AMD: 6-Core Istanbul Available in June

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
AMD throwing more cores at it is a perfectly logical solution. Core i7 is a bloated architecture, they had to add way too many transistors to it just to eek out a few more instruction per clock. Hyperthreading requires huge amounts of transistors, and only gives a neglible(if any) increase in performance.

What are the die-size and # of tranistors for a 6-core Opteron and Quad i7? What if AMD brings the dual-chip 8 and 12-core to market much sooner than expected? Intel may not have an answer to that one in the server arena...
 
Though they may not have the performance crown, AMD is heading in the right direction to reclaim it. 6 cores operating in the same wattage? I wish everything could be that efficient.

I still remember when they announced the first processor that ran at 1GHZ...it seems so long ago.
 
you all are idiots! just because Intel is big and AMD is getting screwed, you morons are bashing Intel.

You all would hate AMD if they are big and Intel is small.

Sure, AMD once cameup with new architecture and had a good run for a short awhile! Thats it. They couldn't repeat it. that says all about them!

 
Intel, what a freakin' douche! They can preach micro architecture all they want, but to many it just adds added expense for a minimal gain. This is why I chose a phenom II over an I7. What Intel fails to realize is that what made the core 2 duo so popular was that it gave users more performance at a comparible cost to AMD's chips. This is what made AMD so appealing in the athlon 64 era. The I7's are great at encoding video and running professional programs, but the majority of users don't need it. Most just want to play a game or watch a movie. You don't need triple channel DDR3 or an I7 for that. Also the Phenom 2 are holding their own in gaming as well. With the money saved, one could afford a sli or crossfire option or go for a really high end graphics card. That is practical, that is what the consumer wants. Intel is starting to sound like Apple more and more.
 
...no slick...its the point that while no one likes a sore looser, a sore winner by many is considered worse. When a competitor is CLEARLY in the lead it cheapens themselves and feelings towards the market in general when they flaunt it.

When AMD was kicking the bejesus out of Intel at no point do I recall them making comments like the one intel just did.

I use both companies parts on my systems. Core2 has been a great value platform for a while now. I7 is still waaaay over priced for my tastes. Each company has attractive offerings in general though for a mainstream user.
 
Actually, AMD has had the lead more than once. If you recall back when the Pentium was first introduced, AMDs 80486 processors were not only faster but also didn't have the Pentium's bugs.

If Intel had the market to itself, would we be running Itaniums now? Or would Intel even have seen the need to bring out faster / better desktop processors? Competition with IBM and Sun may have driven server processor improvements but may not have had an impact on the desktops.

The race for the fastest consumer processor has been good for the general public. And while I admit that Intel are frequently in the lead, I buy mainly AMD to ensure that the race continues.
 
Man, just reading some garbage like that makes me seriously sick. It actually makes me wanna take my Q6600 and motherboard and smash it. Seriously. AMD has seemed to always play a fair game even when they were wiping the floor with Intel. You didn't see them talk trash like THAT. CMON INTEL, throw me a friggin bone here. You don't like a little competition? They beat you to the punch with your 6 core chip... soooo WHAT.


LOL wut?

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/28775/135/
 
Hahaha, exactly jkflipflop98, AMD does the same thing. Both companies have sniped at each other for years. What about the whole "AMD was first to hit 1Ghz d00d!" crap? Of course Intel would have done the same type of press release if they had gotten their first. Why you fanboy dumba$$es have to act like it is such as insult to your beloved AMD is completely idiotic. They put out press releases referencing each other's products ALL THE TIME. Are you kids in like high school or something? And NEITHER of them were the first to make a multicore processor, so who cares anyways? Sun had an 8 core processor back in 2005 iirc, so there.

You fanboys are the real douchbags, I mean seriously, you buy amd to help keep the competition going? No, you buy AMD because they are cheaper. i7 is bloated, most people only want to play games and watch movies? Oh gee, well why don't you buy a dvd player and used Gamecube or something then?

If you knew your history of the two companies you would realize that Intel got screwed in arbitration, hence why they hate AMD. Regardless of what competition it has fostered, AMD basically stole the rights to continue manufacturing the x86.
 
[citation][nom]Centurion[/nom]Blah blah blah, I hate anyone that sees things differently than me, Blah blah blah, I feel special now, Blah blah blah, douche bag, blah blah, idiot, blah.[/citation]
 
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]I just don't understand 6 cores. It is not a logical step from 4 cores.[/citation]


Why not? Maybe they simply could not fit 8 AMD cores onto a single die, or the power consumption was too high...There are tonnes of potential reasons why they chose 6 over 8.
 
[citation][nom]thundercleese[/nom]Intel, Apple and Cayne West should go eat fishsticks together.[/citation]
:) good one. Made me laugh for a while.
 
As competitors fall behind in performance, you’ll see them throw more cores and more die size at their processors to keep up.
Click to expand...

Lulz. As if Intel hasn't been doing this with HT. At least AMD has the guts to offer REAL cores, not some virtualized one.

This takes up valuable processor real estate and fab capacity.
Click to expand...

And AMD is the one that increased its overall processor size when they went from Athlon X2 to Phenom and now Phenom II right?

Right.

Instead we see the processor enlarged during transition from 775 to 1336.

The key is not I/O, integrated memory controllers, or any one peripheral feature.
Click to expand...

Because Intel copied AMD's integrated memory controller and Athlon's wide (read: not narrow like NetBurst's) pipeline architecture. Very mature, Intel.

The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."
Click to expand...

Of course, if you copy ideas from the once-industry leader in 2005, then you're bound to have a good architecture (read: CORE 2). Throw in some integrated memory controllers and EM64T and you got a clone of what Athlon was (read: CORE i7!!). Just with 45nm and a faster clockspeed, and "virtualized" cores.

Bottom line. AMD beat Intel in the first monolithic dual-core, and first monolithic quad-core, and perhaps now even the first monolithic hexa- or octa-core procssor. Intel is afraid.

And uh. Before Intel fanboys start. I have a E7200 clocked at 3.72GHz. There are no AMD parts on my computer. Just so you know.
 
Intel is and pretty much has been a silver spoon fed little brat

All they do is bash AMD any chance they get, and most of the rhetoric that spews from their mouths is propaganda

I have a few Intel comps, and personally I just hate them as a corporation. Since the dawn of the K7, AMD has pushed the envelope of CPUs more so than Intel. Intel gives us marketing and their BS comments like what was said above. Like "Netburst" and "hyper threading" all of which dont amount to jack o'la

While if it wasnt for the AMD64, Intel would probably be rehashing a Pent IV pile of crap with more marketing features.

I REFUSE TO BUY INTEL whenever possible, to me Intel is dead, call me a fanboy, but supporting Intel the high anti-competitive company and every time AMD takes a hit, it hurts us the consumers.

Ask yourself if Intel was the only company around do you honestly believe they'd push the envelope, like they have?

Ask yourself would AMD? Yes, I believe they would, albeit at a slightly slower pace

Intel reminds me of those arrogant obnoxious Frat boys with expensive cars and little pricks, bitching and whining like my ex-wife

 
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Lulz. As if Intel hasn't been doing this with HT. At least AMD has the guts to offer REAL cores, not some virtualized one.And AMD is the one that increased its overall processor size when they went from Athlon X2 to Phenom and now Phenom II right?Right.Instead we see the processor enlarged during transition from 775 to 1336.Because Intel copied AMD's integrated memory controller and Athlon's wide (read: not narrow like NetBurst's) pipeline architecture. Very mature, Intel.Of course, if you copy ideas from the once-industry leader in 2005, then you're bound to have a good architecture (read: CORE 2). Throw in some integrated memory controllers and EM64T and you got a clone of what Athlon was (read: CORE i7!!). Just with 45nm and a faster clockspeed, and "virtualized" cores.Bottom line. AMD beat Intel in the first monolithic dual-core, and first monolithic quad-core, and perhaps now even the first monolithic hexa- or octa-core procssor. Intel is afraid.And uh. Before Intel fanboys start. I have a E7200 clocked at 3.72GHz. There are no AMD parts on my computer. Just so you know.[/citation]


you are absolutely right
 
So this is a server processor more .... anyone know of plans to release a version for desktops? or what about a server board that works wouth ecc memory, and supports 2x pcie x16 v2?
 
