SiGe, sooner or later it will come
it's a well-known fact
Printable View
SiGe, sooner or later it will come
it's a well-known fact
Yeah, my theory is that it will be implimented in the next 65nm rev. That since AMD's inital batch of processors were mainly alotted for OEM's, they decided to pump out the initial batch without SiGe, while improving their 65nm tech. The next batch released for retail would have improved clocking. I guess it all depends on how much time and work is required to mix in germanium to the mix without having to go back to the drawing board.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Anyone kind enough to link me to the theoretical performance for the K8L?
where are you from? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LiQU!D
see http://virtualexperience.amd.com/ind...re&co=quadcore , it will help u
I went there and couldn't find anything. :S
install Java, k-lite codec pack, OC you inet connection and u'll hear uncle Randy Allen speaking
lol what a load of marketing bullQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS
so why the hell do you assume you need an expensive kit for intel and a cheap ddr667 kit for amd? intel has dividers too...Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunK
I would prefer MAS just relayed that information to me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
The lowest divider on the chipsets that would bring the E6300 above 3Ghz is 1:1. The guy says 3.2Ghz is easy with an E6300. The E6300 has a multi of 7. 3200mhz / 7 = 458mhz FSB. 458mhz FSB means 916mhz on the memory at 1:1. There's no way a cheap 667mhz DDR2 kit will do 916mhz for long enough to prove it. Now are you gonna say that with extremely lose timings it's gonna make it happen? Maybe it would. But then the alleged 20%-40% performance gap over the AM2 would be reduced considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Not to mention that the 100$ mobo isn't gonna help reach 3.2Ghz.
The AM2 X2 3800 has a base frequency of 200mhz (with a 10x multi). If you raise the frequency to 300mhz and use a 1:1 divider on the memory, it's gonna run at 600mhz and, if you use DDR2 667, is gonna be UNDERclocked (thus buying cheap mem).
But maybe you know more than I do. After all, you have a sig saying that you have a 170 Opteron at 2.8Ghz and mem at 260mhz. For me, running a s939 cpu at 2.8Ghz means running the memory at either 280mhz or, the next best thing, 255mhz. Did you invent a new divider?
You better reread what I said. I read the Locked thread . So I remembered you saying NO good chipsets exist for Intel. So to make you feel good about yourself. I said we can reduce the 3.2ghz . To O/C to the same as an AMD O/C which is stable at or below 2.8ghz. So ineffect I was saying clock for clock C2D is 20-40% faster than X2.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunK
If we used a 3.2ghz C2d would be 40-60% faster. Sorry you miss read that. As I wasn't real clear on it. Because I wanted to use the cheap DDR2 so as to keep the prices equal other than M/B. C2D does not need expensive ram to hit 2.6-2.8 ghz. So for $100 more for the C2D setup is cheap price/performance wise. At new egg you can pick up DDR2 OCZ PC2-6400 2x1024 kits for $207.99 using 1:1 @400fsb with 965 chipset is very doable.= 2.8ghz.
100$ more as in a 100$ vs 200$, 200$ vs 300$, 300$ vs 400$ video card? If someone buys a computer to use Word and do some browsing, the 100$ more will most likely be unjustified. If someone buys a computer to play games (and is still price conscious), he will probably want to have a better video card for that 100$ more as it would be a more interesting investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
I admit, though, that I almost bought a C2D system during the Hollidays. But the only mobo that would interest me is the AW9D-Max and it seems plagued with BIOS problems not counting that it doesn't reach that high FSB which wouldn't help a E6300. I would have loved to compare it to my Opty in x86_64 Linux, though.
So than the new low end chips intel will be releasing that run at DDR2/ 800FSB with high multiplier should be very interesting to people such as yourself.
With a release price of about $150 and a second Qt, price of $115 should be very hot selling chip in the budget market. I would never build a new system I was going to O/C and use anything but a top end gpu. If I wanted a wed browser any $300 PC would do the job well.
Maybe. But if you're talking about the E4300, first, it's not here and second, it still has to prove that it will be a good overclocker to interest me. So far, I've read threads that say the E4300 won't clock so well and is crippled in features.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
Actually you forgot too much...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
What AMD says will have improved/added:
0. Native quad core
1. Hypertransport up to 5.2GT/s
2. Better coherency
3. Private L2, shared L3 cache that scales up.
4. Separate power planes and pstates for north bridge and CPU
5. 128b FPUs - see 14,15
6. 48b virtual/physical addressing and 1GB pages
7. Support for DDR2, eventually DDR3
8. Support for FBD1 and 2 eventually
9. I/O virtualization and nested page tables
10. Memory mirroring, data poisoning, HT retry protocol support
11. 32B instead of 16B ifetch
12. Indirect branch predictors
13. OOO load execution - similar to memory disambiguation
14. 2x 128b SSE units
15. 2x 128b SSE LDs/cycle
16. Several new instructions
first off, maybe intel boards dont have a 400 divider, but nvidia does... theres more than one chipset manufacturer for intel. second, you have an opty 170, thats not a cheap cpu by any means, so why are you comparing to intel's lowest end conroe? the opty 170, up until a few months ago cost more than 350, so its only fair to compare it to a 6600. and even amd says to use ddr2 800 ram if you want good performance from the cpu. as for my ram, its not at 260, thats it highest overclock...
Show me a divider lower than 1:1.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Fair for whom? Find me a 180$ E6600 right now and I'm gonna buy not one but two of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Thanks for being honest after the fact. The usual MO of Intel overclockers. :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
If that means 256 bits cache line size then that's not a good thing either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
brilliant comeback against someone whose last intel was a 1.3 p4... and again, you bought your 170 most likely for 350, youre complaining about how expensive everything is on the intel side, but yet you yourself bought a cpu more expensive than an e6600 was at launch... wait to be a hypocrit...Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunK
Well, you could have bought AMD stuff as far back as the first paycheck you ever had in your life. It doesn't change the fact that your MO (latin: modus operandi, behavioural pattern, way to conduct yourself, etc.) is the same as the Intel freaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Also, against you, I don't need to make any comeback since I'm always a step ahead of you (I'll let the readers make their own conclusions about that).
And, finally, read this . Better yet. Try to read anything and, most importantly, grasp it (or at least try) before you make any more comments.
i guess since you like personal insults, your reading comprehension fails you. note how i said opteron 170s cost 350 before a few months ago. i assume you bought your system more further back then when the price drop happened, so again, you are a hypocrit for :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about intel's prices, when amd used to charge just as much when it was kicking intel's ass... and again, amd wants you to use ddr2 800 for am2 as well, thats why it released it in may and not earlier... and anyways, if intel is such an expensive choice for you, its your peformance to lose, this a star es thread, not why intel is a crappy choice.
You called me an hypocrit first. So I guess there I had to make a comeback.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Read all my posts from the last few days. I always stated that I bought the 170 about a month ago. Never have I hidden that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
I don't think AMD really wants something from me right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Yeah, I'm very sad I stopped masturbating in front of single Super PI runs when I saw C2D results.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Well yes it is. But who instigated the off topic bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:ting?Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Excellant Post. Could you go threw the improvements 1-16 and add what each point may do for AMD as far as performance is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
What language? Is modus operandi a restricted expression on these forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Nothing K8L won't be able to fix, though. :with:Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Uhmm...why make the big list of something that aint so much? Its like trying to spin it to more that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
5+14+15+16: Single cycle SSE and SSSE3. No need to make it 3 points unless Core 2 would just get the same 3 and another one with more SSE ports. And 128b FPUs? What did you smoke. Its eitehr 128bit SSE units or 64/80bit x87.
7+8: We already got DDR2..why is this new? And currently AMD dont seem happy about FB-DIMMs and DDR3 is still quite far away.
2+3: You mean the 66% higher latency L2 cache thats been private always? The L3 cache is what fixes the coherency. I doubt it can add much if any performance enchancement besides that. Just look on 512 vs 1024KB K8s.
1: Thats great..for 4x4 and 2xxx/8xxx Opertons. HT aint a problem on the desktop. Try 800 vs 1000mhz today and bench it.
0: Thats a PR joke. Intels 45nm quadcore would be the real native one with shared L2 and direct L1 links. To call aaything for native is a joke. In that case P4D and K8 aint native dualcores either, only C2D and CD? And even tnen CD dont have direct L1 links and would most likely fail then. I count true quadcores as for how they are licensed.
4: Aint this a socket AM3 feature only?
6: Yes the new 1TB memory limit is quite....useful for us. Does it enhance performance? no.
9: And this is new how?
10: RAS feature, not performance enchancing.
11+12+13: Buffers and memory disambiguation.
