-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
- Status
fazers_on_stun
Splendid
- Aug 31, 2006
- 4,743
- 0
- 22,860
IIRC only GF is set up to use SOI wafers, which is a requirement to fab AMD CPUs. Hence TSMC only makes GPUs for AMD using their regular strained silicon wafers. While TSMC (or Samsung or even Intel) could convert a fab line to use SOI wafers, does it make sense for just one customer (AMD)?
The spin-off contract with GF probably mandates that GF accomodate AMD's fab requirements - sometimes I think ATIC purposely sabotages AMD to some extent with bad yields and performance, in order to get rid of AMD as a customer. I don't think GF is making much money off of AMD, even with the 'per wafer' agreement which went back into effect this year, where AMD pays for each wafer whether good or bad so that GF has little incentive to get good yields..
The spin-off contract with GF probably mandates that GF accomodate AMD's fab requirements - sometimes I think ATIC purposely sabotages AMD to some extent with bad yields and performance, in order to get rid of AMD as a customer. I don't think GF is making much money off of AMD, even with the 'per wafer' agreement which went back into effect this year, where AMD pays for each wafer whether good or bad so that GF has little incentive to get good yields..
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
I agree 100% about the naming scheme. Even if the model is now the 7xx series, it's still not an Athlon II. Sure, the 750K is not going to be much faster than the 650 (if at all), but it's certainly not going to use 100W, and it'll overclock much nicer than the 650. I'd bring back the Duron name, personally.
I'd be much happier if the FX name were renamed Athlon, as that's what AMD curb-stomped Intel with for six years... but only if they truly deserve the name Athlon. FX should be the flagship CPU's suffix.
I'd be much happier if the FX name were renamed Athlon, as that's what AMD curb-stomped Intel with for six years... but only if they truly deserve the name Athlon. FX should be the flagship CPU's suffix.
[citation][nom]fazers_on_stun[/nom]Yep, this does sound like the familiar yield problems Llano had on GF's 32nm process, since these supposedly have a disabled GPU. [/citation]
As far as I know they're putting most of the manufacturing towards the mobile version of Trinity.
As far as I know they're putting most of the manufacturing towards the mobile version of Trinity.
chibiwings
Distinguished
- Apr 28, 2008
- 120
- 3
- 18,685
WAIT WAIT WAIT. Ok, not correct me if im wrong but the AMD processor is 1 - 2 generations behind. The only thing keeping them in the game is their beefy integrated graphics. But naming with AMD is NOT that much worse than Intel. I havent a clue the path AMD is following for i have lost a little faith in AMD, however INTEL isnt that much better. Its almost intentional. How do you identify the difference between an I7 from 2 years ago vs I7 of today? (I7 gen 1 vs I7 Gen 3) Only a knowledgeable computer person would know that the XXX is gen 1, 2XXX is gen 2, and 3XXX is gen 3. Granted it follows a path but grandma doesnt know those numbers when buying it for her grand daughter. Nor does a teenager thats just getting into high school or college. "Mom i want that one because its pink" or "dad i want that one becuase it has a blue ray". Sony and Apple have always run the same old tech packages in their copmuters with premium price. Apple just RECENTLY discontinued the use of Core 2 duo....4 year old technology that beat out the Amd x2! So, Please, the intel naming may be the more obvious to a tech savvy person but it is no where labled Gen 1 2 or 3 or if 1 > 3 or 3> 1...Am i over thinking this? I mean its so simple its stupid and people are taken advantage of daily.
Lastly, think of it like this.
Anyone that buys a copmputer bases its value on the price. Now tell me, is that AT ALL TRUE?
No, but grandma, grandson, billy, or sally dont understand that the 1000 laptop with a 2ghz core 2 duo with an integrated 900 series intel integrated laptop from sony isnt worth the money.
Rant over.
Pardon mispellings.
Lastly, think of it like this.
Anyone that buys a copmputer bases its value on the price. Now tell me, is that AT ALL TRUE?
No, but grandma, grandson, billy, or sally dont understand that the 1000 laptop with a 2ghz core 2 duo with an integrated 900 series intel integrated laptop from sony isnt worth the money.
Rant over.
Pardon mispellings.
fazers_on_stun
Splendid
- Aug 31, 2006
- 4,743
- 0
- 22,860
I've heard the same thing as well, which makes me think (1) yields are not that great despite what AMD and GF say - surely they have enough 32nm capacity by now (well over a year after GF started fabbing at that node). And (2) wouldn't it make more sense for AMD to ramp down their Llano mobile line (which competes with Trinity) and instead ramp up their Trinity desktop and Piledriver desktop lines?
Something doesn't seem right here - just a suspicion with no other facts to back it up however. But then according to Rory Read's Q2 earnings conference call, AMD also forgot to make enough chipsets & mobos to support their Llano CPUs that they wanted to sell, so then maybe not 😛..
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]WAIT WAIT WAIT. Ok, not correct me if im wrong but the AMD processor is 1 - 2 generations behind. The only thing keeping them in the game is their beefy integrated graphics. But naming with AMD is NOT that much worse than Intel. I havent a clue the path AMD is following for i have lost a little faith in AMD, however INTEL isnt that much better. Its almost intentional. How do you identify the difference between an I7 from 2 years ago vs I7 of today? (I7 gen 1 vs I7 Gen 3) Only a knowledgeable computer person would know that the XXX is gen 1, 2XXX is gen 2, and 3XXX is gen 3. Granted it follows a path but grandma doesnt know those numbers when buying it for her grand daughter. Nor does a teenager thats just getting into high school or college. "Mom i want that one because its pink" or "dad i want that one becuase it has a blue ray". Sony and Apple have always run the same old tech packages in their copmuters with premium price. Apple just RECENTLY discontinued the use of Core 2 duo....4 year old technology that beat out the Amd x2! So, Please, the intel naming may be the more obvious to a tech savvy person but it is no where labled Gen 1 2 or 3 or if 1 > 3 or 3> 1...Am i over thinking this? I mean its so simple its stupid and people are taken advantage of daily. Lastly, think of it like this. Anyone that buys a copmputer bases its value on the price. Now tell me, is that AT ALL TRUE? No, but grandma, grandson, billy, or sally dont understand that the 1000 laptop with a 2ghz core 2 duo with an integrated 900 series intel integrated laptop from sony isnt worth the money. Rant over. Pardon mispellings.[/citation]
Intel's naming scheme is not perfect, but it is better than AMD's. When you go to buy an OEM computer with an Intel CPU in it, it will almost always say first, second, or third gen right after the CPU name. You know the generation of the computer that you buy even if you don't know how to read the model numbers because the generation number is stated in plain text right after the CPU name. Go to HP, Dell, or any other such OEM's website and it's written in the short description of their computers. Going to Walmart, it's written on the tags for each computer. This info is right there. With Intel's Sandy and Ivy naming schemes, you can almost always be able to tell what's better than what within each family even without being tech-savvy. Nehalem/Westmere is a little less consistent, especially with the desktop CPUs, but it is also fairly easy too. Even if you don't have this info, intel.com (among wiki and many other places) has a guide that will tell you exactly how to read their model numbers in very easy to understand explanations.
With AMD, things are more difficult. For example, an Athlon II x4 ca easily beat any dual or triple core Phenom II in well-threaded performance, but can be much worse in single/dual-threaded workloads. This is even more difficult than comparing i3s to i5s to i7s and from different generations, an already fairly daunting task without knowing to look at benchmarks relevant to your usual applications for a good comparison. Then there's also the hype with AMD's CPUs such as FX is crap and other stuff is crap. Would the average user, after reading something like FX is crap, know that for them, even an FX-4100 is better than any Athlon II, maybe excluding the Athlon II x4 750K? They probably wouldn't. With Intel, you don't need to compare i3s to i5s to i7s unless you're not sure of which performance level you want.
With AMD, you might be comparing Athlon II CPUs, Phenom II CPUs, FX CPUs, Llano APUs, and Trinity APUs, and even models within each that have differing core counts and frequencies but similar prices. Even for a tech-savvy person, this can be time-consuming to do because you'd have to look up benchmarks that address all of them just to know for sure which is the right one for what you do. Imagine trying to figure out which CPU model is the best solution for you when you don't know any of the performance differences and probably not even whether or not you should focus more on lightly threaded performance, more on highly threaded performance, or equally because you probably don't know the difference and are even less likely to know how it applies to the applications that you use. Beyond that, because of the APUs, you might also want to know how they compare their IGPs to graphics used with the other CPU models, even further complicating it, especially if you can't find an AMD-based computer that suits both your graphical and CPU performance needs within your budget.
So yes, Intel's current naming schemes might manage to confuse the average buyer, but the average buyer probably won't have any clue at all when it comes to choosing AMD regardless of which one is a better choice for what they want within their budget. Beyond even that, many (perhaps most) people don't care which way they go and/or would be just fine with either AMD or Intel, even if the other might be better in some way.
Intel's naming scheme is not perfect, but it is better than AMD's. When you go to buy an OEM computer with an Intel CPU in it, it will almost always say first, second, or third gen right after the CPU name. You know the generation of the computer that you buy even if you don't know how to read the model numbers because the generation number is stated in plain text right after the CPU name. Go to HP, Dell, or any other such OEM's website and it's written in the short description of their computers. Going to Walmart, it's written on the tags for each computer. This info is right there. With Intel's Sandy and Ivy naming schemes, you can almost always be able to tell what's better than what within each family even without being tech-savvy. Nehalem/Westmere is a little less consistent, especially with the desktop CPUs, but it is also fairly easy too. Even if you don't have this info, intel.com (among wiki and many other places) has a guide that will tell you exactly how to read their model numbers in very easy to understand explanations.
With AMD, things are more difficult. For example, an Athlon II x4 ca easily beat any dual or triple core Phenom II in well-threaded performance, but can be much worse in single/dual-threaded workloads. This is even more difficult than comparing i3s to i5s to i7s and from different generations, an already fairly daunting task without knowing to look at benchmarks relevant to your usual applications for a good comparison. Then there's also the hype with AMD's CPUs such as FX is crap and other stuff is crap. Would the average user, after reading something like FX is crap, know that for them, even an FX-4100 is better than any Athlon II, maybe excluding the Athlon II x4 750K? They probably wouldn't. With Intel, you don't need to compare i3s to i5s to i7s unless you're not sure of which performance level you want.
With AMD, you might be comparing Athlon II CPUs, Phenom II CPUs, FX CPUs, Llano APUs, and Trinity APUs, and even models within each that have differing core counts and frequencies but similar prices. Even for a tech-savvy person, this can be time-consuming to do because you'd have to look up benchmarks that address all of them just to know for sure which is the right one for what you do. Imagine trying to figure out which CPU model is the best solution for you when you don't know any of the performance differences and probably not even whether or not you should focus more on lightly threaded performance, more on highly threaded performance, or equally because you probably don't know the difference and are even less likely to know how it applies to the applications that you use. Beyond that, because of the APUs, you might also want to know how they compare their IGPs to graphics used with the other CPU models, even further complicating it, especially if you can't find an AMD-based computer that suits both your graphical and CPU performance needs within your budget.
So yes, Intel's current naming schemes might manage to confuse the average buyer, but the average buyer probably won't have any clue at all when it comes to choosing AMD regardless of which one is a better choice for what they want within their budget. Beyond even that, many (perhaps most) people don't care which way they go and/or would be just fine with either AMD or Intel, even if the other might be better in some way.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Another day, another Athlon. I think it might be in AMD's interests if they rebrand their mainstream processor line.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Another day, another Athlon. I think it might be in AMD's interests if they rebrand their mainstream processor line.[/citation]
Not to be a douche, but did you just write all that to prove i was right? The only part i saw that was different was the "2nd 3rd Gen on tags at walmart and stuff." First, walmart is horrible; i show to the court exhibit A: www.peopleofwalmart.com... 2nd who buys computers in stores anymore unless they are looking for something thats less than 100 bucks thats been brought back 3 times, and has a scratch on the display? Anyhow, just helping a friend look for her laptop between HP, Lenovo, Dell and the others; Either im blind or its not there because looking through their computers there was no such "3rd generation" only 3xxx.
No more Chick Fil A!
wait wrong thread again crap.
Not to be a douche, but did you just write all that to prove i was right? The only part i saw that was different was the "2nd 3rd Gen on tags at walmart and stuff." First, walmart is horrible; i show to the court exhibit A: www.peopleofwalmart.com... 2nd who buys computers in stores anymore unless they are looking for something thats less than 100 bucks thats been brought back 3 times, and has a scratch on the display? Anyhow, just helping a friend look for her laptop between HP, Lenovo, Dell and the others; Either im blind or its not there because looking through their computers there was no such "3rd generation" only 3xxx.
No more Chick Fil A!
wait wrong thread again crap.
Oh oh and you state the comparison between generations, not speed of processors. Sure, AMD s Older procs beats a few of their newer ones, but that doesnt mean its older technology. Be consistent if your going to go saying AMD's naming is off. We all know its off. I think AMD has their whole processor lineup till 2025. They took every processor they are supposed to come out with between then and now, put it in a hat and had Bellemar pull one at random and they keep getting 2001 CPU's. Lol. Poor AMD, thank god they took over ATI to keep them aflot. I love that company simply because it puts intel in their place cause we all know what we would be using if they didnt...Pent 4HT! What Technology!
While the make some bucks from defective products makes sense, do not forget that AMD needs to phase out the products based on the stars architecture.
Noways need to call in advance for stock if need to assemble a PhII-AhII system (including MoBo).
For better or worse, FM2-AM3+ is the future (hopefully only one of them).
Since it would be the lowest performer CPU of the pildrive line, SEMPRON III would be more adequate name.
Noways need to call in advance for stock if need to assemble a PhII-AhII system (including MoBo).
For better or worse, FM2-AM3+ is the future (hopefully only one of them).
Since it would be the lowest performer CPU of the pildrive line, SEMPRON III would be more adequate name.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]While the make some bucks from defective products makes sense, do not forget that AMD needs to phase out the products based on the stars architecture.Noways need to call in advance for stock if need to assemble a PhII-AhII system (including MoBo).For better or worse, FM2-AM3+ is the future (hopefully only one of them).Since it would be the lowest performer CPU of the pildrive line, SEMPRON III would be more adequate name.[/citation]
Aren't the current Sempron CPUs just Sempron CPUs and not Sempron II CPUs like the Athlon IIs CPU and Phenom II CPUs?
Aren't the current Sempron CPUs just Sempron CPUs and not Sempron II CPUs like the Athlon IIs CPU and Phenom II CPUs?
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]Oh oh and you state the comparison between generations, not speed of processors. Sure, AMD s Older procs beats a few of their newer ones, but that doesnt mean its older technology. Be consistent if your going to go saying AMD's naming is off. We all know its off. I think AMD has their whole processor lineup till 2025. They took every processor they are supposed to come out with between then and now, put it in a hat and had Bellemar pull one at random and they keep getting 2001 CPU's. Lol. Poor AMD, thank god they took over ATI to keep them aflot. I love that company simply because it puts intel in their place cause we all know what we would be using if they didnt...Pent 4HT! What Technology![/citation]
I'm pretty sure that although AMD can be a motivator for Intel, Intel still kinda does just whatever they feel like doing. They would have moved on from Netburst whether or not AMD was beating them. How long it would have taken and to what extent would they have improved are more like what I think should be wondered about if we want to think about such a what-if scenario of AMD not getting Athlon 64/FX out to market at all.
I'm pretty sure that although AMD can be a motivator for Intel, Intel still kinda does just whatever they feel like doing. They would have moved on from Netburst whether or not AMD was beating them. How long it would have taken and to what extent would they have improved are more like what I think should be wondered about if we want to think about such a what-if scenario of AMD not getting Athlon 64/FX out to market at all.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Aren't the current Sempron CPUs just Sempron CPUs and not Sempron II CPUs like the Athlon IIs CPU and Phenom II CPUs?[/citation]
You are right.
Sargas core is named Sempron 130,140,145 or 150.
Is a very neat processor for VARs.Boxed cost $40 and in the channel, trayed $27 add a cooler;unlock and overclock and is ready for a secretary or a elementary schooler.
Puts the bread and butter on the table. For each i7 system sold I get 10 sargas out.
But is not realy am3+ compliant, 45 nm fab sound like wasted silicon and 1 core (officially)1 thread is not good enuff today.
instead of revisioning this core, replacing it with the reduced piledriver makes more sense to me.
You are right.
Sargas core is named Sempron 130,140,145 or 150.
Is a very neat processor for VARs.Boxed cost $40 and in the channel, trayed $27 add a cooler;unlock and overclock and is ready for a secretary or a elementary schooler.
Puts the bread and butter on the table. For each i7 system sold I get 10 sargas out.
But is not realy am3+ compliant, 45 nm fab sound like wasted silicon and 1 core (officially)1 thread is not good enuff today.
instead of revisioning this core, replacing it with the reduced piledriver makes more sense to me.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]You are right.Sargas core is named Sempron 130,140,145 or 150.Is a very neat processor for VARs.Boxed cost $40 and in the channel, trayed $27 add a cooler;unlock and overclock and is ready for a secretary or a elementary schooler.Puts the bread and butter on the table. For each i7 system sold I get 10 sargas out.But is not realy am3+ compliant, 45 nm fab sound like wasted silicon and 1 core (officially)1 thread is not good enuff today.instead of revisioning this core, replacing it with the reduced piledriver makes more sense to me.[/citation]
I've never known an AM3 Sempron that can't unlock the second core. They probably have the best unlocking ratio of AMD's AM3 CPU lines. Also, they work just fine in an AM3+ system. AM3+ simply has additional power-saving features and such for the AM3+ CPUs and until Piledriver is out with single module CPUs (assuming that it happens), the Semprons would probably be more power efficient than any Bulldozer solution right now anyway.
I'd prefer a Piledriver-based solution too, but since that's not an option for the desktop right now, the Semprons (after being unlocked) are still very high values. Sure, a 45nm process uses a lot more silicon than a 32nm and especially a 22nm process, but it's not like that matters much. These CPUs aren't being manufactured anymore, so buying these CPUs isn't wasting silicon that hasn't already been used. Whether or not they are bought, they have already been manufactured. I think it is only wasted at that point if it is not put to use.
I've never known an AM3 Sempron that can't unlock the second core. They probably have the best unlocking ratio of AMD's AM3 CPU lines. Also, they work just fine in an AM3+ system. AM3+ simply has additional power-saving features and such for the AM3+ CPUs and until Piledriver is out with single module CPUs (assuming that it happens), the Semprons would probably be more power efficient than any Bulldozer solution right now anyway.
I'd prefer a Piledriver-based solution too, but since that's not an option for the desktop right now, the Semprons (after being unlocked) are still very high values. Sure, a 45nm process uses a lot more silicon than a 32nm and especially a 22nm process, but it's not like that matters much. These CPUs aren't being manufactured anymore, so buying these CPUs isn't wasting silicon that hasn't already been used. Whether or not they are bought, they have already been manufactured. I think it is only wasted at that point if it is not put to use.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... AM3+ simply has additional power-saving features and such for the AM3+ CPUs...[/citation]
I can testify lots of cases where it did not work.Inexplicable frequencies or lack of cold boot. Shure you can put a newer agesa but that is never covered by guarantee.By Murphy's law leading to a motherboard shaped paperweight.I anyone wanna risk his money buy a lottery ticket.
After a while you learn to mix and match MoBos and processor by chipset but I suggest keep am3 MoBos matched with am3 processor; unless listed in the compatibility list of that particular model
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Whether or not they are bought, they have already been manufactured. I think it is only wasted at that point if it is not put to use.[/citation]
I would agree but pure thought and economics do not mix well.Time to sale is important too.
Inflation; Obsolescence; Competence;Market Shrinking; etc.DO waste the value even if they are already manufactured.
Make profit where the reason those processors where made in first place.With particular market segment in mind.The sub-PentiumD market is almost all AMD. It do not make headlines but it pays salaries.
The channel is draining and everyone is playing musical chairs with the stars processors and MoBos.For one side is a good deal but nobody wants to keep the last one because is a 100% loss.Many do not want to buy the remaining units and those who have stock do not want to put newer orders of more expensive lines; until recovering the inversion.
In both cases the money flow is stagnant.A "waste" from economic point of view.Is happening all over the channel.From the detailer who keep some boxed,those who stock a few hundreds in trays.All the way to the OEMs.
It was time AMD do something about it.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Piledriver is out with single module CPUs (assuming that it happens)...[/citation]
God forbids the existence of such horrible beast.
Unfortunately Rory's lack of touch with the user base may allowed.
I hope the newer RAM standard will give the chance to AMD to unify the processor sockets lines.
In the mean time a plausible line up could be:
Socket AM3+:
FX line - Piledriver modules 2 threads each
Athlon line - Piledriver modules 1 thread each
Socket FM2
A10 line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; Graphics
Sempron line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; no graphics.
Or something like that
I can testify lots of cases where it did not work.Inexplicable frequencies or lack of cold boot. Shure you can put a newer agesa but that is never covered by guarantee.By Murphy's law leading to a motherboard shaped paperweight.I anyone wanna risk his money buy a lottery ticket.
After a while you learn to mix and match MoBos and processor by chipset but I suggest keep am3 MoBos matched with am3 processor; unless listed in the compatibility list of that particular model
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Whether or not they are bought, they have already been manufactured. I think it is only wasted at that point if it is not put to use.[/citation]
I would agree but pure thought and economics do not mix well.Time to sale is important too.
Inflation; Obsolescence; Competence;Market Shrinking; etc.DO waste the value even if they are already manufactured.
Make profit where the reason those processors where made in first place.With particular market segment in mind.The sub-PentiumD market is almost all AMD. It do not make headlines but it pays salaries.
The channel is draining and everyone is playing musical chairs with the stars processors and MoBos.For one side is a good deal but nobody wants to keep the last one because is a 100% loss.Many do not want to buy the remaining units and those who have stock do not want to put newer orders of more expensive lines; until recovering the inversion.
In both cases the money flow is stagnant.A "waste" from economic point of view.Is happening all over the channel.From the detailer who keep some boxed,those who stock a few hundreds in trays.All the way to the OEMs.
It was time AMD do something about it.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Piledriver is out with single module CPUs (assuming that it happens)...[/citation]
God forbids the existence of such horrible beast.
Unfortunately Rory's lack of touch with the user base may allowed.
I hope the newer RAM standard will give the chance to AMD to unify the processor sockets lines.
In the mean time a plausible line up could be:
Socket AM3+:
FX line - Piledriver modules 2 threads each
Athlon line - Piledriver modules 1 thread each
Socket FM2
A10 line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; Graphics
Sempron line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; no graphics.
Or something like that
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]
I can testify lots of cases where it did not work.Inexplicable frequencies or lack of cold boot. Shure you can put a newer agesa but that is never covered by guarantee.By Murphy's law leading to a motherboard shaped paperweight.I anyone wanna risk his money buy a lottery ticket.
After a while you learn to mix and match MoBos and processor by chipset but I suggest keep am3 MoBos matched with am3 processor; unless listed in the compatibility list of that particular model [/citation]
I've never had such a problem and I've built numerous computers with AM3+ socket motherboards and AM3 CPUs. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I've never had a problem.
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]
I would agree but pure thought and economics do not mix well.Time to sale is important too.
Inflation; Obsolescence; Competence;Market Shrinking; etc.DO waste the value even if they are already manufactured.
Make profit where the reason those processors where made in first place.With particular market segment in mind.The sub-PentiumD market is almost all AMD. It do not make headlines but it pays salaries.
The channel is draining and everyone is playing musical chairs with the stars processors and MoBos.For one side is a good deal but nobody wants to keep the last one because is a 100% loss.Many do not want to buy the remaining units and those who have stock do not want to put newer orders of more expensive lines; until recovering the inversion.
In both cases the money flow is stagnant.A "waste" from economic point of view.Is happening all over the channel.From the detailer who keep some boxed,those who stock a few hundreds in trays.All the way to the OEMs.
It was time AMD do something about it. [/citation]
What do you mean by sub-PentiumD market? Even Athlon X2s are generally better than those old dual-core Netburst CPUs. Besides, I'd say that Intel has quite the presence with their cheaper LGA 1155 Celerons and Pentiums that are in the same price range as the Semprons.
Also, I wasn't saying that the value was going down, only that the silicon itself was only wasted if it didn't get put to use.
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]
God forbids the existence of such horrible beast.
Unfortunately Rory's lack of touch with the user base may allowed.
I hope the newer RAM standard will give the chance to AMD to unify the processor sockets lines.
In the mean time a plausible line up could be:
Socket AM3+:
FX line - Piledriver modules 2 threads each
Athlon line - Piledriver modules 1 thread each
Socket FM2
A10 line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; Graphics
Sempron line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; no graphics.
Or something like that [/citation]
If I had a choice with the FM2 and AM3+ lines, I'd do it this way (granted I'd agree with you in that AMD should merge the APU and CPU platforms into a single socket):
AM3+ FX/Phenom
FX- Six and eight core models with three or four modules, all cores per module are active. The second core is treated as a Hyper-Threaded virtual thread by Windows, so the primary core is more utilized except in highly-threaded workloads. This minimizes resource sharing except in highly threaded situations, allowing the primary core of each module to take priority to improve lightly-threaded performance during lightly-threaded loads while letting the second core power down significantly to decrease power consumption. The second core can be more utilized during highly-threaded workloads where it is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. They would compete with the i7s.
Phenom- Three or four cores with three or four modules, one core per module is disabled to improve the performance of the active core by not needing to share resources at all. They would compete with the i5s.
FM2 Trinity/Athlon/Sempron
Trinity- A10 have two dual-core modules with the same Hyper-Threading-like scheduling as the FX line. A8s lack it, but still have two dual-core modules. A6s have a single dual-core module with the Hyper-Threading-like scheduling. The A10s and A8s would compete with the i3s, the A6s would compete with the Pentiums.
Athlon- Same as Trinity, but the IGP is disabled.
Sempron- Single dual-core module without the improved scheduling and the IGP is disabled. They would compete with the Celerons.
Of course, the generation number for each should be modified to fit the branding (Athlon III, Phenom III, Sempron II or we could just skip it to Sempron III to match the others). Cache capacity would also provide differentiation between the CPUs. All FM2 CPUs would lack L3 completely and some would have 2MB per module and some might have only 1MB per module. The AM3+ CPUs would all have 2MiB of L2 cache per module and could have varying amounts of L3 cache.
I can testify lots of cases where it did not work.Inexplicable frequencies or lack of cold boot. Shure you can put a newer agesa but that is never covered by guarantee.By Murphy's law leading to a motherboard shaped paperweight.I anyone wanna risk his money buy a lottery ticket.
After a while you learn to mix and match MoBos and processor by chipset but I suggest keep am3 MoBos matched with am3 processor; unless listed in the compatibility list of that particular model [/citation]
I've never had such a problem and I've built numerous computers with AM3+ socket motherboards and AM3 CPUs. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I've never had a problem.
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]
I would agree but pure thought and economics do not mix well.Time to sale is important too.
Inflation; Obsolescence; Competence;Market Shrinking; etc.DO waste the value even if they are already manufactured.
Make profit where the reason those processors where made in first place.With particular market segment in mind.The sub-PentiumD market is almost all AMD. It do not make headlines but it pays salaries.
The channel is draining and everyone is playing musical chairs with the stars processors and MoBos.For one side is a good deal but nobody wants to keep the last one because is a 100% loss.Many do not want to buy the remaining units and those who have stock do not want to put newer orders of more expensive lines; until recovering the inversion.
In both cases the money flow is stagnant.A "waste" from economic point of view.Is happening all over the channel.From the detailer who keep some boxed,those who stock a few hundreds in trays.All the way to the OEMs.
It was time AMD do something about it. [/citation]
What do you mean by sub-PentiumD market? Even Athlon X2s are generally better than those old dual-core Netburst CPUs. Besides, I'd say that Intel has quite the presence with their cheaper LGA 1155 Celerons and Pentiums that are in the same price range as the Semprons.
Also, I wasn't saying that the value was going down, only that the silicon itself was only wasted if it didn't get put to use.
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]
God forbids the existence of such horrible beast.
Unfortunately Rory's lack of touch with the user base may allowed.
I hope the newer RAM standard will give the chance to AMD to unify the processor sockets lines.
In the mean time a plausible line up could be:
Socket AM3+:
FX line - Piledriver modules 2 threads each
Athlon line - Piledriver modules 1 thread each
Socket FM2
A10 line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; Graphics
Sempron line - Piledrives modules 2 threads each; no graphics.
Or something like that [/citation]
If I had a choice with the FM2 and AM3+ lines, I'd do it this way (granted I'd agree with you in that AMD should merge the APU and CPU platforms into a single socket):
AM3+ FX/Phenom
FX- Six and eight core models with three or four modules, all cores per module are active. The second core is treated as a Hyper-Threaded virtual thread by Windows, so the primary core is more utilized except in highly-threaded workloads. This minimizes resource sharing except in highly threaded situations, allowing the primary core of each module to take priority to improve lightly-threaded performance during lightly-threaded loads while letting the second core power down significantly to decrease power consumption. The second core can be more utilized during highly-threaded workloads where it is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. They would compete with the i7s.
Phenom- Three or four cores with three or four modules, one core per module is disabled to improve the performance of the active core by not needing to share resources at all. They would compete with the i5s.
FM2 Trinity/Athlon/Sempron
Trinity- A10 have two dual-core modules with the same Hyper-Threading-like scheduling as the FX line. A8s lack it, but still have two dual-core modules. A6s have a single dual-core module with the Hyper-Threading-like scheduling. The A10s and A8s would compete with the i3s, the A6s would compete with the Pentiums.
Athlon- Same as Trinity, but the IGP is disabled.
Sempron- Single dual-core module without the improved scheduling and the IGP is disabled. They would compete with the Celerons.
Of course, the generation number for each should be modified to fit the branding (Athlon III, Phenom III, Sempron II or we could just skip it to Sempron III to match the others). Cache capacity would also provide differentiation between the CPUs. All FM2 CPUs would lack L3 completely and some would have 2MB per module and some might have only 1MB per module. The AM3+ CPUs would all have 2MiB of L2 cache per module and could have varying amounts of L3 cache.
griptwister
Distinguished
- Oct 7, 2012
- 1,437
- 0
- 19,460
Spooderman
Honorable
- Jan 13, 2013
- 208
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]gsacks[/nom]Sounds like these are just CPUs manufactured with a bad GPU which had to be disabled. Might as well try to see them to people who were going to use a separate GPU card anyway. Might at well try.[/citation]
You just say that because you don't know what he's talking about. It all makes sense, and he is not "talking too much" YOU need to give it a rest.
You just say that because you don't know what he's talking about. It all makes sense, and he is not "talking too much" YOU need to give it a rest.
Spooderman
Honorable
- Jan 13, 2013
- 208
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]Spooderman[/nom]You just say that because you don't know what he's talking about. It all makes sense, and he is not "talking too much" YOU need to give it a rest.[/citation]
LOL WRONG COMMENT QUOTED SORRY!
LOL WRONG COMMENT QUOTED SORRY!
Just spotted it today here on Newegg, i.e., in our very own US of A! 😀
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113328&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL060713&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL060713-_-EMC-060713-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113328-L04B
Also, if you're subscribed to Newegg's e-mail ads, you should have seen a promo code for it that cuts it down to $75 if I'm not mistaken.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113328&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL060713&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL060713-_-EMC-060713-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113328-L04B
Also, if you're subscribed to Newegg's e-mail ads, you should have seen a promo code for it that cuts it down to $75 if I'm not mistaken.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 20
-
-
Question No Power/System not starting unless CPU power cable is disconnected from the Motherboard- Started by Agoniyz
- Replies: 25
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram