Will there be a 'new' manufacturers race; to 'Fusion'?

[BaronMatrix]

Funny thing is there have been reports from AMD of making a naitive 6 core then going MCM 12 core like Intel went with C2Q.

As for the monopoly, if you have the better product then you get sales. You get sales then you get market share. You get market share thats not your fault but the fault of the other company for not pushing competition.

I don't know if 45nm will make it what it should have been. I think it will get it on par with Penryn but thats all I see from a die shrink. Then it will have to face Nehalem which by no means thus far seems like a push over, it seems more like a good chip.

I agree spud. It does what it is supposed to do. Thing is that gaming on laptops is rare really and most uses are either school, business or video playback for travel.

But the IGP from Intel probably does meet its requirements in power and such.

According to your logic, Prescott vs X2 should have got AMD 40% share overall. X2 was up to 100% faster per clock. Penryn is about 30% faster than Phenom per clock. But it's hard to say because I don't like CPU bound tests. They show which CPU is faster at non-playing resolutions but not which is faster at 1680 and above. I'm about to go to 1680 (I have the montior, I just need the GPU). There is an UNNOTICEABLE difference at real world res. Once you get to 60fps, it only matters if the game fluctuates in complexity (cave vs. snow in Oblivion).


AMD was actually right to get the native quad core working now. The D0 rev of Shanghai is supposed to add HighK and E0 rev is supposed to add metal gates. MCMs are actually easier for AMD as they can just slap a cHT link between the two chips on one package. Intel needs a bus arbiter to allow equal time to the FSB.

Also, I would be interested to see how Nehalem OCs now that the whole chip has to OC, including QPI, IMC.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Ok I can see where this is going..

But hang on, anyone in their right mind would run graphic intense programs on a dedicated video card...

I only used on board stuff for businesses who dont need anything more than to boot up windows, run sage and recieve emails..

Any thing else as far as im concerned goes to ATI or Nvidia for a separate video card...

Now for Baron to clearly rant on what Intels IGP cant do when clearly it can, abiet not as good as some as AMD's offerings is another matter, but then again who cares as Intel is in a lot more machines than AMD will ever be...

It would be interesting to see how many Intel igp, processors and chipsets out sell AMD's and then we will have a winner on our hands.

Ford make good cars but Toyota out sell ford many times over...

The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!

 

[Hellboy]

The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!

MMMM ok the same Smart AMD users that are flogging a dead horse.....

Secondly with Intel and the Larrabee - ahem - what competition..

Intel on the desktop market hasnt had any serious competition for the last 20 months...

Oh and it just goes to show how really mature you are by your final comment..


NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!

Obviously your life long ambition is to sit in a Welsh Valley admiring sheep and kissing the AMD badge on a AMD Turion processed laptop machine in which some manufacturer had the misfortune to integrate as the perfomance was as lacklusture as a flatterned wheelbarrow.

Now you are hoping to get a signal from a local mcdonalds to send photos to family at home..

 

[jimmysmitty]

I said what? I knew it would take the server tasks, but I don't remember having an opinion about Phenom. Did I say better than Kentsfield? I left because of people like you and I actually have a job.

As far as XO, Intel salespeople approached I believe Brazil who ordered XO and told them it sucked and that they should go with the Classmate ( this after they joined the XO coalition). That's bottom of the barrel low. Now everyone, mind you, said other wise when they tested them. Just the Grid Network makes it worth the price, not to mention the sunlight readable screen. It even runs a slimmed down version of XP now.

OF course, you don't care. I bet Intel could evict orphans and you'd figure a way to forgive them. Can you say,

BAAAAAHHHHH?

I don't care about the OLPC because its set to benefit children in OTHER countries where as here in the US we have children struggling to learn. Its like how Oprah does so much for Africa and everyone says how good she is yet she does very little for the struggling children here in the US.

THATS why I don't care.

According to your logic, Prescott vs X2 should have got AMD 40% share overall. X2 was up to 100% faster per clock. Penryn is about 30% faster than Phenom per clock. But it's hard to say because I don't like CPU bound tests. They show which CPU is faster at non-playing resolutions but not which is faster at 1680 and above. I'm about to go to 1680 (I have the montior, I just need the GPU). There is an UNNOTICEABLE difference at real world res. Once you get to 60fps, it only matters if the game fluctuates in complexity (cave vs. snow in Oblivion).


AMD was actually right to get the native quad core working now. The D0 rev of Shanghai is supposed to add HighK and E0 rev is supposed to add metal gates. MCMs are actually easier for AMD as they can just slap a cHT link between the two chips on one package. Intel needs a bus arbiter to allow equal time to the FSB.

Also, I would be interested to see how Nehalem OCs now that the whole chip has to OC, including QPI, IMC.

My point is that AMD was talking trash about Intel going MCM and they plan on it. Its also funny because its obvious AMD is having problems at 65nm native when at 45nm they would have probably not had the same issues or so Deneb is showing pretty promising from recent results.

As for Nehalem OCing, why would you think Nehalem is like the old X2s and has the NB tied to the CPU? You don't think Intel might have set it up to have it like Phenom where the QPI and NB run seperately? I would hope so.

The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!

That whole poll thing was BS when it hit. The main reasoning is because more people had Intel systems than did have AMD. AMD used to be the enthusiasts/techie chip that was used when it was a better choice than Intel. Now that it is finding its way into more normal peoples homes if they re did the test do you think that Joe blow with a AMD system would be smarter just because its AMD and not Intel? No. He would be the same no matter what.