When is Amd going to change its processor?

[astro56]

I have perceived Amd as the underdog for the past few years in processors, but at relatively good value. However, it seriously needs to update its model. The Phenom II line is almost as old as core 2 quad which was released back in 06 and they're still building on the same design. I can understand upgrade paths are easier. However, that doesn't give them a reason not to make a separate chipset for a better line of processors. Any thoughts on this.

 

[hunter315]

The Phenom II is no where near as old as the Core 2 line, the Phenom II first came out in january 2009, the original Phenom came out back in 2007, while the core 2 quad came out at 65nm in January 2007 and 45nm in March 2008.

What makes you think that they dont do incremental upgrades and release new chipsets for better processors?

You may want to go back and check your facts as the 890GX chipset was released recently, AMD puts out a new series of chipsets every year, the Phenom II X6 is due out shortly, and they now have samples of a new architecture that they are sending out for review, while their architecture is still similar the performance of their platform has increased over the years so i wouldnt call it building on the same design.

 

[Guest]

The Phenom II is no where near as old as the Core 2 line, the Phenom II first came out in january 2009, the original Phenom came out back in 2007, while the core 2 quad came out at 65nm in January 2007 and 45nm in March 2008.

What makes you think that they dont do incremental upgrades and release new chipsets for better processors?

You may want to go back and check your facts as the 890GX chipset was released recently, AMD puts out a new series of chipsets every year, the Phenom II X6 is due out shortly, and they now have samples of a new architecture that they are sending out for review, while their architecture is still similar the performance of their platform has increased over the years so i wouldnt call it building on the same design.

Major pwnage!!!

Arf! Arf! Arf!

 

[megamanx00]

Bulldozer will be out in 2011, assuming nothing goes horribly wrong. It will probably be AM3 only and is very different from the Phenom II which is basically an evolution of the original Athlon 64. Of course, the i7 is a grand evolution of the original Pentium Pro so you can't say re-inventing the wheel is always the right thing to do .

Anyway, x6 CPUs will be out soon so chill out.

 

[jimmysmitty]

In a technicallity, the Phenom II is just a updated 45nm Phenom and is pretty much the same CPU as the Phenom released back in late 2007. But thats like how Core 2 65nm and Core 2 45nm were the same chip but just updated.

And megaman, Phenom is a evolution of the original Athlon 64. K7->K8->K10->K10.5->K10.6 (Thuban). They are in essence the same basis of a chip. While I hope Bulldozer make major changes, thats not always a good thing, remember Netburst? While Netburst allowed for higher clocks using a wider pipeline, it also lowered the IPC allowing AMDs Athlon 64 to be a better chip at lower speeds.

If Bulldozzer is too much of a change that could happen to AMD which they could not afford.

 

[xaira]

AMD doesnt have the time or money to put out a new architecture every 2 years like intel, but no one can accuse them of being lazy, because at every step of advancement, amd is never far behind intel,

 

[Raidur]

I hope BD has a higher IPC than nehalem... Intel is already a step ahead, I hope AMD can leap.

I want to go back to AMD once my Q9550 isn't enough, but I'm not changing for 4 more cores I'll never use... Actually now that I think about it my Q9550 is going to last me another few years once I get a 30" & 2x 5870s.

:/ I want a reason to upgrade! :/

 

[randomkid]

I have perceived Amd as the underdog for the past few years in processors, but at relatively good value. However, it seriously needs to update its model. The Phenom II line is almost as old as core 2 quad which was released back in 06 and they're still building on the same design. I can understand upgrade paths are easier. However, that doesn't give them a reason not to make a separate chipset for a better line of processors. Any thoughts on this.

Not give AMD a reason? Isn't good customer care reason enough? AMD have allowed their customer's to get at least two successions of CPU upgrades over the same motherboard. Does it give customers the most powerful CPU as intel does? Probably not. But it gives us enough to do the job and give us best value for our money. Hail AMD!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Not give AMD a reason? Isn't good customer care reason enough? AMD have allowed their customer's to get at least two successions of CPU upgrades over the same motherboard. Does it give customers the most powerful CPU as intel does? Probably not. But it gives us enough to do the job and give us best value for our money. Hail AMD!

The difference is that back when AMD was hailed for it, they had nothing to gain y having a different socket/chipset. No actual profit if someone bought a new mobo, only the CPU made them money.

Now they own the chipset so they will want you to buy the newest mobo so they can make more money. Only time will tell if they fall from allowing CPUs to be backwards compatable since there are changes coming in the future that may prevent it such as adding more memory channels, more cores or if you want new features.

Personally I don't see who in the world would want a AM2 mobo that is stuck at SATA since the HDD is the largest bottleneck. Even with a SSD on SATA, it wont be faster than 1 SATA II HDD. Thats why when I do want a newer up to date CPU, I tend to build a whole new system that way everything is as up to date as possible, eliminating as many bottlenecks as possible.

 

[FALC0N]

The difference is that back when AMD was hailed for it, they had nothing to gain y having a different socket/chipset. No actual profit if someone bought a new mobo, only the CPU made them money.

Now they own the chipset so they will want you to buy the newest mobo so they can make more money. Only time will tell if they fall from allowing CPUs to be backwards compatable since there are changes coming in the future that may prevent it such as adding more memory channels, more cores or if you want new features.

You got the motherboard / cpu upgrade thing backwards. While they trail in peak performance, any value advantage AMD has helps them keep customers. Thats why they did it in the socket A days and now, but didn't in the days of Athlon 64/X2 dominance. Chipset sales mean nothing if the user switches to Intel.

Personally I don't see who in the world would want a AM2 mobo that is stuck at SATA since the HDD is the largest bottleneck. Even with a SSD on SATA, it wont be faster than 1 SATA II HDD. Thats why when I do want a newer up to date CPU, I tend to build a whole new system that way everything is as up to date as possible, eliminating as many bottlenecks as possible.

You do realize that this view represents less than 5% of computer users right? Your talking about doubling for tripling performance for a fraction of a new machine. Even if it isn't cutting edge.

Not everyone can afford a new cutting edge system every year or two. I would upgrade my old AM2 system to a newer chip in a heartbeat if they had ever produced a bios update for one.

And all AM2 boards had Serial ATA 2, as did almost all socket 939. Most of the common southbridges/chipsets of the time (NFORCE 4/500, ATI SB 600, ULI 1575) all were Sata II, USB 2. Only the SB 450 if memory serves was sata 1. And that died with socket 939.

 

[FALC0N]

The bottom line problem for AMD is that Intel has an execution core thats 30% faster clock for clock than AMD's. And the execution core is the hardest part to update.

Intel got lucky with the current core archetecture since it was developed as a low power laptop chip. It saved them from the crap that was netburst.

The ONLY options for AMD to keep up for now are faster clocks, or more cores. Which is fine because thats how intel kept up in the early 2000's. Problelm is that Intel chips currently clock about as fast as AMD. That leaves more cores, which AMD has used wisely.

Bulldozer will be AMD's first new execution core in a long time and they have had a nice long look as the core 2 stuff, so I expect them to close the gap considerably if not overtake intel with Bulldozer.

All that said, current AMD offerings are good performers with great value and flexibility. But they will need a new core to take back the high end.

 

[popatim]

I've been wondering if there will be high end BD variants using socket AM5 and DDR5. DDR3 is becoming common place, pushing dr2 to the low end.. so we need a new 'bleeding edge'! <evil grin>
and Dayum that'd be a sweet setup!

 

[mrinal_26]

Everything goes round in a circle, i am fairly certain there will be a thread like this in 10 years' time with Intel under the spotlight instead of AMD. just wait and watch =)