Dissappointing Year So Far for AMD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
i know that intel has produced bigger processors, but for a company to produce such a large core that will form pretty much 75%+ of its shipments is pretty amazing, these are mass market processors, and coming from such a small company....

and, I checked, I cant find any of the 8xx series chips that were monolithic designs.... what specific 8xx chip, or what specific core codename was monolothic? All the ones that I found were MCM, but that cant be right since you were pretty adamant about being angry because of Intel taking crap for them... so im not doubting you, just curious
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
and, I checked, I cant find any of the 8xx series chips that were monolithic designs.... what specific 8xx chip, or what specific core codename was monolothic? All the ones that I found were MCM, but that cant be right since you were pretty adamant about being angry because of Intel taking crap for them... so im not doubting you, just curious

Then you didn't look hard. Even the Wikipedia page mentions it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_D
All Smithfield processor were made of two 90 nm Prescott cores on a single die with 1 MiB of Level 2 (L2) cache per core.

In short, 8x0 was 90 nm and single-die, 9x0 was 65 nm and MCM.

If you don't believe them, X-Bit labs says the same: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dual-core_7.html
Since Intel simply has no time (or maybe no desire) to develop the new architecture, which would be better fit for the dual-core processors, Smithfield solution will be based on two Prescott cores manufactured with 90nm production technology. Smithfield will actually consist of two independent Prescott cores combined on a single silicon die.

This review of the Presler revisits the Smithfield monolithic core and compares it to the new MCM technology in the 9x0 series: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/presler_5.html
Note also the fact that this cuts production costs:
One of Presler’s major advantages should become its new production scheme, which will allow Intel to significantly reduce the production cost of these processors. Unlike Smithfield based on a solid core, Presler will be built from two independent processor dies, which will be combined only on the packaging stage.

For those who still don't believe that MCM is infact cheaper.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,964
i know that intel has produced bigger processors, but for a company to produce such a large core that will form pretty much 75%+ of its shipments is pretty amazing, these are mass market processors, and coming from such a small company....

and, I checked, I cant find any of the 8xx series chips that were monolithic designs.... what specific 8xx chip, or what specific core codename was monolothic? All the ones that I found were MCM, but that cant be right since you were pretty adamant about being angry because of Intel taking crap for them... so im not doubting you, just curious
"All Smithfield processor were made of two 90 nm Prescott cores on a single die with 1 MiB of Level 2 (L2) cache per core. Hyper-threading was disabled in all Pentium D 8xx-series Smithfields but was enabled in the Pentium Extreme Edition 840. Smithfield did not support VT—Intel's virtualization technology formerly called Vanderpool."

Didn't the 8xx Pentium Ds use the FSB for communication from core to core?

scalli beat me to it :p
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
wierd, why did intel revert to an MCM for the 9xx series?

Because it's cheaper!
Heck, they're still doing MCM on 45 nm, even though they could probably do monolithic quadcores even on their 65 nm process, since AMD does it aswell.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
I was talking about Intel cutting prices so quadcores would also become sub-$200 parts, and THEN tricores will be hard to sell.
They have their place NOW, but they aren't available NOW, and by the time they are, Intel may have even cheaper quadcores on offer. 45 nm will most probably mean pricecuts. Perhaps also lower clocks than 2.4 GHz, since Intel now sees that AMD can't even reach those.

Seeing as the cheapest Core 2 Duo is still $130 (when the C2D was released the cheapest was $183 - so after 18 months and a revision or two the price has only dropped $50), it would seem to me that Intel has no desire to slash prices to put the hurt on AMD. If anything, I would bet that Intel *won't* lower prices because they know that AMD can't compete with them on performance. Intel also knows that they don't have to compete on price because they already dominate the market - and the craptacular Prescott that still out-sold AMD's faster, cheaper, and cooler A64 is further evidence to that.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,964
Because it's cheaper!
Heck, they're still doing MCM on 45 nm, even though they could probably do monolithic quadcores even on their 65 nm process, since AMD does it aswell.


