inquirer says K10 yields are better than expected

bleah if the yields were so good and the new process so smooth, they should have moved up the launch date.

I see no reason for them to hold back anything unnecessarily. The need money ASAP
 
not only that, but it seems like this information would be the last thing they would want intel to find out.
 
osalcido said:
bleah if the yields were so good and the new process so smooth, they should have moved up the launch date.

I see no reason for them to hold back anything unnecessarily. The need money ASAP
Click to expand...
Aren't they [inquirer] implying that AMD will move up the launch date when they said AMD was "sandbagging" their roadmaps?:confused:

E.g. AMD says their chips will only run at XX speed and at XX launch date, but they could actually be releasing them earlier and at higher speeds.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Aren't they [inquirer] implying that AMD will move up the launch date when they said AMD was "sandbagging" their roadmaps?:confused:
Click to expand...
No. The sandbagging refers to the launch frequencies. AMD roadmaps had projected up to 2.5 GHz. If Charlie's info is true, then AMD was expecting higher clocks but was conservative with their roadmaps.
 
shiznit said:
not only that, but it seems like this information would be the last thing they would want intel to find out.
Click to expand...

whats even worse, if this is not true, but the rumor is persistent enough, this might push intel to accelerate its penryn rollout (id love this myself though, but AMD would be in deep doo doo)


but damn, if this IS true, then i just picked the worst possible moment to switch to intel last weekend :eek: although im still curious about launch prices, somehow i doubt even the lowest clocked quad core (2.6 acc to the inq) would be able to compete on price/performance with a $266 intel Q6600
 
DrFreeze said:
but damn, if this IS true, then i just picked the worst possible moment to switch to intel last weekend :eek:
Click to expand...

Nah, I think it was a good choice no matter what comes... or doesn't come for that matter. All I can say is that it is about damn time AMD/ATI finally releases something other than press releases IMHO. I cannot remember having been that tired of product announcements ever before - and that includes the voodoo 6000 era :)
 
Well, it's the INQ:
mountain.jpg


I'd love to have AMD's yields be great, since then they'd have a better chance at being more competitive, however I do not put much faith in rumors. Until these chips are widely available, they really do not matter.
 
I said the same thing before when FUaD made his assertions in the past, and I'll say it again: it all comes out in the wash. Let's wait and see, since we really don't know what's really there, until it actually hits the market.


DrFreeze said:
but damn, if this IS true, then i just picked the worst possible moment to switch to intel last weekend :eek:
Click to expand...

Not really a bad choice. Intel's Core2 Duo is the best performing CPU out there for the x86 market, and is sold at a reasonable cost. It's not nearly as bad as the days, when Intel was charging people 600 dollars for a Pentium 90 CPU (when there were no other alternatives).

It's up to AMD to give a better bang / buck.
 
Unabomber said:
Not really a bad choice. Intel's Core2 Duo is the best performing CPU out there for the x86 market, and is sold at a reasonable cost. It's not nearly as bad as the days, when Intel was charging people 600 dollars for a Pentium 90 CPU (when there were no other alternatives).

It's up to AMD to give a better bang / buck.
Click to expand...

and besides, if i do end up swinging back to AMD itll only cost me a new mobo extra, allready have some kick ass DDR2 :D

it was more of a "wtf" response to be honest, i finally give in and get a C2D and then AMD looks poised for a comeback :p

but i think ill stick with intel for a while now, i got a e4300 to hold me over till cheap quads land in Q3 ($266 for a q6600 :D), and i doubt AMD can put out a quad cheap enough to compete with the q6600 (i kind of see a Pentium D Vs X2 all over again, and then intel comes and crashes the party with nehalem :eek: )
 
wizzackr said:
Nah, I think it was a good choice no matter what comes... or doesn't come for that matter. All I can say is that it is about damn time AMD/ATI finally releases something other than press releases IMHO. I cannot remember having been that tired of product announcements ever before - and that includes the voodoo 6000 era :)
Click to expand...

QMFT!
 
according to this, it's the B0 stepping that came out in April. You can't just cheer, party and release product, you still need time to stockpile them (i heard it takes like 13 weeks from start to finish for a wafer) and ship them out.

