AMD makes bold quad-core claims(ZDnet)

RandMcnally

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2006
347
0
18,780
0
Just thought here was a little interesting info in this article. Any thoughts?
Avoid flame wars please.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39285591-1,00.htm

wes
I like the way you put it better than Lordpope's thread, he was asking to get flamed.... :) ....

Two thoughts here --- Barcelona will likely be great in server but the desktop will not fair as well -- probably parity in desktop or very slightly behind. My take anyway.

Second, I would be a little skeptical to translate this to broad applications, the wordsmithing here is a bit ambiguous and, likely, purposefully vague.

Jack

I don't necessarily think that this should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, to make claims like, "This is going to be the biggest enhancement to the x86 architecture since we released Opteron. It will take the power-per-watt equation to levels people have never seen before." and then not perform to those standards is worse than not having a competitive product.
It seems like Barcelona was created for server, and if we get a cpu initially meant to make a horse of a server, then I cannot complain. I look forward to a Conroe killer, that would just be ironic, don't ya think? It would be like a cruel joke. I'm not a fanboy, I just think if amd stole back the crown after having it for 3 years and losing it for less than one, that would be funny in a nerdy sort of way.
And if it kills a Conroe and uses a max of 65w there's no stopping it. I look forward to it. Anyone else? Admittedly I am a bit biased because I have AMd products, but I also have Intel products, and I don't think one company is better than the other, but I kind of want Amd's solution to be a winner.
 

BaldEagle

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2004
652
0
18,980
0
"Customers don't care whether chips are monolithic or combine separate processors, Allen said, but they do care about performance. "We came to the conclusion that, given the capabilities and performance with the monolithic design, it was clearly the right answer," Allen said."

Jack,

The problem I see with the monolithic quad core is going to be the cost. The bigger you make the silicon the more it is going to cost. They will probably achieve the performance target "40%" "across a wide variety of workloads" but at what cost? The Intel quad core servers may still be the better value by then they will probably be into round one of price cuts. I didn't get anything from that on desktops though so how do you say the dekstop will not fair as well when they haven't given a solution for the desktops. I would have to believe they are working on a desktop solution to the Core2Duo's but I don't see it in this article.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0
turpit... your problem is you want the glory and the respect jack gets

but u lack his substance

dont shoot the messenger
LMAO.

I dont have his "substance", I never have and I never will. :roll:
You should go back and read aways. Search "turpit" and read how many times Ive made mistakes, how many times Ive posted "what a ($#@#@) I am" and " :oops: ", and how many times Ive had to say "sorry". While your doing that, you should also note that when the BS levels are low, I dont post much. So much for the glory theory.

But you should also read how many times Ive said I despise people who misrepresent the truth for their own purposes, and how I despise both the horde and the intelliots.

Sorry friend...your barking up the wrong tree, but very nice try. Go ahead and feel free to keep phishing.
 

everett

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2004
1,048
0
19,280
0
Please, do not carry rants from one thread to another, it hurt's.Plus it is disrespectful to the OP. What was disagreed on one thread should stay in that thread. :wink:
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
I'm beginning to wonder if Fusion isn't just a way for AMD to take IGP market share away from Intel. And that's it.

I seriously doubt that any iteration of Fusion will be able to compete with a video card from nVidia or (AMD's own) ATI. So if the aim isn't to outperform, what is the aim? Money? I must admit, I'm not sure what AMD's grand scheme is here. I can't see how combining a GPU and CPU will make anyone any more money.

For 90% of users, the IGP is good enough. Who exactly are they targeting?

Any input would be welcomed.
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
0
I did a quick scan but I wasn't going to waste time on it since I don't find this info to be all that informative. Even before Core 2 came to market, all the claims I didn't really listen to because the companies tend to exacerbate the claims. I feel the same way about this one, until I see actual benches I don't care what they say. I do find it interesting, but I wouldn't be willing to invest emotion or money on it.

wes
 

RandMcnally

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2006
347
0
18,780
0
I'm beginning to wonder if Fusion isn't just a way for AMD to take IGP market share away from Intel. And that's it.

I seriously doubt that any iteration of Fusion will be able to compete with a video card from nVidia or (AMD's own) ATI. So if the aim isn't to outperform, what is the aim? Money? I must admit, I'm not sure what AMD's grand scheme is here. I can't see how combining a GPU and CPU will make anyone any more money.

For 90% of users, the IGP is good enough. Who exactly are they targeting?

Any input would be welcomed.
No, I personally don't think ATI was acquired just for IGP or chipset .... Fusion has much more utility than just doing raw graphics, a well tuned GPU core is also a very efficient and parallel computations on simple FPU code..... if a GPU makes it into the CPU (and likely before) you will see generic non-graphics code running through the GPU at some point.

Also, the industry is heading toward this in some fashion I am convinced... it is just a matter of time. AMD has talked about it before fusion (modular, stamp it out designing), Intel has published papers about it, and IBM has built one and it is currently being used in the PS3 :) .... look for 'application' specific CPUs and less and less emphasis on general purpose CPUs. There will be multicore chips with cores and cores of video optimized cores for video encoding, multimedia, etc. or scores and scores of graphics oriented cores for 3D simulations, etc. etc. AMD is simply working to positioning themselves for the future --- Intel can afford and has the resources to build from within, on the timescale needed I don't think AMD had any other choice --- but honestly, I have not thought it completely through, the ATI acquisition was a bit of a surprise to me so my 'thought' process on this has really only just begun.... hence, my opinions are subject to change as more data comes in :) ....

Jack
Amds move to 64-bit looking us in the mirror, except a few years older?
 

Dahak

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
1,267
0
19,290
2
No flame war here,but I think we should start supporting AMD because if we don't,we're likely to see INTEL monopolizing the market.This is something that can not happen.If it does,the average enthusiast or even casual user,will either not be able to afford a new processor,or have to settle for a lowend cpu.I like being able to buy a mid-high end cpu.But if INTEL manages to monopolize the industry,that's exactly what will happen.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
0
Turpit and Pope,

CUT IT OUT. I didn't realize the other threads with the same link were in existence. If I had known, I would not have bothered with starting a new one. As Everret said, leave those arguements in that thread please, try not to ruin this one as some of the other memebers(who will remain unnamed, you guys know who I am talking about)always do. That's it, thought it was interesting info, wanted opinions, not wars.

Thanks
wes

Edit: also, I didn't notice the time zone on the article, I was thinking local time, not Zulu time. So, I thought it popped up not to long before I made the thread.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
I'm beginning to wonder if Fusion isn't just a way for AMD to take IGP market share away from Intel. And that's it.

I seriously doubt that any iteration of Fusion will be able to compete with a video card from nVidia or (AMD's own) ATI. So if the aim isn't to outperform, what is the aim? Money? I must admit, I'm not sure what AMD's grand scheme is here. I can't see how combining a GPU and CPU will make anyone any more money.

For 90% of users, the IGP is good enough. Who exactly are they targeting?

Any input would be welcomed.
No, I personally don't think ATI was acquired just for IGP or chipset .... Fusion has much more utility than just doing raw graphics, a well tuned GPU core is also a very efficient and parallel computations on simple FPU code..... if a GPU makes it into the CPU (and likely before) you will see generic non-graphics code running through the GPU at some point.

Also, the industry is heading toward this in some fashion I am convinced... it is just a matter of time. AMD has talked about it before fusion (modular, stamp it out designing), Intel has published papers about it, and IBM has built one and it is currently being used in the PS3 :) .... look for 'application' specific CPUs and less and less emphasis on general purpose CPUs. There will be multicore chips with cores and cores of video optimized cores for video encoding, multimedia, etc. or scores and scores of graphics oriented cores for 3D simulations, etc. etc. AMD is simply working to positioning themselves for the future --- Intel can afford and has the resources to build from within, on the timescale needed I don't think AMD had any other choice --- but honestly, I have not thought it completely through, the ATI acquisition was a bit of a surprise to me so my 'thought' process on this has really only just begun.... hence, my opinions are subject to change as more data comes in :) ....

Jack

Ahhh.... see now I get it. I misunderstood what Fusion was all about. And yep, it makes sense now that you explain it.
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
0
Jack,

What if the socket was designed with an extra female pin, and for those cpu's that didn't need it, just don't put the pin. So, what IF they had the socket to fit it in, are you saying it still would run correctly(sub par performance). Not saying I disagree, just curious about this subject.

wes
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
0
I understand what you are saying. I wonder though, why couldn't the on die IMC be used just like the IMC on the mobo which intel uses? Nm, I think I just answered my own question. Each additional core has to be hard linked to it, so, you can't just paste another dual core on without having the additional pins for the additional IMC to communicate with the memory. Well, that sucks for AMD. While, the monolithic design might have advantages, it definately has it disadvantages. So, the only way would be to have multiple sockets(confusion, mobo makers would hate it) or, have a one size fits all type of deal with a ton of pins which the low end cpu's wouldn't even use. This would drive the cost of the board up, and those who want to build low end machines would hate it. The IMC is putting them in a bit of a pickle.

wes

Edit: The IMC would have to be designed to be modular, so, I don't think it would be possible to make it part of the core if it were modular(using modular to describe plugging extra cores into it like Intel). If it were part of the core, then every core would have this modular IMC. It doesn't sound like it is possible without having a massive socket. Otherwise, if they were using the same pins, one core would have to supply the other core with the desired data, or, it would swap back and forth or slave like you said.
 

Rripperr

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2006
91
0
18,630
0
No flame war here,but I think we should start supporting AMD because if we don't,we're likely to see INTEL monopolizing the market.This is something that can not happen.If it does,the average enthusiast or even casual user,will either not be able to afford a new processor,or have to settle for a lowend cpu.I like being able to buy a mid-high end cpu.But if INTEL manages to monopolize the industry,that's exactly what will happen.
Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed to rewarding producers for superior products with superior pricing. In other words, if Intel doesn't make money for having a clearly superior product and extremely competetive pricing (from a consumers viewpoint), they will stop innovating, because it costs a lot of R&D time and money to design a 500-600 million transistor CPU. And conversely, if AMD is rewarded for having an inferior product, what incentive will they have to improve either? The capitlistic system, such as it is, is supposed to reward those who offer the best products and features at the best price points.

Right now, Intel has the better product and pricing in the mid to high end CPU market. AMD is clearly the leader in the low end. If AMD really wants more of the mid-to-high end CPU market, then they need to either come out with a clearly better product with compareable pricing, or offer what products they do have at a more advantagous price point.

As I see it, there are no compelling evidence to sway me toward buying an AMD CPU right now, unless you're already invested in an AM2 system.
 

a-nano-moose

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2007
111
0
18,690
1
Couldn't AMD disable the dual channel mode of each IMC and just run each
one in single channel with out the major hit of slaving one core to the other?
True we would be back to the pre dimm days when 32 pin simms had to be
installed in pairs.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY