EDIT: This is in response to the article not previous posts.
Not fracking bloody likely. Core/2 is spanking AMD's ass a nice shiny bright red. Frack off. Sorry, AMD, I loved ya, but you got the whole of 2007 to strike back in 2008 with some serious 45nm 8+ core stuff. AMD is going to lose a bunch of market share in 2007 because of Core/2, and PentiumD's out the bargain basement door.
Oh, and Paul Otellini is so in Steve's pocket -- Paul's virtually giving Intel chips away to Apple. Paul's like, here, take it man, take it alll..... Frack those Euro bastards* AMD..!!!
*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI
AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.
They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.
They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.
By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.
AMD will have a lot of work to do.
I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.
But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.
So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!
The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
Some people don't read before they buy.
It's funny, people spend a few grand on a car and read everything about it before hand. For computers, it's almost an impulse buy by comparison.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
Yeah, AMD64 Athlons and FX's and Semprons have all been good value if they're on decent motherboards like Asus, which I swear by... As far back as the Pentium 4 was introduced until recently, it was a well-known secret that AMD was a much, much better choice for Desktops compared to the rubbish that is/was Pentium 4.
In the mobile space though the Pentium M has been a solid choice for a few years now, and now going into Centrino Duo, AMD has not come up with really competitive options.
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.
Yes, I know that Apple did that. I didn't spec the entity, I just gave the history of the ports in sequence for the official versions.
Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions )
McD
Heh. What we don't know, we don't, well, you know.
amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.
Not impressive.
FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.
4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.
The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.
I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.
But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.
So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!
It's always good to have a competitor nipping at your heels. Ask MS.
I would never want to do away with AMD. In fact, if they could somehow come out with new designs that beat the pants off Intel, more power to them. I just don't see it happening from current roadmaps.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
AMD had some pretty bad chips out there for years. They weren't shunned simply Intel didn't want anyone using them.
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable.
So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.
I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers.
That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.
FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.
4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.
The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.
When Intel moves to that: Game over.
is it not bad that one company innovates like
Dual Core machines
Integrated memory controlloer
Power/heat oriented concepts
and then the other company follows (steals?) and take the credit becoz then can beat this guy with price and marketing????
i feel for AMD
CPU (PC) world will be better with AMD and INTEL fighting for each quarter (n penny) for sales ...
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
Agreed! I'm SERIOUSLY looking into a DIY using either the 6600 Conroe, or a Xeon for HD x264/VC-1/DivX encoding. However MB's for the Xeon are rather expensive, plus the added cost of an additional CPU, but benchmarks I've seen show encoding times (for 4 cores) cut in half versus a 2 core setup. Sweet!
That 6600 is priced very nicely, ~$240 for a kickass Asus MB, and has WAY OC potential! Somewhere in the $1,200 price range would provide the most bang for the buck!
By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing
0. Overall, it's very consistent with AnandTech and TomsHardware. Also, good that it's not like AT and TH which love to do their 20-page articles.
1. Keep in mind overclocking headroom which AT and TH and some others have shown to be higher in the Conroe lineage, as opposed to the FX lineage. When overclocked heavily though, the Conroe's power consumption goes up accordingly and sucks juice like the overclocked FX albeit slightly less.
2. A warning to note is that the FPS differences are very high because it pushes towards CPU-limited scenarios. AMD fanboys have shown less differences in more "mainstream" GPU scenarios.
Quote:
They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.
PPFT. English schoolboys are brats, plain and simple. And they don't grow up until their 40+. I'm just biased about the Brits. But I need to make a journey to the MotherLand one day. God save da Queen yo.
Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable. So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.
Simple. Think about our new buzzwords for this year: Performance-per-watt. And performance-per-watt-per-dollar.
Intel has 'spec-ed the Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Allendale, Woodcrest all within specified thermal envelopes. They've settled on working to CPU multipliers off the base 266mhz bus speed -- so they've got these bunch of CPUs with their clock speed specified for their performance-per-watt-dominating quality.
It happens, we are lucky that in the Core2 Conroe/Allendale the headroom at 65nm and the general nature of the CPU is huge overclockability. The thing is that Intel can't clock the existing lineup higher as it is because once you increase the CPU frequency, clearly, the power consumption goes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers. That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.
Higher clocked versions, or more powerful in benchmarks, at same or lower thermal envelopes. It's the performance-per-watt game...
Comments
Not fracking bloody likely. Core/2 is spanking AMD's ass a nice shiny bright red. Frack off. Sorry, AMD, I loved ya, but you got the whole of 2007 to strike back in 2008 with some serious 45nm 8+ core stuff. AMD is going to lose a bunch of market share in 2007 because of Core/2, and PentiumD's out the bargain basement door.
*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI
*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI
I was pretty sure AMD started in the US. They do have fab(s) in Germany though.
No, it won't.
AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.
They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.
They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.
By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.
AMD will have a lot of work to do.
I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.
But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.
So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!
The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
Some people don't read before they buy.
It's funny, people spend a few grand on a car and read everything about it before hand. For computers, it's almost an impulse buy by comparison.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
Yeah, AMD64 Athlons and FX's and Semprons have all been good value if they're on decent motherboards like Asus, which I swear by... As far back as the Pentium 4 was introduced until recently, it was a well-known secret that AMD was a much, much better choice for Desktops compared to the rubbish that is/was Pentium 4.
In the mobile space though the Pentium M has been a solid choice for a few years now, and now going into Centrino Duo, AMD has not come up with really competitive options.
APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.
Yes, I know that Apple did that. I didn't spec the entity, I just gave the history of the ports in sequence for the official versions.
Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions
McD
Heh. What we don't know, we don't, well, you know.
amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.
Not impressive.
FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.
4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.
The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.
When Intel moves to that: Game over.
I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.
But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.
So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!
It's always good to have a competitor nipping at your heels. Ask MS.
I would never want to do away with AMD. In fact, if they could somehow come out with new designs that beat the pants off Intel, more power to them. I just don't see it happening from current roadmaps.
I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.
AMD had some pretty bad chips out there for years. They weren't shunned simply Intel didn't want anyone using them.
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable.
So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.
I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers.
That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.
Not impressive.
FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.
4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.
The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.
When Intel moves to that: Game over.
is it not bad that one company innovates like
Dual Core machines
Integrated memory controlloer
Power/heat oriented concepts
and then the other company follows (steals?) and take the credit becoz then can beat this guy with price and marketing????
i feel for AMD
CPU (PC) world will be better with AMD and INTEL fighting for each quarter (n penny) for sales ...
Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.
Agreed! I'm SERIOUSLY looking into a DIY using either the 6600 Conroe, or a Xeon for HD x264/VC-1/DivX encoding. However MB's for the Xeon are rather expensive, plus the added cost of an additional CPU, but benchmarks I've seen show encoding times (for 4 cores) cut in half versus a 2 core setup. Sweet!
That 6600 is priced very nicely, ~$240 for a kickass Asus MB, and has WAY OC potential! Somewhere in the $1,200 price range would provide the most bang for the buck!
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518
By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing.
They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518
By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing
0. Overall, it's very consistent with AnandTech and TomsHardware. Also, good that it's not like AT and TH which love to do their 20-page articles.
1. Keep in mind overclocking headroom which AT and TH and some others have shown to be higher in the Conroe lineage, as opposed to the FX lineage. When overclocked heavily though, the Conroe's power consumption goes up accordingly and sucks juice like the overclocked FX albeit slightly less.
2. A warning to note is that the FPS differences are very high because it pushes towards CPU-limited scenarios. AMD fanboys have shown less differences in more "mainstream" GPU scenarios.
They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.
PPFT. English schoolboys are brats, plain and simple. And they don't grow up until their 40+. I'm just biased about the Brits. But I need to make a journey to the MotherLand one day. God save da Queen yo.
Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable. So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.
Simple. Think about our new buzzwords for this year: Performance-per-watt. And performance-per-watt-per-dollar.
Intel has 'spec-ed the Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Allendale, Woodcrest all within specified thermal envelopes. They've settled on working to CPU multipliers off the base 266mhz bus speed -- so they've got these bunch of CPUs with their clock speed specified for their performance-per-watt-dominating quality.
It happens, we are lucky that in the Core2 Conroe/Allendale the headroom at 65nm and the general nature of the CPU is huge overclockability. The thing is that Intel can't clock the existing lineup higher as it is because once you increase the CPU frequency, clearly, the power consumption goes up.
I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers. That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.
Higher clocked versions, or more powerful in benchmarks, at same or lower thermal envelopes. It's the performance-per-watt game...