The Inq have been remarkably accurate with launch dates/remours regarding AMD - not perfect but enough to get some interesting reads. But we all have to wait and see!
 
Deliximus said:
according to this, it's the B0 stepping that came out in April. You can't just cheer, party and release product, you still need time to stockpile them (i heard it takes like 13 weeks from start to finish for a wafer) and ship them out.

The Inq have been remarkably accurate with launch dates/remours regarding AMD - not perfect but enough to get some interesting reads. But we all have to wait and see!
Click to expand...

As you approach the launch date things tend to get more accurate, not only on the CPU front but overall as well.
 
Deliximus said:
according to this, it's the B0 stepping that came out in April. You can't just cheer, party and release product, you still need time to stockpile them (i heard it takes like 13 weeks from start to finish for a wafer) and ship them out.

The Inq have been remarkably accurate with launch dates/remours regarding AMD - not perfect but enough to get some interesting reads. But we all have to wait and see!
Click to expand...

If it takes 13 weeks for a single wafer, there's something horribly wrong. They're making FETs and 7-8 layers of metal. That's it. FETs at full manufacturing speed should take at most 5 days. Each layer of metal .. depends how they're putting down the copper. Maybe 2 days a layer. CMP takes a while, though, you can't rush that.
 
zero_vertical said:
because benchmarks aren't a great representation of real world performance? :p
Click to expand...


that's the biggest cop out lame excuse i've ever read here... for years AMD people were pointing at benchmarks to claim Athlon64 superior to P4.
 
Benchmarks do point at real world performance. Just people have to be smart enough to consider how the performance of that specific piece is limited by the rest of the system. Anyway I would assume thats the excuse people use when trying to invalidate synthetic benchmarks.

Really makes no since to me since to me and seems more like a way to skew results but ohwell. Like when the P4 people said the A64s had no real advantage in games, and the A64 people said the C2D people had no real advantage in games. Then new video cards come out and the chip isn't bottlenecked anymore. The people who bought chips that "werent really any slower in real world" find themselves SOL.
 
mwarps said:
If it takes 13 weeks for a single wafer, there's something horribly wrong. They're making FETs and 7-8 layers of metal. That's it. FETs at full manufacturing speed should take at most 5 days. Each layer of metal .. depends how they're putting down the copper. Maybe 2 days a layer. CMP takes a while, though, you can't rush that.
Click to expand...

if there's any confusion, 13 weeks is a number i heard, but it's somewhere 2 months+ for a cpu to manufacturered from start to ship.
 
osalcido said:
that's the biggest cop out lame excuse i've ever read here... for years AMD people were pointing at benchmarks to claim Athlon64 superior to P4.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only i don't care about AMD or Intel. I only care about my computer. Whoever makes the best parts for it at the best prices wins.

And as for cop out lame excuses, I think the people that jump through hoops for an extra "point" on their benchmark score have an issue with self esteem. :) Most of that crap makes no difference in real world, standard computing. My "obselete" socket 939 dual core plays any game out there, and multitasks as good as any C2D. For the extra energy it consumes, (that whole $1 / month?) i'm not going to jump and upgrade. So while benchmarks make my 4800+ look like a piece of garbage compared to a e6400, in real life, it does just a good job (and i've built and used both, and can attest to that)

Enjoy your f@nb0y sandwich! :p

zv
 
Did I accidentally stumble into the Intel forum?

Something just aint right in here..... hmmmm.....
 
osalcido said:
that's the biggest cop out lame excuse i've ever read here... for years AMD people were pointing at benchmarks to claim Athlon64 superior to P4.
Click to expand...

measuring the number of A's in a name is a benchmark. we all know from school that more A's = better

thus amd wins ;)
 
zero_vertical said:
Yeah, only i don't care about AMD or Intel. I only care about my computer. Whoever makes the best parts for it at the best prices wins.

