Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New AMD Roadmap

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2008 4:14:47 AM

Almost posted this under the Shanghai benchmark thread, but it deserves a thread in itself.

Deleted by Moderator for Copyright violation: Don't copy and paste!

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/13/...

AMD has a plan now. Hope they get it to all work out. I especially can't wait to see the 32nm parts in 2011. It will also be interesting to see how the lawyers work this out between AMD and Intel now that the Foundry Company's technically a spin off of AMD's own fabs.

Edited to inform moderator. I did not copy the entire article. Simply quoted a small section. That's fair use under copyright law. I know, I used to work in a law firm that handled copyright, before I went into IT.

More about : amd roadmap

November 14, 2008 4:43:15 AM

I supose they might pull something off :D  look at ATI what they had to do to be competitive die strink and beef up and they are back in bussiness. it took them two cycles
November 14, 2008 4:52:29 AM

What I'm curious to see is whether any of the mainstream 32nm parts in 2011 that have IGP cores will work alongside a discrete GPU in hybrid Crossfire and power saving modes.

For example, a GPU core in 2011 might be close enough to a single 3870 in power to work alongside a 3870x2 in CrossfireX. It might not be powerful enough to work alongside a 4870 or a "5870", but the discrete card might power down for savings when surfing the net or doing less intensive apps. Power saving mode is one thing originally promised on the 780G that I miss not seeing.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 14, 2008 5:19:30 AM

Phenom II X4. So they are saying its the next step of Phenom. Interesting.

Yea but I wouldn't be suprised if a few forks in the road map come up and there might be changes.
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2008 5:51:42 AM

Most sequels in movies are dissappointing ...

Throwing caution to the wind though ...

Most revisions to cpu design do tend to show a much better result.

I just can't get Northwood to Prescott out of my head ...

Then again ... this isn't Intel ... its AMD.

Their track record for improvements are generally better (flamebait joke there).

Nehalem for instance ... what a fizzer that will end up as (/serious).

- Increased mobo cost (new socket and extra layers)
- Expensive RAM overhead
- Expensive CPU cost.

Generating NO discernable increase in performance for most gaming applications currently around ... and costing a packet to get into one.

I'd say that puts AMD in a position where a decent product improvement will likely boost their sales ... in the entry and mid range areas at least, providing the product fits existing platforms.

Intel might just want to keep their 45nm Core2 production line going at full swing ... that product is still superior ... and at a good cost point for most users (/Intel fanboy calming agent).

With the global economy in a tailspin customers will jump for cheap powerful products with good power saving design amd decent IGP like the 790G.

All that product needs is a decent CPU in the middle.

Lets hope Phenom II is the answer.

Nehalem might end up like the AMD 4 X 4 or the Skull trail for the gaming market ... a fizzer.

Sounds like the wrong time to sell a product like that.

No doubt it is powerful ... with the right software.

Maybe Intel needs to buy a few game houses to push it along.

Might end up like Vista ... Lisa ...
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 14, 2008 7:06:27 AM

^You do realize how wrong you are on Nehalem right? The RAM is not that badly priced and of course the mobos are going to be higher priced upon launch. Tell me of one high end mobo you have ever seen come out at a decent price? Thats right none, even the AMD ones started high then went low.

The CPus are pretty good fro what you get and you need to relook at the multi GPU setups. A 9800GX2/4870X2 or dual GPUs+ tend to get great performance gains from Nehalem. And thats also with drivers that as of late from both sides have been pretty sucky. Hell in FC2 a quad 4870 setup got better FPS with 8xAA than no AA (was in THGs Core i7 review).

Too bad they aren't betetr though. But I am betteing in MT gamning they will pound the jebus out of most any other CPU clock per clock.
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2008 7:28:54 AM

Depends... DDR3 is still very expensive here in downunder
November 14, 2008 9:17:25 AM

jimmysmitty said:

The CPus are pretty good fro what you get and you need to relook at the multi GPU setups. A 9800GX2/4870X2 or dual GPUs+ tend to get great performance gains from Nehalem. And thats also with drivers that as of late from both sides have been pretty sucky. Hell in FC2 a quad 4870 setup got better FPS with 8xAA than no AA (was in THGs Core i7 review).


The CPU's are good in areas that Intel was good in during Netburst. In games, Nehalem looks good vs. Agena Phenom, but isn't worth it vs. Core 2. Phenom II should beat Kentsfield and (barely) Wolfdale, maybe match Penryn. Only the budget quad and mainstream single GPU (or older dual GPU) market will go for Deneb.

But that's where the money's made. Intel will keep Core 2 around until they bring i7 prices down, I'm sure, but if they rely upon CrossfireX and triple SLI for their market at 30" LCD resolutions, then they'll have the kudos but not the market dominance.

I feel I overspent on a dual GPU card (considering a single GPU card bested it 6 months later, at least it was another ATI). With this economy, who can afford to go CrossfireX with 2 4870x2's or triple SLI with 3 GTX 280's -- just for games? Maybe Little Orphan Annie funded by Daddy Warbucks (but she's probably playing a Wii anyways).

Anyone else have disappearing sigs? Half the time it displays, the other half it doesn't. I want everyone to know I'm a proud owner of an 8750 and can't wait to see the triple cores from the 45nm generation.

AMD Triple cores for life! Because no CPU should be unloved just because it's had a lobotomy.
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2008 9:44:46 AM

I don't see Phenom II beating the 45nm Core2 line ... that's a bit far fetched and doesn't match the leaked benchies ...

... or am I reading them wrong?

Pls explain with some links?
November 14, 2008 1:22:13 PM

Personally, I'm taking a wait and see approach on this (they said the same things about Brisbane). However if it beats my 9850 heat monster, I'll probably buy one. And no, I could care less abut the power savings. I have a 1000W PSU for a reason ie. GRAPHICS CARD!




*edit* I'm also quite tired of "seeing" these Nehalem benchies. What do I care about a synthetic benchmark? where are the REAL WORLD benchmarks? What justifies me spending $500 on just a MB to support a $600 proc?
November 14, 2008 1:58:33 PM

i saw the words "FIORANO" and "MARANELLO" from the slides that came from the anandtech report. intriguing. the ferrari-amd partnership finally bear its fruits.

too bad AMD had it backwards, fiorano will come first than maranello.
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2008 2:00:03 PM

Well with a 1000w psu you could get another graphics card.

Nothing wrong with a 9850 and two good graphics cards.

Does it overclock much? Hopefully you have a good mobo.

November 14, 2008 10:55:52 PM

IH8U said:
Personally, I'm taking a wait and see approach on this (they said the same things about Brisbane). However if it beats my 9850 heat monster, I'll probably buy one. And no, I could care less abut the power savings. I have a 1000W PSU for a reason ie. GRAPHICS CARD!




*edit* I'm also quite tired of "seeing" these Nehalem benchies. What do I care about a synthetic benchmark? where are the REAL WORLD benchmarks? What justifies me spending $500 on just a MB to support a $600 proc?


Why is it so difficult to understand there are 3 models rangeing from 300-1000, and I still have yet to see a 500 dollar 1366 mobo 300-350 and thats for the overpriced crap Asus sells, tier 2 vendors will likely trounce those prices within this quarter. Frankly a new system build would in reality cost MAYBE 15% more overall.

Word, Playa.


November 14, 2008 11:29:09 PM

Sheesh. People act like this is the first time Intel has released a CPU. They ALWAYS start out expensive. Evidently it works because they are doing it yet again. Early adopters always pay a premium.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 1:45:24 AM

^ Remember $1000 Athlon x2s? Ah... those days...
November 15, 2008 9:05:03 AM

amdfangirl said:
^ Remember $1000 Athlon x2s? Ah... those days...


Both companies rely upon enthusiasts to spend whatever they need to maintain their PCs. I think this cycle will be different because of the real estate bubble crash leading to the global stock market crash, leading to very little lending to business, worldwide layoffs and the coming credit card bubble crash.

This recession's supposed to last for at least one more year, maybe two. Intel has the cash to survive. I think AMD will get the cash to survive. People might still upgrade, but they won't spend as much.

Besides, I like the new AMD roadmap and think that it's worth it holding out for 32nm. I can't see Deneb being that much better than B3 Agena, just as i7's not that much better than Core 2.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 8:22:45 PM

^ I never spend much on my computer anyways. I just have it to complain/talk on the forums.

Computer improvement is slowing... remember P4 to Core 2? now compare that to Core 2 and i7?

November 19, 2008 6:13:49 AM

Reynod said:
I don't see Phenom II beating the 45nm Core2 line ... that's a bit far fetched and doesn't match the leaked benchies ...

... or am I reading them wrong?

Pls explain with some links?


Either you're reading it wrong or I'm expressing it wrong. Today's high end Phenom's match Kentsfield and get close to Penryn. I expect Phenom II Deneb cores clocked at 2.8 and 3.0 to beat Q6600 and match Penryn quads in many (but not necessarily all) benchmarks. I don't expect them to match i7.

Here's Tom's CPU guide comparison between the Q6600 and the 9850BE:

Tom's Hardware - Benchmark 3D Studio Max 9

amdfangirl said:
^ I never spend much on my computer anyways. I just have it to complain/talk on the forums.

Computer improvement is slowing... remember P4 to Core 2? now compare that to Core 2 and i7?


I spent too much in 2008. Probably won't buy anything in 2009 but two 22" LCD's to replace the old 17" CRT's. DRM issues on PC's has me pulling away from a Blu-Ray drive and 24" LCD.

My wife's stuck with my legacy X2 4600+, which was a slight upgrade to the old X2 3800+, but with the global recession, it will be next fall before I take a chance and build her a new PC.

Well, she can burn anime on my triple core, and both of our CPU's can handle The Mines of Moria with no issues. Other than some legacy games, that's all we're playing right now.

I'll get her a 4830 when I upgrade her monitor. I don't think I'll need anything other than a 3870x2 for awhile, though I'll be interested in seeing Deneb benchmarks, and can't wait to see what ATI comes out with next June.

The Inquirer had a new roadmap up for Deneb, claiming the Propus cores were going to be marketed as Athlon X4's, but they pulled it the next day. I thought they were the guys who mocked NDA's and thrived on rumors? I wonder why they took it down? Didn't even have a chance to link to it here on Monday.

What is it with my signature? I have it set to show. It seldom shows up when I post on my lunch at work.

Phenom 8750 Toliman, Gigabyte 780G mobo, 2 gigs Kingston DDR2 800, MSI 3870x2 overclocked edition, Antec Neo 650, Antec Nine Hundred. The rest is legacy. Otherwise, this is my fall 2008 build that needs to last for a couple of years.
a b à CPUs
November 20, 2008 10:09:26 AM

yipsy your benchmark (I asked for Deneb not the cripples currently out there) only holds water when comparing stock frequency.

The Q runs stock voltage @ 3Ghz with a 333 FSB (instead of 266) - try comparing your phenom to a Q6850.

Thats what you get from changing the fsb from 266 (1066) to 333 (1333).

Wouldn't buy a Q6600 otherwise.

Sure you can push it easily past 3.4 or so ... bit the heat factor is a pain ... need somewater cooling for gaming.

Great n00b overclocker.




November 20, 2008 5:16:52 PM

Reynod said:
yipsy your benchmark (I asked for Deneb not the cripples currently out there) only holds water when comparing stock frequency.




The benchmarks support my argument, which did not involve overclocking.

Current high end Phenom's match Kentsfield at stock. With an improved IPC of anywhere from 7% to 20% over B3, a Deneb will beat Kentsfield. That's not much to brag about because it's a new die shrink with more cache matching the oldest Intel Core 2 quad.

Higher clocked Denebs should do better (i.e those at 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0). I can't comment on their overclocking as we haven't seen benchmarks of Deneb, only of Shanghai. It could very well be that the locked Phenom's won't overclock, and that only the unlocked Deneb quad at 3.0 or the unlocked triple at 2.8 will overclock well. We'll find out in January.

I just expect AMD to catch up to where they should have been with Agena 9600's. That is improvement enough for me, especially if the price is right. I have no desire for i7 and though several Intel Core 2 quads look good, I prefer AMD motherboards with ATI cards for other reasons than CPU benchmarks.
November 20, 2008 6:55:01 PM

yipsl said:
I prefer AMD motherboards with ATI cards for other reasons than CPU benchmarks.


What reasons, if I may ask? Certainly not price or performance, since Intel has reasonably priced top performers in every price segment on the desktop level.

Perhaps you already had an AM2 mobo or is it just the AMD sticker on it?

Not to sound fanboyish - especially since I'm typing this in my X2 4400 -, but just to point out that people really prefer one brand over another.

For instance: it's Intel for me, although I'm not using a CPU from them right now. I'm very aware that this X2 4400 of mine is very capable, even for gaming [since I've been playing Fallout 3 with everything on "High" (HD 4670)]. But I simply feel better while using an Intel CPU, even though I'm able to purchase anything according to logical reasoning and good sense.

BTW, what if the benchmarks were favorable to AMD? Wouldn't people easily justify the buy of an AMD CPU over an Intel one, especially since the green ones are the underdogs?

But now it comes to the fact that "it already does everything I need it to do, so I don't need an Intel benchmaker CPU". That's true if you are keeping your old rig, but, if you are upgrading right now, anyone buying a Phenom over a C2Q for any other reason than already having an AM2 mobo - or some ridiculous low pricing, which I have no evidence of - is clearly out of its mind.

Of couse pricing will vary according to where you live, but I'm able to buy a Q6600 + X48 (yeah, note the '4', not '3') + DDR2 based rig for a far cheaper price than a Phenom 9950 + 790GX (yeah, note the 'GX', not 'FX') + DDR2 one - at least here in Brazil.

My only point is that benchmarks are a valid reason to justify a buy. It's just that we don't have a true way of measuring the performance of these multi-many-core CPUs on the desktop anymore - or people look at the results only in a way that satisfies their expectations about brand A or B. Hell, if gaming performance is 'arguable', video-encoding is only for 'pros' and 'synthetic benchmarks', well, are just 'synthetic', why ever buy a new CPU again?

Geez, we are buying desktop CPUs while looking at 3DMax, Cinebench and POVray slides, I mean... lol?

It's all about the sticker. Blue for me [even though green suits me well].
November 21, 2008 7:54:12 AM

dattimr said:
What reasons, if I may ask? Certainly not price or performance, since Intel has reasonably priced top performers in every price segment on the desktop level.

Perhaps you already had an AM2 mobo or is it just the AMD sticker on it?

Not to sound fanboyish - especially since I'm typing this in my X2 4400 -, but just to point out that people really prefer one brand over another.


At my price range, the triple core 8750 competes very well against similar priced Intel duos. It does even better with the extra core in video apps.

I like AMD motherboards, though I should have gotten a 790GX instead of a 780G, because of the SB 750. During times when I've moved an older motherboard and CPU to an HTPC or a fifth PC, AMD onboard graphics can usually do well enough for light gaming when Intel graphics choke. My AMD motherboards of late are simply better than Intel's in design.

Ever since ATI did the X200 boards, I've been hooked on their chipsets. Maybe that makes me a fanboy, but Intel not only overcharges (though Nvidia overcharges more) but they underperform with their IGP's, especially for video playback and light gaming.


dattimr said:

For instance: it's Intel for me, although I'm not using a CPU from them right now. I'm very aware that this X2 4400 of mine is very capable, even for gaming [since I've been playing Fallout 3 with everything on "High" (HD 4670)]. But I simply feel better while using an Intel CPU, even though I'm able to purchase anything according to logical reasoning and good sense.


Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like my pins on the CPU and not the motherboard. I've found AMD heatsinks easier to attach and boards easier to set up. The only Intel socket 775 CPU I ever set up was a P4 630 on an ATI X200 board, and that didn't have the upgradability to Conroe that I expected. As long as motherboard manufacturer's do the bios, AM2 boards were upgradable to B2 and were it not for AM3, we'd see more upgradability with Phenom II.

Sure, my 8750's slow compared to i7, but anything Core 2 equivalent in price is only mildly faster in games, while not faster in apps that recognize 3 or 4 cores. Were I buying and building 4 PC's last year at the high end, I could have gone Intel, but I don't build at the high end.

I do acknowledge that Intel's Core 2 wins most game benchies and that i7 will win at applications that B3 previously did better in. We'll have to wait to see how Deneb fares. Probably as good as 65nm Core 2 quad, but not as good as i7 outside of games.
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2008 10:35:16 AM

fair enuf.
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2008 7:35:00 AM

dattimr said:
What reasons, if I may ask? Certainly not price or performance, since Intel has reasonably priced top performers in every price segment on the desktop level.

Not to sound fanboyish - especially since I'm typing this in my X2 4400 -, but just to point out that people really prefer one brand over another.

My only point is that benchmarks are a valid reason to justify a buy. It's just that we don't have a true way of measuring the performance of these multi-many-core CPUs on the desktop anymore - or people look at the results only in a way that satisfies their expectations about brand A or B. Hell, if gaming performance is 'arguable', video-encoding is only for 'pros' and 'synthetic benchmarks', well, are just 'synthetic', why ever buy a new CPU again?

Geez, we are buying desktop CPUs while looking at 3DMax, Cinebench and POVray slides, I mean... lol?

It's all about the sticker. Blue for me [even though green suits me well].


Exactly, people are realising that they don't need to upgrade to play their flash videos and etc. Until something truly revolutionary comes for the average home user, you don't have much reason to upgrade. I've realised that I don't need an Intel Core 2 Quad, to load my desktop faster, I'm happy with my Athlon X2. Anti Consumerism FTW!
November 25, 2008 3:47:47 PM

dattimr said:

Not to sound fanboyish - especially since I'm typing this in my X2 4400 -, but just to point out that people really prefer one brand over another.



Seriously and that can pretty much sum up every amd vs intel thread here. People that prefer to buy AMD are persistant about telling intel fans why and vice versa. If you are set on buying one or the other just do it and be happy.
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2008 10:48:28 AM

Pointing out the positive results of your decision to buy one or the other helps to reduce the cognitive dissonance experienced when confronted by negative feedback about the product.
!