- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
My point was more simple than that... noone has shown anything. A lot of people expect 90nm A64 to finally reach 3.0Ghz - and I would be one of the first to enjoy seeing that! - but noone has shown that! You said "just shown", but we haven't seen any 3Ghz-clocked processor, even OCed.
I'd be absolutely and completely thrilled at a 3Ghz processor.... droooool.......
I'd be absolutely and completely thrilled at a 3Ghz processor.... droooool.......
the 3200+ is available as either a 2Ghz, 1Mb Cache part, or a 2.2Ghz, 512Kb Cache part. The 3400+ and 3700+ S754 chips are also 1Mb cache. As Endyen says, you clearly have no idea what you're waffling about.
They can, and they did... Why? Prescott's Performance desperately needed shoring up somehow.
Yes, Intel can put more cache on their chips, but the A64 Architecture means it doesn't really matter all that much...
They have a much greater production capacity, yes, but all that produce is simply sitting in warehouses. AMD is basically selling as fast as it can produce.
---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x11 (~2.2Ghz), 1.55 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro (VGA Silencer Rev3) @400/730
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
The problem with putting more cache is that A64 doesn't need that cache desperately. Its on-die memory controller already accesses the system memory at pathetically low latencies if compared to P4-like systems. So putting more cache into P4s is like hot-wiring more ultra-fast memory to make up for the lack of something better architecture-wise.
wolverinero79
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2001
- 1,125
- 0
- 19,280
2006 without WinFS. 2005 would be nice, but it's unlikely. They dropped WinFS to make 2005/2006.
I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
Erm... "WinFS"? I wasn't aware that they were changing file systems again. What are the advantages of the newest file system?...
i stand corrected on the 1mb cache issue. amd still could not go that route and remain competitive as intel has done with the prescotts.. so they better hope and pray for another way to increase performance becasue that route just wont work for them.
Why?
When you're the performance leader, why the hell do you need a way to increase performance? Unless Intel pulls way ahead again, AMD doesn't need to do much of anything to increase performace. (I'm sure they will, but they're not falling so far behind that they absolutely need it now).
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
When you're the performance leader, why the hell do you need a way to increase performance? Unless Intel pulls way ahead again, AMD doesn't need to do much of anything to increase performace. (I'm sure they will, but they're not falling so far behind that they absolutely need it now).
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Because I've been trying to figure out how they are going to continue ramping the A64 line to compete with dual core P4s with tons of cache next year.
AMDs dual core is probably quite a bit farther out than Intels, but from what ive read they did design it from the beginning with dual core in mind.. so that will be to their benefit.
Im stating that AMD should hope that Intel stumbles on the dual core launch as they have recently.. because honestly i think the performance crown for AMD is going to be matched or gone from there on out.
I'm just saying taht with AMD going the 1mb 2.4ghz route with the 4000+ instead of ramping it to 2.6ghz with 512k to reach 4000+ seems like a sign of doom.
Esp considering even if they COULD put 1mb or more on every processor they sell and be profitable that it wont give them the performance boost equivalent to what Intel is getting out of cache increases.
If AMD is unlucky, the intel dual core processors will come loaded with cache (1MB for each core) and i dont see how from that point on AMD will remain competitive until Intel screws up again.
AMDs dual core is probably quite a bit farther out than Intels, but from what ive read they did design it from the beginning with dual core in mind.. so that will be to their benefit.
Im stating that AMD should hope that Intel stumbles on the dual core launch as they have recently.. because honestly i think the performance crown for AMD is going to be matched or gone from there on out.
I'm just saying taht with AMD going the 1mb 2.4ghz route with the 4000+ instead of ramping it to 2.6ghz with 512k to reach 4000+ seems like a sign of doom.
Esp considering even if they COULD put 1mb or more on every processor they sell and be profitable that it wont give them the performance boost equivalent to what Intel is getting out of cache increases.
If AMD is unlucky, the intel dual core processors will come loaded with cache (1MB for each core) and i dont see how from that point on AMD will remain competitive until Intel screws up again.
Tons of cache isn't helping the P4 as much as you think it is. Going beyond 1MB is going to yield diminishing returns... way too much expense for little performance gain. Even if Intel put 2MB of cache on the P4, it probably still would not gain enough performance to beat A64... and it would be a more expensive processor to boot.
AMDs don't NEED the extra cache to perform better. That's the point you seem to be missing. Putting extra cache on a processor doesn't automatically mean it will perform better. Obviously, if the P4 with 1MB is getting stomped by A64 with 512K... do you really think doubling the cache again will yield enough benefit over the cost?
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
AMDs don't NEED the extra cache to perform better. That's the point you seem to be missing. Putting extra cache on a processor doesn't automatically mean it will perform better. Obviously, if the P4 with 1MB is getting stomped by A64 with 512K... do you really think doubling the cache again will yield enough benefit over the cost?
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
The 0.13 process is at the end of its life. 2.6GHz, but given that it is a mature process they are eeking the last bit of performance out of it, given they probably have very good yeilds. Hence the 4000+ with 1mb, yes it's expensive but beening a high end processor they are probably make a good profit. They may have also had alot of FX-53 wafers they would like to get rid of.
The new 3000+ and 3500+ being at .09 are low to mid range and hence big sellers. Yields are proably slightly lower given the new process. But even if the % Yields are lower given the die shrink they are probably still making more processors, just not ones just yet that hit high frequency. They may well have some chips that will go above 2.6GHz, but remember AMD likles to have stock before they launch (lately anyway), so they are probably saving those for the future (a 4000+ at 2.6 with 512k, or a 4200 at 2.8GHz with 512 with an FX at 2.8 with 1MB).
What AMD is doing is quite smart.
Sell Top end processors at a high price on an outgoing process, low volume high margin.
Make as many low to mid range processors as you can on the new process and sell volume with a lower profit margin, but save the good chips for the future.
One the new process has matured enough, stop making the 0.13 processors and have a good stockpile of new high end chips.
The new 3000+ and 3500+ being at .09 are low to mid range and hence big sellers. Yields are proably slightly lower given the new process. But even if the % Yields are lower given the die shrink they are probably still making more processors, just not ones just yet that hit high frequency. They may well have some chips that will go above 2.6GHz, but remember AMD likles to have stock before they launch (lately anyway), so they are probably saving those for the future (a 4000+ at 2.6 with 512k, or a 4200 at 2.8GHz with 512 with an FX at 2.8 with 1MB).
What AMD is doing is quite smart.
Sell Top end processors at a high price on an outgoing process, low volume high margin.
Make as many low to mid range processors as you can on the new process and sell volume with a lower profit margin, but save the good chips for the future.
One the new process has matured enough, stop making the 0.13 processors and have a good stockpile of new high end chips.
wolverinero79
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2001
- 1,125
- 0
- 19,280
And with Intel's large inventory problem, extra expense per chip is definitely under scrutinty right now.
I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
I’ve seen the Inventory counts good buddy they aren’t even close to excessive large or problematic. With regards to that would you care to link everyone else including myself to this incorrect information.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
<<I’ve seen the Inventory counts good buddy they aren’t even close to excessive large or problematic. With regards to that would you care to link everyone else including myself to this incorrect information.>>
This is a huge topic among analysts raising eybrows since febuary and getting worse.
Here is a link for you. enjoy
<A HREF="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P92953.asp" target="_new"> Intel: All risk, no reward </A>
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
This is a huge topic among analysts raising eybrows since febuary and getting worse.
Here is a link for you. enjoy
<A HREF="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P92953.asp" target="_new"> Intel: All risk, no reward </A>
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
When you have 11 fabs worldwide, 6 assembly and test sites worldwide making that 15 manufacturing sites world wide, you are always faced with over production scenarios.
Drop in demand, price wars, manufacturing issues and delays, even stock value affects the output from the company.
But you fail to see that when you make everything and control what comes out of those facilities you can control the demand, stock value, and prices.
Take the Wal-Mart equation, the company will go out and buy 120 million Xbox's at say 140 a piece. They sell them at say 180. How many units have to be sold before they make up on the initial cost of purchasing the units? 93.33 million units after that the entire cost of purchase is done. From that point they could sell the remainder of the units for initial cost making them a nice 3.7 billion. Now realistically Wal-Mart would never buy that many units but in the semi conductor industry that could and would happen quite easily over a quarter.
Point is Intel can really never get [-peep-] as long as they make they initial cost of production afterwards they can sell silicon at cost or lower if they want to. With regards to the actual cost of say a 3.0 which is near the 21-32 dollars a chip and they sell them to OEM's for 74-180 general consumers for what 300-400 American its very easy to see they never can get stuck with stock that hasn’t paid for itself and that doesn’t matter because they can liquidate the stock and still come home with a nice quarter.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
Drop in demand, price wars, manufacturing issues and delays, even stock value affects the output from the company.
But you fail to see that when you make everything and control what comes out of those facilities you can control the demand, stock value, and prices.
Take the Wal-Mart equation, the company will go out and buy 120 million Xbox's at say 140 a piece. They sell them at say 180. How many units have to be sold before they make up on the initial cost of purchasing the units? 93.33 million units after that the entire cost of purchase is done. From that point they could sell the remainder of the units for initial cost making them a nice 3.7 billion. Now realistically Wal-Mart would never buy that many units but in the semi conductor industry that could and would happen quite easily over a quarter.
Point is Intel can really never get [-peep-] as long as they make they initial cost of production afterwards they can sell silicon at cost or lower if they want to. With regards to the actual cost of say a 3.0 which is near the 21-32 dollars a chip and they sell them to OEM's for 74-180 general consumers for what 300-400 American its very easy to see they never can get stuck with stock that hasn’t paid for itself and that doesn’t matter because they can liquidate the stock and still come home with a nice quarter.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
<<<When you have 11 fabs worldwide, 6 assembly and test sites worldwide making that 15 manufacturing sites world wide, you are always faced with over production scenarios.>>>
Sorry to disapoint but the reason Intel inventory is so rediculusly high is AMD Did you even read that link I gave you?
So again what you said below is wrong you have your link proving it.
<<I’ve seen the Inventory counts good buddy they aren’t even close to excessive large or problematic. With regards to that would you care to link everyone else including myself to this incorrect information.>>
Did you admit you were wrong no you just posted a bunch of filler bunk.
The reason Intels inventories are out of control is AMD.
Here is a different <A HREF="http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2004/041022.htm?ref=foolwatch" target="_new"> article </A> on the subject.
Enjoy
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Sorry to disapoint but the reason Intel inventory is so rediculusly high is AMD Did you even read that link I gave you?
So again what you said below is wrong you have your link proving it.
<<I’ve seen the Inventory counts good buddy they aren’t even close to excessive large or problematic. With regards to that would you care to link everyone else including myself to this incorrect information.>>
Did you admit you were wrong no you just posted a bunch of filler bunk.
The reason Intels inventories are out of control is AMD.
Here is a different <A HREF="http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2004/041022.htm?ref=foolwatch" target="_new"> article </A> on the subject.
Enjoy
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Well reading the first line of the post does show signs of mediocre intelligence. Reading the entirety would help you understand that even if Intel or even AMD had one trillion processors sitting on shelves in their factories, they would could and should be able to sell them off and recoup initial costs of production.
With that in mind it doesn’t matter how much they have or who's fault it is. All that matters is the companies are capable of moving it out. Remember its better to have over capacity like Intel then be unable to make enough processors like AMD. With so little stock available any little thing can screw the entire process up. While excess stock is literally safety nets allowing you play with the market conditions.
But obviously you must have some sort of associates degree in business because you used filler and bunk in the same sentence.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
<<Well reading the first line of the post does show signs of mediocre intelligence. Reading the entirety would help you understand that even if Intel or even AMD had one trillion processors sitting on shelves in their factories, they would could and should be able to sell them off and recoup initial costs of production.>>
Wrong a cpu's value goes down faster then a las vegas hooker on a saturday night. Think about it!
<<With that in mind it doesn’t matter how much they have or who's fault it is. All that matters is the companies are capable of moving it out. Remember its better to have over capacity like Intel then be unable to make enough processors like AMD. With so little stock available any little thing can screw the entire process up. While excess stock is literally safety nets allowing you play with the market conditions.>>
One of the reasons intel is producing cpu's at max possible is to be able to bin or produce enough 3.4 and 3.6 GHz cpu's the inventory is most likly 2.2 GHz 128 kb cpu's how would you suppose they move that stuff? Inventory is a huge problem for Intel like I said. I say it is analysts say it is and you said show me a link it's not a problem. It is a problem and you will be hearing more about it in the future.
Nuff said!
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Wrong a cpu's value goes down faster then a las vegas hooker on a saturday night. Think about it!
<<With that in mind it doesn’t matter how much they have or who's fault it is. All that matters is the companies are capable of moving it out. Remember its better to have over capacity like Intel then be unable to make enough processors like AMD. With so little stock available any little thing can screw the entire process up. While excess stock is literally safety nets allowing you play with the market conditions.>>
One of the reasons intel is producing cpu's at max possible is to be able to bin or produce enough 3.4 and 3.6 GHz cpu's the inventory is most likly 2.2 GHz 128 kb cpu's how would you suppose they move that stuff? Inventory is a huge problem for Intel like I said. I say it is analysts say it is and you said show me a link it's not a problem. It is a problem and you will be hearing more about it in the future.