And as for cop out lame excuses, I think the people that jump through hoops for an extra "point" on their benchmark score have an issue with self esteem. :) Most of that crap makes no difference in real world, standard computing. My "obselete" socket 939 dual core plays any game out there, and multitasks as good as any C2D. For the extra energy it consumes, (that whole $1 / month?) i'm not going to jump and upgrade. So while benchmarks make my 4800+ look like a piece of garbage compared to a e6400, in real life, it does just a good job (and i've built and used both, and can attest to that)

Enjoy your f@nb0y sandwich! :p

zv
Click to expand...

And if the benchmark is a real world benchmark, does that machine still not show any real world advantage to yours? It does not logically compute to say that in the real world your 4800+ performs as well as an e6400 even though the e6400 wins in real world benchmarks. What you mean to say is that under your workload, it doesn't make a difference. I think its popularity among enthusiasts indicate that some people do care about or need that extra performance. I have owned both an X2 and C2D and I find the C2D faster for my usage.

There is no "f@nb0y" sandwich to be eaten, simply performance vs cost. If you cannot recognize the validity of certain benchmarks to represent real world usage patterns then that's your problem. There are people that find those benchmarks valuable. That does not make them a "f@nb0y."

Enjoy your d3lus10n sandwich! :p
 
zero_vertical said:
Yeah, only i don't care about AMD or Intel. I only care about my computer. Whoever makes the best parts for it at the best prices wins.

And as for cop out lame excuses, I think the people that jump through hoops for an extra "point" on their benchmark score have an issue with self esteem. :) Most of that crap makes no difference in real world, standard computing. My "obselete" socket 939 dual core plays any game out there, and multitasks as good as any C2D. For the extra energy it consumes, (that whole $1 / month?) i'm not going to jump and upgrade. So while benchmarks make my 4800+ look like a piece of garbage compared to a e6400, in real life, it does just a good job (and i've built and used both, and can attest to that)

Enjoy your f@nb0y sandwich! :p

zv
Click to expand...

You are right. In current applications the 4800 is almost as fast. But if you are buying a new chip and only thinking about current applications you are probably one of those rich fan people you were talking about. The rest of us have to consider how it will perform in the future and synthetic benchmarks *can (good ones) show how much potential a part has.

Example, you cant tell if a Geforce 8800gtx is better than a Geforce 4 playing original warcraft. But you would be able to in 3dmark01.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
measuring the number of A's in a name is a benchmark. we all know from school that more A's = better

thus amd wins ;)
Click to expand...

well hopefully those barcelona predictions are right or even underexaggerated... if not AMD will soon be FMD
 
BigDH01 said:
And if the benchmark is a real world benchmark, does that machine still not show any real world advantage to yours? It does not logically compute to say that in the real world your 4800+ performs as well as an e6400 even though the e6400 wins in real world benchmarks. What you mean to say is that under your workload, it doesn't make a difference. I think its popularity among enthusiasts indicate that some people do care about or need that extra performance. I have owned both an X2 and C2D and I find the C2D faster for my usage.

There is no "f@nb0y" sandwich to be eaten, simply performance vs cost. If you cannot recognize the validity of certain benchmarks to represent real world usage patterns then that's your problem. There are people that find those benchmarks valuable. That does not make them a "f@nb0y."

Enjoy your d3lus10n sandwich! :p
Click to expand...

It is kind of sad to see the Jabs, Put downs, Lite Flames and trash talk aimed at Former AMD users. Not just with AMD, but with ANY company. You see, to a F@n, buying what's best makes NO SENSE at all. You're supposed to remain loyal no matter what. You stick with the home team even if they aren't the best. About 3 months before Conroe Launched, I predicted that it wouldn't change F@ns minds at all. I said they'd just stick with the 2nd best like nothing was wrong.

In the long-run, that "Buy it if it has the "Green Arrow" mentality, hurts innovation and Prices.
 
osalcido said:
well hopefully those barcelona predictions are right or even underexaggerated... if not AMD will soon be FMD
Click to expand...

All of us in the market hope their results are at least somewhat true! If they are absolutely True, then we as consumers are screwed anyway. AMD will not have to price match and we'll be back to X2 type launch prices where all but about one of the models will be priced out of most folks' budgets. Unlike some folks, I thought $425 for the 3800+ and $644 for a 4400+ was bullshit.
 
