AMD Announces 6 And 12-core Opterons

[Guest]

Sunnyvale (CA) - AMD has updated its server processor roadmap with single-die 6-core and dual-die 12-core Opteron processors.

AMD Announces 6 And 12-core Opterons : Read more

 

[Guest]

intels architectures are still better clock for clock... especially for everyday stuff, not like servers... amd still pwns in that place due to scalability

 

[wild9]

I think that as soon as GPGPU technology makes an entrance, AMD is going to have the edge due to the scalability factor as mentioned by Thogrom. As for 2010..anything could happen, it's too far off to do anything other than speculate.

 

[enyceckk101]

If AMD can do it , INTEL can also do it ( with better speed ).

 

[Guest]

Need I mention P4 vs. Athlon64? But you are correct what AMD can do Intel can do. Intel's schedule NEVER has been inline with AMD's. This shows how strong the competition is between them. Lets not forget core1 was a wash trying to catch AMD they had to redesign their (new) chip ie Core 2. Second Intel can outspend and out resource AMD any day. The only reason AMD may lose long term is simply the world's monetary system. If you don't see how that can impact business go read a book.

 

[spearhead]

i expact the 45nm and larger cache will offer a vast improvement over todays barcelona based processors.
6 and 12 cores would also be a good step ahead. i hope AMD has its awnser to the nehalem intime then

 

[chaos23]

This just shows AMD isn't out of the competition yet. Kudos to AMD.

 

[royalcrown]

BOOORING...I want a quad core I can put in my desktop @ 95 watts that doesen't SUCK AMD...you hearing this..."barcellony" blows, especially at 95 watts !

Also, I'd like it to be out before the core 4 architecture is EOL please !

 

[iocedmyself]

My god, i could care less how much faster intel chips are theorhetically, because if anyone bothered to actually compare intel and amd's cheapest equally clocked chips, and AMD's most expensive vs intels...hell even intels $1500 chips against the near identical counterparts that cost 1/4 - 1/3 the price....THEIR PERFORMANCE IS BASED ON SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS.

When the QX6850 extreme edition came out at $1500, in real world benchmarks it was 10-35% then the $180 AMD dualcore....despite the QX having 4x the cache, 16% faster memory speed, and....what else...oh yes TWICE AS MANY CORES. Despite amd having 16% slower memory in that test....the 6000+ still had 25% better memory perforance. Even the QX6850 extreme compared to the Q6800....which was idenetical save for the extreme QX having a larger cache, averaged 20% faster then the Q6800....with only $1000 price difference.

I don't deny intel has the faster chip....but not to the degree that everyone makes out. Synthetic performance doesn't mean anything. Intel still fails with memory performance pathetically, with AMD currently having 25 or so chips, ranging from dual core 939, to AM2/+ chips that have better memory performance than ALL of intels systems.

AMD is still light years ahead in 64bit...because intel can't cut it in that area....they have 5 years ahead of intel, so when people actually are smart enough to use 64bit OS's and software with the 64bit cpu's and hardware they spend $1000's on intel won't look so pretty..and by the time they catch up there AMD will be ready with the 128bit systems or whatever the next-gen platform may be.

AMD still owns the server side tech, which is what really matters as most money is derived from server sales, not desktop.

I would rather spend $1000-1200 building an AMD quad core system with 8 gigs of ram and 4-way crossfire, overclock the hell out of it....and actually be able to upgrade my cpu then spend the same amount for an intel cpu and motherboard that has marginal performance gains, that will require a new cpu, motherboard, and ram when they release the same chip, with a different pin config and no tech changes aside from larger cache every 3 months.

There is no software currently available outside of 3D animation, photo & movie editing that can take full advantage of ANY hardware released in the past year. Funnily enough, the corporate world that deals in bussiness that utilize those types of software, use AMD, because AMD excels in multithread compatible apps, more so in 64bit versions, they do it cheaper, and use less power as they do it too.

So stop crying about the fact that intel chips can run FEAR or OBLIVIAN at 400FPS in XP and AMD can't....stop complaining about amd quad core performance when you're most likely running XP, or if you are running Vista it's 32bit...AND UPGRADE TO AN OS THAT TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE OF MULICORE CHIPS IN ALL APPLICATIONS AND ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN 2GIGS OF MEMORY.

Every app i run in 64bit vista ultimate, 32 or 64bit splits the load across all cores....and my 3.6ghz OCed toledo corre 939 dual core AMD and 4 gigs of DDR running 640mhz still scores a hardware index of 5.9, and as much as i may want to upgrade to new hardware to play with, i by no means NEED to do so.

AMD's equally clocked quad compared to intels equally, and cheapest quad..is between 5% slower and 10% faster....however the intel chip is 40% more expensive..so stop listening to marketing, and get a clue. mmk?

 

[crash27]

I have both the q6600 and the 9850 black they both cost within $10 of each other and after overclocking both of them as much as i could I must say that the intel chip is much faster. I mostly game with them and just so you know this is the first intell cpu I've got since my p3 800 mhz. 1800 amd 745, 2800 ghz amd 745, 3200 amd 939, 4800x2 amd 939, 6400x2 amd am2+.

 

[justjc]

Damn I was looking forward to seeing Bulldozer in 2009, but with these news it seems I have to settle with Barcelona ver. 2 at least there should be less chance of them missing the launch date.
Just for a short time I thought AMD might catch up before 2010...

 

[in_sOmniac]

what's with the ALL CAPS? don't get me wrong, i have an Opteron 165 + 2900XT setup at home and i have never bothered to upgrade just yet. i just don't get the whole idea of defending AMD with such fanaticism.

of course, $1000 premium for a 10 - 35% performance improvement does seem steep. however, you seem to forget that high performing parts will always fetch higher prices especially if competitors can't match your offerings. why? because there are actually people out there with money to burn you know. simply put, you want performance, you pay for it even if it's expensive because you don't have any other choice. if AMD was THAT competitive, then Intel would not price their top performing parts that high. stop rationalizing because that's how the market works man. if you wan't to blame someone for Intel charging $1000 premiums, blame AMD for not being that competitive on the high-end.

i agree that Athlons rule over Pentiums (and even Core/Core 2)in terms of memory performance. however, i'd like to point out that Athlons have their memory controllers on-chip. Pentiums/Core/Core 2s don't, hence AMD performing better than Intel. not exactly apples-to-apples so not a very good point of comparison. now, compare Quad Phenoms and Intel's latest quads and you'll be surprised to discover that AMD's advantage in the memory arena has been reduced thanks to intelligent cache implementation by Intel despite the lack of an onboard memory controller.

http://www.techspot.com/review/93-amd-phenom-9850-black-edition/page3.html

and finally, ask yourself what would happen if Intel integrates the memory controller on their CPU as what's supposed to happen with Nehalem. we can only speculate.

lastly, to quote:

Intel can outspend and out resource AMD any day. The only reason AMD may lose long term is simply the world's monetary system. If you don't see how that can impact business go read a book.

unless, AMD pulls out a rabbit out of it's hat, then it will be Intel everywhere for the forseeable future.

 

[Guest]

Great reporting for at least asking AMD about the 32nm schedule (that was one of the first questions I had myself). However isn't it a bit disingenuous for AMD to say the 2010 processors for Intel are too far out too speculate, yet AMD is "announcing" products coming in....2010.

Just curious does anyone know if the lack of supporting Nvidia chipset solutions an Nvidia decision or is AMD freezing Nvidia out? I thought AMD was all about 'enabling the ecosystem' and allowing customers choice - it seems like there will not be much choice here.

"However, at least for 45 nm, we have credible sources indicating that 45 nm AMD CPUs won?t arrive before Q4 of this year."

Kudos for seeing through the BS! AMD has played the 'sampling' and 'start production' date for so long it is rather comical that most reporters continue to fall for this. When you hear 'start production' add a minimum of 1 quarter for that product to show up in the market place (which is ultimately the important date) and when you hear sampling, well you can pretty much ignore that.

 

[spiralsun1]

AMD has always been the better performance-price value. Plus they don't have a FAB in Apartheid Israel like Intel does. Buy AMD.