Nuff said!
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
"Remember its better to have over capacity like Intel then be unable to make enough processors like AMD. With so little stock available any little thing can screw the entire process up."
Has AMD ever reported a shortage of cpus to the oems? the only one i remember for the curretn generation of chips is the time they switched thier shipping systems, cuasing some back log temporarily. Even with its small capacity, AMD most of the time has processors to buy when it annouces new products, how many times can you say the same for intel and many paper launches? although, i can chalk this up to amd waiting to announce until they know they have the chips to oems to sell while intel doesnt, but the image is there non the less.
lets remember if you scale it down, the ratio of stock to demand, id say amd is about in the same position as intel, probably not equal, but pretty close. sure if amd suddenly had a huge upturn in demand they might suffer, but thier growth is steady and slow enough to give them time to increase production to supply, hence the new fab under construction. there is a reason intel has 11 fabs and amd has basically 1 lol, its a ratio of demand and supply.
Has AMD ever reported a shortage of cpus to the oems? the only one i remember for the curretn generation of chips is the time they switched thier shipping systems, cuasing some back log temporarily. Even with its small capacity, AMD most of the time has processors to buy when it annouces new products, how many times can you say the same for intel and many paper launches? although, i can chalk this up to amd waiting to announce until they know they have the chips to oems to sell while intel doesnt, but the image is there non the less.
lets remember if you scale it down, the ratio of stock to demand, id say amd is about in the same position as intel, probably not equal, but pretty close. sure if amd suddenly had a huge upturn in demand they might suffer, but thier growth is steady and slow enough to give them time to increase production to supply, hence the new fab under construction. there is a reason intel has 11 fabs and amd has basically 1 lol, its a ratio of demand and supply.
Yes you are quite right, but this isn’t AMD we are talking about. The CPU's from the bins still cost 20-30ish dollars. They sell them for no less than 100 dollars.
With that in mind the silicon can devalue all it wants since they don’t sell them for less than 100; unless you are a large OEM.
So again I fail to see your point if the markup on the silicon is 5x that of the cost and that is a constant markup unless you are an OEM, where is the lost income, because I am still not seeing it?
Dell seems to be selling those lower clocked processors and their higher clocked CPU's. So again I don’t see you point as valid or even a point.
The point of the argument was "Intel makes too many CPU's to sell" I said "The number of CPU's sitting on the shelves is not a determining factor or companies like Wall Mart would have filed for bankruptcy long ago" you countered by saying "They have a huge inventory!!!"
From the progression of the conversation I don’t find your argument an argument but simply constant blabber about something you aren’t even trying to understand. So let me say it again Intel AMD IBM or anyone can make a million billion zillion processors. They go out sell 2/3's say; they have remade cost of production. From there the silicon can sit on the shelves forever all it costs any of these companies is the space for new and better silicon.
They are all paid for which means they can devalue all they like since they have cost the company nothing but space. I read it myself and can’t see what your missing other than some sort of upper brain function to branch your current train of thought. They have meds for that it’s called Ritalin.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
Do believe the A64 and the last 5 or so stepping of the AXP's faced that actually, or you don’t remember the paper launches like the rest of us?
Yes I know there is AMD does not have the fiscal means to support addition fabrication facilities.
Xeon
<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
What a silly situation. What kind of person would think it a problem that Intel is sitting on as many chips as they have sold, in the last 6 months. Or as many low low end chips as they have sold in the last year. Intel wants to build up thier inventory just in case someone actually starts to think thier product has value.
There might be a twist to that: Intel will dump their inventory shortly before or around the time WinXP-64 ships out, rather that lose these cpu's to obsolescence. This will hurt AMD sales in the budget and midrange sectors which comprise the bulk of the market. To AMD, it'll be the feeling of almost winning the dash - just when you're accelerating and sees a clear path ahead, then suddenly, someone trips you. To Intel, selling at a loss will only mean another way of spending to preserve your market share.
If this scenario happens, the users/buyers stand to gain.
If this scenario happens, the users/buyers stand to gain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Need help on blue lightning(flashing) anomaly in game with RX 9070XT
- Started by Alexoferith
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram