of an IMC though. Those workstations also introduced PCI bus and the VGA standard. In fact im actually typing this on a 22inch compaq qvision monitor that was the standard for one of the Alpha workstation revisions. But i'll explain how i know that and how i came to get the monitor a bit later.

Not quite sure of the relevance of this...

iocedmyself said:

An amd chip that can run a 64bit OS. Hmm well lets see first off while your comment on the IA-64 may be technically accurate well reffering to the original anyway...there is a reason why x86-64 won out for desktop. It's the same hardware jump that was made when going from 16bit - 32bit computing. Running 32bit apps on the first release of IA-64 required that it be emulated or have a dedicated processor just for 32bit code. Which translated into ssssssllllllllooooooowwwwwwww performance. It was horrible. An exsclusive 64bit code cpu...that didn't have 64bit support enabled. It was a 64bit chip emulating 32bit code. Talk about progress.... but even in 64bit the arch was terrible. Which is why intel had to license x86-64 from AMD.

Actually, the architecture is quite elegant for dedicated applications and pure floating point performance. It isn't the greatest for desktop, but that's why Intel's desktop chips run x86-64

iocedmyself said:

But you say nothing else is 64bit cpu..well you're wrong and you're right. But first the history lesson. Most people would say that 32bit computers weren't around until windows NT 3.1 and 95. Sadly, it's true in the sense that there was no 32bit software supported until then, but the reality is the first 32bit cpu was....the 386. Yes the first x86 32bit cpu was the 386. Which was launched in 1986. I was 3 ffs. The 386 ran 16bit software at full speed in hardware along with 32bit application and ported apps to 32bit when available. This is the same thing with the A64 chips. Also almost identical with the new IA-64 intel chips, though intel did change a few things which of course run a bit slower then A64.

What IA-64 intel chips? All current Intel 64 bit desktop CPU's use X86-64, rendering all your arguments about fundamental differences between the Intel and AMD 64 bit desktop chips irrelevant.

iocedmyself said:

Well documented differences if you actually look for them, the easiest find is probably wikipedia.The intel IA-64 based MAC os machines do almost the same thing. 64bit GUI apps are supported using openGL, x11 quartz and something else i can't remember. Non gui 64bit frameworks are supported as well, and 64bit POSIX and math libraries are supported in the command line. Though it's a 32bit kernel. Hmmm just like the 386 was implimented.AMD64 adresses 48bits of the available 64bit address while IA-64 only uses 32bits (i know the new server chips are upping it to 44bits but havne't caught anything regarding the Nehalem).

So AMD chips that have run 64bit OS's. My 144 Venus opteron, 165x2 Toledo core opteron, Athlon 4400x2 Toledo core have all run/ currently running 64bit XP, 64bit Server 2003, 64bit Vista ultimate, 64bit Linux. The 165 opty currently is running 64bit Server 2008, though it ran fine on the 144 opteron as well. Currently am running 64 bit vista ultimate on my phenom 9850 BE DFI LP UT 790FX with 2x2gig 1066mhz Giel and 4870xt with a Windows performance index rating of 5.8 (the 5.8 being my hard disks atm, CPU, GPU, RAM are rated at 5.9) Those are as 64bit as you get short of running a 64bit long server envirorment which doesn't do me much good, though i'll try 64bit long linux just for S&G's.

As I said, the current 64 bit Core 2's and Athlons (and phenoms) all use the same X86-64, so stop trying to spew all of this garbage about the fundamental differences with how they can handle 64 bit. As for the windows experience index? Give me a break - 5.9 is so easy to achieve right now that bragging about it is somewhat of a joke.

iocedmyself said:

Quote:
Funny thing is when I built a PC back in 2002/2003 (just before the release of Athlon 64) I built a system with a Pentium 4. My reasoning? Well at the time Athlon XP ran very hot, wasn't as fast as Pentium 4 (performance wise) and my friends who had them had the worst time getting them to just run at the stock speeds they were supposed to run at due to horrible chipsets and mobos. Heck I had to overclock a friends so it would be seen as a 2700+ (think it ran at like 1.4GHz) but it would only be seen at 700MHz if you left the BIOS as is.


Wow jimmy...just wow. Are you serious? Because there is no part of that paragraph that isn't horribly wrong and albiet painfully funny. It feels like bait...but oh well, the 700mhz boot speed i actually saw, though i knew why it happened.

It was a chip with an unlocked multi and the board didn't support changing multipliers at all (which probably could have been fixed with a bios update) it didn't support changing them manually, but did support Cool & quite (if the microcode identifying the chip wasn't detected and C&Q was left on it would default to the lowest multi FSB, usually 100mhz x 7 or 133x6 which is looking pretty likely) The advanced features menu where the multiplier option was located in the bios was only visble after pressing F1 (true of gigabyte and abit boards) If it happened to be a Gigabyte GA-700NA pro NF2 board there were 5 little dip-switches that let you hard set the multi before even powering up the board. Having all of them in them On/off set it at either Auto/x7. Or maybe the chip decided 700mhz was all you two deserved.

I'll give you this, and I'll add in that any lead that a pentium 4 had over an Athlon at that time was through sheer brute force and clockspeed, and the athlons were superior. That time is over though, and the Core 2 CPU's are something quite different.

iocedmyself said:

Yes, actually i do realize that intel has a hand in creating I/O standards and peripheral's. But those aren't what put them in the spot light, nor are those things that they misrepresent. I loved nvidia chipsets long after i disliked their gpu's.It's kind of like saying everyone hates the nazi's but they don't realize that if it weren't for them we wouldn't have the jet engine. Doing good in one area doesn't mean they do everything right.

What's funny about this is that Nvidia made decent GPUs long after their chipsets started to decline.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 16, 2008 3:57:17 PM

^I was going based off of a personal experience with the Athlon XPs. These were not the A64 chips and were not all that great. All I know is that even when I looked up the specs of the CPU and set them to the BIOS it would either not boot or it would have to be reset since it would burn up.

Oh and this is not my first time dealing with this issue. A guy I worked with had the same problem. The mobo fully supported the chip but would not recognize the correct speed and then the closest I could get it (allowing it to post) was a bit lower speed than his was supposed to be.
July 16, 2008 5:27:00 PM

cjl said:
Congratulations, it won in an artificial benchmark designed to only stress memory. Now, what programs are actually bottlenecked by this that people use aside from HPC applications and multi socket?


Don't ask that! DON'T EVER ASK THAT!

Oh, well, i'll be on my way. Kassler will be here any second...
July 16, 2008 5:43:55 PM

Actually memory and FP intensive programs are the programs of the future. Just ask BM, he knows. :) 
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 6:09:19 PM

Fairly likely, true. Hence Nehalem.
!