Donnie27 said:
Unlike some folks, I thought $425 for the 3800+ and $644 for a 4400+ was bullshit.
Click to expand...

you got that right. Another reason that brand loyalty is an exercise in stupidity. Don't think for one second that AMD is above charging as much as they can when they can. They are a business, just like Intel.
 
prtzlboy said:
you got that right. Another reason that brand loyalty is an exercise in stupidity. Don't think for one second that AMD is above charging as much as they can when they can. They are a business, just like Intel.
Click to expand...

Yup!
 
wizzackr said:
Nah, I think it was a good choice no matter what comes... or doesn't come for that matter. All I can say is that it is about damn time AMD/ATI finally releases something other than press releases IMHO. I cannot remember having been that tired of product announcements ever before - and that includes the voodoo 6000 era :)
Click to expand...

QFT. Show us the products or shut up about them, AMD. I'm interested to see how these new CPUs perform since I officially don't even care how R600 performs after the mountain of rumor and hype.

I'd love to toss a Quad core into my AM2 rig :D. I have a motherboard that is sitting there, idle with nothing to do but wait for a processor to put in it, and I'm not shy about migrating and food chaining to do it.
 
Donnie27 said:
All of us in the market hope their results are at least somewhat true! If they are absolutely True, then we as consumers are screwed anyway. AMD will not have to price match and we'll be back to X2 type launch prices where all but about one of the models will be priced out of most folks' budgets. Unlike some folks, I thought $425 for the 3800+ and $644 for a 4400+ was bullshit.
Click to expand...

Oh god I hope not. I know I won't be paying a 300% premium for an "as of yet unofficial" 40% increase in a canned benchmark. They can kiss my "I just bought a c2d ass" if they want to charge exorbitant prices again.
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
Oh god I hope not. I know I won't be paying a 300% premium for an "as of yet unofficial" 40% increase in a canned benchmark. They can kiss my "I just bought a c2d ass" if they want to charge exorbitant prices again.
Click to expand...

Look at the X2? At the time it launched AMD was only in the Red but only by 80 to 135 million. Now they've lost 580 and the 610 (rounded) million and have a lot more loans to payback. That have to raise the price some anyway. If it kicks ass, then it goes back to their saying "We sell our processors according to performance" as their one spokeswoman said.

I wasn't bitching about the Top one or two X2's but the higher price of the whole Line. The very sad part is that AMD only cleared about 130 million at the height of the X2's high prices. In other words even while X2 sold for those high assed prices, AMD couldn't profit more than 150 million.
 
thats because they didn't have a chipset business, where the real cheese comes from...
 
Donnie27 said:
Look at the X2? At the time it launched AMD was only in the Red but only by 80 to 135 million. Now they've lost 580 and the 610 (rounded) million and have a lot more loans to payback. That have to raise the price some anyway. If it kicks ass, then it goes back to their saying "We sell our processors according to performance" as their one spokeswoman said.
Click to expand...
AMD hasn't reduced Opteron prices yet despite the fact that their collective backsides are being handed over to them by Intel's Clovertown series. So, if they are even beginning to entertain the thought of introducing sky-high prices on their Barcelona products, they better outperform their Intel equivalents by a significantly wide margin.
 
shiznit said:
thats because they didn't have a chipset business, where the real cheese comes from...
Click to expand...

Which means they should have cleared more money. The simple fact they bought ATI when they weren't clearing a lot of money should have scared the folks putting up the money in the first place.

Conroe wasn't a surprise to anyone testing even the First Pentium-M. If we knew this, sure high paid folks Like JoAnn Freeny who said AMD's stock should be sold for $45 by the end of 2006 knew;)
 
Donnie27 said:
Which means they should have cleared more money. The simple fact they bought ATI when they weren't clearing a lot of money should have scared the folks putting up the money in the first place.

Conroe wasn't a surprise to anyone testing even the First Pentium-M. If we knew this, sure high paid folks Like JoAnn Freeny who said AMD's stock should be sold for $45 by the end of 2006 knew;)
Click to expand...
i agree with you on the ATI thing, but how were they supposed to clear more money by not having chipset business? i was under the impression that chipsets were intel's most profitable products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top