Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fusion!!!!!!!! Die shot here

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 11, 2009 3:53:47 PM

Unlike Intels current "fusion" parts, AMD takes a bigger approach

Some may argue that ATI was unecessary, but, the future is nigh
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50...

More about : fusion die shot

a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 4:06:39 PM

shame AMD dont have the resources to develop an Intel killer... not that competes at the same performance / price level
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:11:46 PM

This may be the beginning of some nice things right here tho.
Also, check out my previous link about AMDs financial day, has some infos with more to come on Bull Dozer in my links
m
0
l
Related resources
November 11, 2009 4:16:35 PM

Well if this is done right, it could very well put the hurt to Intel's stronghold on the mainstream. Imagine low cost boards, MCM's that actually have good graphics with low thermal envelopes. I say this could be something really big.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:36:45 PM

Look at things now even. You can get a nice AMD quad for 100 bucks. I just saw a combo with the athlon 2 620 x4 and an ecs mobo for under 150. ECS may not be the greatest, but for those of us with ddr2 already, jump onto one of those, a little overclocking, and grab a 5750 and you've got a nice gaming machine

Granted 5750 and 5770 are not top of the line, but look at what a small amount of money will buy now. The 8800gt was the card to have for how long, now a semi budget card will overpower it with ease. AMD is still hurting no doubt, but if they can keep ruling the mainstream and budget markets and providing performance there, how many people, even us enthusiasts are going to say that level X performance is good enough because the gains of say something like a future i7 will be neglible to the user?

I think you will see newer tech making leaps as we have been, but it also getting cheaper as you see with AMD's case. If they can rule the low end and budget markets, they could eventually move up to take over the high end as well.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:42:19 PM

Thing is, if mainstream belongs to AMD, Intel will have to show there as well. Currently they cant do a full platform, but cpus, certainly. But Im thinking as mobile is the future, and the later LRB comes, AMD has alot of wriggle room
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:43:35 PM

Also, trends are SoC, and SoC lends itself naturally to mobile
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:44:58 PM

I gave up "high end" for the AMD version of it that would be mocked as midrange. Haven't looked back. No issues, great temps and don't need to worry about exotic cooling to keep hot spots on the board from cooking.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 4:51:59 PM

Well, good enough is good enough, and as we see the lessoning of the cpu as the main desire, as its good enough, it comes down to desgn/power and gfx.
Thus LRB and fusion, and why AMD bought ATI.
Some may not be able to see this progression, but its coming.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:04:52 PM

Well I thought it was a bad idea myself to acquire ATI but the pieces seem to be lining up now and I don't mind being wrong.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:17:26 PM

Its needed. And not just for gfx.
Some apps will never be multi threaded, or only parts will. Some apps are very parallel, and having a gpgpu/fusion approach, or many cored, is essential.
Its the quickest way to this tech, and possibly just having the gpu approach, may turn out to be the fastest of that as well, as it seems to be at this point, in perf and power
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 5:19:33 PM

Even some of AMD's latest offerings get trounced in benchmarks by some of the older Intel stuff.

It might be the beginning but there is a long way to go before AMD compete on even terms performance / pound etc.

Intel may have higher prices for their CPU's and chipsets - but you cant ingnore the performance jump
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:26:15 PM

I agree there is a performance jump, but I think for most users, AMD's products are fast enough. Also I think AMD may realize they cannot compete on sheer performance, but they are able to provide a more balanced system. Yeah, you may get more performance from the intel products, but by the time you buy a chip from intel, you can about have a chip and mobo from the AMD side. AMD is not there yet, but I think Phenom 2 was a big step forward for them.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:27:33 PM

Not everything is about benchmarks though ulysses35. The determining factor can be difference you can actually see. The price differentials matched with visible performance lead don't really align very well IMHO. it is all about what you use your computer for though.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:30:12 PM

Understand, both Intel and AMD have short pipelines, the big difference is how wide, or many they do, AMD 3 Intel 4 wide.
The new arch from AMD will be 4 wide, therell virtually be no difference, now, it all comes down to whether taking a gpu approach to the apu solution, or sticking with a cgpu solution is faster, more efficient
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 5:34:19 PM

ulysses35 said:
Even some of AMD's latest offerings get trounced in benchmarks by some of the older Intel stuff.

It might be the beginning but there is a long way to go before AMD compete on even terms performance / pound etc.

Intel may have higher prices for their CPU's and chipsets - but you cant ingnore the performance jump

You are a noob of epic proportions. And not just epic, EPIC!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 5:37:15 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
You are a noob of epic proportions. And not just epic, EPIC!

Why? For stating the truth?

There are a number of good reasons to buy AMD CPUs right now, but in pure performance, you can't ignore that even the rather old Q9650 can beat AMD's flagship PhII 965 right now.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:45:30 PM

And the 965 can beat the 9650 as well. They trade off
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 5:46:30 PM

Beat is a very relative term, trounce, well thats adding a lil dont you think, even before we look?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 5:47:05 PM

Yes jay, I really like your attitude and the fact you're not biased unlike some on these forums (including me, but I can't control it confronted with fanboys).
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 6:11:11 PM

realistically speaking AMD is the better choice as far as price to performance goes, a few minutes extra of encoding or a few extra fps don't warrant spending that kind of money especially in times like these
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 7:42:52 PM

Early guesstimets are going that this has more gfx power than alot of lowend gpus.
If mixed with low power, move over, we have a winner!
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 7:45:51 PM

Of course, if this has the power of a 4850 by the time of release, and it has power characteristics of a high powered cpu, in a mobile solution, I could see that it wouldnt be that good for AMD buying ATI, itd been GREAT heheh
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 7:47:31 PM

Not first gen, but certainly second gen, my guess, 2012. Plus gpgpu usage abilities as well, or, we could have a Intel cpu and their IGP....with SoC!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 9:17:41 PM

Bulldozer taped out already, everything else is ahead of schedule. AMD won't make any more mistakes, we just have to hope that Globalfoundries can keep up their side of the bargain.

If they do, Intel are going to be in a world of pain in 2011. The OEM's are just dying to go full scale AMD and 2011 is the year.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 9:22:18 PM

If you believe any of the rumours, Sandy Bridge taped out in June/July. That puts Bulldozer 4-5 months behind at worst case.

Is the gap closing? It sure looks that way to me.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 9:32:36 PM

jennyh said:
Bulldozer taped out already, everything else is ahead of schedule. AMD won't make any more mistakes, we just have to hope that Globalfoundries can keep up their side of the bargain.

If they do, Intel are going to be in a world of pain in 2011. The OEM's are just dying to go full scale AMD and 2011 is the year.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50...
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 9:48:52 PM

I can't help but notice that nearly every tech said "Ahead of Schedule". Although I wish it is true, I kinda doubt it. I feel as though it is to get the hopes of consumers and investors up.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 9:52:53 PM

Thank you Jay for an honest unbiased presence in the forums, it's really great when there's almost always EXTREME fanboism on both sides. It's nice for a change.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2009 9:53:31 PM

TBH, when Istanbul came out 5 months ahead of schedule that should have started some alarm bells ringing at intel HQ.

The faster you get a project delivered, the more engineers you can pull from there to other projects. You have to assume that everybody at AMD understands what is at stake here, while a bunch of intel engineers are sitting on their backsides watching the simpsons because there is no real pressure.

So yes, I do believe the gap is closing again, and fast. It's human nature more than anything.
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 9:57:31 PM

Well, since I linked the firsy Nehalem preview from Annands, its only appropo if I were the first, Id put it up. Didnt see anything, so here we are.
@ jennyh, still waiting for someone to post on the Lucid Hydra previews
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 10:49:53 PM

Yeah, when it comes, say good bye to low end gfx cards.
Poor nVidia and LRB low end prospectives
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 10:51:49 PM

It narrows LRB just to Intel setups only for their low end only and make gfx cards higher end only

No more not having gfx on a common rig that can do a few things
m
0
l
November 11, 2009 10:54:23 PM

Oh wait, this is what Ive been saying for awhile now, and that Intel needs to step it up regarding their IGPs.
m
0
l
!