Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I guess the fat lady has sung

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2011 10:32:47 PM

"We're at an inflection point," he said. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore."

"In a recent interview with the San Jose Mercury News, AMD spokesman Mike Silverman indicated that the company plans to shift its focus away from competing with long-time processor rival Intel starting in 2012."

IE. we failed but we are rich, so we will divert our resources to make money elsewhere.

so depressing.

now drop the price on the fx-8150 to $125 and you will be viable again. of course there will be no profit margin...

More about : guess fat lady sung

a b à CPUs
November 30, 2011 10:59:30 PM

How could AMD ever compete with a company that makes enough revenue per quarter to buy AMD twice?

It was only a matter of time unless they came up with a killer x86 design. Let's just hope they can come out with something down the road and start competing again.
m
0
l
December 1, 2011 12:22:39 AM

Well. We still have Trinity and Piledriver to look forward too.
m
0
l
a c 92 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 12:31:42 AM

Haserath said:
How could AMD ever compete with a company that makes enough revenue per quarter to buy AMD twice?

It was only a matter of time unless they came up with a killer x86 design. Let's just hope they can come out with something down the road and start competing again.

the could compete with them, and they have in the past. look at the original athlon and athlon64. The problem is they changed the way they made cpu's so they had to put less time, effort and resources into them, making them less efficient and harder to fix any performance issues. I still say ditch the bulldozer and work with the phenom II core, die shrink it, add some new sse instructions, speed up the cache, and your back in contention so long as you price it right. But they wont do that because they have some duche bag running the show that believes they can compete in other areas, which i think will be an even bigger fail for them.
gmaster456 said:
Well. We still have Trinity and Piledriver to look forward too.

no, piledriver will also be crap. If they dont just blow it off completely, which i expect they will, it would be the smart thing to do, not waste any more time on this horribly inefficient CPU design. They expect 10% performance increase, which will make it match Phenom II at best, but use more power and more transistors.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2011 12:38:44 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
the could compete with them, and they have in the past. look at the original athlon and athlon64. The problem is they changed the way they made cpu's so they had to put less time, effort and resources into them, making them less efficient and harder to fix any performance issues. I still say ditch the bulldozer and work with the phenom II core, die shrink it, add some new sse instructions, speed up the cache, and your back in contention so long as you price it right. But they wont do that because they have some duche bag running the show that believes they can compete in other areas, which i think will be an even bigger fail for them.


That's the problem. The days of the Athlon and Athlon64 are over; everything today is "mobile" and the likes - AMD is unfocused because of it. Back in those days, they had one objective: make a fast processor. And they did. That's all over now, unless they drop everything else for a while in order to get themselves back on track. We all know that won't happen.

And I agree about ditching Bulldozer. No way in hell they'll ever admit that it was a mistake, but they need to go back to the proven architecture they already had and refine it - not make an entirely new processor line that has no guarantee of working whatsoever.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2011 3:53:59 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
the could compete with them, and they have in the past. look at the original athlon and athlon64. The problem is they changed the way they made cpu's so they had to put less time, effort and resources into them, making them less efficient and harder to fix any performance issues. I still say ditch the bulldozer and work with the phenom II core, die shrink it, add some new sse instructions, speed up the cache, and your back in contention so long as you price it right. But they wont do that because they have some duche bag running the show that believes they can compete in other areas, which i think will be an even bigger fail for them.

Athlon and Athlon64 were up against the "MOAR GHZ" Intel, and AMD really wasn't that far ahead. AMD had the advantage back in the Athlon64 times, but it wasn't nearly as big % difference between the two cores as it is now; I know the P4 used more power, but the P4 clocked higher and essentially was a more power hungry core that was just as fast. After Intel focused on IPC(effectively efficiency), it turned into a hardly capable AMD v. the beast.
Quote:
no, piledriver will also be crap. If they dont just blow it off completely, which i expect they will, it would be the smart thing to do, not waste any more time on this horribly inefficient CPU design. They expect 10% performance increase, which will make it match Phenom II at best, but use more power and more transistors.

Who knows what an optimized Bulldozer arch could do. Hopefully PD is better than AMD predicts.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2011 4:12:34 AM

So, are they already running down production? I guess we're just waiting on the price increases now :( 
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 4:38:00 AM

FinneousPJ said:
So, are they already running down production? I guess we're just waiting on the price increases now :( 

I don't think the government will allow intel to increase their price that much :non: 
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 5:08:24 AM

amd's talk about 'inflection point' is just a diversion tactic to move people's attention away from the disaster that was fx(zambezi). even their interlagos cpus don't offer enough improvement to gain more share in server sector.
amd will always compared to intel in every point no matter what they say.
i think amd has a better apu for ultrabooks.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 5:36:55 AM

I think the point to take from this is that AMD won't be making anymore "high end" chips. I've said it before, the AMD BoD has been looking at Apple make Billions by making products in the slim/mobile space. They want $$$ again, and have decided to move there. I doubt they'll be able to compete with Apple/ARM and with Intel moving in as well it will probably end up horrible for AMD. It's only a matter of time until they basically leave the x86 world and focus on tablets, ultrabooks, phones, etc.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 1, 2011 7:14:32 AM

As I mentioned a few times in other posts, I believe AMD will end production of consumer CPUs and focus on producing APUs for the mainstream and budget segment. AMD simply does not have the financial resources to produce server CPUs, consumer CPUs and APUs at the same time in the long run.

Not sure if AMD will stay in the server market for the long run since I do not know how well their server CPUs competes against Intel.

Developing a CPU for phones will be an uphill battle, but considering that it is a very large market, it is not wise to ignore it. Sales of smartphones in the US alone are projected to be around 95 million by the end of this year, that's up from 67 million in 2010.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 8:13:59 AM

I think AMD is in for a rude surprise however. They have/had some efficient/low power x86 designs. That is a far cry however from the designs needed to compete against ARM and Intel's new cores at 22nm.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 9:11:30 AM

i mentioned this in some earlier posts in some other thread but no one really verified/denied this: if amd does design an arm cpu or an arm apu won't that eat into amd's x86 cpu/apu shares first, then intel's? same for arm server cpu. like amd's apus vs low end discreet gfx cards. and with nvidia's project denver on the way, won't amd's arm cpu/apu face an even tougher competition? nvidia already has a strong presence in arm sector.
not to mention the sheer amount of r&d and resources needed to manufacture something entirely new - which amd lacks.
this isn't related to piledriver so i didn't post it in the piledriver thread.
m
0
l
December 1, 2011 9:56:20 AM

AMD's competition isn't coming from Intel, but rather Nvidia with that rather insidious little beast called Tegra. It's blindingly quick on Android and if Ms can't get into that market soon they may as well pack up and go home.

For tablets Intel is a no show. Their graphics processors are way to weak for that. The desktop space is shrinking quite quickly and the Mac is getting it's stongest foothold I have yet seen in my experience in the industry so far. Diversity is the way forward from here. Intel has recognised that themselves by putting together their own APU, "of sorts" anyway, but to be honest it's "gutless."

AMD does not need to compete with Intel, because Intel DOES NOT have a high performance platform to compete against. But Tegra on the other hand is a different kettle of fish because it is driving an already very popular OS and is a high performance part capable of multiple parallel processing.

Sandy/Ivy/London(that is a joke) Bridge are bloody fast arch, but that's not where the future is. It's fast multi-parallel processing and there are plenty of videos around the net that show that these 4 core HT products from Intel struggle in this area where background processes take a large hit in performance.


AMD and Bluestack I think will be what Ms will be hoping to claw back some of the early Android gains. I'm not sure that Intel are in the picture with their range of products at this point.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 1, 2011 10:46:42 AM

Quote:
AMD does not need to compete with Intel, because Intel DOES NOT have a high performance platform to compete against.


Yet. They have the $$$ and process knowledge however to make one. Quickly.

Quote:
Sandy/Ivy/London(that is a joke) Bridge are bloody fast arch, but that's not where the future is. It's fast multi-parallel processing and there are plenty of videos around the net that show that these 4 core HT products from Intel struggle in this area where background processes take a large hit in performance.


??? I have no clue what you're talking about here, but I'd bet SB/IB holds up better to "background processes take a large hit in performance" then AMDs chips.
m
0
l
December 2, 2011 5:56:55 AM

4745454b said:
Quote:
AMD does not need to compete with Intel, because Intel DOES NOT have a high performance platform to compete against.


Yet. They have the $$$ and process knowledge however to make one. Quickly.

Quote:
Sandy/Ivy/London(that is a joke) Bridge are bloody fast arch, but that's not where the future is. It's fast multi-parallel processing and there are plenty of videos around the net that show that these 4 core HT products from Intel struggle in this area where background processes take a large hit in performance.


??? I have no clue what you're talking about here, but I'd bet SB/IB holds up better to "background processes take a large hit in performance" then AMDs chips.




Well then you might have to learn soething about it then...be my guest and take a 7min trip to CEBIT 2011 and see for yourself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqBk0uHrxII

..and so Intel might be advised to get their motor running and get onto developing their GPU. Just out of interest, a work colleague of mine just gave away her i7/Geforce powered laptop for a Apple Mac...now that's bloody scary and demonstrates to me quite clearly that Intel are headed off in the wrong direction. As I stated before, the amount of Apple Macs being bought today is the highest I can every remember and it's coming out of dissatisfaction with X86 Windows performance, 90% of wich is an Intel experience. Lucky for Intel that Mac can only fill their orders with blue chips. That's the biggest pain for AMD, their limited access to manufacture, not their architecture.

I also talked my niece, a super heavy multi-tasker, to try an AMD Turion over her troublesome Core 2/Nvidia laptop, and Microsoft owes me one, we still have a Ms Windows user. And if you still think that raw power wins the day you really should investigate the rise and rise of Nintendo's Wii.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 2, 2011 6:42:04 AM

@harna: i think that the apple macs use quad core i7 cpus. intel already has decent entry level gpus with the hd 3000 and hd 2000 - and they are the gpu market leader by a massive margin. and the amount of macs bought isn't intel's fault, if you must blame then blame microsoft. their coding is really bad. amd's problems are with manufacturing, microarchitecture, management, pr, all of them. they're trying to put their two feet in 3-4 boats and trying to steer them at the same time.
microsoft, nvidia and intel are indebted to your generous contribution!
m
0
l
December 2, 2011 8:25:21 AM

I'm no software writer, so how bad/good Microsoft is at writing code I wouldn't know where to start, but I will grant them that writing code for the huge variety of hardware out there I fancy would be a nightmare of biblical proportion.

Now acknowledging that, we have to also accept that Microsoft Windows is a performance platform given the enormous level of support provided by Microsoft, both directly and indirectly via coding standards (Visual basic) and Direct X hardware support.

Now just as I would not expect AMD's CPU's to neccessarily out-perform those of Intel, the reverse argument should apply to Intel for their GPU's, but they should be around 80% of the performance of mid/upper range GPU's from Nvidia and AMD, ie they must at least be up on par in function. AMD's CPU's are, but Intel's GPU's are not.

And you are right about the difficulties of steering 3 ships, soon to be four with RAM the next one around the corner. If it turns into a platform war that Mac wins then AMD will need an OS on their platform as well, because at the moment AMD/Nvidia need the Intel market for revenue stream.

You are also correct in Intel being the leading GPU manufacturer, but I acknowledged that the disappointment in Windows performance was a 90% Intel experience, and that GPU component is the main culprit.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 2, 2011 8:46:23 AM

harna said:
I'm no software writer, so how bad/good Microsoft is at writing code I wouldn't know where to start, but I will grant them that writing code for the huge variety of hardware out there I fancy would be a nightmare of biblical proportion.

Now acknowledging that, we have to also accept that Microsoft Windows is a performance platform given the enormous level of support provided by Microsoft, both directly and indirectly via coding standards (Visual basic) and Direct X hardware support.

Now just as I would not expect AMD's CPU's to neccessarily out-perform those of Intel, the reverse argument should apply to Intel for their GPU's, but they should be around 80% of the performance of mid/upper range GPU's from Nvidia and AMD, ie they must at least be up on par in function. AMD's CPU's are, but Intel's GPU's are not.

And you are right about the difficulties of steering 3 ships, soon to be four with RAM the next one around the corner. If it turns into a platform war that Mac wins then AMD will need an OS on their platform as well, because at the moment AMD/Nvidia need the Intel market for revenue stream.

You are also correct in Intel being the leading GPU manufacturer, but I acknowledged that the disappointment in Windows performance was a 90% Intel experience, and that GPU component is the main culprit.

i wish intel would listen to people and put at least a decent discreet class igpu inside their cpus. intel doesn't listen.
the reason intel doesn't put a more powerful igpu because they can get away by putting a crappy gpu. simple as that. look at how they succeeded many pc oems into putting their mobile sb cpus in the semi incompetent 'ultrabooks'. in reality a ulv llano ultrabook would kick an intel ultrabook's ass in combined cpu-gpu performance and in terms of cost. however, for most people, simple hd graphics or hd2000 that can play hd videos, flash and play casual games are enough. they don't even need the graphical power llano can provide.
i suspect is that intel knows and has verified that the igpu becomes bottlenecked by system ram after a certain point. may be that's why they don't feel any need to implement a powerful gpu with the cpu.
m
0
l
a c 232 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a c 137 À AMD
December 2, 2011 9:03:40 AM

amuffin said:
I don't think the government will allow intel to increase their price that much :non: 


In what country/world do you live in my friend?

m
0
l
a c 232 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a c 137 À AMD
December 2, 2011 9:23:13 AM

de5_Roy said:
i wish intel would listen to people and put at least a decent discreet class igpu inside their cpus. intel doesn't listen.
the reason intel doesn't put a more powerful igpu because they can get away by putting a crappy gpu. simple as that. look at how they succeeded many pc oems into putting their mobile sb cpus in the semi incompetent 'ultrabooks'. in reality a ulv llano ultrabook would kick an intel ultrabook's ass in combined cpu-gpu performance and in terms of cost. however, for most people, simple hd graphics or hd2000 that can play hd videos, flash and play casual games are enough. they don't even need the graphical power llano can provide.
i suspect is that intel knows and has verified that the igpu becomes bottlenecked by system ram after a certain point. may be that's why they don't feel any need to implement a powerful gpu with the cpu.


That certain point is much MUCH higher than what the everyday user uses. Actual bandwidth available to CPU are considerably ahead of what most CPUs need. Thats why Intel hasn't bothered getting a higher than 1333MHz controller on their mainstream products.

As for bandwidth, there is more than enough available for a decent GPU on CPU die.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-a8-3850-llano,2...

Also since RAM is so cheap and the fact that it scales so well with higher clock RAM, one can easily get an entry gaming PC out of the upcoming Trinity.

BACK TO TOPIC :

There is no more Intel vs AMD, they are right about that. I think AMD must stick to what they are good out. Graphics and APU's.

They just do not have enough resources to split their efforts in 4.

And it is now too late to consentrate on high performance parts. Maybe they can work on that after they have a positive graph in the CEOs office again.
m
0
l
December 2, 2011 10:58:24 AM

In fairness to AMD some of the constraint is in the manufacturing arm. Secondly AMD is not going to survive by selling CPU/APU's to Apple. Nvidia to is making sure it has it's own platform for the future, and so to is AMD.

Fair point about the general power level of Intel GPU's but, and there is a but...more and more software writers are wanting full HD hardware graphics support for reasons of functionality/looks and speed. So by holding 90% of the market and not complying Intel is holding back the development of the entire Window's Platform. The dismantling of Vista for Win 7.0 demonstrates this problem exactly, not even the beomouth Microsoft could force Intel to move.

....And then as you go down the Intel spectrum with cheaper and cheaper CPU's there's loss of functionality and crappier and crappier GPU implementation. At least with AMD, even a Sempron comes well armed, and X2, X3, X4, X6 and X8 is functionally at least, largely the same with speed and power the only real variant, but with Intel, their budget range are cripples, and how they are supposed to cope in such a complex software environment??? well they just don't.

I will add here that many of us early AMD Vista adopters are still running that OS today without a hint of a problem. It runs perfectly well on my wife's 1.6 GHz single core Turion with its 1200 ATi GPU, so what does this tell you about Celerons/Atoms, and the like with their anaemic GPU offerings?

Vista users like myself will suffer as we will need to upgrade to Windows 8 if we want to maintain full support from Microsoft. Normally I would be mega pissed, given the service life of XP, but in this case I don't lay the blame at Microsoft's door and will bite the bullet for the half dozen or so PC's I maintain being satisfied that I escaped from needing to go to Win 7.

If things continue on their current path, AMD may seriously need to consider annexing an operating system as well ala Nvidia. I have feared for some time that we are on the path of diversion. The story starts when Intel left both Cyrix and AMD on socket 7 and departed on Slot 1. Maybe that is the Intel strategy, choke Microsoft to death and then accelerated GPU's might go away.

Maybe there is a hate wall at Intel HQ with 3DFx emblazoned on it....everything in the pc world was "normal" until they came on the sceen.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 2, 2011 2:09:57 PM

Quote:
there are plenty of videos around the net that show that these 4 core HT products from Intel struggle in this area where background processes take a large hit in performance.


Thank you for providing a link to one of these videos.

I would like to first point out that we have NO idea about what is in either laptop. Specs were never given and all we know about the Intel machine is that it has an "I7". We have no idea if that's a first or second gen I7. Second, what did the guy say was the problem with the Intel machine? He said it around the 6:47min mark. (quote will be rough, I'm not going to back it up/pause it that much...)

Quote:
There's no replacement for true discrete graphics


When I quoted your comment it sounded like you were saying that AMD somehow magically stays faster when "background processes" kick in. (a background process isn't one normally found on the task bar. It's something you'd seen in the process tree in the task manager.) What they are doing is "massively multi tasking". The issue is they are comparing a wide range of tasks. If they were only comparing CPU tasks then you'd see the Intel machine do a lot better. But yes, the IGP found in the Intel machine isn't as good as the IGP found in the AMD APU. I doubt anyone has ever said otherwise.

Quote:
Intel might be advised to get their motor running and get onto developing their GPU


They did, its called Ivy Bridge. (IB) Supposed to be 2-3 times faster then whats found in SB.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 2, 2011 5:46:26 PM

harna said:
Well then you might have to learn soething about it then...be my guest and take a 7min trip to CEBIT 2011 and see for yourself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqBk0uHrxII

..and so Intel might be advised to get their motor running and get onto developing their GPU.


While Intel has increased the performance of their integrated graphics core from the GMA 4500 to the HD 2000 / HD 3000 found in the Sandy Bridge CPUs, their primary focus is still on business related tasks and multimedia; not gaming. The expected performance increase of the graphics core in Ivy Bridge is expected to be around 60%. A good increase on paper, but that HD 3000 is more or less equal to a Radeon HD 5450, the new graphics core will only be a little faster than a Radeon HD 5550.

Intel was developing their own discrete GPU. I was called Larrabee. It failed, but that eventually led to the integrated graphics core in the Sandy Bridge CPUs.

Regarding the video...

Okay, the game does run faster on the AMD laptop, but guess what? Intel's focus is not on gaming.

At 3:07 into the video the presenter started playing a video on both computer; first on the AMD laptop, then the Intel laptop. The video started first on the Intel laptop. The guy stated that on the AMD laptop there is some additional post processing done, but what post processing was it and did it actually improve the visual quality of the video? Sorry, but AMD lost. It is not surprising that the Intel laptop lost the SPECviewperf 11 start up since it is dependent on the GPU.

If the sole purpose for getting an inexpensive laptop is to play games, then the clear choice is to go with an AMD Llano laptop. That is the general recommendation if you go to the Laptop sub-forum in THG.

Quote:

Just out of interest, a work colleague of mine just gave away her i7/Geforce powered laptop for a Apple Mac...now that's bloody scary and demonstrates to me quite clearly that Intel are headed off in the wrong direction. As I stated before, the amount of Apple Macs being bought today is the highest I can every remember and it's coming out of dissatisfaction with X86 Windows performance, 90% of wich is an Intel experience.


What does that have to do with Intel? So she switched from laptop with an Intel CPU and Windows OS to a laptop with an Intel CPU with a Mac OS. How is Intel heading off in the wrong direction? Let me make a wild guess and surmise that maybe she was dissatisfied with her Windows OS experience?

Quote:

I also talked my niece, a super heavy multi-tasker, to try an AMD Turion over her troublesome Core 2/Nvidia laptop, and Microsoft owes me one, we still have a MS Windows user.


Could have been a number of issues. Perhaps a re-install of Windows could have corrected the issue as the registry can become bloated overtime and cause the computer to slow down or become unstable.

Quote:

And if you still think that raw power wins the day you really should investigate the rise and rise of Nintendo's Wii.
[/quotemsg]

This has nothing to do with AMD or Intel. The Wii's appeal are the games themselves (mostly casual) and the novel way you control your actions. The Wii appealed to the masses whereas the PS3 and Xbox 360 were more hardcore gamers. Does AMD or Intel have games exclusively designed to run on their CPUs? No. Does AMD or Intel only appeal to causal gamers or hardcore gamers? No.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 2, 2011 6:02:23 PM

4745454b said:

I would like to first point out that we have NO idea about what is in either laptop. Specs were never given and all we know about the Intel machine is that it has an "I7". We have no idea if that's a first or second gen I7.


It's a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU which the person did state at the beginning of the video.
m
0
l
December 2, 2011 6:10:15 PM

harna said:
In fairness to AMD some of the constraint is in the manufacturing arm. Secondly AMD is not going to survive by selling CPU/APU's to Apple. Nvidia to is making sure it has it's own platform for the future, and so to is AMD.

Fair point about the general power level of Intel GPU's but, and there is a but...more and more software writers are wanting full HD hardware graphics support for reasons of functionality/looks and speed. So by holding 90% of the market and not complying Intel is holding back the development of the entire Window's Platform. The dismantling of Vista for Win 7.0 demonstrates this problem exactly, not even the beomouth Microsoft could force Intel to move.

....And then as you go down the Intel spectrum with cheaper and cheaper CPU's there's loss of functionality and crappier and crappier GPU implementation. At least with AMD, even a Sempron comes well armed, and X2, X3, X4, X6 and X8 is functionally at least, largely the same with speed and power the only real variant, but with Intel, their budget range are cripples, and how they are supposed to cope in such a complex software environment??? well they just don't.

I will add here that many of us early AMD Vista adopters are still running that OS today without a hint of a problem. It runs perfectly well on my wife's 1.6 GHz single core Turion with its 1200 ATi GPU, so what does this tell you about Celerons/Atoms, and the like with their anaemic GPU offerings?

Vista users like myself will suffer as we will need to upgrade to Windows 8 if we want to maintain full support from Microsoft. Normally I would be mega pissed, given the service life of XP, but in this case I don't lay the blame at Microsoft's door and will bite the bullet for the half dozen or so PC's I maintain being satisfied that I escaped from needing to go to Win 7.

If things continue on their current path, AMD may seriously need to consider annexing an operating system as well ala Nvidia. I have feared for some time that we are on the path of diversion. The story starts when Intel left both Cyrix and AMD on socket 7 and departed on Slot 1. Maybe that is the Intel strategy, choke Microsoft to death and then accelerated GPU's might go away.

Maybe there is a hate wall at Intel HQ with 3DFx emblazoned on it....everything in the pc world was "normal" until they came on the sceen.

Vista will receive critical updates until 2017.
m
0
l
December 2, 2011 9:44:16 PM


...yes my exact line was....


"we will need to upgrade to Windows 8 if we want to maintain full support from Microsoft."

...but of course Vista will two Os's old and there have been many new hardware developments in that time that will benifit directly from implementations within...ie Multi-threading and new Instruction sets.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 2, 2011 11:51:12 PM

I missed it in the beginning, but I did hear him say I7 at the start and SB near the end, so I'm assuming the 2600. Would still be nice to know the other parts.

60%? According to the leaks in the IB thread its a LOT higher then that.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111129203559...

Up to 299% faster for the graphics score in 3DMark Vantage. I'd be willing to bet double for sure.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 3, 2011 12:51:33 AM

^^^

Oh, okay... The last time I've read anything about the IGP in IB it was expected to be 60%; from Anandtech.

As a correction, the Xbitlabs article stated up to 199% not 299% for 3D Mark Vantage as you indicated.

I'd rather wait for actual benchmarks rather than relying on some synthetic benchmarks for the IGP.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 3, 2011 12:56:42 AM

BadTrip said:
I hardly call that a failure.

http://techland.time.com/2011/11/17/meet-intels-crazy-5...


Failure in the sense where they did not release an actual discrete video card. However, it is good to know that there research and development did not go to waste and they were able to re-purpose the technology.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 12:57:38 AM

I'm going by the pic where it shows 2.99 vs 1. Unless I'm reading that wrong....

IB for the CPU won't be much different then SB. Minor tweaks is all its getting. The IGP however... I think the rumor says double the number of shaders, and a clock bump. It will be a LOT better.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 3, 2011 1:10:19 AM

4745454b said:
I'm going by the pic where it shows 2.99 vs 1. Unless I'm reading that wrong....



Yes, but the baseline for i7-2600 is 1.00. Therefore, subtracting 1.00 from 2.99 (i7-3770) yields 1.99. That why the article states:

Quote:
+199% faster performance in 3DMark Vantage GPU benchmark;


m
0
l
December 3, 2011 1:50:14 AM

4745454b said:
I'm going by the pic where it shows 2.99 vs 1. Unless I'm reading that wrong....

IB for the CPU won't be much different then SB. Minor tweaks is all its getting. The IGP however... I think the rumor says double the number of shaders, and a clock bump. It will be a LOT better.

They are comparing HD2000, not HD3000, to the HD4000 in those slides.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 119 å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
December 3, 2011 2:24:22 AM

Yeah, it would be far more interesting to see how the HD 3000 will compare to the HD 5000 (if there is such a thing). Based on Anantech's estimate of a 60% performance increase, the Intel HD 5000 should be somewhere in between the Radeon HD 5550 and HD 5570. The Intel HD 3000 is marginally faster than the Radeon HD 5450.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 2:27:44 AM

I saw 2600 and could have sworn that it had the HD3000.

I guess 60% is more realistic. It will still be a lot better then whats in SB right now. I'd like to also point out that if they Intel laptop was running an "i7 SB CPU" th

Edit: then it was running a 2600 right? In which case the new IB graph that I linked to would still be correct. Unless there is another i7 SB chip out there I don't know of.... (stupid laptop mousepad....)
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 2:48:03 AM

all mobile sandy bridge cpus except celerons and pentiums have hd 3000 igp in them. sb pentiums and celerons have stripped down versions of hd 2000.
i think the hd 3000 and 2000 igpus were the first 32 nm gpus (iirc tsmc screwed up 32 nm cayman)? when 22 nm ivy bridge comes out they will be the smallest gpus in the market. afaik both kepler and southern island will be 28 nm, trinity 32 nm.
hd 4000 vs hd 2000 performsance increase is impressive. i would've like to see hd 4000 and hd 3000 go head to head. i suspect intel did this intentionally to make hd 4000 look much better.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 3:02:24 AM

So because in that video it was in a laptop, that might have been HD3000? If so then HD4000 might not be good enough still.

This is why I hate videos like that. TELL US WHATS IN THERE! We can't draw meaningful conclusions looking at something that we don't know. (slow loading might have been because of a 5400rpm drive vs 7200/SSD in the AMD machine.)
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 3:42:57 AM

lol wikipedia's sb page says hd 4000 is 200% more improved than hd 3000! screw intel's estimate of 60% improvement! ;D
Quote:
Ivy Bridge

Intel's performance targets (compared to Sandy Bridge):[22]

25% increase in CPU performance.
200% increase in integrated GPU performance(HD3000 vs HD4000 in 3DMarkVantage).

no source of the info is provided.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 3, 2011 4:34:44 AM

Probably just same mistake I made...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 6:05:01 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4830/intels-ivy-bridge-ar...
"Intel isn't disclosing the die split but there are more execution units this round (16 up from 12 in SNB) so it would appear as if the GPU occupies a greater percentage of the die than it did last generation. "

"Sandy Bridge's EUs could co-issue MADs and transcendental operations, Ivy Bridge can do twice as many MADs per clock. As a result, a single Ivy Bridge EU gets close to twice the IPC of a Sandy Bridge EU - in other words, you're looking at nearly 2x the GFLOPS in shader bound operations as Sandy Bridge per EU."

"There are other performance enhancements within the shader core. Scatter & gather operations now execute 32x faster than Sandy Bridge, which has implications for both GPU compute and general 3D gaming performance."
-----
Perhaps Intel did have a doubling of the GPU up to 24, but if Anand is right, it looks like it will be more like 16 EU's.

"The implication is that Intel had plans for IVB with a beefier GPU but it didn't make the cut."

I'm sure memory bandwidth becomes a concern when you get a too beefy GPU.
m
0
l
!