Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rumour: AMD readying new Athlon branded CPU?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Dual Core
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 29, 2008 7:03:28 PM

This could well give Intel headaches....considering the unlocked multiplier. This seems like a smart move on AMD's part. The Triple Core was such a real innovation by AMD earning them much respect....A dual core that has an unlocked Multiplier continues AMD's trend of brilliance.

Article: http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/604755/rumour-control-am...

Artice quotes:
Quote:
New Athlon X2 6500 alleged to be based on AMD’s new K10 architecture


Quote:
Just when we thought that AMD’s ageing Athlon brand had gone the way of the Pentium, a rumour has sprung up today suggesting that AMD has a new dual-core Athlon branded CPU in the works called the Athlon X2 6500


Quote:
The site claims that the chip will be clocked at 2.3GHz, and will feature 1MB of Level 2 cache (512KB per core), as well as 2MB of Level 3 cache. Interestingly, Xbit Labs also says that the chip will feature an unlocked multiplier, and that it will be clocked at 2.3GHz as standard


Quote:
The rumour follows reports earlier this week about AMD possibly releasing three dual-core CPUs, which would feature the Phenom X2 brand. AMD was unable to comment on the rumors when we spoke to the company, but an AMD representative is quoted on The Inquirer as saying that ‘you can expect us to continue to offer Athlon branded processors in the future,’ which suggests that there may be some truth in the rumour about the new dual-core Athlon


Quote:
AMD may well be sticking with the Athlon brand for future dual-core CPUs


Looking Good for AMD! AMD is down but not beaten!

AMD4Life!!

More about : rumour amd readying athlon branded cpu

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 29, 2008 7:28:25 PM

1. Triple core is not an innovation but a smart move to use quad cores with a bad core on them.

2. What is the use of a unlocked multiplier if the OCin ability of these chips are not that great? Since they are 65nm based I am willing to bet that they will not be able to OC any better than their tri/quad core counter parts.

I think the bad thing here is it being just a quad core with two cores turned off in order to make use of those chips and thats what will hold back the performance potential of these chips.

Now if they were just dual cores like say K8 based with K10 advancements added on maybe that would be different.
Related resources
August 29, 2008 7:31:20 PM

Well, the whole plan was to eventually release dual-core cpu's based off of K10 architecture. You can look at their cpu "road map" calenders. So it says nothing about yields. The triple-core thing may have reflected low initial yields of the quad core, since it was mostly a surprise announcement and a way for them to offload dies with only three of four functional cores.
August 29, 2008 7:31:38 PM

thunderman said:
This could well give Intel headaches....considering the unlocked multiplier. This seems like a smart move on AMD's part. The Triple Core was such a real innovation by AMD earning them much respect....A dual core that has an unlocked Multiplier continues AMD's trend of brilliance.


I wasn't aware that disabling a core in a quad core is "innovative", and unlocking multiplier is "brilliance".
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2008 8:13:01 PM

Quote:
Also, does this reflect on how yields are for K10, that they are going from Quad, to Triple, and now Dual core.


http://www.overclockers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4197:amds-deneb-good-news-bad-news&catid=57:p rocessors

"Keep in mind that the vast majority of AMD's production is still K8-class processors, for which they're getting little money even at retail. It doesn't help you much to get a decent price on 4% or 6% Phenoms or Barcelonas sales when the other 94% of your sales are bargain-basement prices on X2s or lower. That 94% is an anchor that AMD has to lighten considerably, quickly if they're ever going to make decent money on CPUs anytime soon."

It's been almost a year since AMD officially announced K10, and yet K10 is still only 6% of their sales? If true, this speaks volumes about 65nm yields or k10 performance or both... Makes you wonder about 45nm as well, especially since there don't seem to be a lot of Shanghai samples available to the mobo manufacturers...
August 29, 2008 8:30:20 PM

NMDante said:
Quote:
Secondly, why would AMD launch a 2.3GHz dual-core chip called the 6500 when the K8-based Athlon X2 6400 is clocked at 3GHz, and would most likely outperform it?


http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/604755/rumour-control-amd-readying-new-athlon-branded-cpu.html

Anything else need to be said?

*edit*

Also, does this reflect on how yields are for K10, that they are going from Quad, to Triple, and now Dual core.


It all depends on whether there's a "+" on the end. If not then this is the Kuma designator and the PR rating is out. I guess then the question would be why isn't it called 6650 like 8650, 9650.

A report from AMD ZOne said it's supposed to be the highest perf dual core. That means it has to be more than 3.2GHz. We'll see.
August 29, 2008 8:43:41 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Quote:
Also, does this reflect on how yields are for K10, that they are going from Quad, to Triple, and now Dual core.


http://www.overclockers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4197:amds-deneb-good-news-bad-news&catid=57:p rocessors

"Keep in mind that the vast majority of AMD's production is still K8-class processors, for which they're getting little money even at retail. It doesn't help you much to get a decent price on 4% or 6% Phenoms or Barcelonas sales when the other 94% of your sales are bargain-basement prices on X2s or lower. That 94% is an anchor that AMD has to lighten considerably, quickly if they're ever going to make decent money on CPUs anytime soon."

It's been almost a year since AMD officially announced K10, and yet K10 is still only 6% of their sales? If true, this speaks volumes about 65nm yields or k10 performance or both... Makes you wonder about 45nm as well, especially since there don't seem to be a lot of Shanghai samples available to the mobo manufacturers...




Maybe you should check Newegg. According to their "Top Sellers" list 9950 and 9850 are the best selling AMD chips in retail. I could have told everyone that considering people who bought X2s paid a LOT MORE than $235 so they will buy the BEs. HP is selling more Phenoms than X2s at this point and most have been canceled. By the end of the year their will only be 65nm above 2.4GHz except for low cost PCs.
August 29, 2008 9:19:22 PM

A few online shops have it on sale (yet to arrive) and state a clock speed of 2.3 Ghz. That saddens me.
August 29, 2008 11:21:10 PM

AMD is good at playing the number game when it comes to PR (Pentium Rating) The new 2.3GHz processor probably has a Pentium Rating of just under a Intel E6600 which runs at 2.4GHz. Maybe AMD has figured out a way to increase their Pentium Rating at a lower clock speed, lower wattage and less heat then their current high frequency room heaters.
If that is the case, then AMD can compete with Intel at a clock to clock bases with out pushing their chips to the breaking point.
August 29, 2008 11:36:51 PM

You forgot that AMD are masters of the universe, death to the evil empire of Intel...
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 30, 2008 3:42:58 AM

harrycat88 said:
AMD is good at playing the number game when it comes to PR (Pentium Rating) The new 2.3GHz processor probably has a Pentium Rating of just under a Intel E6600 which runs at 2.4GHz. Maybe AMD has figured out a way to increase their Pentium Rating at a lower clock speed, lower wattage and less heat then their current high frequency room heaters.
If that is the case, then AMD can compete with Intel at a clock to clock bases with out pushing their chips to the breaking point.


I would love to see how AMD plans to make a K10 based dual core somehow faster than their quad core equivalents. That is if they are just quads with 2 cores shut down. In single core performance Phenom is not faster clock per clock than Core 2.

Maybe they will have a suprise but I am truly doubting it. As for the TDP, I will still doubt it will be lower unless they are just K8 cores with K10 advancements on them.

emp said:
You forgot that AMD are masters of the universe, death to the evil empire of Intel...


I didn't notice that. I always thought it was He-Man as the Master of the Universe.
August 30, 2008 4:50:49 AM

jimmysmitty said:
That is if they are just quads with 2 cores shut down.


Do we know for sure that these rumored new Athlons will be Phenoms with 2 disabled cores or will they be native dual cores? I recall that the original plan for Kuma was for it to be a native dual core. The custompc article doesn't specify what the case is here.

a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 5:01:49 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I would love to see how AMD plans to make a K10 based dual core somehow faster than their quad core equivalents. That is if they are just quads with 2 cores shut down. In single core performance Phenom is not faster clock per clock than Core 2.

Maybe they will have a suprise but I am truly doubting it. As for the TDP, I will still doubt it will be lower unless they are just K8 cores with K10 advancements on them.



I didn't notice that. I always thought it was He-Man as the Master of the Universe.


If the cores were 45nm there might be some chance...

August 30, 2008 5:32:08 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I would love to see how AMD plans to make a K10 based dual core somehow faster than their quad core equivalents. That is if they are just quads with 2 cores shut down. In single core performance Phenom is not faster clock per clock than Core 2.

Maybe they will have a suprise but I am truly doubting it. As for the TDP, I will still doubt it will be lower unless they are just K8 cores with K10 advancements on them.



I didn't notice that. I always thought it was He-Man as the Master of the Universe.


Well, they're listed as 95w parts, so very likely in the same boat as the x3, as far as being a k10 with 1 or 2 disabled cores. Granted with 2 cores disabled it probably uses far less than 95w. Other thing is it's a black edition processor. From what we've seen, paired with an sb750 board, it should be able to OC well, likely around 3.2ghz. Also noticed they listed a black edition tri-core. Has it's advantages and disadvantages I suppose, not you can go out and buy a dual, tri, or quad core cpu and be able to OC it.

I wouldn't knock the dual core quite yet though. It gives the option for someone building an HTPC with the 780g or 790gx boards to buy a dual core with HT3.0. And if you remember correctly, HT3.0 capable CPU's have a positive effect on the performance of the IGP based boards. At the very least it's a dual core that performs better than the current Athlon X2's clock for clock.

The problem I see is they'll draw more power in Idle though due to the IMC not going to idle mode like the k8's did.
August 30, 2008 5:49:08 AM

No one should be making assumptions that this is a K10 quad with 2 cores disabled. It may be, but AMD had a stand alone dual core (masked) in their road maps at one point, so it may simply be that. Until more factual information is available (which discounts FUD, INIQ and AMDZONE), no one knows for sure.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 30, 2008 8:22:01 PM

^Thats my question on this though. Which is it? I remember reading about a dual core variant not based on K10 but then I heard they cancelled it and were going to take K8 and add K10 advancements to it.

Man they have changed it up soo many times its hard to know what they are doing.
August 30, 2008 8:42:24 PM

Maybe AMD learned its lessons from the Phenom Phiasco, Phore by Phore Phailure and multicore for dummies backfires and is keeping its mouth shut until it can deliver.

Remember, back in the pre-Henri Richard days, AMD didnt talk much, they just delivered. Richard was the mouth with foot inserted in many of their publicity phailures. Now hes gone...so maybe its return to build the product first, then talk about it. That worked well for them in the past
August 30, 2008 9:25:38 PM

Thats my thoughts as well. I remember the thread where AMD was selling their old equipment, and helping bottom line. Someone mentioned all the people quitting/layoffs etc. As for the top people, the marketing has been changed alot, and it was needed. So who knows> At this point, its all show me, and maybe, just maybe AMD gets it this time
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 30, 2008 9:35:58 PM

^You mean amybe AMD learned to not hype a product, such as 3GHz Phenoms, and then fail to release it?

I would hope they learned not to do that.
August 30, 2008 10:04:40 PM

And all the claims of 40% performance gains. They need to just quietly perform. Earn some respect back. Anybody can toot their own horn, but its always better to have spmeone toot your horn for you heheh
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 31, 2008 12:34:46 AM

^I agree 100%. Normally thats the best route to go. Just get the chips out to sites like THG and Anand and such to look at, test and mess with fully and then they can say if it is truly better or not.

No more in house showcasing this 3GHz BS that never makes it to the end consumer and then also has delays like crazy.

If AMD just does what it is doing now, keeping quiet, they should end up better off.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2008 1:45:36 AM

turpit said:
No one should be making assumptions that this is a K10 quad with 2 cores disabled. It may be, but AMD had a stand alone dual core (masked) in their road maps at one point, so it may simply be that. Until more factual information is available (which discounts FUD, INIQ and AMDZONE), no one knows for sure.


Nuff said.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2008 3:26:39 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Maybe you should check Newegg. According to their "Top Sellers" list 9950 and 9850 are the best selling AMD chips in retail. I could have told everyone that considering people who bought X2s paid a LOT MORE than $235 so they will buy the BEs. HP is selling more Phenoms than X2s at this point and most have been canceled. By the end of the year their will only be 65nm above 2.4GHz except for low cost PCs.


I dunno where Ed got his info that K10 was only 6% of sales, but I doubt it was Newegg :) .

I will say that I find "6%" to be incredible, as in not believable. We all know K10 had a horrible launch, and most of us suspect AMD's 65nm process to have a lot of issues as well, but I doubt they are that bad.

Does AMD make their percentage of sales information available in their quarterly reports? If so, it'll be interesting to see whether Ed is BSing or not in about 6 weeks...
August 31, 2008 3:40:33 PM

I believe the thing we have to remember is that Fusion is a dual core K10. DO you think that AMD is going to fuse off two cores for Fusion? How could they put it in the S1 socket?

That means they need a 65nm dual core K10 to shrink for Fusion. The X2 6500 should be it. AMDzone quoted AMD as saying it was their highest perf dual, which implies faster than 6400+. And there is a 89W 3GHz Brisbane, so it's again very possible that K10 @ 3.3GHz colud be @ 95W.

It would just be foolish for them to disable two cores since that means dual core will only go as fast (clock speed) as Quad.
August 31, 2008 3:59:23 PM

BaronMatrix said:
And there is a 89W 3GHz Brisbane, so it's again very possible that K10 @ 3.3GHz colud be @ 95W.


When K10 @ 2.5Ghz is consuming 125W?
August 31, 2008 4:41:24 PM

yomamafor1 said:
When K10 @ 2.5Ghz is consuming 125W?


Depends on the k10, though k10 is also capable of consuming a lot less at higher clock speeds. Most of the TDP on the k10 like i've said before is from the IMC voltage. So with a black edition processor and a proper mobo I wouldn't worry too much.
August 31, 2008 4:45:28 PM

thunderman said:
The Triple Core was such a real innovation by AMD earning them much respect....A dual core that has an unlocked Multiplier continues AMD's trend of brilliance.


Haha that made me laugh, good one Thunderman! :lol: 
August 31, 2008 5:21:15 PM

yomamafor1 said:
When K10 @ 2.5Ghz is consuming 125W?



But X2 is only half the cores. If they want a dual core 45nm Stars for Fusion, they need to start somewhere. Why wait until 45nm to design the basis for Fusion? Either way, this is supposed to happen Sept 1 so we'll see what happens next week.

Disabling two cores won't do anything but lower the margins for Phenom. And AMD has said there is no dual core Phenom as Phenom is the name for QUAD. Like I said before if there is no "+" then it's not a PR rating.

Also the 9950 is going down to 125W while the 9850 should hit 105W. Newegg has already dropped the price of the current 9950 in prep for the lower power one. AMDs quad TDP has always been a factor of native. But it's still the best selling AMD chip on Newegg so obviously your opinion means little to nothing.
August 31, 2008 5:43:49 PM

Mathos said:
Depends on the k10, though k10 is also capable of consuming a lot less at higher clock speeds. Most of the TDP on the k10 like i've said before is from the IMC voltage. So with a black edition processor and a proper mobo I wouldn't worry too much.


This is mostly due to AMD's binning, as well as the transistor AMD used in K10. K10's transistor is about 25% thicker than Brisbane, making them much harder to clock. So AMD probably has done is adjust the thickness as well as binning for these Black Editions. As it can be consistently seen, while Phenom can overclock to 3.2Ghz with slight voltage bump, anything above that require much higher voltage. For instance, most Phenom requires over 1.5V for 3.4Ghz.

So in short, yes, most of the TDP on K10 is from IMC. So if you were to operate K10 within its energy efficient range, you should see relatively little increase in TDP. However when you're trying to overcome the limit from the transistor design, you'll see huge increase in TDP.


BaronMatrix said:
But X2 is only half the cores. If they want a dual core 45nm Stars for Fusion, they need to start somewhere. Why wait until 45nm to design the basis for Fusion? Either way, this is supposed to happen Sept 1 so we'll see what happens next week.

True

Quote:
Disabling two cores won't do anything but lower the margins for Phenom. And AMD has said there is no dual core Phenom as Phenom is the name for QUAD. Like I said before if there is no "+" then it's not a PR rating.


Again, this remains to be seen. Why throw away dies with two functional cores?

Also the 9950 is going down to 125W while the 9850 should hit 105W. Newegg has already dropped the price of the current 9950 in prep for the lower power one. AMDs quad TDP has always been a factor of native. But it's still the best selling AMD chip on Newegg so obviously your opinion means little to nothing. said:
Also the 9950 is going down to 125W while the 9850 should hit 105W. Newegg has already dropped the price of the current 9950 in prep for the lower power one. AMDs quad TDP has always been a factor of native. But it's still the best selling AMD chip on Newegg so obviously your opinion means little to nothing.


So are you suggesting that, a 2.6Ghz chip running at 105W (according to you) can transform itself into 3.3Ghz running at 95W?

I don't quite see how 9950 is the best selling AMD chip on Newegg has anything to do with my opinion on how 3.3Ghz would run much higher than 95W. Is this another one of your screenplay writing technique?
August 31, 2008 5:50:36 PM

Im not sure what problems AMD has had with their duals, but whoever made the decision to forego duals to this point made a huge mistake. To simply dive most or all your resources into mainly a server chip thats a quad, this has hurt AMD severly. Someones screwed the pooch here.I agree, they had better release a dual, and it only makes sense to release one. I dont see alot of high processing being done on laptop any time soon, except for the exceptions, not average Joe. Laptop sales are projected for huge growth, so it only seems natural that AMD will have a dual, but they sure messed up without having a k10 dual to this point. Its hurt them as Ive said, and whoever either made that decision, or whatever problems theyre having, they need to get this done, and soon
August 31, 2008 8:11:59 PM

yomamafor1 said:
This is mostly due to AMD's binning, as well as the transistor AMD used in K10. K10's transistor is about 25% thicker than Brisbane, making them much harder to clock. So AMD probably has done is adjust the thickness as well as binning for these Black Editions. As it can be consistently seen, while Phenom can overclock to 3.2Ghz with slight voltage bump, anything above that require much higher voltage. For instance, most Phenom requires over 1.5V for 3.4Ghz.

So in short, yes, most of the TDP on K10 is from IMC. So if you were to operate K10 within its energy efficient range, you should see relatively little increase in TDP. However when you're trying to overcome the limit from the transistor design, you'll see huge increase in TDP.



True

Quote:
Disabling two cores won't do anything but lower the margins for Phenom. And AMD has said there is no dual core Phenom as Phenom is the name for QUAD. Like I said before if there is no "+" then it's not a PR rating.


Again, this remains to be seen. Why throw away dies with two functional cores?



So are you suggesting that, a 2.6Ghz chip running at 105W (according to you) can transform itself into 3.3Ghz running at 95W?

I don't quite see how 9950 is the best selling AMD chip on Newegg has anything to do with my opinion on how 3.3Ghz would run much higher than 95W. Is this another one of your screenplay writing technique?


Can you post a link to the 25% thicker claim? Intel and AMD don't really release info like that. Like I said, if they are making a dual core that costs the same as a quad core that sells for less than half the price, they are stupid. What are they going to do with Fusion? Deactivate two cores and add a GPU and get that into a mobile package? That's even dumber and they deserve to lose money.

And to jaydee, I looked at the link, but that still doesn't change the fact that I think that's a dumb idea for Kuma. Logic dictates that they create an actual dual core with two Stars cores and the Griffin NB. I would lose a lot of faith in mgmt if they don't. Moreso than when they decided to have an unnecessary fire sale.

Again, if it's a native dual core that's not unreasonable. The 3GHz dual chip is at 89W and the power savings from
August 31, 2008 8:35:19 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And all the claims of 40% performance gains


Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that not for:

Barcelona vs. Kentsfield/Clovertown

clock for clock

and

for certain benchmarks?


August 31, 2008 9:16:34 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Can you post a link to the 25% thicker claim? Intel and AMD don't really release info like that. Like I said, if they are making a dual core that costs the same as a quad core that sells for less than half the price, they are stupid. What are they going to do with Fusion? Deactivate two cores and add a GPU and get that into a mobile package? That's even dumber and they deserve to lose money.

And to jaydee, I looked at the link, but that still doesn't change the fact that I think that's a dumb idea for Kuma. Logic dictates that they create an actual dual core with two Stars cores and the Griffin NB. I would lose a lot of faith in mgmt if they don't. Moreso than when they decided to have an unnecessary fire sale.

Again, if it's a native dual core that's not unreasonable. The 3GHz dual chip is at 89W and the power savings from



And we ALL know AMD has never had a dumb or stupid idea, therefore it cannot be
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 31, 2008 10:17:49 PM

I've got to give ThunderFan credit - his (if he is a he and not a she-lol) threads are always good for 30-40 responses.

I guess a dual core Athlon, unlocked multi, L3 cache is the next logical step for AMD with 65nm as they move Phenom quads to 45nm.

I still wonder which portions of their cpu product line will be out-sourced. Maybe the 'old' Athlon X2s?

August 31, 2008 11:52:07 PM

The 40% claims were for Barceloana vs K8 in some benchmarks, but what happened was extreme fanboyism carried it too far. I just dont blame the fanboys here, I also blame the sites that should have cleared it up sooner than they did. Also, the delays, tlbs etc all helped to make it worse, as if the tlb was the only factor holding it back, thus keeping over exagerated hope alive, and too much hype
September 1, 2008 1:10:07 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The 40% claims were for Barceloana vs K8 in some benchmarks, but what happened was extreme fanboyism carried it too far. I just dont blame the fanboys here, I also blame the sites that should have cleared it up sooner than they did. Also, the delays, tlbs etc all helped to make it worse, as if the tlb was the only factor holding it back, thus keeping over exagerated hope alive, and too much hype



Jay,

I have to disagree. There are you tube videos of AMD execs saying 40% over Intel. In this example, Here Randy Allen himself says 40% over clovertown in a "many workloads".

AMD fanboys latched onto the 40% well prior to the actual release of barcelona, as the holy grail of Intel smiting CPUs. When the chips were released and they failed miserably in every concievable way to validate AMD and the AMD fanboy claims, the Intel fanboys didnt "carry it too far", they simply rubbed the AMD fanboys nose in the lies that they had been forced to listen too for months....only fair, really..

Articles
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/26/amd_opteron_vs_xeon_claim/

Quote:
AMD's 'Barcelona' 65nm quad-core server processors will lick Intel's four-core Xeon 5300 series, out-performing its rival by up to 40 per cent, the chip maker claimed this week, according to a variety of websites briefed by the company.


http://news.cnet.com/AMD-Go-to-Barcelona-over-Clovertown/2100-1006_3-6152645.html

Quote:
We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD's current dual-core Opterons on "floating point" mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate, he said.

Trumpeting the performance of unreleased products is not a strategy unique to AMD. When launching the Xeon 5100 "Woodcrest," chip Intel said its chips would beat AMD's by at least 40 percent.


Heres a goody....this one says up to 50%
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31729/135/
Quote:
So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”


Now, personally I believe the technically uneducated and unwashed marketeering arm of AMD went into full overdrive, latched onto Randy Allens '40% faster in many workloads' turned it into 40% faster overall, and proceeded to make claims that the engineering arm of AMD was NOT making, inflating the hype beyond the actual claims, but I have no proof of that....maybe they really did mean more than what Randy Allen had actually said. Regardless, the proof is all over the web. Everyone latched on to it and reported on it...just google "Barcelona 40% faster than Intel" and see how many hits you get.

My personal favorite is the video of the heavy, makeup encrusted, 40+ year old bleached blonde chic who was an AMD VP of some obscure dept, at a trade show demoing a DT, blindly bragging about the 40%.
September 1, 2008 1:34:26 AM

I dont have the links, but I was refering to the increases over K8 that AMD claimed, and the AMD fanboys exceded that of course. Youre misunderstanding what I said. Tho the 40% over Intel was indeed made as a claim by AMD as well. Just sorta got me out of context, tho I agree with what youve said too. Thats why I was a little disappointed in the thread where AMD did its selloff and made some money, and people refered to the layoffs as being a negative thing, whereas I pointed out it actually was a positive thing to a point. Getting rid of some of those people was a good choice IMO
September 1, 2008 2:10:52 AM

As I recall in that thread the big point was the so called return to prifitablity was simply the result of the proceeds from the sell off and had nothing to do with actual product sales.

Layoffs can be major indicators, or meaningless, positive nuetral or negative depending on the situation.

For that thread I think the big point was that the claims of profitabilty were misleading
September 1, 2008 2:26:55 AM

Yea, and as I said, that should be left up to the reader to discern that. But I was also somewhat satisfied with Onry leaving, as weve both pointed out AMDs failed marketing and hype. Some people also attributed this as being bad, I pointed out otherwise.
September 1, 2008 2:40:51 AM

Well, theres always at least two sides to a story. Time will tell.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 1, 2008 7:38:11 AM

Amiga500 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that not for:

Barcelona vs. Kentsfield/Clovertown

clock for clock

and

for certain benchmarks?


Where this is true and as turpit linked and pointed out it was Randy Allen who started this. But what happened is that AMD fans took this and put it over to the desktop as well, probably the more uneducated ones who don't know that server results almost never = desktop results.

So we got stuck with that.

I just hope that the hype is not represented again because even though it would be nice to see AMD do well I would prefer them to look better with a product that was said to be good that turned out better than said to be.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 1, 2008 1:13:18 PM

I tend to agree that the 'spin' got out of hand. IIRC Anand did some Barcelona/Clovertown benchies and in some integer math (division, maybe?) the Opty smoked the Xeon.

Before it was all said and done those narrow benchmarks with the Opty got spread down to Phenom and the desktop and 'hilarity ensued' ...
September 1, 2008 2:26:50 PM

turpit said:
Jay,

I have to disagree. There are you tube videos of AMD execs saying 40% over Intel. In this example, Here Randy Allen himself says 40% over clovertown in a "many workloads".

AMD fanboys latched onto the 40% well prior to the actual release of barcelona, as the holy grail of Intel smiting CPUs. When the chips were released and they failed miserably in every concievable way to validate AMD and the AMD fanboy claims, the Intel fanboys didnt "carry it too far", they simply rubbed the AMD fanboys nose in the lies that they had been forced to listen too for months....only fair, really..

Articles
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/26/amd_opteron_vs_xeon_claim/

Quote:
AMD's 'Barcelona' 65nm quad-core server processors will lick Intel's four-core Xeon 5300 series, out-performing its rival by up to 40 per cent, the chip maker claimed this week, according to a variety of websites briefed by the company.


http://news.cnet.com/AMD-Go-to-Barcelona-over-Clovertown/2100-1006_3-6152645.html

Quote:
We expect across a wide variety of workloads for Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40 percent," Allen said. The quad-core chip also will outperform AMD's current dual-core Opterons on "floating point" mathematical calculations by a factor of 3.6 at the same clock rate, he said.

Trumpeting the performance of unreleased products is not a strategy unique to AMD. When launching the Xeon 5100 "Woodcrest," chip Intel said its chips would beat AMD's by at least 40 percent.


Heres a goody....this one says up to 50%
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31729/135/
Quote:
So far, we the company had claimed that Barcelona will surpass the performance of Clovertown by about 40% at any given clock speed. Now the company says that it believes that Barcelona will have a 50% advantage over Clovertown in floating point applications and 20% in integer performance “over the competition’s highest-performing quad-core processor at the same frequency.”


Now, personally I believe the technically uneducated and unwashed marketeering arm of AMD went into full overdrive, latched onto Randy Allens '40% faster in many workloads' turned it into 40% faster overall, and proceeded to make claims that the engineering arm of AMD was NOT making, inflating the hype beyond the actual claims, but I have no proof of that....maybe they really did mean more than what Randy Allen had actually said. Regardless, the proof is all over the web. Everyone latched on to it and reported on it...just google "Barcelona 40% faster than Intel" and see how many hits you get.

My personal favorite is the video of the heavy, makeup encrusted, 40+ year old bleached blonde chic who was an AMD VP of some obscure dept, at a trade show demoing a DT, blindly bragging about the 40%.




But this proves that AMD never made mention of Phenom\Kentsfield, only Barcelona\Clovertown. People who knew better knew that K10 wouldn't be the same on the desktop, but I'd say that it's more because apps aren't taking advantage of the dual L1 loads than Phenom being crappy.
September 1, 2008 3:17:08 PM

Alot of the problem stems from the fact that previously, AMD was kicking some Intel arse. In light of this, people were excited and somewhat expecting a nice retort from AMD. Randy Allens statements, sites showing early promise in server, surely they translate over to DT. Then, like I said, the tlb thing only kept hope alive, instead of bringing in reality. We all know AMDs cpus have much more potential, but some things are holding it back, but even so, would it be enough? Itd certainly be much closer than it currently. My problem is, as the hype soared early in one direction, it later turned the other way, and almost as bad. Theres no way AMDs cpus are as bad as alot of people make out, any more than they were as good as people hoped early on. If they get the most out of their chips, make some improvements along the way, get decent thermals under control, theyll have a decent chip, and thats regardless of what anyone says on either side. No world beater, but a truly decent cpu that will perform quite nicely my 2c
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 1, 2008 9:29:48 PM

^Thats the effect of too much hype. If something is hyped to hell and back if it is nothing like that or actually performs wores than current CPUs after being that hyped up it makes it look really bad.

Now Phenom is not a bad chip but in current terms for a new build Intel is the best choice. If you have a AM2 mobo that does support Phenom then you should be ale to just upgrade the CPU but you are limiting the full power of the chip since the HTT on AM2 is not as fast as a AM2+ mobo.

That being said, BM you are right and no one futes you on that not eve turpit. But what did happen is the fans who did not know that server performance does not = desktop performance. Heck I watched a youtube video with the speach from Randy Allen talking trash about Clovertown and so forth and so many people thought it would mean Phenom would destroy C2Q. When I posted a comment stating it wont they didn't listen.
September 2, 2008 6:01:21 AM

Thats also why I don't listen to hype. I usually just buy whatever I feel like I wanna play with for a couple years. Usually when I decide to do a major upgrade, I set my price point, look at CPU charts for CPU's performance in that price range, add in other factors like ram upgrade needs and cost of decent motherboard. Motherboard is the one thing I'll almost never skimp on, as it's the base platform that everything elses performance is gonna be based on.

Thats kinda how I ended up upgrading to the x2 4200+ from the athlonXP 2100+ I had. K9MM-V was the only board with a modern socket and ram support that still had 8x AGP port on it, which allowed me to still use my old AGP card till I could afford a PCIe. Not to mention for the price range the X2 4200+ was still pretty good performance at the time.

When it comes down to it, I'm not too keen on OCing too much, but I do tinker with it. Which like i've said before, Phenom BE's are probably one of the best chips to get if you like to tinker with settings, since you can change just about every multiplier on it.
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2008 6:48:07 AM

^ What AGP card did you have?

Regardless, if I were you I would have bought a motherboard with an IGP and lived off that until I could afford PCI-E graphics... no motherboard upgrade inbetween ;) 
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2008 8:06:29 AM

@Thunderman

"This could well give Intel headaches....considering the unlocked multiplier. This seems like a smart move on AMD's part. The Triple Core was such a real innovation by AMD earning them much respect....A dual core that has an unlocked Multiplier continues AMD's trend of brilliance. "

Congrats on not saying Intel are evil btw




Ok so the triple core was a innovation...

More like a cockup in the manufacturing of Quad cores and they switched one off...

This was a mistake turned "benefit" which has had no real impact on the market or desktop performance whatsoever. nor for the AMD financial coffers as no one really understood what it was and what was the point of it..

Innovation you say, I say its a good way of recovering lost costs, but none the less its a manufacturing error that gave us this..


So woopedy doo - AMD has a new Athlon based on K10 tech..

So, will it impress us like their other previous offerings - seriously when the old top of the line AMD Athlon was still a bit of a perfomer and beat some benchmarks of the the Phenom, I am just fermenting my underwear in anticipation...

The next million dollar question is how compatible with old motherboards will the "new" revised Athlon will be...

If its the same as the K10 Phenom then looks like ya gonna need a new board...

I hear all these specs and 10 out of 10 for all the people have learnt during toilet reading anti boredom moments, but AMD needs to gain trust of the enthusiast, the oems and somewhat the general public with good old fashioned honest technology which works and is not surrounded in mystery in which works and doesnt and how to get the best out of the technology...

AMD has had its head in the cloud for too long now and needs to give us something that we want as apposed to something they want... The rest will fall in to place.....

@Jaydeejohn

yes technically AMD where kicking Intels arse technology wise - but thats not what matters.. Intel have always, and by the looks of it always will kick AMDs financial's arse....

Intel just know how to market things better...



On a second thought, how many previous die hard fans of AMD have now switched to Intel as AMD just didnt do it anymore...


      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!