hyperthreading has to be the biggest hoax and failed gimmick of the last ten years.
the very reason that the i series of intel chips is fast is that they copy amds design with a memory controller,
next the heat issue isnt even funny, the phenom 2's run waaaaay cooler even at high overclock than intels chips do, i consider this one aspect of being better designed.

and about intel slaggin the new processor, lets do some simple math, since intel just copies everyone else design and im not sure really knows much at all. if 4 cores use 100w thats 25 watts per core, if six cores are using 100 watts thats 20 watts per core, 5 from 25 is a 20% increase in power efficiency,

next amd is looking like they are going to wait for the jump to quad channel ddr3 which is about a thousand times more practical.

i say bottom line intel processors are synthetic benchmark queens and in real world performance just dont perform to the hype, yeah they work, yep they are nice, but all people should use thier brain.

they are just pissed that amd was the first company to get the first 1ghz gpu, 64bit cpu and true dual core cpu, the latter two have been argueable the biggest funamental advancements in cpu technology in the last decade. amd rocks, and intel is weaksauce,
 
oh hey i heard last night that intel was merging with disney, appearently they are incorperating magic! in thier next processor. . . . . i expect sales to skyrocket!
 
I wonder why INTEL LOST 4% of the Market. Anyhow I think AMD has a good future with lots of emphasis on Virtualization technology. By the end of the year they will also have more Cores per chip way before intel. Intel uses threads to speed up processes but programers are not conforming to this as fast as they would like. A good example is SunMicro Systems UltraSparc T2. This had 128 threads but no one had the time to program code for each thread. Also more CPU's per chip is great beacause the processes will run at full speed using each ALU at it's fullest capacity. AMD also seems to care more about efficiency than INTEL and also provides them at lower prices. Intel is a good company but their comment sucks and they are probably jealous that no one (very few people) can afford their EXTREME PRICES.
 
This is possibly turning into a similar architecture battle like with ATI vs. Nvidia cards. ATI = 800 stream processors vs Nvidias 280(or whatever), ATI cores are smaller and less complicated, the ATI card actually has fewer transistors and a smaller die size, it's not an inferior architecture, just a different design philosophy. If AMD squeezes more cores on a similar die size, and equals or outperforms Intel, does that make the architecture inferior because it has more cores? All semiconductor manufactures alternate between "bloated" and "lean" designs, there's nothing wrong with AMD's current products or strategy.
 
[citation][nom]NightbladeXX[/nom]Intel is and pretty much has been a silver spoon fed little bratAll they do is bash AMD any chance they get, and most of the rhetoric that spews from their mouths is propaganda[/citation]
Have you ever heard of the term projection?
 
[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... why tha paranoia from intel? ... why they try to rule all? ... architecture or not, but the attitude stinks!!![/citation]

Pfft it's just marketing hype, and the statement does not go to demonstrate Intel's total thought process. Clearly, and Intel is as much a part of the philosophy and development as anyone, more cores=more power, and the limits of that haven't been explored. As multi-processor super-computers demonstrate pretty much the sky's the limit.

Intel is fully aware that AMD took microarchitecture to a superior place with the introduction of Athlon, and are quite capable of doing so again. Intel is on top now, but it is quite possible they will lose that, so Intel spokespeople want to downplay it as much as possible.

Go AMD!! Intel processors improve because of AMD competition, which is what capitalism is truly about.

Just think of where we could be if Apple (or anyone) would actually produce a competitive OS to Windows; it's a shame that Apple thinks all they can do is cater to fanboys and people dissatisfied with Microsoft.

😉
 
[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom][/citation]
Blah blah blah, I hate anyone that sees things differently than me, Blah blah blah, I feel special now, Blah blah blah, douche bag, blah blah, idiot, blah.
Click to expand...

Wow, good response. Can't come up with an intelligent reply I see. And kudos to the fanboys for the modding instead of replying. Sorry I broke your hearts with the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom