Kuma cancelled.

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790
Given that K10 is a "native" quad core to begin with, it doesn't make sense to deliberately disable two functional cores to produce a Kuma. Remember that since dual core is mainstream now, so the quantity demanded for them will be significantly larger than Phenom/Barcelona.
 

San Pedro

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2007
1,286
12
19,295
I think AMD is in a bad spot and faces some tough challenges over the next few years. Nehalem looks like a monster, so I'm thinking AMD is going to try and settle back into the low end CPU market with some decent mid-range choices.
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790
well cancelled is cancelled!what else to say or explain.plus consumers wouldnt benefit from it anyway the production cost is going to be the same.and what i said is true also.there is no dual core product that can compete with intel.and the likes of Phenom X3 8750 is competeing againt E7200(dual core) and Q6600(quad core),and the result is it beats E7200 in multi threaded apps(pretty obvious) and facing negative result against the Q6600 in stock form.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x3-8750.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293

the result speaks for themself.a dual core product will mean pointless.but it might make sense if its a native dual core and cost will be lower.

so is what i said no true?and my 1400 post is helping people in Overclocking section mostly.unlike you shouting out "AMD4Life" in your sub 1000 post.
 
I think AMDs mistake was going straight quad core for K10 first before even doing a dual. If they did a dual and quad at the same time maybe they would be in a bit better place since they would have a nice range of low end duals to sell to that could have been cheaper to produce therfore resulting in better profits from it.
 

piratepast40

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2006
514
1
18,980
The important thing here is the cultural exchange and experience. I would never have known the meaning of Drongo, or would have known about the Aussie version of the Urban Dictionary if it weren't for Reynod. Thanks (and I agree with you).
 

sailer

Splendid
I agree with jimmy that it would have been nice if AMD had introduced the dual core K10 at the same time they did the quad core, but they didn't have they money to do it. Now they don't have the money to much of anything, and they might have realized that the older AM2 chips were just as fast and cheaper to make as they already have the fabs up and going, so they're staying with them for the time being.
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790
i think AMD is kinda stuck at the situation if they go forward they will make a lost and going back is not a viable option.the only way to stay alive in stay where they are now and try to make a sale.

if i rememeber correctly Phenom is marginally faster then the old quad core they've got.its nothing in the world of Core to Nehalem architecture that AMD can achieve.but then again Phenom is just the tock part where as Nehalem is tick.but we will all see how it turns out at the end of the year and beginning of next year.
 

amdfangirl

Expert
Ambassador


Yes, but I'd see them spend it on a Deneb and etc. I mean quad-core is the way of the future and for a company like AMD it doesn't make sense to go back even though I'd love to see 65nm K10 45W dual-core...



Go pick on someone with a similar post count (not me). Intelligence is not measured in posts...
Jeez, you don't just insult Reynod, he's smart... (Wait why am I supporting him?) :pt1cable:

If done natively it will cost less as there is less die and a smaller failure rate etc.



Yeah, he's the one who does proper Australian English... mine is spelt correctly but its condensed and hard to understand let alone read... you need a master's degree in English in English to understand what I'm saying! =)
 

sailer

Splendid


I think K10 was supposed to be the tick to a new future, but it flopped. But it boils down to finances concerning the Kuma chip. Is costs too much to get it into production. So AMD runs as fast as it can with the present dual cores, only to be slowly left behind.

Yes, I think the latest Phenoms are slightly faster than a Q6600 at stock speed, but the Phenom does overclock very much, struggling to approach 3ghz, while the Q6600 often goes all the way to 3.6ghz. The newest Phenoms aren't bad chips, they just are a year and a half late.
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790
i never said intelligence is count on post.and why im insulting him?well simply because he insulted me first about my post.i just doing a respond to it.and now he edited his post.if he is smart he wouldnt come out with such comment at first.
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790
maybe i should have quoted his message so you can see what he wrote.you seriously think i would just start insulting someone for no reason?have i started on you for no reason?i dont think so!
 
I don't see this as a bad thing for AMD. Heck when you can buy a Phenom quad core for less than $200 and a triple core for about $150, who cares about a Kuma dual core; especially if the dual cores are clocked at the same speed as the quad and triples!

@ Technology Coordinator - I agree, AMD need faster core speeds and to concentrate on multi-core procs. Also, I would add their should be a tight focus on the move to 45nm as well.
 

amdfangirl

Expert
Ambassador


I see he see-sawed his anvil-evil. Yup, that's good to hear then... Reynod what did you say exactly?



Okay, sorry I have a kinda, how shall me say? Liking towards Reynod...

Sorry if I hurt your feelings or such... I'll see-saw my post if you wanna...
 

radium69

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2007
258
0
18,790
Q6600 < AMD phenom DOT

how old is the Q6600 compared to the Phenom?, sorry it's a sensitive subject for AMD
God I love it how my local store keeps trying to convince me that AMD is better then Intel, and that Intel stole ideas etc etc etc... He even got me nearly convinced to buy a x2 3800+ glad I didn't. The Dual cores work fine though, but they are not near intels higher chips.

It's a shame, cause I don't wanna be in the $500+ range again for a new Intel CPU.

AMD needs to get their asses together and create something good, they do not have to exceed, but the q6600 is turning pretty old. And still theres not really much to compete it in the multi processor benchmarks.

The E8400 is a wonderful choice aswell.... but I still like the quad-core idea more, do more in less... gaming, downloading, listening music, scanning at the same time.

Stop argueing about who insults who, my god, AMD needs to get their stuff ready and compete. Simple as that.
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790


my feelings are intact.LOL

i just want to point out things.never intended to insult anyone in this forum(apart from one who always start on me,expect him to come in here!HAHA).i know you are a repectable person as i said before.you only say what you see and believe i dont have a problem with that:)
 


LOL. Thats just funny. Also we have yet to see anything about a Intel Nehalem dual core. And if it is as good as the quad parts seem and if the onboard GPU is better than expected then AMD will lose a lot in the low end and HTPC market.



Well if you look at what holds a Q6600 back from OCing to 4GHz its just that. Its a quad core and the ability to OC and reach higher speeds is not the same as a dual core. So a dual core would be great for the gaming area since most gamers still feel a dual is better than a quad for gaming.

Of course I am just a lowly plebbian to their buisiness men so what do I know?
 

iluvgillgill

Splendid
Jan 1, 2007
3,732
0
22,790
i think reviews should do tests for CPU in a more realistic review such as having background program running such as antivirus and itune and start doing video encoding and time it.because reviews and CPU manufactures cant really expect us to do only one thing as once when we got a multi core CPU which initially allowing us to do more(what intel promoted)