Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opinions: should AMD give up on CPU?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 14, 2008 10:05:41 PM

I want to hear your opinions folks regarding AMD and their CPU business. I think we don't need to prove wether AMD's CPU is better than intel's or not, the only thing we need to discuss is, how is AMD going to compete with intel again? because at this rate, they will be left behind by intel. Not only slightly behind, but intel may be able to make a 4 years jump in CPU technology.

With Larrabee on the horizon, it looks like they are going toward a revolutionary design, while their current Quad and C2D still dominating the market in sales and performances.

Should AMD give up or they give another try?

edit:Not to let Intel walk alone in the business, but big cxompany with huge budget for R&D and experience should replace AMD in the CPU business, IBM for example... a great company with half millenium experience and huge budget.

More about : opinions amd give cpu

August 14, 2008 10:19:16 PM

Are you insane LOL
August 14, 2008 10:24:53 PM

yes...just as soon as intel puts in writing that a "budget chip" will never hit a "low" price of over $100 usd....
otherwise, you could be looking at a 150-200 dollar "internet/word" processor.
the OEM's would never have it....without competition (as history shows), the OEM's have to depend on a sole provider, and should said soul provider fail to execute in any way, it makes the OEM's unstable.
seriously, this is going to be a "discussion"? perhaps you should title it "should AMD give up on HIGH END cpu", since thats the only segment they're failing to compete in. even the most vehement intel fanboi can tell you that...
no AMD cpu's = price fixing beyond your wildest imaginations. remember that...
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 14, 2008 10:32:20 PM

It goes both ways with the pricing. Intel keeps AMD in check while AMD keeps Intel in check.

I don't think AMD should give up. They have a great product but their management is what is broken.

If Dirk is what people say he is he should be able t better manage the company BUT with the Board being one of the biggest factors in AMD and Hector still there I feel it may be harder than it should be.
August 14, 2008 10:41:14 PM

I am an Intel Fan.

HELL NO. We need AMD to keep Intel honest.
August 14, 2008 10:44:26 PM

Not to let Intel walk alone in the business, but big cxompany with huge budget for R&D and experience should replace AMD in the CPU business, IBM for example... a great company with half millenium experience and huge budget.
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2008 10:45:22 PM

dario77 said:
yes...just as soon as intel puts in writing that a "budget chip" will never hit a "low" price of over $100 usd....
otherwise, you could be looking at a 150-200 dollar "internet/word" processor.
the OEM's would never have it....without competition (as history shows), the OEM's have to depend on a sole provider, and should said soul provider fail to execute in any way, it makes the OEM's unstable.
seriously, this is going to be a "discussion"? perhaps you should title it "should AMD give up on HIGH END cpu", since thats the only segment they're failing to compete in. even the most vehement intel fanboi can tell you that...
no AMD cpu's = price fixing beyond your wildest imaginations. remember that...


QFT

Do these people not get that a world without AMD= Obscene Prices?
August 14, 2008 10:46:06 PM

They shouldnt give up because intel would just become slouchy, there prices would become high and their technology wouldnt advance as much due to lack of competition. Although I don't see how AMD make any money in the cpu market, especialy of late, as no one would buy an AMD processor over an Intel one if they knew remotely what they were doing; Intel beats AMD in both performance and value.
August 14, 2008 11:02:01 PM

There is a problem with simply passing the torch over to IBM or another large company. The x86 licensing.

AMD is our only hope (VIA doesn't count). Worst case scenario they will just fall back into the budget region or find a niche market.
August 14, 2008 11:03:40 PM

i think we will find out once Deneb is out if they should quit....
August 14, 2008 11:11:52 PM

thank you, everyone...
you've echoed my sentiments far more elegantly than i could hope to, and i appreciate that all true enthusiasts, no matter their preference or allegiance, can agree that an intel core-manufacturer/developerSOLO is an obvious step in the wrong direction for everybody involved...not the least of whom is the consumers...us!
really....don't we have better things to "discuss"?
August 14, 2008 11:15:10 PM

i guess amd should buy more intel technolgy? licence more
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2008 11:22:06 PM

I think AMD should give up unless they come out with a Dual processor Deneb system to compete with Intel's high end 3.2 Ghz Nehalem (Core i7).Plus I think they should come out with an Dual CPU AMD brand motherboard to match it (Motherboard support for their current Phenoms has been very confusing to many).Otherwise they will be left behind and will be losing more money which they cannot afford to do right now.
August 14, 2008 11:35:30 PM

jj463rd said:
I think AMD should give up unless they come out with a Dual processor Deneb system to compete with Intel's high end 3.2 Ghz Nehalem (Core i7).Plus I think they should come out with an Dual CPU AMD brand motherboard to match it (Motherboard support for their current Phenoms has been very confusing to many).Otherwise they will be left behind and will be losing more money which they cannot afford to do right now.

i smell sarcasm smoke, but there is some fire in the words you speak...

4870x2 is largely regarded as having taken the performance crown for single card gpu....perhaps a dual-deneb "octa-father" setup could benefit from lessons learned and be engineered to throw challenge to nehalem...

i'm not gonna stop calling it "nehalem" until "i7" stops looking totally lame and "i wish i were an apple"-ish. really....emulating the marketing "strategy" of a company who thrives on the "youth market" (the people who are environmentally conscientious) while posting constantly the worst environmental record of any tech company in existance (this includes companies under china's...AHEM...strict...environmental restrictions)...
i understand the marketing ploy at hand, really....i just think it smacks of old-school cronieism and a total disrespect for the intelligence of the "core-audience"...

i've left my soapbox behind...anyone want it?
August 14, 2008 11:51:23 PM

No way should AMD quit. But they do need to get a better processor out and Shanghai is supposed to be that. As it is, the latest in the Barcelona series chips aren't all that bad, though they eat a lot of power. The latest Phenoms, coupled with a SB750 chipset are overclocking fairly well. They're just very hungry when it comes to power.

It needs to be remembered that the vast majority of AMD's business does not come from computer enthusiasts, but from businesses, big businesses. This is where AMD needs to concentrate. Forget whether or not a CPU can achieve a high overclock. Build a CPU that can do a lot of things and not use a lot of power doing it. Then if it runs fast enough and maybe overclocks a bit as well for the enthusiast crowd, good. But don't try to compete with Intel in the "who can go the fastest' game.
August 15, 2008 12:27:22 AM

I hate to break it to you but IBM is not even close to 500 years old...
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 12:31:20 AM

dario77 said:
i smell sarcasm smoke, but there is some fire in the words you speak...

4870x2 is largely regarded as having taken the performance crown for single card gpu....perhaps a dual-deneb "octa-father" setup could benefit from lessons learned and be engineered to throw challenge to nehalem...

i'm not gonna stop calling it "nehalem" until "i7" stops looking totally lame and "i wish i were an apple"-ish. really....emulating the marketing "strategy" of a company who thrives on the "youth market" (the people who are environmentally conscientious) while posting constantly the worst environmental record of any tech company in existance (this includes companies under china's...AHEM...strict...environmental restrictions)...
i understand the marketing ploy at hand, really....i just think it smacks of old-school cronieism and a total disrespect for the intelligence of the "core-audience"...

i've left my soapbox behind...anyone want it?


While it is great to see ATI doing what they used to do its not enough to keep AMDs CPU division alive.

I don't think a dual CPU setup like QuadFX will be the answer and making a dual core CPU now would be too costly. From what I heard AMD is taking K8 and adding some newer Phenom based features to it and releasing it as Phenom X2. So its technically K8.5 or maybe K9. But taking that even current Phenoms do not perform above C2Q I doubt that the K8.5 will be able to beat C2D easily and more than likely will not be able to compete with the Nehalem dual core.

Basically what Sailer said is make another K8. But that probably wont happen until K11 in reality.
August 15, 2008 1:51:12 AM

I'm guessing many of you haven't noticed or forget concrum's other posts... known troll, please don't feed O_o
August 15, 2008 2:27:42 AM

Right now AMD has the best strategy going for them and by saying that i mean they have the fastest GPU cards in the world they have a very solid chipset with the fatsest IGP in the world and on top of that they make CPU's which is the weak link in there product line!

Alot of people will be looking past the Phenom's somewhat slower performance and buying into AMD's complete platform. Which until ethier Intel starts making competetive GPU's or Nvidia starts making competetive CPU's AMD has something nethier Intel nor Nvidia has and that is a complete in house platform that perform's very very good!

At this point i only see AMD's marketshare going up! In the long term if Intel's Larrebee or whatever is even some what competetive then i see Nvidia going broke and i see Intel trying to copy what AMD is doing which is having an all in one home and bussiness solution from the factory!

August 15, 2008 3:58:39 AM

The title of this topic has been edited by Jake_Barnes
August 15, 2008 3:59:02 AM

concrum said:
I want to hear your opinions folks regarding AMD and their CPU business. I think we don't need to prove wether AMD's CPU is better than intel's or not, the only thing we need to discuss is, how is AMD going to compete with intel again? because at this rate, they will be left behind by intel. Not only slightly behind, but intel may be able to make a 4 years jump in CPU technology.

With Larrabee on the horizon, it looks like they are going toward a revolutionary design, while their current Quad and C2D still dominating the market in sales and performances.

Should AMD give up or they give another try?

edit:Not to let Intel walk alone in the business, but big cxompany with huge budget for R&D and experience should replace AMD in the CPU business, IBM for example... a great company with half millenium experience and huge budget.


From wiki :
"The 8086[1] is a 16-bit microprocessor chip designed by Intel and introduced on the market in 1978, which gave rise to the x86 architecture. Intel 8088, released in 1979, was essentially the same chip, but with an external 8-bit data bus (allowing the use of cheaper and fewer supporting logic chips[2]), and is notable as the processor used in the original IBM PC."

Texas Instruments had a 16 - bit CPU called the TMS9900 that was released in 1976, two years before Intel released theirs. Intel is not a leader, they never were!

How long has Intel been regurgitating the 8086 architecture?

WE NEED A CHANGE.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 4:13:23 AM

Intel is a leader because the x86 architecture caught on. Reason was because it was simple to write for.

Just because I like to mess with people here is a clip from your same Wiki article you read up on to try to bash Intel with:

Quote:
The TMS9900 was used in the TI-99/4 and TI-99/4A home computers. Unfortunately, to reduce the production costs, TI chose to use in these systems just 128 16-bit words of RAM. The rest of the memory was 16kB of 8-bit DRAM that was accessible only through the video display controller, which crippled the performance of the TMS9900.


So due to this it wasn't able to expand like the 8086.

Either way there wont be a major change to the CPU in a long time. Not even from AMD or anyone because change is to hard to do on a massive scale. So x86 more than likely will be here to stay for a long long time.
August 15, 2008 6:21:38 AM

falcodakrzz said:
They shouldnt give up because intel would just become slouchy, there prices would become high and their technology wouldnt advance as much due to lack of competition. Although I don't see how AMD make any money in the cpu market, especialy of late, as no one would buy an AMD processor over an Intel one if they knew remotely what they were doing; Intel beats AMD in both performance and value.


Yeah this is very true. We all remember how slowly Intel moved on upgrading processor core tech prior to AMD putting out the Athlon, and then the K8 Athlon 64 cores. Actually I can think of a lot of people that would buy AMD processors that do know full well what they're doing, I am one. Everyone touts Intel processors OCing headroom on the newer lines. But, from what I remember, Intel procs have almost always been able to hit clocks up to 50% higher than the stock clocks. Even back in the old P2 days, the Deschutes based p2 300's and Celeron 300A's could easily hit 450Mhz. I don't think thats changed since.

turboflame said:
There is a problem with simply passing the torch over to IBM or another large company. The x86 licensing.

AMD is our only hope (VIA doesn't count). Worst case scenario they will just fall back into the budget region or find a niche market.


Actually if AMD decided to leave the x86 market, they have the option to give the license to another company. At this point in time I think that'd most likely be IBM. If you take the time to read the cross license you'll be able to find the specifics of it. Besides, IBM already develops 2 or 3 different processor families as it is. But, both are RISC based architectures. If they obtained the x86 license from AMD they would be able to completely cross CISC(x86) and RISC based architectures to end up with some insane super processor(rampant speculation) which is one of the things Intel fears the most in the case of if IBM obtained the license from AMD.

jimmysmitty said:
While it is great to see ATI doing what they used to do its not enough to keep AMDs CPU division alive.

I don't think a dual CPU setup like QuadFX will be the answer and making a dual core CPU now would be too costly. From what I heard AMD is taking K8 and adding some newer Phenom based features to it and releasing it as Phenom X2. So its technically K8.5 or maybe K9. But taking that even current Phenoms do not perform above C2Q I doubt that the K8.5 will be able to beat C2D easily and more than likely will not be able to compete with the Nehalem dual core.

Basically what Sailer said is make another K8. But that probably wont happen until K11 in reality.


I don't it would be too costly, they could basically just adapt the Turion Ultra to the desktop, they'd just need to get the clock speed up on it. It's just not cost effective for them at the moment due to only having one active fab. On average Phenom is about 8-9% slower clock for clock than Conroe. 10-15% slower than Penryn. So, if the claims of 10-15% performance gain due to tweaks in Deneb/Shanghai hold true, that could put Phenom in line with Penryn or at the least as good as Conroe. Even now if you tweak things properly while OCing you can get pretty close performance clock for clock with the b3's.

So no, I don't think they should leave the CPU market. What they need to do is start using better Cache memory technology. Perhaps ZRam that is only 1 transistor long, and very low latency, or the other new cache memory tech I forgot the name of that is 2 transistors long, and fairly low latency. That would allow them to either shrink die size, with decent amount of Cache, or have huge amounts of low latency cache.

One of the things that I read in the technology brief about Nehalem was that it uses a modular design. Basically if Intel wants to, they can chose how many core cpu can be plugged into the rest of the die, at this time 2 cores, 4 cores, and possibly 8 cores possible at release. AMD really needs to change to that kind of die design. Where the rest of the processor stays the same, but the number of cores can be changed on a wafer by wafer basis. They also need to improve their prefetch units.

Not many people stop to realize that the Nehalems cores are basically modified c2d cores. You also gotta really look back and think about the fact that AMD hasn't changed architectures majorly since the k7. K8 is just a modified k7 core with AMD64 support, and an on chip IMC, with improved clock speeds. All k10 is is a farther modified k8 core, made to work with a unified L3 cache, and new SSE instructions. The original k7 core wasn't made for high clocks speeds, which is why at the time it was excessively difficult to push them past 2.4ghz, it actually says a lot that they've managed to push that base architecture to 3.2ghz.

Something I've noticed over the past year or so, is that prior to Penryn's launch if you ever looked at the CPU charts and went through them you'd notice a few things. I took the time to go through all the bench numbers, and look at what processors consistently placed in the top 10. 6-7 of the processors in the top 10 on those charts were Intel core 2 extremes, which I'd expect. 2 of the other processors were the c2d e6850, and e6750. But, there was something else I also noticed, the Athlon X2 6400+ was almost consistently in there at number 8,9 or 10. And that was the top ten out of all processor that were listed on the charts at that time. So in the main stream arena that put the x2 6400+ into the range of #3 or 4 on the top 10, with the e6600 and x2 6000+ following close behind. But yet you never heard anyone give props for that, it was always, the intel proc to completely wipe the floor with the AMD proc, even though it was usually not by a large margin.

a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 6:25:49 AM

concrum said:

edit:Not to let Intel walk alone in the business, but big cxompany with huge budget for R&D and experience should replace AMD in the CPU business, IBM for example... a great company with half millenium experience and huge budget.


lol..........half a millinium...... :lol: 


about pricing...this is what ma eco101 teacher who completed masters frm MIT had to say: "altho monopoly increases price but that increase is insignificant.however, monopoly can really help in devolopment of new better products, hence monopoly is encorage on goods that are not basic needs."

now i tried to reason with her and say: "y would one make better product with decreased production cost or better performance/price if he has no compitition coz with no competition market will hav 2 buy watever the company provides." then i gave the example of insanely overpriced geforce 8 and the fact there was no new product for almost 2yrs coz ati had nothing to compite with.....and now when ati has given compitition, price are falling like anthing and we hav new products. then i also gave the example of how there is only one company who imports high end grafix card and cpus and hence they price them at almost 1.7times the original price.....
gues wat she did ....she gave me a C- in that corse

ma point: there is no point arguing on it coz its not a reasonable topic......and some ppl will neva get it,.....(i hav no idea y though)
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 6:36:26 AM

Mathos said:
Something I've noticed over the past year or so, is that prior to Penryn's launch if you ever looked at the CPU charts and went through them you'd notice a few things. I took the time to go through all the bench numbers, and look at what processors consistently placed in the top 10. 6-7 of the processors in the top 10 on those charts were Intel core 2 extremes, which I'd expect. 2 of the other processors were the c2d e6850, and e6750. But, there was something else I also noticed, the Athlon X2 6400+ was almost consistently in there at number 8,9 or 10. And that was the top ten out of all processor that were listed on the charts at that time. So in the main stream arena that put the x2 6400+ into the range of #3 or 4 on the top 10, with the e6600 and x2 6000+ following close behind. But yet you never heard anyone give props for that, it was always, the intel proc to completely wipe the floor with the AMD proc, even though it was usually not by a large margin.


+1
sumthing that i have been tring to explain to my frnds for yrs now
August 15, 2008 8:29:46 AM

IMO,
AMD should definitely continue RnD in just about all the sectors it is currently engaged in, but if they cannot come out with a product that can profitably compete with other offerings out there, then why mass produce it and lose the money? Those dollars lost could easily be dedicated to more RnD to come out with a product that will in fact profitably compete. There are plenty on niches to fill, such as server and low power mobile processors, as well as the new 4800 series (where AMD can indeed compete profitably), that can provide income for AMD, while they spend time coming up with a new line of desktop processors that can compete profitably with the Intel offerings out there.
August 15, 2008 9:25:32 AM

yeah, as soon as intel beats the 780g platform.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 9:57:42 AM

Life at the leading edge is so short ...

OP just look at Nvidia vs ATI ... who would have though at the horrible launch of the 2900XT that in such a short time NV would be bent over the washing machine and pumelled from behind by the 4xxx series ATI cards?

Further, that the glorious G92 (and later) series chips would be crashing and burning mere months later because of crappy packaging??

NV going from the top of the mountain and now tumbling down the other side like a snowball.

I imagine AMD will produce something better in 45nm ... how much better?

Unlikely to be as good as Nehalem ... that thing looks damn good.

I wish them well ... but I will spend my moey in terms of bang for the buck.


August 15, 2008 10:18:47 AM

Reynod said:
Life at the leading edge is so short ...

OP just look at Nvidia vs ATI ... who would have though at the horrible launch of the 2900XT that in such a short time NV would be bent over the washing machine and pumelled from behind by the 4xxx series ATI cards?

Further, that the glorious G92 (and later) series chips would be crashing and burning mere months later because of crappy packaging??

NV going from the top of the mountain and now tumbling down the other side like a snowball.

I imagine AMD will produce something better in 45nm ... how much better?

Unlikely to be as good as Nehalem ... that thing looks damn good.

I wish them well ... but I will spend my moey in terms of bang for the buck.




You cant compare ATI vs Nvidia with AMD vs intel. While Nvidia is milking 8800 series with no new solution for the future, Intel on the other hard working pretty hard even they are winning the war right now. There's none of AMD's desktop offering could match Q6600 ( slowest quad) from intel in performance and price ( some Phenom may match it in some bench) but we have to keep in mind its the slowest Q6600.

Like i said before, Intel is working hard advancing their CPU tech, while Nvidia keep milking 8800 architecture. you cant compare them.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 11:57:32 AM

Sounds like you didn't really need to put a thread out there since you seem to know everything about the future ...

NV did recently release a new graphics chip or two as well ... google it.

Your just talking single socket desktop solutions too ... aren't you?

You might want to read up on the server side of things before you take an authoritative swipe in that regard too.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 1:28:16 PM

Mathos said:
Something I've noticed over the past year or so, is that prior to Penryn's launch if you ever looked at the CPU charts and went through them you'd notice a few things. I took the time to go through all the bench numbers, and look at what processors consistently placed in the top 10. 6-7 of the processors in the top 10 on those charts were Intel core 2 extremes, which I'd expect. 2 of the other processors were the c2d e6850, and e6750. But, there was something else I also noticed, the Athlon X2 6400+ was almost consistently in there at number 8,9 or 10. And that was the top ten out of all processor that were listed on the charts at that time. So in the main stream arena that put the x2 6400+ into the range of #3 or 4 on the top 10, with the e6600 and x2 6000+ following close behind. But yet you never heard anyone give props for that, it was always, the intel proc to completely wipe the floor with the AMD proc, even though it was usually not by a large margin.


I will agree with you on everything else you have posted. Heck the last major change to a CPU arch was from PIII to P4 because the Pentium 4 was a new design (NetBurst). But other than that Core 2 is just the Pentium III Coppermine (which was great but clock limited) with the ability to clock much higher and some newer tech.

The only thing here is that you have to remember that during the K8 days of supremacy they were touted about and Intel was in the exact same position and ridiculed called "Heatburst" and so forth and so on. And I remember watching the CPU charts and where Intel was not the best performer they were about the same and had some really good chips like the Pentium D 805, the Pentium M that had a adapter for 478 mobos and in the end Ceader Mill which were 65wTDP chips but got overshadowed by Core 2.

Basically whatever is the best performance for your buck is what will be the talk of the enthusiast town. If AMDs Phenom beat Core 2 even by a small margin it would be the best performance for your buck.

I will agree that its quite good to see the 6440+ staying up in the top of the CPU charts but if you look at it the 6400+ is a 3.2GHz part and while its priced decently it still has a 800MHz advantage over CPUs like the E6600.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 1:33:42 PM

concrum said:
Like i said before, Intel is working hard advancing their CPU tech, while Nvidia keep milking 8800 architecture. you cant compare them.


OMG.....is he saying sumthing negative bout nvidia or m i missing sumthing.........i neva thot i would see this coming.....
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 1:36:23 PM

Plain Old Me said:
IMO,
AMD should definitely continue RnD in just about all the sectors it is currently engaged in, but if they cannot come out with a product that can profitably compete with other offerings out there, then why mass produce it and lose the money? Those dollars lost could easily be dedicated to more RnD to come out with a product that will in fact profitably compete. There are plenty on niches to fill, such as server and low power mobile processors, as well as the new 4800 series (where AMD can indeed compete profitably), that can provide income for AMD, while they spend time coming up with a new line of desktop processors that can compete profitably with the Intel offerings out there.


One p[roblem is that AMDs ATI division cannot be a crutch for AMDs CPU division. ATI needs to do its own research and if AMD has to pull from ATIs R&D then we may see ATI fall back into a down time that I don't want to see again.

Reynod said:
Life at the leading edge is so short ...

OP just look at Nvidia vs ATI ... who would have though at the horrible launch of the 2900XT that in such a short time NV would be bent over the washing machine and pumelled from behind by the 4xxx series ATI cards?

Further, that the glorious G92 (and later) series chips would be crashing and burning mere months later because of crappy packaging??

NV going from the top of the mountain and now tumbling down the other side like a snowball.

I imagine AMD will produce something better in 45nm ... how much better?

Unlikely to be as good as Nehalem ... that thing looks damn good.

I wish them well ... but I will spend my moey in terms of bang for the buck.


nVidia had the best card to start. But from what I noticed, even with drivers the G80/G90 series never improved much in performance.

Now yes the HD2000 series had a horrible launch and I feel that it was due to AMD buying them out. Heck I think something caused it to basically go bad because the high end was supposed to be a much higher clocked HD2900XTX with 1GB of memory but that dissapeared.

Either way though with the newest drivers the HD2900 series has really grown TBH. Mine is quite good and with an equal setup I was able to get a bit higher 3DMark score than a guy with a 8800Ultra. He had the same CPU, memory and OS but he had a 8800Ultra yet I got about 50-100 points above him.
a c 115 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 3:59:40 PM

I think the HD2900s were a 'proof of concept'. It was an incremental step toward 55nm and the HD3XXXs and HD4XXXs.

I imagine the 512-bit memory bus was leftover crapola from ATI that had to get flushed out. I think they learned what they needed for possible future integration when process cost-efficiency and overall card design demand it.

nVidia is basically doing the same thing with the GTX 280. It remains to be seen whether the 512-bit bus can be made affordable overall in a price/performance analysis.

I also think the HD3870x2s were the same type proof of concept. The PCIe bridge design of the HD3870x2 paved the way for the PCIe Gen2 bridge on the HD4870x2.

AMD is taking the same 'incremental' proof of concept steps on the CPU side. It's not 'tick-tock' but it is roughly similar.

At 65nm the Phenom quads have introduced split core timings and segregated the L3/IMC and HT voltages and timings. The mobile Puma platform has introduced split power planes for the CPU cores. AMD 45nm will incorporate these technologies together.

It's actually a really bad joke that Con(und)crum has 'trolled' this thread with '4 years behind' and 'half a millennium' (when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? - lol).

The fact is until Intel can demonstrate the subtle 'management' of their cpu cores, timings and voltages across the platform their GHz speed will do them little benefit on the enterprise side over the upcoming generation of AMD 45nm smp systems.

You guys may not like it but Larrabee (and i7 hyperthreading) are solutions in search of problems. Intel is trying to create a market for super-core Larrabee where one doesn't exist and mass-data super-parallel computing is far more efficient on the GPU.

My $.02. Flame away, boys .....
August 15, 2008 4:08:32 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
OMG.....is he saying sumthing negative bout nvidia or m i missing sumthing.........i neva thot i would see this coming.....


Thats...thats...not just possible....... :pfff: 
August 15, 2008 5:07:19 PM

You know, it's my belief that Intel actually had a purpose for the Netburst uArch. I remember they were trying to push the speed up to as close to 10ghz as they could. I think that purpose was to advance their transistor design and switching speed to the point where they wouldn't need to put much more R&D into it. That allowed them to use the same advanced transistor design while continuing to shrink the process right up to the point where they switch over to HK/MG. Same basic transistor design, but with a faster switching metal gate.

I think heats a relative thing, sure the P4 was a heat monster compared to the k8. But does anyone other than me have experience with trying to keep an old Athlon XP Palomino/Thuroughbred/Barton running within tolerable heat levels? I had a hell of a time trying to keep my old Athlon XP 2100+ running below 65c. Ended up having to get one of the early Socket A all copper HSF units, was one of the older AeroCool ones. Still had to watch out and keep the intake area clear of dust during the warmer months or it would still try and go over 70c. Athlon XP was faster than P4 clock for clock, they just couldn't get it to clock over 2.3ghz to compete with the higher speed p4's.
August 15, 2008 6:00:54 PM

Short answer: no. While AMD is lacking a solution in the high end desktop market, they genererally lead in multi-processor servers and they're competitive in the low-mid range desktop market.

sarwar_r87 said:
lol..........half a millinium...... :lol: 

about pricing...this is what ma eco101 teacher who completed masters frm MIT had to say: "altho monopoly increases price but that increase is insignificant.however, monopoly can really help in devolopment of new better products, hence monopoly is encorage on goods that are not basic needs."

now i tried to reason with her and say: "y would one make better product with decreased production cost or better performance/price if he has no compitition coz with no competition market will hav 2 buy watever the company provides." then i gave the example of insanely overpriced geforce 8 and the fact there was no new product for almost 2yrs coz ati had nothing to compite with.....and now when ati has given compitition, price are falling like anthing and we hav new products. then i also gave the example of how there is only one company who imports high end grafix card and cpus and hence they price them at almost 1.7times the original price.....
gues wat she did ....she gave me a C- in that corse

ma point: there is no point arguing on it coz its not a reasonable topic......and some ppl will neva get it,.....(i hav no idea y though)


I agree that a monopoly in the processor industry would be a bad thing, but maybe she gave you a C- because of your spelling? :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 6:08:15 PM

uguv said:

I agree that a monopoly in the processor industry would be a bad thing, but maybe she gave you a C- because of your spelling? :kaola: 


:cry: 
na....m ok when i rit on paper.......
its IM and sms....they ruined ma typing....
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 6:21:36 PM

Mathos said:
You know, it's my belief that Intel actually had a purpose for the Netburst uArch. I remember they were trying to push the speed up to as close to 10ghz as they could. I think that purpose was to advance their transistor design and switching speed to the point where they wouldn't need to put much more R&D into it. That allowed them to use the same advanced transistor design while continuing to shrink the process right up to the point where they switch over to HK/MG. Same basic transistor design, but with a faster switching metal gate.

I think heats a relative thing, sure the P4 was a heat monster compared to the k8. But does anyone other than me have experience with trying to keep an old Athlon XP Palomino/Thuroughbred/Barton running within tolerable heat levels? I had a hell of a time trying to keep my old Athlon XP 2100+ running below 65c. Ended up having to get one of the early Socket A all copper HSF units, was one of the older AeroCool ones. Still had to watch out and keep the intake area clear of dust during the warmer months or it would still try and go over 70c. Athlon XP was faster than P4 clock for clock, they just couldn't get it to clock over 2.3ghz to compete with the higher speed p4's.


I think you are right. It seems that Intel has had a use for everything they have ever created as has AMD. You learn from trying something new hence why Intel seems to want to reintroduce HT.

Heat is very relative. I remember those hot AMD chips as well and I still love the THG video on it because it reminds me of a time when AMD was not as cool and energy efficient as now. They learned whats important from that it seems.

I think if AMD could have gotten Athlon XP to the same speed they would have had K7 grabbing more market to start then K8 to gobble more down. Then who knows where we would be now. But then again Intel could have cut P4 short and released Core 2 early in order to combat. But we are where we are now and theres no changing the past. Just look to the future and use what works and try what may/may not.
August 15, 2008 6:47:36 PM

Heh.. I remember my dad's good old XP2100+. The stock copper HS just couldn't handle the heat. It idled 55-58C and load was in the 65C.

But then I did tweak the cooling with an AeroCool HS that was rated for the 3300+, all aluminum HS, which idled 38C and 47-50C load.

I don't think AMD will quit the CPU business for awhile. They don't have to have the best out there to make some money. They are still competitive in the server arena. They can still make great GPU's. And prolly still need more time to get itself reorganize to get more serious on the desktop arena. I'd say it's just a matter of time, things will change, the frog leap will perhaps continue like it used to.

Or.. I could be totally wrong. :oops: 
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 7:21:37 PM



Anyone in their right mind would not want AMD to not produce processors..

AMD considering their R&D budget are still bringing out inovative technology beyond and above Intel..

Lets all go ATI and shut up the cocky Nvidia people, as they are really started to scream like a little school girl with a spider in her hair... Shut up Nvidia and get on innovating like ATI has done with the 4 series.

Infact Phenoms are better at true multi threaded applications than Core 2 Quad,,, But alas there are not multi threaded applications in current use that would take advantage of 4 true cores... But has even been out paced by some Core 2 Duos let alone C2Q's..

Phenom has had a bad start, and unfortunatly abiet its die hard fans has a bad stigma to it which is keeping people away..

The Tri core is a failure - how many people have got one..

Plus AMDs are in short supply so what you cant sell you can make a profit on...

Intel work much better with current systems, but to say that AMD should give up is like saying lets give up your right to vote etc etc.

As it was said before Intel needs AMD and vice a versa to stop each one become lazy and innovate products which will only benefit you and I..

I know I have given AMD a rough ride of late , but that was against the AMD clan who have a Athlon stuck up their left nostral affecting brain and mouth / hand contact when typing on these forums....

AMD deserves a chance to better it self financially and give us a processor we are rightfully and deservedly used to from a company that could do more than a one hit wonder..
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 8:00:40 PM

^ATI has been innovating since before that. COnsidering that they went from 64 to 320 shader units thats quite a jump (X1950 to HD2900) and now they went to 800 shaders on 55nm with even more advanced features.

But ATI cannot hold AMD up while they are down because the little money they get is what they need to continue making products that make nVidia sweat.
August 15, 2008 8:11:07 PM

In case nobody has noticed ??,AMD is doing not too badly in the high end server market,and in the next little while should get their act somewhat together in the desktop as well..Maybe,,and perhaps...
The question is.........How fast is fast enough??
I am presently running an AMD 5000 BE which I have clocked at 2.9ghz,and according to Tom's here I only need a 2.6ghz to keep my video card happy..
I don't know about other people but,as far as I am concerned stability is far more important than speed,it's not like the world is going to fall apart if my system takes a few more seconds to complete something,,,of course we all know that 'merikans are never satisfied unless everything is running flat out with "the pedal to the metal"..EH WHat??.......:>)
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 8:16:49 PM

^what the crap are you talking about?

For one stability when OCing Intels C2Q is pretty damn good and second what does being American have to do with anything?

Seriously people bring in being American when its those same Americans that produce those chips that they are using. Be happy.
August 15, 2008 8:20:49 PM

Hell.. he might as well drop the BE 5000+ and go back to the 2000+.. I mean its better then the atom cpu. :oops: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 8:29:59 PM

And remember grimmy, we are Americans so we need it to be pedal to the metal!!!!!!!!!!
August 15, 2008 8:31:41 PM

No No NO... not with gas prices the way they are.. geesh. :oops: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 8:34:02 PM

^Hehe... well if you own a Hummer not then pedal to the metal is stupid. But if you have something like a Focus (which BTW the newest one gets 46MPG highway :o  ) then sure use a bit of the power.

BTW why does he have a Batman & Robin symbol? That movie was bleh. Only good thing was Arnie as Mr. Freeze.
August 15, 2008 8:41:23 PM

Maybe he just likes.... 'merican... stuff.
August 15, 2008 10:42:16 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^Hehe... well if you own a Hummer not then pedal to the metal is stupid. But if you have something like a Focus (which BTW the newest one gets 46MPG highway :o  ) then sure use a bit of the power.


i drive full throttle all the time. on a honda elite 150, i do 65mph and get 75mpg!!

but i've also got a 5000+ BE....coupled with some sick supertalent memory, its all the zippy i need. until i start making movies again...then its nehalem (probably)...
got a 'merican lighter today. eagle in front of a flag. go team venture!
!