Well MCM makes sense in Intels platforms, the MC is not on die, and has to connect via FSB, with a high fsb of 1066-1600mhz now, a single connection to the mem controller is sufficient (for quad/dual cores) but AMD has the MC On the cpu die, so it also makes sense for them to have all the cpu cores on a single die wouldn't it?

I mean if they are connecting to the Memcontroller individually, and its on the die, wouldn't they need more mem controllers if they were to go MCM?
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Well MCM makes sense in Intels platforms, the MC is not on die, and has to connect via FSB, with a high fsb of 1066-1600mhz now, a single connection to the mem controller is sufficient (for quad/dual cores) but AMD has the MC On the cpu die, so it also makes sense for them to have all the cpu cores on a single die wouldn't it?

I mean if they are connecting to the Memcontroller individually, and its on the die, wouldn't they need more mem controllers if they were to go MCM?

We'll see how AMD solves it, since they have announced that they will apply MCM in the future.
One possible implementation could be that they use one die with the crossbar switch and MC, then have a few dies with cores, and connect them to the crossbar with the HT link on the chip. Since you never leave the package, you can use wider and/or faster links.
 

APOLLO

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - March 2009
Joined
Sep 17, 2000
Messages
9,089
Well MCM makes sense in Intels platforms, the MC is not on die, and has to connect via FSB, with a high fsb of 1066-1600mhz now, a single connection to the mem controller is sufficient (for quad/dual cores) but AMD has the MC On the cpu die, so it also makes sense for them to have all the cpu cores on a single die wouldn't it?

I mean if they are connecting to the Memcontroller individually, and its on the die, wouldn't they need more mem controllers if they were to go MCM?
They already implemented a bifurcated MC in Barcelona yet chose to proceed with a monolithic architecture for their first quad-core.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
3,954
Seeing as how this thread has degraded to a fanboy lovefest... Fanboys linking to fanboys.... It's kind of a dirty rotten shame really.....


You are,really,that far gone arent you ! :eek:


well, even though it might not have been the best option strategically, you have to give AMD credit for simply being able to release a monolithic quad core like that.... i mean the die is huge! that really is an achievement in itself... and it amazes me that such a small company with limited manufacturing is able to make quads that are monolithic

despite it's performance, the K10s really are a marvel of engineering


On paper yes,in the real world,so far it seems to be R600 all over again.Looks like the second coming *on paper* but in the flesh,no where near.


K10 ( late 07 65nm ) is 286mm^2 and 463m transistors.
Let's compare that with :
Madison 6M ( mid 03 130nm ) is 374mm^2 and 410m transistors.
Madison 9M ( mid 04 130nm ) is 432mm^2 and 592m transistors.
Montecito ( mid 06 90nm) is 596 mm^2 and 1720m transistors.
Tulsa (mid 06 65nm ) is 435mm^2 and 1300m transistors.

Tukwilla ( late 08 65nm ) will be >650mm^2 and over 2B transistors.

These are achievements wrt to manufacturing prowess.It must be noted though that K10 has the highest logic to cache share among those cpus.



A bit sorrow feat isn't it ?

OT:

The above,IMHO,and other examples put the lie to those that say GPU's will top out at 1 billion transistors per chip.I have long maintained we will see GPU's over that and then some in the years to come.

I can see (at the high end) Nvidia (G120 ?) and Intel (Larabees' 2nd gen refresh) shipping GPU's with 1.5, 2 ,or maybe even 3 billion transiistors in 4 or 5+ years time.Once we get down to 32nm,20nm and below.It will soon become common,to see low end gpu's with 500+ million transistors,in fact we are almost there now.

Take a look at RV630 (a budget part , 390+ million !! :D )
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Seeing as the cheapest Core 2 Duo is still $130 (when the C2D was released the cheapest was $183 - so after 18 months and a revision or two the price has only dropped $50),
The cheapest Allendale (Core 2 Duo) is the E2140 for around $70. It doesn't use the Core 2 name, but that's just a technicality. :p
----

Too bad Barcelona is the extreme version, L3 cache and all. Does anyone honestly think mainstream K10 dual core CPUs are even going to be 1/2 as competitive? I don't.

Edit: Manny, please no more overclockers.com. Please! :p
 

APOLLO

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - March 2009
Joined
Sep 17, 2000
Messages
9,089
Edit: Manny, please no more overclockers.com. Please! :p
I have to concur here.

Manny, your posts are very informative and you link to numerous relevant sites and pages that contribute considerably to thread discussions, but the vast majority of Stroligo's rhetoric is simply too slanted (even when his pseudo-doctrinal assessments are correct) to lend credibility to any discussion in the [H] fora.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,578
Oh dear, actual numbers! From reputable sources! (eg AMD itself)
I wonder how duby will brush those off :)

The same way he always does.

Seeing as how this thread has degraded to a fanboy lovefest... Fanboys linking to fanboys.... It's kind of a dirty rotten shame really.....

You are like a football fan that has one team they like. The team sucks, and has sucked for a long time, but you swear every year that this will be the year they go to the Superbowl.

It's really sad. :rolleyes:
 

Mr. Bluntman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
6,730
Scali2 said:
Oh dear, actual numbers! From reputable sources! (eg AMD itself)
I wonder how duby will brush those off
The same way he always does.

Duby229 said:
Seeing as how this thread has degraded to a fanboy lovefest... Fanboys linking to fanboys.... It's kind of a dirty rotten shame really.....
You are like a football fan that has one team they like. The team sucks, and has sucked for a long time, but you swear every year that this will be the year they go to the Superbowl.

It's really sad. :rolleyes:

Like my roommate only liking the Detroit Lions? XD

For the past three games he's said they'd win, when I called it correctly every time. Sometimes you can sneak in a win, but more often than not when faced with an insurmountable defence (yields, pricing) and an unmatched offense (process tech, clock speeds, IPC) you will get your ass handed to you on a golden platter. That don't mean that I'm not optimistic and am hoping for the best. I am. At the same time, I'm preparing for the worst, and at this point I don't really see AMD pulling through, unless the B3 stepping, R700, and 45nm Shanghai parts are a slam dunk.

I for one hope that AMD will make a comeback, but at the same time I realistically think unless AMD can hang in there for the next 18 months (which I think is unlikely at this point) and deliver on Bulldozer, I don't see that happening. I hate to say it, but the end may very well be nigh.

However, IF IBM or possibly Samsung swallows them up, that can only be a good thing and means big trouble for Intel. Big Blue, where are you? :D
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
3,954
The cheapest Allendale (Core 2 Duo) is the E2140 for around $70. It doesn't use the Core 2 name, but that's just a technicality. :p
----

Too bad Barcelona is the extreme version, L3 cache and all. Does anyone honestly think mainstream K10 dual core CPUs are even going to be 1/2 as competitive? I don't.

Edit: Manny, please no more overclockers.com. Please! :p

I have to concur here.

Manny, your posts are very informative and you link to numerous relevant sites and pages that contribute considerably to thread discussions, but the vast majority of Stroligo's rhetoric is simply too slanted (even when his pseudo-doctrinal assessments are correct) to lend credibility to any discussion in the [H] fora.

The same way he always does.



You are like a football fan that has one team they like. The team sucks, and has sucked for a long time, but you swear every year that this will be the year they go to the Superbowl.

It's really sad. :rolleyes:

Good analogy



Ahh commonnnnnnn :D I been good ! I havent linked to Ed in ages,and this time (like most IMHO) he's kinda right.Hell even duby would have to agree with what Ed had to say today. :eek: No,seriously !!

Tool around the various AMD stalwart forums on the net,and you'll soon see long time
fans,screaming for blood ! Been to B3D lately ?

Take a look at the 'Poll' on overclockers.com's AMD forum asking "who'll buy in".


Ok,I'll try,try..... to refrain from linking him. :p
 

APOLLO

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - March 2009
Joined
Sep 17, 2000
Messages
9,089
It is becoming clearer that AMD is in need of a strong financial partner to go on in this race. Preferrably one with complimentary business areas, e.g. Samsung (RAM, HDDs, CD/DVD, monitors++). With all PC components under one umbrella that could become a powerhouse.
However, IF IBM or possibly Samsung swallows them up, that can only be a good thing and means big trouble for Intel. Big Blue, where are you? :D
I posted a few times in the last couple of months about a possible buyout. It's highly speculative of course, but I guess it doesn't hurt to revisit it. Here's a few things I wrote that may or may no longer apply in today's post Phenom launch era:

I'm still mulling it over whether this would be a good or bad outcome, though. The ATI acquisition has been a mixed bag, who knows what will emerge with a Samsung (or other buyer) acquired AMD. Anything can come of it. I much prefer AMD being able to fight its own fights, even if the only recourse would mean adopting a fabless business model.

There have been recent rumors of Samsung taking charge. They have expressed interest in entering the CPU market in the past, and that had Intel concerned from what I remember reading. They're active in many technology markets and would prove a logical move if management decided to press forward with an AMD acquisition. Better, even than IBM purchasing AMD, which is what I wanted for years until I heard this rumor.

This read might prove interesting: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/07/23/2805900.htm

There are a lot of concerns from the Koreans about this potential buy-out due to failed foreign acquisitions of the past, and there are other serious concerns such as labor management, not to mention a cultural divide. However, if this acquisition is done correctly and gradually (not the way the AMD/ATI merger progressed) with only an initial but substantial infusion of capital from Samsung, then it could be feasible. Both companies would benefit,
and so would every consumer.

The possibility of a corporation like Samsung acquiring AMD presents a few problems, not the least of which are political. I harbor some doubt the US government would permit such an acquisition, simply for the fact that it might pose a strategic compromise in the long run. An AMD acquisition would not be as bad as say, a hypothetical buy-out of Intel or IBM, but AMD likely possesses sufficient key technologies that would raise some concern in Washington, and understandably so.

Then there's the more mundane question of whether or not Samsung or anyone else FTM would maintain AMD's current stratified roadmap combination of high-end, mid-range and value products. We simply don't know. What if Samsung purchased AMD and the executives decided the high performance parts were too inefficient from a design to final production perspective, and they opted instead for a 'value only' approach for their new processor division to stay financially competitive? What then??
 

Mr. Bluntman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
6,730
I remember that post, Apollo. Definately raises some big questions on the issues of culture-shock alone if Samsung decided to take the Nestea plunge...

Like I said, AMD's fate is solely resting on it's ability to execute (or the lack therof). I'd hate for it to be a one horse race again. If I have to pay over $500 dollars for a decent gaming CPU from Intel, they can go ahead and shove it up their ass, and I'll go get a PS3 or an XBox 360 instead. Computers are expensive enough (for me) as it is.

Like many others and even myself have said before - AMD needs to pull through to keep prices down and the pace of the advancement of technology in the market on track.

Now the burning question is if AMD will survive long enough to get back in the game, and if not, is anyone going to gobble the remains up and fight Intel, or do an nVidia (ala 3dfx and ULi style)?
 

Killa_2327

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
3,238
The same way he always does.



You are like a football fan that has one team they like. The team sucks, and has sucked for a long time, but you swear every year that this will be the year they go to the Superbowl.

It's really sad. :rolleyes:

Hey...I'm a Raider fan. :mad::D

I wonder if we'll need new mobos for the Phenom's or if a simple Bios flash will do the trick.
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Except instead of discussing the technology, you all choose to make ill-informed opinions about me. You guys that contribute to the personal attacks on me should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Like I said earlier come this time next year, I'll be very interested to revisit this thread and see who was closer to the mark, and I'll bet it'll be me.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
LOL

Time heals all very late and broken launches. Yeah, next year is going to be very interesting in the face of the Nehalem launch and excuses why 45nm K10s aren't out. :p

If you really think you're right most of the time, it's really a sad shame. The truth is you're wrong about almost everything you post and people laugh at it.
-----

Phenom might have turned up at Fry's: http://latimes.p2ionline.com/shoppi...13187563&type=cat&area=ROP&adid=1820586&pop=1 $299 for a Phenom 9500 + RX780 motherboard. Too bad I got the Q6600 + motherboard combo for $199 already yesterday because I might have been tempted to try the broken B2 at the usual $270 for the Q6600 combo vs $299 for the Phenom combo. The Phenom overclockability is probably terrible anyways. AMD hand picked the Phenom samples sent to reviewers and I wish reviews would have been done with retail product since launch was so close.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
Except instead of discussing the technology, you all choose to make ill-informed opinions about me. You guys that contribute to the personal attacks on me should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Like I said earlier come this time next year, I'll be very interested to revisit this thread and see who was closer to the mark, and I'll bet it'll be me.

Ummm. I told you from a technology perspective what was wrong with your assumptions. Your answer was that I must be paid to write this stuff. I answered that is paranoid delusion and ducking the facts. It is both.

Time won't change the facts of today.

Process/Defects Facts:

1: As a process matures defect rate drops. This is a fact.
2: Intel started producing 65nm processor much sooner than AMD, so it's process is more mature.
3: Therefore Intel has a lower production cost.

Multi-Chip packaging Facts:

1: It allows matching of high speed bin parts to make very fast quads. AMD is stuck with whatever quads emerge, with much lower chances that all 4 chips clock high, so high clocking quads will be rare in comparison.
2: Intel can run the exact same line to build quads and duals, thus getting better economy of scale on both.
3: Building two half size cores improves yield rate again over one big quad core.

Basically Native quads offer nothing. AMD went native because they had no choice with an integrated memory controller. Intel had a choice with FSB, so the they stayed MCM where there are significant advantages.

The Current state of the chips.

IPC:
The real issue that tends to get overshadowed by this slow launch speed debacle is that Phenom did not catch Conroe on IPC. This is dire because Penryn further moves the old goal post with AMD did not catch. Intels SSE4 gives them another nice boost in encoding apps as well.
Clock speed:
First we have a glitch that means AMDs fastest Quads is slower than intels Slowest. This is a disaster.
Even ignoring the Glitch Intel has that it's technology clocks up easily and the only thing keeping them from releasing ever faster parts is a total lack of competition.
AMD has gone from the lead to almost back at K5-K6 days.

Into the Murk, what the future holds:


Near term (next 6 months) AMD is in trouble. Intel will be unleashing a world of hurt with fast small die Penryns. The will be a die size, clock speed and IPC advantage over AMD. AMD will have to accept low ASP to move parts and continue to bleed red.

After that it gets very murky, it will be Bulldozer vs Nehalem. Which on paper sound very similar. But I think you have to give Intel the edge. They have already demoed Nehalem, they have already transitioned to an apparently very healthy 45nm process.

I would say AMD CPU line is mired deeply in second place for the foreseeable future.

Ati the savior of AMD?


Now despite all the claims of this being a bad idea, I think AMD needed ATI to complete the platform, it was the right thing to do, it was just bad timing to join a war on two fronts, and find itself losing on both fronts. On to the speculation because facts are sparse:

R700
Rumor, small die, in 45nm, AMD gives up on monolithic and goes MCM ;) I will be pay close attention to see how this is executed. If this multi-die graphics does away with the overhead and driver grief of crossfire and does the load sharing efficiently at the hardware level ATI may have something here. But there are a boatload of ifs here.

We also know nothing of NVidias plan, they released 8800 a Looonnnnggg time ago, they must be building something interesting.

The integrated platform:

These small R700 cores on an individual basis might also provide the basis for ATI's integrated platform. Now imagine a not too expensive integrated platform that delivers R670 performance levels, that would be sweet and a competetive advantage for AMD. No one else can match the competetive graphics/CPU pacakage for quite some time. For me this represents the real potential savior of AMD and they did what had to be done. Now it is all down to how the execution falls out. AMD has to deliver a whole that is greater than the sum of it's otherwise second place parts.

That is my analysis for the day (unpaid analysis Duby :D )
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
After that it gets very murky, it will be Bulldozer vs Nehalem. Which on paper sound very similar. But I think you have to give Intel the edge. They have already demoed Nehalem, they have already transitioned to an apparently very healthy 45nm process.

I would say that AMD's Barcelona is technically closer to Bulldozer than Penryn is to Nehalem, if you know what I mean.
The HT-links and integrated memory controller are an important aspect of the overall multi-CPU architecture, and improve performance significantly.
AMD has already played that trump card. Intel has been holding back on that for now.
AMD is left with a short period of time in which they can try to tweak their core architecture for more IPC and clockspeed, whereas Intel already has higher IPC and clockspeed.
Worst case scenario for Nehalem would be that it's nothing but a Penryn in terms of IPC and clockspeed, but with the added advantages of quickpath and integrated memory controller. This already sounds like a good competitor for a slightly polished Barcelona.
Truth is however, Intel has been working on the Nehalem architecture since the release of Conroe, perhaps even sooner (Penryn is little more than a die-shrink of Conroe, Intel didn't waste a lot of resources there on the core architecture.. even so they managed to improve IPC by a few percent overall). So Intel probably has a few tricks up its sleeve there.

AMD simply doesn't have the time and resources to come up with something that can stop Intel, not in less than a year. They don't have a good core architecture now, they don't have good production technology now, and worst of all: they aren't making good profits now.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
AMD simply doesn't have the time and resources to come up with something that can stop Intel, not in less than a year. They don't have a good core architecture now, they don't have good production technology now, and worst of all: they aren't making good profits now.

I certainly agree and give the edge to Nehalem, but these are highly speculative matters. And I wouldn't say AMD doesn't have good core architecture, it is just that they don't have leading core architecture anymore. But I agree things look grim on the CPU side with AMD behind in core IPC, process and profit (which follows).

AMD needs platform/graphics to succeed.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
And I wouldn't say AMD doesn't have good core architecture, it is just that they don't have leading core architecture anymore.

Well, when there are only two competitors, there's not much of a gray area between good and bad.
Thing is, AMD needs a *better* core architecture than Intel, because they are behind on manufacturing.
This is why the Athlon and Athlon64 were successful. An architecture that is 'almost as good' as Intels means they're losing hard. Not only manufacturing, but also on architecture.
K10 was a year later than Conroe/Kentsfield, and should have been better, not 'almost as good'. AMD can't recover from this, because they won't ever catch Intel on manufacturing.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Boy is that statement going to come and bite you in the ass later. Ooooooooohhh goodie.. I cant wait for it. :D:D:D:D

Well you're the expert on statements biting you in the ass later :)

Currently AMD is still struggling with 65 nm, while Intels 45 nm is already doing well. By the time AMD gets 45 nm on the market, Intels 45 nm will be very mature already... Not very likely that AMD will beat Intel there.
So when exactly will AMD beat Intel on manufacturing? 32 nm? Heck, at this point I wouldn't even assume that AMD will survive that long. They might, but it certainly isn't guaranteed at this point.
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Well you're the expert on statements biting you in the ass later :)

Currently AMD is still struggling with 65 nm, while Intels 45 nm is already doing well. By the time AMD gets 45 nm on the market, Intels 45 nm will be very mature already... Not very likely that AMD will beat Intel there.
So when exactly will AMD beat Intel on manufacturing? 32 nm? Heck, at this point I wouldn't even assume that AMD will survive that long. They might, but it certainly isn't guaranteed at this point.

Boy you just keep diggin that hole deeper dont you?

If you took the time to read what I wrote throughout this thread, you'll know exactly what I think.

1: Barcelona is a stop-gap.
2: AMD bought ATi, for it's R600 architecture.
3: Some future gen chip will incorporate a lot of ATi's IP in the CPU pipeline.
4: Once this happens AMD will finally have a replacement for the --original-- K10.
5: Ruiz kicked Intels ass for how many years.
6: Becouse of that Meyer is going to have a more powerful company when he takes over.
7: Meyers big contributions will be in manufacturing.

