Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will AMD best intel again?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 4, 2008 1:28:54 AM

With the release of Deneb CPUs, AMD might just be on top again. It's cause intel's core i7 will be EXTREMELY expensive and only enthusiasts will purchase it. AMD on the other hand, will offer great performance at a great price. Also, it will be 45nm. But, I still like the intel chipsets and I also will plan to overclock. The new CPUs will have speeds 3.0 ghz+. I think these new CPU's are competition for the current Core 2 quads and duos instead of Nehalem. Also, what about Deneb FX? I plan on building a system real soon and I need some info on what to do. Phenom FXis one hell of a name for a CPU. I've been an intel fan for years but maybe this will cause me to switch sides.

What do you guys think?

More about : amd intel

October 4, 2008 1:41:52 AM

sogangsta said:
With the release of Deneb CPUs, AMD might just be on top again.


So AMD are going to 'kick Intel's ass' by selling slower CPUs for less money? This is obviously a new use of the phrase 'kick ass' that I wasn't previously aware of.

You're right, of course, that AMD often offer better price/performance -- that's why I bought an Athlon X2 for my Linux box and not a Core 2 -- but that hurts them by cutting the price they can sell their CPUs for. Intel must be making hundreds of dollars on one of their high-end CPUs; AMD are probably making at most ten or twenty dollars on an Athlon X2...
October 4, 2008 2:39:58 AM

I don't know, I think the 4870 kicked nVidia's ass even though it could not beat the GTX280. I have high hopes for Deneb as the price/performance winner since I doubt that there will be a large difference in the i7 line vs. what is currently out. That said I did just order an E8600 so I guess I am not all that impressed by quadcores at the moment.
Related resources
October 4, 2008 2:46:26 AM

Lol, fanboys can only hope. Don't hold your breath. :kaola: 
October 4, 2008 3:07:26 AM

sogangsta said:
With the release of Deneb CPUs, AMD might just be on top again. It's cause intel's core i7 will be EXTREMELY expensive and only enthusiasts will purchase it. AMD on the other hand, will offer great performance at a great price. Also, it will be 45nm. But, I still like the intel chipsets and I also will plan to overclock. The new CPUs will have speeds 3.0 ghz+. I think these new CPU's are competition for the current Core 2 quads and duos instead of Nehalem. Also, what about Deneb FX? I plan on building a system real soon and I need some info on what to do. Phenom FXis one hell of a name for a CPU. I've been an intel fan for years but maybe this will cause me to switch sides.

What do you guys think?


Well, They will not be "EXTREMELY" Expensive. The will Start at a tray price of about $284.
Secondly, previous generation 45nm Quads will continue to drop in price and Denab has little hope of matching those.
They can only hope to match Intels very old Q6600 and even that is far from certain.

I'm just hoping they don't go bankrupt.
October 4, 2008 3:09:44 AM

I don't consider myself a fanboy, I just recognize the limited amount of miracles i7 can perform and the good some actual competition can do. Out of the last 4 CPUs I have owned the three most recent were from Intel which I find makes me somewhat less of an AMD fanboy. Then again I really don't care all that much, I'm still pulling for AMD.
October 4, 2008 3:10:04 AM

zenmaster said:
Well, They will not be "EXTREMELY" Expensive. The will Start at a tray price of about $284.
Secondly, previous generation 45nm Quads will continue to drop in price and Denab has little hope of matching those.
They can only hope to match Intels very old Q6600 and even that is far from certain.

I'm just hoping they don't go bankrupt.


They'll almost certainly be able to overshot stock q6600@2.4ghz, as 2.6ghz 9950be is able to come close to it in performance. Basically no hope of matching q6600@3.6ghz though.
October 4, 2008 3:11:52 AM

Yes, but some fast DDR3 being supported well by a CPU that comes close to a Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz might make it look a little friendlier.
October 4, 2008 3:12:24 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
I don't know, I think the 4870 kicked nVidia's ass even though it could not beat the GTX280.


Well, I'd say there's a big difference there: from the reviews I've seen, ATI appear to be getting about twice the performance per transistor that Nvidia are... as far as I can see their design is simply better, and if their chips were as insanely large, they certainly would be stomping on Nvidia's cards.

I'm not convinced that Deneb is going to beat Nehalem on any similar metric, with the possible exception of performance per watt (since the power consumption numbers quoted here recently seem quite impressive compared to Nehalem's TDP).
October 4, 2008 3:25:05 AM

Not sure - my last build used AMD however my current build will use an Intel QX6850 Extreme - not the hottest Intel Chip out there but if you shop on eBay rather than Tigerdirect or NewEgg you can pick some high end stuff up at very favourable prices - typically 50% of normal retail. Agree that not everyone (in fact very few I suspect in the big scheme) will be paying $1500+ for a CPU. I had considered AMD again but the Intel performance is significantly better right now - too much to ignore.
October 4, 2008 3:35:17 AM

While i like intel (and amd) I have to say, amd is gonna have it tough..

my first comp was a AMD 5000+ or something, i cant remember. But it lasted for like 7+ years without choking (mobo did processor didnt). That has given me respect for AMD.

I hope Intel has their moment to shine because my NEW computer is a intel quad Q6600 and it looks like its going to last just as long. But i also hope they dont get AMD bankrupt and have no competition. THAT is something NOBODY needs or wants.

AMD needs to get the act together and release better quads sooner, the deneb while most likely going to be good still wont cut it for losing months to intel's Q6600. They are running a very steep and slippery road as a company..
October 4, 2008 4:07:47 AM

280 for a core i7 2.66 quad core. thats hardly expensive. i bought my q6600 for 250.

and price / performance, AMD is NOT better, they are cheaper, but they still dont in fact win anything price / performance.

q6600 ~150. WIN
October 4, 2008 4:11:20 AM

MarkG said:
Well, I'd say there's a big difference there: from the reviews I've seen, ATI appear to be getting about twice the performance per transistor that Nvidia are... as far as I can see their design is simply better, and if their chips were as insanely large, they certainly would be stomping on Nvidia's cards..


not to turn this into a gpu war, but thats ****.

nvidia is currently in the 200 range for # of processors, while ati is hitting 800. transistors hardly has anything to do with it.


200 nvidia cores = 800 ati cores.... lets think about this for a second
October 4, 2008 4:25:59 AM

dagger said:
They'll almost certainly be able to overshot stock q6600@2.4ghz, as 2.6ghz 9950be is able to come close to it in performance. Basically no hope of matching q6600@3.6ghz though.


while the core i7's wont show huge gaming performance right away, since they are not yet optimized for quad core.

the core i7 920 @ 2.66 , shows 2x the general app performance of a stock q6600 @ 2.4.
and those number alone are pretty impressive.


and as more and more games become optimized to use all 4 core and 8 threads, gaming performance will see a big jump.


as i see it, the current core i7's are a future proof investment.


straight from wiki:

supporting DDR3 SDRAM and between one and six memory channels (memory will see a huge performance boost.)

Simultaneous multithreading by multiple cores and hyperthreading, which enables two threads per core.

Native (monolithic, i.e. all processor cores on a single die) quad- and octo-core (8) processors

33% more in-flight micro-ops than Conroe

1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level

30% lower power usage for the same performance

A 2.93 GHz Nehalem "Bloomfield" system has been used to run a 3DMark Vantage benchmark and gave a CPU score of 17,966.[12] The 2.66 GHz variant scores 16,294. A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 scores 4,300

Intel QuickPath Interconnect (4.8 GT/s version) and found the copy bandwidth using triple-channel 1066 MHz DDR3 was 12.0 GB/s. A 3.0 GHz Core 2 Quad system using dual-channel 1066 MHz DDR3 achieved 6.9 GB/s.


ive heard nothing close to numbers like that from AMD

and if those numbers mean nothing to you. you sir.... are an idiot.
October 4, 2008 4:29:03 AM

krazyk12 said:
not to turn this into a gpu war, but thats ****.


So what exactly are you claiming is ****?

Quote:
nvidia is currently in the 200 range for # of processors, while ati is hitting 800. transistors hardly has anything to do with it.


ATI is getting a similar shader performance to Nvidia with around half the transistors; that shows that either Nvidia's drivers are junk or they really stuffed up their design. What exactly are you claiming here?

Quote:
200 nvidia cores = 800 ati cores.... lets think about this for a second


Indeed. Maybe you could explain what exactly you are thinking, because your post makes no sense to me.
October 4, 2008 4:33:05 AM

Quote:
So what exactly are you claiming is ****?


ati design being better. if it was better, they wouldnt have hopped up the # of cores in the 4 series, and instead better optimized the cores, for better performance per core.


Quote:
Indeed. Maybe you could explain what exactly you are thinking, because your post makes no sense to me.


its as simple as i said above. over last gen ati over tripled their core count. while nvidia ~ doubled.

and the performance is about the same

that in no way looks to me like a better design
October 4, 2008 4:43:56 AM

krazyk12 said:
ati design being better. if it was better, they wouldnt have hopped up the # of cores in the 4 series, and instead better optimized the cores, for better performance per core.


Sigh.

Ok, let me explain chip design to you.

When you build a chip, you have a limited number of transistors, based on the size of the die. The larger the die, the higher the cost, so you almost always want to get the best performance possible for the least number of transistors.

Nvidia are getting 100fps with a bazillion transistors on their monster die. ATI are getting 90fps with half a bazillion transistors on a die that doesn't make most chip designers go 'WTF were they thinking?'

That shows that either ATI has a much better design than Nvidia, or Nvidia's drivers are so bad that they can't take advantage of the absurdly large number of transistors in their hardware. The number of shaders is utterly irrelevant, because ATI shaders and Nvidia shaders have dramatically different capabilities.

Quite how you can think that a chip which takes twice as many transistors to get slightly better performance is a better design is beyond me; but then I have actually worked on GPU design and I suspect you haven't.
October 4, 2008 5:00:36 AM

zenmaster said:
Well, They will not be "EXTREMELY" Expensive. The will Start at a tray price of about $284.
Secondly, previous generation 45nm Quads will continue to drop in price and Denab has little hope of matching those.
They can only hope to match Intels very old Q6600 and even that is far from certain.

I'm just hoping they don't go bankrupt.
dagger said:
They'll almost certainly be able to overshot stock q6600@2.4ghz, as 2.6ghz 9950be is able to come close to it in performance. Basically no hope of matching q6600@3.6ghz though.
krazyk12 said:
......
ive heard nothing close to numbers like that from AMD

and if those numbers mean nothing to you. you sir.... are an idiot.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you misread the posts.

If you are going to call someone an idiot you should be sure of what you speak.

If not, then you look like an idiot.

Nice rant though.
October 4, 2008 5:20:43 AM

nVidia used a good portion of their space for gpgpu as well tho. Also, they changed their shader multi speeds as well, and thats where theyve really hurt themselves
October 4, 2008 5:27:38 AM

MarkG said:
So AMD are going to 'kick Intel's ass' by selling slower CPUs for less money? This is obviously a new use of the phrase 'kick ass' that I wasn't previously aware of.

You're right, of course, that AMD often offer better price/performance -- that's why I bought an Athlon X2 for my Linux box and not a Core 2 -- but that hurts them by cutting the price they can sell their CPUs for. Intel must be making hundreds of dollars on one of their high-end CPUs; AMD are probably making at most ten or twenty dollars on an Athlon X2...



AMD doesn't need to be faster to outsell Intel.

That's what people like you do not seem to have the capacity to comprehend.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYcxLuZwJI

AMD saves you ALOT of $$$$$$$$ over Intel's offering.

October 4, 2008 5:36:18 AM

Much like nVidia is just a step down in its offerings, and has also had to reduce its prices, people are still buying nVidia cards, tho theyre slower, offer older tech and less features, The G200 is newer, but still offer fewer features. There is somewhat of a parallel here, and AMD getting close will make a huge difference, not only because of IPC, but especially Ghz
October 4, 2008 5:37:02 AM

So then why isn't AMD outselling Intel?

And why are you linking to a video that's posted by the AMD marketing team?
October 4, 2008 5:40:54 AM

The average Joe doesnt oc. He looks at his bottom line. Hes sees higher clocks, he sees a 35% overall jump in performance, and Joe will buy em
October 4, 2008 5:44:56 AM

Not in the short term, no. In the long run, who knows? I wouldn't rule them out, although the odds are stacked against them. Intel has more money, more resources, and the most advanced process node in the industry.

Basically everything has to go right for AMD for them to get on top again - Intel needs another Netburst style blunder and AMD needs another K8 home run. The odds of that happening again seems pretty remote, but stranger things have happened I guess.

As far as Deneb goes, its a die shrink, so I wouldn't be expecting miracles.

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3858
As the preview shows , there is about a 5 - 10% increase in performance per clock over current Phenoms, which is decent for a die shrink, but it still puts them a bit behind current Yorkfield C2Qs in per clock performance, not to mention Nehalem.
October 4, 2008 5:49:34 AM

To be on top, thats true. But that isnt AMDs end game here. Yes theyre doing what they can, and thats offering a 35% overall increase to prior offerings. I see it alot like AMD being like P4, and Intel K8. Tho AMD may have solved some of its power issues.
October 4, 2008 5:58:27 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD doesn't need to be faster to outsell Intel.


Marketshare figures suggest otherwise. At its peak during K8, AMD was at around the 25% mark. They are currently at about 17%, and to maintain that marketshare they've needed to virtually firesale their entire processor lineup to keep up with Intel's budget chips. Its no coincidence that AMD has lost money every quarter since C2D was launched.
October 4, 2008 6:06:17 AM

When people see cpus at 3 Ghz, theyll buy them, if its Intel or AMD. It wont matter what Intel does. Average Joe doesnt know anything about IPC, but he sure likes 3Ghz
October 4, 2008 6:07:55 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
To be on top, thats true. But that isnt AMDs end game here. Yes theyre doing what they can, and thats offering a 35% overall increase to prior offerings. I see it alot like AMD being like P4, and Intel K8. Tho AMD may have solved some of its power issues.


Where'd you pull the 35% figure from? Let me guess - AMD's latest marketing stunt, where they're claiming 20% higher IPC, 35% higher performance after clock increase?

Well, let me put it this way - if Deneb is indeed 35% faster overall over Agena, its going to blow Core 2 out of the water and compete head to head with Nehalem.
October 4, 2008 6:11:59 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
When people see cpus at 3 Ghz, theyll buy them, if its Intel or AMD. It wont matter what Intel does. Average Joe doesnt know anything about IPC, but he sure likes 3Ghz


So I guess Intel should bring back the P4 3.8GHz then?

Maybe VIA should make a CPU with shocking IPC that runs at 5GHz.

Oh if only it was that simple, I'd create my own CPU company. ;) 
October 4, 2008 6:18:38 AM

No, thats not what I mean. People who already own AMD are much more likely to upgrade if they see a 35% increase. Look at how many people are really hesitant about i7, because of its slight increases, even on a enthusiast site. Plus the new buyers who see this as a much much better option than the old phenoms. You add clocks plus IPC gains and get 35%. I wouldnt tell that to someone who wouldnt understand.
October 4, 2008 6:36:17 AM

