Can AMD Survive Another Core 2 Duo?

[DXRick]

THG does not even help those that want to advance from the newbie/idiot state! The CPU charts don't include the latest CPUs or the latest games.

 

[jamesl]

intel e2180 and e7200 rape anything AMD has
intel is the best bang for the buck

 

[mac2j]

I like AMD... but I'm worried for the company.

They need to accelerate their production schedule and their R&D validation turn-around times.

They need money to do that.

BUT their cash poor and no one is about to loan them another billion dollars.

So they're stuck with releasing Shanghai for desktops in Q4 .... which would have been a very competitive product against Penryn if they could have afforded to make a summer 2008 release ... but will gen trounced by Nehalem which will be faster clock for clock and debut at a higher max clock.

I really wish IBM would buy AMD and get back into the microprocessor market - would be the best outcome for everyone.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]jamesl[/nom]intel e2180 and e7200 rape anything AMD has intel is the best bang for the buck[/citation]

Get a Intel G35 board and try watch Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-ray with it. If you spend carefully, you can get an AMD Athlon (64) X2 with some mATX motherboard (GeForce 8200 or 780G) for just about the price of single E7200.

CPU wise, Intel has the upper hand for now. Platform wise, it really depends on what you want it to do with it. For work, I want the biggest and most powerful Intel machine for numerical modeling, and the most trusted and stable machine for instrument control. At home, I just need an internet/download/TV-PVR/home-office/not-so-hard-core-gaming/video-playback machine as cheap as possible. That's why I went for AMD to find a solution a few months ago. And you can't believe how incredibly cheap I got it from eBay and Newegg open box/clear out sale.

 

[jaragon13]

[citation][nom]Faithful[/nom]I have heard that Toms Hardware has become very biased. It looks it might true. I do agree that AMD has seriously dropped the ball, but this article is very biased against and negative towards AMD. I do believe AMD is going to struggle against Nehalem. Shangai does however give serious competition against Penryn. The reason Dirk Meyer said that they will be 6 month ahead, is because Intel's 45nm was only realy comercially available since a couple of months ago because of "delays."AMD has struggled to commit to their launch dates. If however they can come through with Shangai they could be only 6 months behind Intel. Shangai runs on current motherboards and the core is still basically Barcelona. That should mean that the processor would actually be available in retail. Lots of speculation, but I'm just trying to see what Dirk might mean.Lets give dues where they are deserved. Intel has made a wonderful comeback with Core2. AMD has a wonderful platform. Intel's G45 can't even render HD videos and the graphics are pathetic compared to the competition. How can this be unimportant? I do think you still need convincing! Many of my customers are less and less worried about the CPU's performance. I still customers who overspend on CPU's and underspend on the rest.[/citation]
.............And,then you got the pro-AMD articles which are supposedly biased against Intel. Give me a fucking break you twats.

 

[kellytm3]

Next time terms are up for AMD's X86 license(that Intel sold them)should be canceled.I bought an Intel Q9550(E0 stepping)saturday.Sure it cost $85 more than AMD's 9950 Black Edition,but the much larger cache,and ocing potential,not to mention consumes alot less power,justifies the extra cost.I dont hate AMD,Ive always used Intel cpu's(even when they were inferior).I stick with Intel out of"brand loyalty".

 

[traviso]

If there is any biased towards Intel, it's because Intel's Core 2 Duo has been better than anything AMD is offering, and that gap of better continues to widen. Everytime AMD is about to come up with a C2D killer, it's never as good and Intel comes out with something even better than AMD.

Nehalem/Shanghai only continue what Intel and AMD have been doing for a couple years now. At best, Shanghai might compete with Penryn, but by Intel's successor to Penryn will come out BEFORE AMD's cpu, AMD is always trying to compete with Intel's past generation CPU.

Have you ever thought that it's not that we're biased against AMD, it's simply that their CPUs can't compare to Intel anymore.

PS: For the past 7yrs I've ran an AMD cpu, even purchased a laptop in late 2007 that's AMD and I wasn't impressed at all. I'm now a proud Core 2 Duo e8400 user, there's no comparison.

 

[Claimintru]

AMD cries they did it first, when Intel did it better. What do you think consumers care about? Stfu and make a product with an amazing cost/performance ratio that will make people with an iota of technical knowledge refer others to your merchandise.

 

[genored]

[citation][nom]chaohsiangchen[/nom]That's just for now. Though from what I've heard, G45 still doesn't perform on 3D, NVIDIA's GeForce 9300 is coming (though still in the process of coming). I would really like to see what's AMD's response to E5200+GeForce9300. Unless they can get some cheap 45nm tri-core to pair with 790GX mATX boards, they would lose the big money during holiday season.This is just AMD's trash talk before a major Intel event. Much like the kind of trash talk we see too often on WWE shows before Wrestlemania. In spite of these trash talk, they should really be working hard to come up a solution to replace their now obsolete dual cores and not-very-impressive tri-cores. Even aging E4300 with lower clock speed still beats 4850e by a large margin in certain applications.When it comes to heavy multi-threaded/shared-memory application with need for large memory access (at least twice the size of L2 cache), AMD X2 scales much better than Intel C2D. It is just that desktop operations are so not that way.[/citation]


Plz show me a test where a e4300 beats a 4850e. Also don't forget that a e4300 is more expensive. Also 780G performed better then nvida IGP.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]genored[/nom]Plz show me a test where a e4300 beats a 4850e. Also don't forget that a e4300 is more expensive. Also 780G performed better then nvida IGP.[/citation]

I know somebody's gonna ask me about this. I have hard evidence to show you just that. However, the kind of application is very specific and do not apply to all arena of applications.

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=173165

It is based on FFTW library and the test is doing FFT and IFFT many times. It is mostly double floating point calculation and favors Intel's advantage in SIMD.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=173165

Link to evidence.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

Link tool doesn't work?

img361.imageshack.us/img361/1596/fftwcputestha2.png

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]genored[/nom]Plz show me a test where a e4300 beats a 4850e. Also don't forget that a e4300 is more expensive. Also 780G performed better then nvida IGP.[/citation]

I also do not think 780G perform "better" than NVIDIA GeForce 8200. The only thing it certainly is better is 3D gaming. Otherwise both perform roughly the same. 8200 is on 80nm prcess, and it already consumes less energy than 780G (55nm). Architecturally, 8200 is way more advanced than 780G, which still consists of northbridge/southbridge. 8200/8300 is one MCP deals them all. Now NVIDIA got shaft by AMD with this ACC stuff you can find on SB750, but it doesn't matter for HTPC.

Also, for some reason, ATI driver doesn't like TV-tuner from other company (quote Anandtech). I might need to take down my 3870 and use 8200 mGPU to investigate the problem.

 

[bydesign]

Sorry it's actually funny listening to you AMD Fanboys try to defend the product line. Unless you need a 4-way processor server it's an Intel show. Even in 4-way Intel is competitive. I would also tell you that 4-way servers are a small portion of what sold.

On to the desktops the price difference between Intel and AMD is negligible in business class machines. Companies are moving away from desktops and moving to virtual and thin client environments, this is bad for both camps in that regard.

On to home users, the least profitable segment AMD has a good price/performance ratio. High-end uses need not look at AMD as the have nothing to offer them. That's right a couple months ago they release the 48xx series. After two years of sub par cards. They did knock this one out of the park though and that's all they can hang their hats on.

Most importantly look at the future, Intel has the up coming i7 and AMD has,,, words. This isn't bias unless that is what you call reading what you don't like as biased. This report seemed pretty kind to AMD.

 

[Guest]

Many folks here just don't get it. It's not about who's copying whom... it's not about who has a more elegant design - it's about delivering the tech at the time the market needs it.

64bit? Yeah it was future-proof, but if you bought it when introduced, you probably never saw 64bit with that chip (and if you are, you are running DDR1 with limited RAM with a near obsolete set of peripheral parts). Good idea... bad market timing. There was no demand/64bit infrastructure, with exception of a couple of niches.

IMC/HT? Again very good design but... needed anywhere outside of the MP server world? What made athlon good was the core and IPC efficiency - most people confuse/forget this and assume HT/IMC was responsible for the single socket gains. With Nehalem, again Intel is showing a better sense of market timing - not only will it be competitive in MP space, but also with IGP integration, potential for assymetric core designs - this appears to be the right time to get this done and debugged.

"Native" quad core? Again nice idea- TERRIBLE for manufacturing. Hard for bin splits (see Phenom power/speed problems), likely worse for yields, bad for manufacturing costs. Anyone care to ask why there was no K10 dual cores on 65nm? Intel's "glued" approach allows a much easier adjustment between dual/quad core mix; allows bin matching (possibly) and simplifies manufacturing in the wafer fabs. Oh and in 1P applications (>95% of the market), it probably really has no significant downside and allowed Intel to get to market >1 year ahead of AMD. Perhaps Intel should distribute "quad core for dummies and people who want to make money" booklets this time around?

AMD needs to do a better job on market analysis - it's not just about the best design or what is THEORETICALLY better. It's also about when it is needed and when is the market ready. As long as AMD defines themselves through Intel (as setting up across the street from Intel IDF does), they will never be AMD, the computer chip manufacturer and graphics provider; they will be that small company that competes against Intel.

 

[neonvii]

here is how the story goes in our galaxy...

The Intel Empire has filled the market with darkness for a long time with its Pentiums...
Then comes "A New Hope" in form of Athlon 64,we all were happy for a while...
Then "The Empire Strikes Back" in the form of Core2Duo, which was a great blow...
Now we all know how the story should end..."Return of The Jedi" which in our galaxy happens to be AMD...

I mean if great gaming performance at a low price is not the Light Side of the Force then i dont know what is!!

if it werent for AMD keeping intel on it's tows in the form of fair and productive competion, we'd all be still using P4 today and moving at intel's pace. so everyone should wish good luck to AMD and hopefully the they'll have another great product that will bring "a blance to the force" as they say.

 

[faithful]

Interesting new news: IBM and AMD has successfully manufactures on 22nm. This could make a huge difference.

Concerning 64 bit: It was a bit of an marketing incentive on the desktop side, but AMD's real reason for going that way was because of the servers. Servers need memory and lots of it. Intel wanted to convert the world to Itanium. AMD changed all that, now even Intel's own Xeons are competition to the Itanium. Intel followed AMD because the server market accepted AMD's 64 bit. Intel was forced to comply or dy in the server market. It was not just "a couple of niches." The server market is where money is made big time.

AMD pushed it on the desktop as well so that it would become a standard. The reason the early systems did not go over to 64bit was Intel's monopoly. They held back as long as possible (right marketing decision). The reason that we even have a Vista 32 bit is again Intel's fault. The main reason lies behind Core Duo not having 64 bit. If Intel had gone with 64 bit earlier, we would have had the benefits for longer, well in an ideal word anyway.

AMD has a bigger brother, IBM. IBM is most probably AMD's saving grace and most probably will keep on being that. AMD will not die just yet. The bully on the block might someday again get a bloody nose, maybe even soon.

 

[croc]

[citation][nom]D_Kuhn[/nom]I've been a fairly loyal AMD customer... the Opteron architecture was simply a better MP design than anything Intel had... until Nehalem. Can't say I blame Intel for basically copying the AMD Architecture... which was really a DEC Architecture (anyone else remember the Alpha?) that AMD got by buying the company (good move). These days I've been buying Core Duo most of the time, tough to beat the price/performance at the mid-upper range price points.[/citation]

Uhh, Compaq bought most of DEC, including the Alpha processor unit. They then on-sold the Alpha bits to Intel.

 

[faithful]

One of the main engineers came over from DEC to AMD. He was main brain behind the Atlon using EV6.

 

[jj463rd]

AMD-Wake up.Please put out a Dual CPU Deneb system.It would most likely have more performance than any single CPU Nehalem system,cost less than the 3.2 Ghz or 2.93Ghz Ghz Core i7 and hordes of people will buy such a system over a single Core i7 system.
I've heard Intel most likely will be coming out themselves with a Dual CPU Core i7 system too.

If a dual CPU AMD Deneb (Phenom FX) system outperforms a 3.2 Ghz or 2.93 Ghz Intel Core i7 for less money which system would you buy ?

 

[faithful]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]AMD-Wake up.Please put out a Dual CPU Deneb system.It would most likely have more performance than any single CPU Nehalem system,cost less than the 3.2 Ghz or 2.93Ghz Ghz Core i7 and hordes of people will buy such a system over a single Core i7 system.I've heard Intel most likely will be coming out themselves with a Dual CPU Core i7 system too.If a dual CPU AMD Deneb (Phenom FX) system outperforms a 3.2 Ghz or 2.93 Ghz Intel Core i7 for less money which system would you buy ?[/citation]


I do like AMD, but the problem with a dual socket system is power requirements. Most boards are also E-ATX, which require bigger cases. Dual socket will also need socket 1207 in stead of AM2+. It might even need EC Reg memory. I think this is a bit too much speculation. But you might be right, even though Intel said Nehalem would be afordable, I think it will be very pricey.

 

[Guest]

It's simply ridiculous to call people who buy Intel's processors idiots.
I've been an AMD user for years and since about 3 years ago, all i had was problems, crashes, blue screens, ystem instability and really low performance in an expensive ATI (256 mb ) card. I've bought an Intel , at the end of last year and I never looked back. Paid £700 for a Q6600, 8gb ram, 500 hdd and 512 mb GT8800 and the performance is simply stellar. Amd and Ati is a losing combination right now. You want to be left in the dark ages in terms of simple usability ? Go buy an AMD and an ATI card and don't come complaining when you can't run 3d stuff because the idiots released graphics drivers without 3d support. Check the AMD forums to see what happens there. The lab performance and price means crap , if you can't run anything and that's what you get with AMD , Ati ...