Printable View
Agreed. I have never paid these rediculous prices before getting a dual core Athlon X2 / Opteron 165's :( Back in the day, it was 1700+ @ 2.6 GHz for 70 USD brand new.. when the fastest stock was 2800+ 2.17 GHz. I want those days back :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
Pathetic thread. Not realy intresting to read anyways, half of it is flames. :fact:
I don't think you know what a die shrink is. A die shrink is a reduction in process WITHOUT significant architectural change. K8L is not a die shrink :slap: K8L should whoop Conroe in FP performance, but it remains to be seen WHEN it arrives. That's really the big question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealcpu
I am comparing what is going to be available on the market at the same time. Intel is generally 1/2 - 2/3 of a tech process ahead of AMD (0.13 -> 0.09 -> 0.065 story repeats).
I think K8L has the capacity to meet, and possibly exceed Conroe at the same clocks. However, i don't think they can catch Conroe's clock speed, even on 65nm.
Think back to the 130nm to 90nm jump, we can compare single cores. The highest clocked 130nm was FX55 Claw @ 2.6 Ghz, and 90nm was FX57 @ 2.8 Ghz and it took them a few months of 90nm before it was released iirc. Only much later did were they able to release a 3 Ghz single core, and it's very rare, expensive, and it's s940 server only.
That's a 400 Mhz increase resulting from 130nm -> 90nm
It's not exact, but apply this to AMD dual cores going from 90nm to 65nm. We have 2.8 GHz 90nm out now, applying what we just had it would be quite a few months of development before we see a 3.2 Ghz dual core. By that time, Conroe 3.33 XE will be out.
And you can't forget, as AMD shifts to 65nm, Intel is prepping 45nm. I'm not saying AMD won't pull out some good stuff, but, I think they'll be fighting an uphill battle against Conroe because they can't match the clock speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderstruck!
:slapass: I am loyal to XS now look at your join date then look at mine:nono:
Join date means nothing..i have signed up to forums in 2002..looked twice..and went back to post a few times. BUT I SIGNED UP IN 2002 THAT MEANS IM LOYAL! under that logic. Not to mention I've been reading around this one for years..just recently signed up..i guess that means i'm not loyal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealcpu
IMHO, AMD is fundamentally in trouble at this point, as you said, where they have to play catch-up with Intel as far as clocks go (and even IPC at this point). HT does wonders for AMD in multi-way computing, but how many of us even here are likely to buy two FX'es in the near future?
K8L is just a logical extension of this "4x4 design." At a point, they are going to have to stop adding cores and rework their architecture fundamentally in order to beat Intel again on a per-core, per-MHz basis.
This is simply reminscent of Intel dumping heaps of cache with the Prescott. It begins to become impractical at a point, not to mention costly and most likely a power guzzler. It's not an elegant design, but rather a quick, brute force fix. They can't go on like this forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
Yup plus
its looking like intel will always be 1 year ahead nm process like intel is on 65nm and amd is on 90nm. which mean higher clock speeds but even on the same nm process conroe can achieve higher clock speeds than amd.
intel has 2, 4, 8, 16mb cache, I simply think that AMD will always be 1 year behind on the cache.
Intel will also release quad core like almost 1 year early than AMD. 4x4 is just like FX opteron with unlock mutiplier.
I am not sure, but i think both companies will release quad cores at approximately the same time: not long into 07.
btw 45nm is sheduled for Q1 2008 intel
mid 2008 AMD
if you want sources => google, i dont save al my websites i surf to
who cares about a quadcore intel? they are way to bandwidth starved remember 8xx anyone?
just slap 2 dual cores together to keep the crowd happy
kentsfield wil not be a big deal, the true quadcore of intel may get things going
but i doubt i will be superior to the AMD quadcore, and hell, i will not upgrade before quadcore
this sinle core 146@2.8 ghz is nice for all games, games doesnt even improve if i clock higher, i will wait till second half of 2007 for some nice quadcores, doesnt matter if they are from intel or AMD
This is just a desperation move by AMD, just like Intel did back with their EE's and their emergency dual core.
This is targeted soley to gamers. People who deal with workstations that use multi-sockets are already using Opterons, and that isn't going to change.
And games are not mulithreaded. And to be honest, there isn't going to be a magical day where they suddenly are. Games are inherently linear in their nature. At the very most, you can make maybe two or three "major" threads that require significant computer power. I'm not saying you can't split up a game into dozens of threads, but each of those threads would be so short lived and constantly waiting on other threads that it would be the equivalent to simply using a couple of larger threads.
I don't mean to sound like an Intel fanboy or anything, but this is retarded. The only advantage this will have at this point in time will be on multithreaded driver overhead for the GPU's, but that won't make much of a difference. While you may get a 20% gain for buying an FX-62 over an X2-5000 for $500, you'll get a 5-10% gain buying 2x FX-62's for an extra $1000. People may be rich, and I'm sure some people will do it just for their e-penis, but you'd have to be retarded to do so.
AMD will be releasing quad core server chips initially, their desktop and mobile chips will be introduced over a half year later. Intel will release their quads similarly to the way they are releasing Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom, within a month or two of each other. His point about 45nm is also very valid. Intel plans to release those mid 2007. This should give them a huge price advantage over AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
This solution will probably give AMD an edge at the very high end in certain applications for a short time, but very few will be able to afford it. I certainly won't be able to.
Agreed Gautam, something will give out or maybe AMD has a fix for it, like brainwashing:rolleyes:
@ Unreal So what you are saying is that Kl8 will beat Conroe just because they say so? If thats the case then maybe you should run for president:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohns97
yeah no banchmark just some drawings on paper wont help AMD, if what AMD say is true, show some benchmark
besides for$2300 USD = 2x $1000 FX 62 + $300 mobo
who would pay that much money for it?? cant u jsut get a dual socket woodcrest rig??
Edit: in the ase they dont slash the price of FX, is the FX going to be cheaper???
Totally agree... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by gullf1sk
45nm of intel is Q1 2008 :slapass:Quote:
Originally Posted by de redhead
Not only is Intela l year ahead, but that year gives them time to hit Rev. 2, etc of a process and have it on the market. Sort of like Rev. D for AMD with 90nm then their 'true' launch of 90nm with Rev. E cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by p360stick
With this move AMD are basically saying: "Right now we don't have anything to take on Conroe, so we'll use TWO CPUs."
Points to consider about 4x4:
- poor performance/price ratio
- poor performance/watt ratio
- performancewise it will only deliver if the application runs on all cores - ie most of the time performance will be way below the theoretical limit
ARGH, lost focus, sweet avatar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MicroNecessian
Anyhow, thread DEFF not suppose too be in Intel section..
Its a lovely weather today... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage_guitar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
oh man you don't now :banana::banana::banana::banana: about cpu architecture, the intel architecture is not even a bit futuristic... they stretched the core in any way possible dubbel fsb/large cache 128 instructions etc and they did a nice job. but they cant stretch it forever.you talk like the old days of intel where they will get 10ghz....:stick:
what did amd do on their k8l... the same as intel wider instruction sets... except for a shared cache which is again rather new and intel wil also used it in tulsa.
even intel knows they have to go to multicore, as long as they stay with the fsb bottle they will be in troubles, they will never be the real leader. hyperthreading with mem controller is a much better way to scale your cores. the nb is adding power consumption bottelneck and latency.
Watch your mouth..Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
And second, Guatam aint a noob, so behave.
no offense but i have to agree with duploxxx
This thread seems to be started by a troll as flamebait..
I wonder why so many AMD-"people" feel the need to "trash" Intel/Conroe here in the Intel section..The "sig" of Duploxxx is just pathetic.. :confused: (this also goes for those Intel "boys" that holler "halleluja.. AMD will fall")
Conroe is not officially released... K8L/"core quattro" is even further from relase date..
Why not wait until they have been released, tested.. and tweaked by "mainstream" testers/tweakers before passing judgements...
Architecture may be interesting.. but is not necessarly a "critical success factor".. neither for sales..nor for winning benches (for that matter)..
What is good though is that both companies strive to "beat" each other.. both in raw performance.. and in sales (hint: lower prices).. :D
After reading this entire topic (wasting 10mins of my life), I have concluded that AMD fanboys are very insecure.