AMD's best is still to come.

People who write professionally should not use phrases like "Intel shot its entire wad". It makes me feel cheap as a reader, it's not Mike Hammer, it's InfoWorld.

And this might be well and good for amd in the server market, but in the desktop market its next to meaningless. People here dont need 4 cores or more when most software isnt using 2 effectively yet. When all is said and done at the moment, the Core 2 is kicking ass for good reason.
 
its funny how the roles have reversed. intel used to be "MORE GHZ!!!!" and amd used to be "Its all in the design".

now its:

intel = more efficient cpu's
amd = QUICK ADD 10 CORES TO THAT CPU!
 
meh, the only things he said that i can really agree with:


"When quad-core Opteron lands, it will be ready to power 32 core-capable servers that deliver close to linear performance gains "

"AMD’s got years worth of ammunition already locked and loaded. It hasn’t even played the 65-nanometer manufacturing process card"

the rest honestly seems a bit skewed somehow. however, it does make you think a bit ;)
 
Man. If the author of that article isn't an AMD fizzle bizzle (f4nbois), then I don't know what one is.
 
And what relevance does that article have with desktop user needs (ie. us?).

You can bash Core2 all you like, but at the end of the day, I'll buy whatever is best for my needs, based on my own research.
 
harpoon said:
And what relevance does that article have with desktop user needs (ie. us?).

You can bash Core2 all you like, but at the end of the day, I'll buy whatever is best for my needs, based on my own research.
Click to expand...


If you notice... This is the AMD forum.... I posted news about an AMD product..

AMD forum.... AMD product....

hmmm AMD goes with AMD?

Let's see if we can get this...

AMD product news... AMD forum...

AMD forum.... AMD product news...

AMD goes with AMD....

So AMD product news must belong in the AMD forum!!!

WOW!!
 
Hey Mr FUD229, you didn't answer my question:

What relevance does the article have for desktop users, who are mainly interested in dual cores, or at most quad cores, not 32p CPU farms...

I never said you posted it in the wrong forum, though it can be argued this probably belongs in the multiprocessing forum, as it relates to large scale CPU scaling.

http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12
 
Hmm..

Many should realize that we're entering a point where number of cores on a processor will only continue to increase. It's much more efficient than raising the clock speed. We're also at a point where hardware performance isn't the problem in computers, it's software. There just hasn't been much innovation there. But there will be a point where software will be able to run independent of the number of cores and then you will see the desktop advantages all of you are looking for.

Let's take a look into the future. Console technology is always ahead of the PC when first released.
Xbox 360 - CPU with 3 cores
PS3 - CPU with 5 cores

Intel will be creating a 4 core chip as well.
 
CoW]8(0) said:
Hmm..

Many should realize that we're entering a point where number of cores on a processor will only continue to increase. It's much more efficient than raising the clock speed. We're also at a point where hardware performance isn't the problem in computers, it's software. There just hasn't been much innovation there. But there will be a point where software will be able to run independent of the number of cores and then you will see the desktop advantages all of you are looking for.

Let's take a look into the future. Console technology is always ahead of the PC when first released.
Xbox 360 - CPU with 3 cores
PS3 - CPU with 5 cores

Intel will be creating a 4 core chip as well.
Click to expand...

No one here is disputing any of this (aside from your PS3 statement, which is incorrect) but the problem is RIGHT NOW having a quad core system is meaningless to almost everyone, and that isnt going to change in one generation, so waiting on amds quad core implementation is foolish.
 
Yes, I guessed the PS3 processor but knew the number was somewhere between 3-10 cores.

But the notion of not buying a quad core processor because it won't be useful 'RIGHT NOW' will just create a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
CoW]8(0) said:
Yes, I guessed the PS3 processor but knew the number was somewhere between 3-10 cores.

But the notion of not buying a quad core processor because it won't be useful 'RIGHT NOW' will just create a self fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

I doubt we will see $300 quad cores at launch either.
 
harpoon said:
Hey Mr FUD229, you didn't answer my question:

What relevance does the article have for desktop users, who are mainly interested in dual cores, or at most quad cores, not 32p CPU farms...

I never said you posted it in the wrong forum, though it can be argued this probably belongs in the multiprocessing forum, as it relates to large scale CPU scaling.

http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12
Click to expand...


Because K8L is about more than just quad-core. All of the K8L archetecture improvements will be released in a dual-core desktop chip as well.

You're focussing too tightly on the 'quad' part, and not enough on the 'K8L' part.
 
Tutelary said:
No one here is disputing any of this (aside from your PS3 statement, which is incorrect) but the problem is RIGHT NOW having a quad core system is meaningless to almost everyone, and that isnt going to change in one generation, so waiting on amds quad core implementation is foolish.
Click to expand...

K8L is far more than just quad-core. Trying to paint the entire issue into "quad is useless" is what is foolish.
 
Tutelary said:
No one here is disputing any of this (aside from your PS3 statement, which is incorrect) but the problem is RIGHT NOW having a quad core system is meaningless to almost everyone, and that isnt going to change in one generation, so waiting on amds quad core implementation is foolish.
Click to expand...
that's exactly what everyone said back when dual core came out..... don't be so closed minded ;)
 
I can't wait so I can 4x4 a quad core... it's not meaningless to everyone... people like me can use it.


When dual core came out everyone was like "OMG!@! GAMEZORS DON'T EVEN USEZORS TWO PROCESSORz!!@#!#$!@"


And look where we are now...
 
Ockie said:
I can't wait so I can 4x4 a quad core... it's not meaningless to everyone... people like me can use it.


When dual core came out everyone was like "OMG!@! GAMEZORS DON'T EVEN USEZORS TWO PROCESSORz!!@#!#$!@"


And look where we are now...
Click to expand...
Quite correct. I am also very interested in seeing what a 4x4 setup with quad core cpu's can do. It should be quite interesting.
 
Not trying to argue but I havent seen many games that utilise dual core yet.
If you are only a gamer with a good single core CPU, there isnt a lot of point of upgrading to dual core right now. This is where I'm sat.

If you can give me some good reasons (that really matter) to upgrade to dual core for games, I'll do it today which will also give me a nice quick spare PC :D
I have an X1800XT, it seems one core is enough to keep it happy, or is it?
 
The article, it was extremely skewed and really such biased articles have no place as legitimate journalism. Talk about the architecture. Fine. Talk about advancements fine. But to say Intel will behind the 8 ball is ridiculous to say the least. Sorry, but that is just biased journalism.

The bigger point is no forum on earth should tolerate f4nboisms. All such people should be immediately banned and forced to post at like AMDRULEZ.com or Intelistheshiznit.com etc. It gets in the way of legitimate discussion which is all about faster, better, cheaper.

I really have no idea why anyone on earth identifies with one company over another. Both of these companies are mutli billion dollar giants. They each own stock in each other. If anything, the average user should root for BOTH teams so that they keep prices low and mghz and cores high.

Just an opinion, but hey, I own ATI stuff, Nvidia, Intel, AND AMD. I go with the best product for MY needs at the right price. Funny how that works.
 
Chernobyl1 said:
Not trying to argue but I havent seen many games that utilise dual core yet.
Click to expand...
i was under the impression that basically every major title launch in the last 3-6 months supported some form of multithreading... :confused:
 
This guy sounds like the average 10 year old who discovered how the wheel works...In other words he is clueless about Intel to say the least.

He questions Intel's perf/watt claims and says AMD has 35 and 55w Opterons.Fine , Intel also has a 2.4Ghz/1333 40w Woody.Wanna place bets which performs better ?

And in other news , it looks like K8L is pushed to Q1 2008.Oh my , who would have thought of that ? ;) Even better , should I say Nehalem ?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33906

There was much ado about the K8L/quad core parts taping out a week or so ago, once again, go team. A week of intensive digging has lead me to believe this part is not the native quad core dual FP beast commonly referred to as K8L. That part looks like it was delayed to Q1/08. No yay team there. .... The down side is that AMD is not going to have a new core in 2007 , or at least have it until the waning days of 2007 if everything goes swimmingly.
Click to expand...
 
duby229 said:
Yep... Invasion of the trolls has begun.
Click to expand...
yes, i don't understand why we can leave them alone, but they have to be asses in here :confused:

sadly.. calling for a thread lock now before it gets stupid. the mods here need to crack down on inflammatory behavior a lot better.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
yes, i don't understand why we can leave them alone, but they have to be asses in here :confused:

sadly.. calling for a thread lock now before it gets stupid. the mods here need to crack down on inflammatory behavior a lot better.
Click to expand...

LMAO... I think it's funny as hell that you are quoting a guy, Duby, who LOVES to come into the Intel forum and talk mad shit. Just seems ironic.... :rolleyes:
 
I can see 2 discussions going here:

1. The merits of multi-core VS single-core
2. AMD vs Intel

I'm not going to touch #2, personally I tend to go with whoever has the best price : performance ratio.

As for #1, I think the benefits of multi-core are becoming more clear every day. The first time I saw a huge benefit with dual-core was on Quake 4. When I got Quake 4 I had a Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8GHz) and a Radeon X800XL. In multiplayer with my preferred settings, I'd get around 25-40 FPS. The game was heavily CPU limited. I upgraded to the 3800+ X2 (which I still have) and got a very small boost but not much, due to the 200MHz increase in core speed. When the 1.2 Q4 patch with multi-threading came out, I installed it and enabled multi-threading. HUGE difference. My framerate went from 25-40 FPS to a pretty steady 50-60FPS (now limited by video card, though my 7900GT changed that).

Most newer applications with multi-threading support don't make just 2 threads, but rather create many threads. Every thread a program makes means another core that it can utilize. If it spawns 8 threads, it can use 8 cores. I know Oblivion can take advantage of numerous threads, though it's very heavily limited by video card unless you have quad 7950's or somethig ridiculous like that.

EDIT: Also, even if a game doesn't explicity support multi-threading, there are still advantages to having multiple cores. For instance, the OS kernel and background processes can run on the less-utilized core. Also video drivers (nVidia, not sure about ATI) can perform some of their CPU-intenstive operations with multi-threading, which also gives a performance boost in some games.

I don't see how going for massive parallelism makes AMD inferior to Intel either as one user previously suggested. Both of them are shooting for quad core and i'm sure 8 and 16 core will come further down the road. The fact is that most applications don't simply do one thing, they do many different things simultaneously, and it makes perfect sense to split up the tasks across threads in order to really do them simultaneously instead of having to have each task wait for its turn on a single core.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
that's exactly what everyone said back when dual core came out..... don't be so closed minded ;)
Click to expand...

only duals alleviated pre-existing problems in performance for the average person. Most average people at this point in time simply wont be able to keep 4 cores busy all the time. The software just isnt there yet.

And to the other people, sure I understand K8L is more architectural improvements than just dropping in cores, but that is the only thing I'm addressing at the moment.

I'm not saying its useless or we will never need it, but the widest majority of the market simply does not need it NOW.
 
Tutelary said:
[. . .]but the problem is RIGHT NOW having a quad core system is meaningless to almost everyone, and that isnt going to change in one generation, so waiting on amds quad core implementation is foolish.
Click to expand...

harpoon said:
And what relevance does that article have with desktop user needs (ie. us?).[. . .]
Click to expand...

Thread craps are against the rules on this forum. Your posts should be deleted by the mods, and you should be warned.

The information is valued and relevant for users like myself who already own quad-core (dual dual-core) systems. If the information is not important to you, skip over the thread and do not post here. Your trolling lowers the overall value of the forum, and is an insult to the thread creator who has no other wish than to provide the AMD community with information and news.

For the Intel trolls, eclipse is quite right:
yes, i don't understand why we can leave them alone, but they have to be asses in here
Click to expand...
(cf)Eclipse and I have left the Intel forum alone for a long, long time. We would appreciate it if the respect we give you was reciprocated.
 
Poncho said:
LMAO... I think it's funny as hell that you are quoting a guy, Duby, who LOVES to come into the Intel forum and talk mad shit. Just seems ironic.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
i never go in the intel forum anymore, so i guess i wouldn't know. whatever. this kind of behavior is getting bad enough that i'm seriously considering leaving [H] for good. nobody can play nice anymore, and very few people seem to really be helpful and push the performance limits of their rig. amd is full of trash talk, intel is apparently full of trash talk. oc'ing is just a bunch of people asking "are my temps ok?"
i miss the hardcore days of old.

/rant
 
the problem is posting an article that is obviously biased. I think all fans of one particular brand should be banned from all computer discussions for sheer ignorance. Let the benchmarks from unbiased Tech sites such as the [H] and Anand do the talking and then discuss from there.

In general threads like this in AMD and Intel forums start out with: Found this article....

Then proceeds to head downhill from there.

What I hate though is when someone posts an obviously biased article (Intel people do it too so I am not choosing sides. I own both platforms so don't shoot the messenger), and then wonder why it degenerates into a trolled out thread.

The same thing happens at Notebookforums with Alienware and Dell people. There was a huge to do when the XPS2 was first released. Much trolling in both forums with many bannings that day let me tell ya...
 
Tutelary said:
I'm not saying its useless or we will never need it, but the widest majority of the market simply does not need it NOW.
Click to expand...
this is true, but as a general rule of thumb, the hardware always comes first, then the software is written for it. sad fact of life, the number of cores are probably gonna stay one step ahead of what everyone really needs, aside from the select few who really do take full advantage of multi core tech.. :(
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
i never go in the intel forum anymore, so i guess i wouldn't know. whatever. this kind of behavior is getting bad enough that i'm seriously considering leaving [H] for good. nobody can play nice anymore, and very few people seem to really be helpful and push the performance limits of their rig. amd is full of trash talk, intel is apparently full of trash talk. oc'ing is just a bunch of people asking "are my temps ok?"
i miss the hardcore days of old.

/rant
Click to expand...
QFT. This is what happens when kids under 18 are allowed in forums. Sorry but it is a fact. Very few f4nboys amongst us oldfolk...
 
visaris said:
Thread craps are against the rules on this forum. You're posts should be deleted by the mods, and you should be warned.

The information is valued and relevant for users like myself who already own quad-core (dual dual-core) systems. If the information is not important to you, skip over the thread and do not post here. Your trolling lowers the overall value of the forum, and is an insult to the thread creator who has no other wish than to provide the AMD community with information and news.

For the Intel trolls, eclipse is quite right:

(cf)Eclipse and I have left the Intel forum alone for a long, long time. We would appreciate it if the respect we give you was reciprocated.
Click to expand...

I don't appreciate being called a troll for having an honest discussion and making points that YOU JUST DONT LIKE. You can cram it into tight little dark places. You're separating people into "camps" by company, which is completely stupid. I am running an X2 3800 right now, which rather blows your stupid little theory out of the water, now doesnt it? You're the only person trolling.
 
Pyromaneyakk said:
I can see 2 discussions going here:

1. The merits of multi-core VS single-core
2. AMD vs Intel

I'm not going to touch #2, personally I tend to go with whoever has the best price : performance ratio.

As for #1, I think the benefits of multi-core are becoming more clear every day. The first time I saw a huge benefit with dual-core was on Quake 4. When I got Quake 4 I had a Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8GHz) and a Radeon X800XL. In multiplayer with my preferred settings, I'd get around 25-40 FPS. The game was heavily CPU limited. I upgraded to the 3800+ X2 (which I still have) and got a very small boost but not much, due to the 200MHz increase in core speed. When the 1.2 Q4 patch with multi-threading came out, I installed it and enabled multi-threading. HUGE difference. My framerate went from 25-40 FPS to a pretty steady 50-60FPS (now limited by video card, though my 7900GT changed that).

Most newer applications with multi-threading support don't make just 2 threads, but rather create many threads. Every thread a program makes means another core that it can utilize. If it spawns 8 threads, it can use 8 cores. I know Oblivion can take advantage of numerous threads, though it's very heavily limited by video card unless you have quad 7950's or somethig ridiculous like that.

EDIT: Also, even if a game doesn't explicity support multi-threading, there are still advantages to having multiple cores. For instance, the OS kernel and background processes can run on the less-utilized core. Also video drivers (nVidia, not sure about ATI) can perform some of their CPU-intenstive operations with multi-threading, which also gives a performance boost in some games.

I don't see how going for massive parallelism makes AMD inferior to Intel either as one user previously suggested. Both of them are shooting for quad core and i'm sure 8 and 16 core will come further down the road. The fact is that most applications don't simply do one thing, they do many different things simultaneously, and it makes perfect sense to split up the tasks across threads in order to really do them simultaneously instead of having to have each task wait for its turn on a single core.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I am referring too. I think many are underestimating software programmers. There's a myth going on that you can only write code for a specific number of cores. But what benefits from 2 cores should benenfit >2 cores as well. If it doesn't, then that lack of flexibility will make whatever software dated and obsolete very quickly.
 
operaman said:
What I hate though is when someone posts an obviously biased article and then wonder why it degenerates into a trolled out thread.
Click to expand...
The AMD forum is the place for articles that have a bit of an AMD bias. I think that AMD supporters should be able to post pro-AMD comments here without expecting to have their threads crapped on (not to mention thread crapping is supposed to be against the rules here; not to be mean, but we really need more and better mods).
 
Tutelary said:
I don't appreciate being called a troll for having an honest discussion and making points that YOU JUST DONT LIKE.
Click to expand...
You are crapping the thread. Read the rules; you just broke them. They are not my rules; take it up with a mod if you don't like them.

Tutelary said:
You can cram it into tight little dark places.
Click to expand...
How mature.

Tutelary said:
You're separating people into "camps" by company, which is completely stupid.
Click to expand...
I group people into two "camps": those who contribute positively to the thread they are posting in, and those who don't. You already know which group you fall into.

Tutelary said:
I am running an X2 3800 right now, which rather blows your stupid little theory out of the water, now doesn't it? You're the only person trolling.
Click to expand...
I run a dual PIII 500 and my wife owns an P4 laptop. I guess that somehow makes me an Intel fan :rolleyes: . Your argument is baseless. Further, I am defending dubby's thread from crapping. I would hardly call that trolling. This is his tread; just ask him if he thinks I'm a troll. I guarantee he will side with me.
 
visaris said:
You are crapping the thread. Read the rules; you just broke them. They are not my rules; take it up with a mod if you don't like them.


How mature.


I group people into two "camps": those who contribute positively to the thread they are posting in, and those who don't. You already know which group you fall into.


I run a dual PIII 500 and my wife owns an P4 laptop. I guess that somehow makes me an Intel fan :rolleyes: . Your argument is baseless. Further, I am defending dubby's thread from crapping. I would hardly call that trolling. This is his tread; just ask him if he thinks I'm a troll. I guarantee he will side with me.
Click to expand...


what alternate reality do you live in? this must be the Bizarro hardforum, where you arent allowed to express an opinion. Till you have "Mod" by your name get off my back. You are the ONLY person here to claim I was thread capping and "trolling". If Eclipse will come forth and say the SAME THING I will leave this thread, but I was having back and forth with him and others over the merits of those extra cores. I dont care which company they belong to.
 
CoW]8(0) said:
Yes, that's what I am referring too. I think many are underestimating software programmers. There's a myth going on that you can only write code for a specific number of cores. But what benefits from 2 cores should benefit >2 cores as well. If it doesn't, then that lack of flexibility will make whatever software dated and obsolete very quickly.
Click to expand...
QFT. There is usually a limit to the number of threads that can be beneficial for fine-grained algorithms, but this limit is typically well over 4 threads (at least for the applications I deal with) and can be raised by platform and architectural enhancements (NUMA, shared cache, etc).
 
Tutelary said:
only duals alleviated pre-existing problems in performance for the average person. Most average people at this point in time simply wont be able to keep 4 cores busy all the time. The software just isnt there yet.

And to the other people, sure I understand K8L is more architectural improvements than just dropping in cores, but that is the only thing I'm addressing at the moment.

I'm not saying its useless or we will never need it, but the widest majority of the market simply does not need it NOW.
Click to expand...

Which came first, chicken or the egg? Same thing applies here, software will NEVER BE made if the CPU's to utilize it aren't available. Sure 4 cores will be a challenge for most people to occupy for the time being, but eventually might prove usefull. Personally I could use 4 cores right now.

This has always been the case, and the "xxx is worthless now" is a strawman excuse thats commonly thrown around at times like these, I heard it back in the 8 bit days when 16 was revolutionary, then again before 32 bit came out, and of course when 64 arrived. People said it when dual cores were revolutionary, and now again with four cores. It's emotionally easier to cope with this if you accept that computers always have, and always will continue to evolve, when the stuff is new it may seem useless at the time, but a year down the road people wonder how they lived with those archaic predecessors :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top