That pretty much sums it up. Theres more of course, those are pretty much just the talking points.
 

Atech

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
3,946
Well you're the expert on statements biting you in the ass later

Yup, I even linked to a post where Dubious229 hinted that the Phenom would beat C2D, but he soon forgot that and keept trolling along.
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Yup, I even linked to a post where Dubious229 hinted that the Phenom would beat C2D, but he soon forgot that and keept trolling along.

Bullshit. All I said was dont let Intel rape you. Which by the way is very good advice... If you dont want it, then pull your panties down and bend over.

Wwho's the troll? This is the AMD forum, if you dont like it then move on to your side. You clearly dont belong here.
 

Atech

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
3,946
Bullshit. All I said was dont let Intel rape you. Which by the way is very good advice... If you dont want it, then pull your panties down and bend over.

Wwho's the troll? This is the AMD forum, if you dont like it then move on to your side. You clearly dont belong here.

You mention Intel yourself, and point the finger at me? :rolleyes:
Hell, even Dan thinks you are a fanboi...did that come out of the thin air?

/ignore
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
You mention Intel yourself, and point the finger at me? :rolleyes:
Hell, even Dan thinks you are a fanboi...did that come out of the thin air?

/ignore

Except that he recognizes that he too is a fanboy.... And that's your problem. I know damn wel;l that AMD needs to get there shit on the ball, that they are indeed behind on manufacturing, and that K10 is not performing up to par. But you see I'm an optimist, and a fan of the company.

And so you know what I do? I stay on this side of the forum... You on the other hand dont recognize what you are, and come over here to bad mouth me, becouse you dont like AMD? Tell me how that makes any sense?

Some people....... I tell ya.......
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Boy you just keep diggin that hole deeper dont you?

If you took the time to read what I wrote throughout this thread, you'll know exactly what I think.

1: Barcelona is a stop-gap.
2: AMD bought ATi, for it's R600 architecture.
3: Some future gen chip will incorporate a lot of ATi's IP in the CPU pipeline.
4: Once this happens AMD will finally have a replacement for the --original-- K10.
5: Ruiz kicked Intels ass for how many years.
6: Becouse of that Meyer is going to have a more powerful company when he takes over.
7: Meyers big contributions will be in manufacturing.

That pretty much sums it up. Theres more of course, those are pretty much just the talking points.

Haha, that is pretty damn far-fetched.
Because Meyer takes over, AMD is suddenly going to rule at manufacturing?
They'll just leap over Intel right away?
What monsense. Nobody has ever beat Intel at manufacturing. Not even a giant like IBM, and certainly not Digital.
But all AMD needs is Dirk Meyer to save the day!
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Haha, that is pretty damn far-fetched.
Because Meyer takes over, AMD is suddenly going to rule at manufacturing?
They'll just leap over Intel right away?
What monsense. Nobody has ever beat Intel at manufacturing. Not even a giant like IBM, and certainly not Digital.
But all AMD needs is Dirk Meyer to save the day!

I clearly didnt say that, but lets face it, AMD is behind right now and I think given Meyers past history he is in a unique position to help AMD catch up. In many ways AMD already has a better fabrication process then Intel, but in many others they are way behind. And I think that will be Meyers big contributions to the company in helping it catch up with Intel.

Sanders big contribution was building value. Hectors was building market share. Meyers will be manufacturing.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
I clearly didnt say that, but lets face it, AMD is behind right now and I think given Meyers past history he is in a unique position to help AMD catch up. In many ways AMD already has a better fabrication process then Intel, but in many others they are way behind. And I think that will be Meyers big contributions to the company in helping it catch up with Intel.

Erm, sure they're going to try to catch up.
The thing I don't agree with is you preaching that it's inevitable that they are going to catch up, nay beat Intel in manufacturing, in the near future at that!
AMD is far too small and in far too much debt to even dream of catching up with Intel in the next 5 years or so. They tried to reduce the gap from 18 to 12 months this time with 65 nm, and look at that, not only is their K10 6 months late (making any theoretical gain null and void), but it's not even a good, mature product at this time. They'll likely need another 3 to 6 months to get it to the maturity that Intel had right at the launch of Core2.
Did they try to catch up? Yes.
Did they succeed? No, if anything they're further now than they were a few years ago. The only way to catch up is to cut corners and develop a new architecture while your new production process isn't mature yet. This is a huge risk, because you'll end up having to fix too many things at a time, often not even knowing whether the cause is design or manufacturing.
I think AMD learnt its lesson, and won't attempt to try this again.
 

ittech

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
86
I'm a huge AMD fan since the athlon-athlon64 and used their stuff before too when it made sense.

However, I bought a C2D 2.2 laptop (M1210) 6 months ago or so because AMD had nothing even close in the laptop market.

Now I'm about to snag a new high end gaming machine to replace the trusty oc'd 4400+ x2.

It will definetly be an intel, just because they are on top again and will likely be for at least a year. I need a new system soon, not year +. I'm quite excited and happy about the c2d platform especially in January.


AMD just came up short, but they had no choice... Even if they could best penryn by working the chip and delaying another year, what is going to keep AMD afloat for that year with nothing to compete with intel?

At least they can compete on price, fanbois, and OEM deals long enough to rev another chip. Plus if ATI division hits the next supercard first and faster than what nv has up their sleeves that could help a lot as well.

Long term I'm very interested in dual socket boards with a AMD quad core and then a dual GPU on CPU socket system for stream processing/physics.

But right now, nothing too exciting from that camp.


Oh, and one more note, I noticed that the AMD OC utility let you have seperate clocks for each core. That is likely because of the poor binning of getting 4/4 high performers.

Maybe that will let you hit say 3.2 on two of the cores with the others at 2.5 or shut to minimum or something without crashing the whole box. So this still could have some performance applications for enthusiasts who can't spend a lot of money on their rig and don't mind taking the risk of trying to best similar intel chip OC with an AMD chip OC.

I'm not taking that risk though.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
And so you know what I do? I stay on this side of the forum... You on the other hand dont recognize what you are, and come over here to bad mouth me, becouse you dont like AMD? Tell me how that makes any sense?

Some people....... I tell ya.......

Just because this is an AMD subforum doesn't mean only AMD fanbois for life lol!!!! can post here, nor does it mean everything posted must be in praise of AMD and predict amazing things to come from them. Get real, and please stop telling people to get out of the AMD section because you don't like what they are saying.

Some people....... I tell ya.......

//back on topic
I myself will likely be purchasing a Phenom in the not to distant future for a very simple reason - it is the cheapest way to get a quad core for me, and [H]ard has already shown that quad cores benefit Supreme Commander greatly. Since I already have an excellent AM2 board, it would cost way more than $3 or whatever to switch to a Q6600 - money that I would rather spend towards, say, a 3870 or 8800GT (which from what I've seen would be about the cost of an enthusiast Intel motherboard to replace the Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Wireless board that I have). So it is a simple decision for me: Phenom - I get huge improvement in graphics and a solid improvement in CPU whereas Q6600: Huge improvement in CPU (I would overclock it) and zero improvement in graphics (except in games that I am CPU bound on - namely, Supreme Commander).
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Just because this is an AMD subforum doesn't mean only AMD fanbois for life lol!!!! can post here, nor does it mean everything posted must be in praise of AMD and predict amazing things to come from them. Get real, and please stop telling people to get out of the AMD section because you don't like what they are saying.

Some people....... I tell ya.......

Nor does it give you the right to patronize me becouse of the choices I make. If you arent willing to discuss the technology,and bash those who are, then your trolling and should leave. Just like everyone was taught from a young age, if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all.

On the other hand if your willing to discuss the pitfalls, and drawbacks of the technology, that's one thing, but "AMD sucks and your stupid" has no place here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top