Just stop and think for a second. There AMD fans, average Joe AMD fans, and theres Intel fans. Theres people who havnt a clue. Theres people whove heard of Intel and will buy them because of name recognition. If those AMD fans see an increase like this, what do you think theyre going to do? Theres enthusists that are tired of the Intel way of ocing, but havnt gone to AMD because of performance, which is somewhat rectified with these cpus. And Ill add this. Many enthusiasts are sticking with their Q6600s, because they see nothing from Intel that moves them to buy a new cpu, and dont want to go a whole system upgrade. The AMD see this as something huge, not quite a C2D scenario, but something really really nice for them. You can bet they wont sit on their 5000s like the Q6600s Intel fans will. Theyll snatch these up. Theres a few scenarios thats only better than where AMD currently was. Theres more, if they come in at decent pricing, and performance as claimed, the word of mouth will take off from there. Add in the fact the OEMs who WANT and NEED AMD around will buy these as well. This is a way positive thing for AMD if it all comes down as they say it will, and will no doubt help them immensely, as well as the costs are cut by using the smaller nodes
October 4, 2008 6:42:21 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, thats not what I mean. People who already own AMD are much more likely to upgrade if they see a 35% increase. Look at how many people are really hesitant about i7, because of its slight increases, even on a enthusiast site. Plus the new buyers who see this as a much much better option than the old phenoms. You add clocks plus IPC gains and get 35%. I wouldnt tell that to someone who wouldnt understand.


So you assume Nehalem will only bring 'slight increases' yet you're confident Deneb will be 35% quicker. I still don't know how you came to that figure unless you're buying AMD's claims of a 20% higher IPC. If its closer to the ~7% gain shown in the Hardspell preview, then Deneb will need to be clocked 28% faster than current Phenoms, or around 3.3GHz. The highest launch SKU is 3GHz.

October 4, 2008 6:48:23 AM

Im going by what people have said. All of it. The sneal peeks, the responses, the claims. I could take forever and use quote from AMD people, people from here, the peeks weve all seen. Once again, this isnt a AMD vs Intel issue, just what cant be denied. Why do you insist Im bashing Intel in my saying its a good thing for AMD on a AMD topic?
October 4, 2008 6:50:51 AM

You know as well as I, those benches were 7% and higher, granted most were 7%, but that still makes it higher than 7%, which then again, gets it closer to 3Ghz
October 4, 2008 7:05:04 AM

epsilon84 said:
So you assume Nehalem will only bring 'slight increases' yet you're confident Deneb will be 35% quicker. I still don't know how you came to that figure unless you're buying AMD's claims of a 20% higher IPC. If its closer to the ~7% gain shown in the Hardspell preview, then Deneb will need to be clocked 28% faster than current Phenoms, or around 3.3GHz. The highest launch SKU is 3GHz.

i think what jaydeejohn was talking about is the average joe looking at pure clock speed to determine which is a better processor. the entry model of the i7 is only 2.66ghz even though it would perform faster than a current generation penryn not to mention the use of DDR3 and the return of hyperthreading tech. if the average joe see a 3ghz Deneb compared to the 2.66ghz entry model of the i7, they would probably lean towards the Deneb without knowing the full capacity of the i7.

the current intel 45nm's are roughly 2.66 to 2.83 for the Q9450/9550 respectively, those are the chips that people are buying the most for quads, so an i7 2.66 would still be seen in an average joe's eyes as not much faster. the 3ghz+ chips are the extreme edition which only the hardcore enthusiasts will buy so that is out of the picture for the average joe.
October 4, 2008 7:17:24 AM

No it won't. Not with Deneb/Heka or Propus/Rana. AMD will be competitive, and that's all that matters to me. The fanboyism shows in how you phrased things.

Will AMD ever release a new CPU with innovative tech that will outperform Intel? Possibly, one of these days with a completely new architecture (but not with a die shrink of current B3 architecture).

The only problems I see with Nehalem are related to rumors that the CPU might die if the wrong memory is used:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/10/03/...

That makes me wonder if Intel's having issues getting their version of hypertransport to work, just as AMD seems to be having issues getting DDR2 and DDR3 support in the same Deneb (such that they're releasing a DDR2 only flavor of Deneb).

Take all the rumors with a shaker of salt, at any rate, this winter will be an interesting time for those who are upgrading.
October 4, 2008 7:35:22 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
You know as well as I, those benches were 7% and higher, granted most were 7%, but that still makes it higher than 7%, which then again, gets it closer to 3Ghz


Heres the maths for you...

FritzChess
5403 / 5655 / 4.7%

Wprime (sec)
18.9 / 17.9 / 5.3%

POV-Ray
1309.3 / 1534.1 / 17%

MainConcept h.264 encoder (sec)
110.6 / 106.8 / 3.4%

3DMark Vantage CPU score
7557 / 8044 / 6.4%

Quake Wars (fps)
80.2 / 86.7 / 8.1%

Crysis (fps)
36.8 / 40.1 / 9.0%

1080p h.264 playback Pirates of the Carribbean (CPU %)
28.6 / 26.9 / 5.9%

1080p h.264 playback Casino Royale (CPU %)
36.9 / 35.2 / 4.6%

Average Increase: 7.15%

Any arguments?
October 4, 2008 7:40:38 AM

The IMC has to be in relationship with the Ram voltage. If it varies by too great a number, yes itll fry. But all the Ram hasnt been certified yet. If you put more juice to the cpu, you can also use higher V. ram. What I think is interesting is, you may not have to with DDR3, tho that leaves ocing out. Itll be just more trickier for Intel owners is all. As for the DDR2/3 for Deneb, Im thinking its a cost issue, as having to have both IMCs on die is too costly IMO
October 4, 2008 7:46:54 AM

So, did you use only 7% in your first calculation? And what if its truly 34% better, and AMD rounded, for marketing. Thats still 3Ghz. Thats not whats important. Its still 3Ghz, and better, thats whats important. And itll be low pwered, and find its way into more options of usage. This , if these numbers are right, is all true, and good for AMD, and especially for AMD fans. Because Ive questioned i7 doesnt mean I may not like it when it arrives. Im not a blind follower, Im a computer user
October 4, 2008 8:16:08 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, did you use only 7% in your first calculation? And what if its truly 34% better, and AMD rounded, for marketing. Thats still 3Ghz. Thats not whats important. Its still 3Ghz, and better, thats whats important. And itll be low pwered, and find its way into more options of usage. This , if these numbers are right, is all true, and good for AMD, and especially for AMD fans. Because Ive questioned i7 doesnt mean I may not like it when it arrives. Im not a blind follower, Im a computer user


Yes, I used 7% as an average, is that a problem?

The only way Deneb will be a 35% improvement is if its actual IPC improvement is a lot higher than shown in the article, or if the launch speeds are higher than what has been reported thus far. As for low powered, the 3GHz SKU has a 125W TDP, the same as current high end Phenoms. I'm also not sure what this fascination with 3GHz is about, did AMD's sales jump when the 3GHz X2 6000+ was launched? Did Intel suddenly get a huge amount of sales when the 3GHz E6850 was launched?

Anyway, I think we're getting way off topic here, its not whether Deneb will be an improvement (of course it would) but its whether it can bring AMD back to its K7/K8 heydays of kicking some Intel butt... and I think thats highly unlikely.
October 4, 2008 8:32:34 AM

Yeah, thats most likely true, and I was just responding and explaining how it wouldnt kick but be an alternative. This is good new for them tho. I for one am glad to see it. As for the 35% figure, adding up total IPC/tweaks influence/increases plus core speeds, plus coming from AMD, a dash of hype, and yes it may turn out 35% better. I know its from AMD. If it was from anyone else about their own products, I wouldnt expect anything different, giving ballpark increases and rounding up, thats normal. If it is 34.1%, they may just use 35%.
October 4, 2008 8:51:30 AM

epsilon84 said:
So I guess Intel should bring back the P4 3.8GHz then?

Maybe VIA should make a CPU with shocking IPC that runs at 5GHz.

Oh if only it was that simple, I'd create my own CPU company. ;) 


Intel did rather well with those crap chips and a nice catchy phrase and jingle( ding ding Intel inside) in a million tv ads.
It was as simple as that....oh and doing a few shady deals to stop companies using or selling AMD chips. It was certainly a case of the worst chip wins there.
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2008 9:33:35 AM

Fanboyism is a bit extreme today I see. AMD vs Intel....Nvidia and ATI....I own and have owned many combonations of their parts in times past. Intel is evil but they tend to have damn fine chips for the rich. Own two quadies by them.

I love amd too. Usually cheaper (save the K8 upsetting thwe p4) Built a lot of rigs around them as well cause of that. I loved watching them blind side intel and domainate the the high end for a moment. Fact is for the most part amd has always been about geeks like us upgrading our rigs every 10 months. They are not a king of the hill player for the most part. Now yes their current offerings are weaker then most of us would like to see. Yet we see brillant new idea's coming out of their camp still. Can't afford a crap load of R&D like intel...So they release a "version" of fusion for their platform. Kills all the bloatware and lets the PC play the game with a small OC for cpu/gpu too boot...no fiddling in msconfig or registries. AMD just try's to make things easier and more effiecent with what they do have. And the HD4800 series....certainly caught nvidia with their pants down.

I don't think we've seen the end of AMD in the gaming space. Though i support most who beleive they won't be stealing the performance crown for some time in CPU scores. I think or hope amd is indeed trying to take a "whole box" approach. By using a complete package you'll be able to increase performance past what any one part mixed with a non-amd/ati part can score. time will tell.

Until then, I'll enjoy my qx9650.....

October 4, 2008 9:42:04 AM

atomicWAR said:
So they release a "version" of fusion for their platform. Kills all the bloatware and lets the PC play the game...no fiddling in msconfig or registries. AMD just try's to make things easier and more effiecent with what they do have. And the HD4800 series....certainly caught nvidia with their pants down.


AMD just released a Black Edition of the 8750. I hadn't expected that and I upgraded to a regular 8750 about two weeks ago. Still might give overclocking a try, but I prefer stock clocks. Since the 8750BE's been reported to get to 3.4 in one recent review, and the ordinary edition's reported to get to 2.7, I have confidence that AMD will put out competitive CPU's in the Deneb generation. They don't have to kick the A word as the OP says, they just have to show progress and improvement over Athlon X2 and the first generation of Phenoms.

Here's a review of the 8750BE:

http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/AMD-Phenom-8750-Bla...

It will be interesting when Anandtech or Tom's reviews it. The 8850 @ 2.5 will be out soon, along with an 8850BE. Then Deneb quads with L3 cache and Heka triples with shared L3. I don't know how well Propus quads or Rana triples without L3 cache will do vis a vis higher end Athlon X2's or B3 Phenom's but right now, the ordinary 8750 matches the B2 9600 in most benchmarks, and beats many lower priced Intel duals.

a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 4, 2008 10:35:46 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD doesn't need to be faster to outsell Intel.

That's what people like you do not seem to have the capacity to comprehend.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYcxLuZwJI

AMD saves you ALOT of $$$$$$$$ over Intel's offering.


YAY!!!!! The biased AMD marketing video that uses compnents that are nowhere near the same performance levels. You say you can OC tha 9950BE to 3.2GHz? Well geegolly the QX9650 can OC to 4GHz on air. Wow. that wont make any difference at all!!!

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, thats not what I mean. People who already own AMD are much more likely to upgrade if they see a 35% increase. Look at how many people are really hesitant about i7, because of its slight increases, even on a enthusiast site. Plus the new buyers who see this as a much much better option than the old phenoms. You add clocks plus IPC gains and get 35%. I wouldnt tell that to someone who wouldnt understand.


JAYDEEJOHN said:
You know as well as I, those benches were 7% and higher, granted most were 7%, but that still makes it higher than 7%, which then again, gets it closer to 3Ghz


Yea and those higher than 7% were what? Multithreaded. Same as with Core i7 that has some that are multithreaded and show a increase of 50%. So by the same logic as you people should want to buy a Core i7 because it hits 50% in some multithreaded tests.

Or is it that people for some reason don't see it the same with AMDs Deneb. And that these are results, and its not important that the tests they show the best gains in are multithreaded.

Give me a break.

As for the 35% better BS, look AMD already hyped the living bejebus out of Agena core Phenoms. And they failed to deliver. Don't fall prey to a bunch of hype BS. Why is it you are skepticle about anything Core i7 yet set there and drool over anything Deneb? Put yourself in check and realize that its all hype and wont be true.
October 4, 2008 11:33:45 AM

aznguy0028 said:
i think what jaydeejohn was talking about is the average joe looking at pure clock speed to determine which is a better processor. the entry model of the i7 is only 2.66ghz even though it would perform faster than a current generation penryn not to mention the use of DDR3 and the return of hyperthreading tech. if the average joe see a 3ghz Deneb compared to the 2.66ghz entry model of the i7, they would probably lean towards the Deneb without knowing the full capacity of the i7.


Funny you both think that way, since both Intel and AMD have stopped using clockspeed to advertise chips for years now. Does Intel's 'dual core, do more' marketing pitch ring any bells? I'd think the amount of cores is the new 'more is better' way to advertise, if all people care about are clockspeed then I think most will be reluctant to upgrade from their 3GHz+ P4s. ;) 

Quote:
the current intel 45nm's are roughly 2.66 to 2.83 for the Q9450/9550 respectively, those are the chips that people are buying the most for quads, so an i7 2.66 would still be seen in an average joe's eyes as not much faster. the 3ghz+ chips are the extreme edition which only the hardcore enthusiasts will buy so that is out of the picture for the average joe.


Actually the most popular quad is still the lowly Q6600. Why? Because its cheap, at $180 its about $150 cheaper than the Q9450/Q9550, and isn't a whole lot slower.

I think AMD will have a similar problem when marketing Deneb, their current quads are even cheaper, ranging from $120 - $190, its going to be hard for them to justify charging a whole lot more for a slightly faster Deneb. What will make or break Deneb isn't the clockspeed, or even the performance, its the price/performance ratio.
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2008 11:41:38 AM

No.

(Another one of these threads :pfff: )
October 4, 2008 11:58:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Yeah, thats most likely true, and I was just responding and explaining how it wouldnt kick but be an alternative. This is good new for them tho. I for one am glad to see it. As for the 35% figure, adding up total IPC/tweaks influence/increases plus core speeds, plus coming from AMD, a dash of hype, and yes it may turn out 35% better. I know its from AMD. If it was from anyone else about their own products, I wouldnt expect anything different, giving ballpark increases and rounding up, thats normal. If it is 34.1%, they may just use 35%.


Well if you take AMD's PR stunt at face value, then why wouldn't you do the same for Intel? Why is Deneb 35% faster yet Nehalem is a 'slight increase' when we have Intel touting the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)
Quote:
"1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level"


These gains, especially for ST, seem too good to be true. Companies tend to exaggerate or cherrypick numbers when marketing their products. I thought you would've realised that by now. ;) 

a b à CPUs
October 4, 2008 12:22:01 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
When people see cpus at 3 Ghz, theyll buy them, if its Intel or AMD. It wont matter what Intel does. Average Joe doesnt know anything about IPC, but he sure likes 3Ghz


This is a pretty good point.
This is exactly what I am waiting on, an AMD quad core that runs at 3ghz. (not OC)
I almost bit the bullet and put together an Intel build last summer.
I'll wait. I just can't stand to give my money to Intel.
!