So at the end of the day, did I forgot anything? Nopes. If I did I would have been forgetting it on both. I only took the direct performance enchancing things. Hell, you even forgot the wider L1 cache and internal data paths.
We are still back to:
Memory disambiguation
128bit vs 64bit paths
Single cycle SSE
Bigger buffers here and there
L3 cache
Yeah ,since you personally designed dozens of MPUs you already know that making those changes is like walk in the park. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Heck,by the look of your post,it seems liek a 13 year old kid could have made a better job than AMD did,with such a small number of advancements.
Biggest and most rediculous understatement of the year. Congrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Also, increasing bus widths != larger buffers. I don't think you know what a buffer is.
whatever, star is more of a server oriented arch, surprise surprise. if it gets released in q2, it will give clovertown a very good run for its money. on the desktop, amd doesnt really care too much anymore. if it can satisfy dell, its set. the enthusiast market is what, probably less than 1% of the actual cpu market, whether we like it or not, we're not important. intel could continue to crush amd in the desktop, but again, only a small part of the market actually cares. nehalem for intel will make it very competitive in the server market, but amd is still ahead on the platform, as whatever intel's htx competitor is, its still one step behind since it depends on the high latency low bandwidth pci-e bus. then of course, nobody really knows how good cerebus will be. once amd gets its manufacturing facilities in line, it will be positioned to take a better run at intel on the desktop, but not yet, maybe in like 2009 or 2010.
Why do you say that? Intel did basicly the same thing with C2D from yonah. AMD basicly just copied what Intel did. It will be interesting to see if AMD's engineers are as good as Intels. What Intel did with C2D was impressive. I doubt that anyone will think amd's engineers are at 13 year old level. If K8l performs as well as C2D I would say AMD has done a wonderful job. But If anyone thinks K8L will be 20% better than C2D than I believe your in for a let down . Than as always I have to remind all again when you discuss K8L don't compare to C2D . As K8L will be up against. Wolf/York.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The real dog fight and what will determine AMD's future is Nehalem vs. AMD fusion. ATI has softened my position on AMD. SO I will watch this development with much interest from both sides. Who knows maybe ATI can save AMD.
I wrote that as a sarcastic comment to Shintai's post.You need to pay more attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
And yes,i think AMD has great eng. department(probably more efficient as less teams are available for making different designs than intel has,and they are doing wonderful work and will continue to do that,don' you worry).
And i must ask you,why AMD needs saving?And from whom?
And ,who will save intel if Nehalem is less efficient than Cerebus?
Ah! those words! Well. First, bull******** is a casual word that's synonymous to "saying nonsense" in my culture. I know that it's hypocritically forbidden on syndicated TV stations accross the U.S. but that it's fairly common on rented DVDs (in the U.S. too).Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Second, it's not masterbate but masturbate and again, unless you're a moron (oops! typo. I meant mormon) you shouldn't be offended by the mere writting of the word let alone in a figure of speech.
amd definately doesnt need any saving. if it gets through this barrage of new intel architectures every two years and rapidly decreasing manufacturing processes, intel will be in a very tough spot. amd's goal is to increase its production capacities to intel levels at least for cpu production, and it will probably meet its expecations with three super fabs, fab 36, fab 38, and whatever theyll call the new york fab, and convert all of their lines to a modular architecture. thats why intel is trying so hard right now, as amd will very soon bring cpu upgradeability in terms of new features to gpu levels. of course, intel is not lagging behind, but it realizes that amd has a very effective long term plan.
With the price pressure intel is putting on AMD . AMD has to hit on all cylinders. No more misfires or they are in serious trouble.
Think of AMD position changes in the last 6 months. AMD went from a position of more cores are better to . More cores may not be so good . This is after AMD realized Intels full plan . 8 cores for nehalem 32cores for Geshner.
Geshner of course wouldn't be based on X86 plateform tho. But could run X86 code without a performance drop.
AMD has to have Ati to pull out of this one. I personnally hope fusion is a great success. Amd is going to rely on dual sockets and co processors to build on the future.
Intel is going multi 8+ cores and genesco to hold off AMD fusion in the short term.
Intel long term is aiming for 32+ cores all on 1 die for 1 socket. With memory on die. with differant cores to fulfill differant requirerments.
AMD needed ATI badly and that will reveal itself with the passage of time.
Not that we have that much time with global warming and the ice caps melting. You have heard of the Ice burg the size of texas in the atlantic have you not?
LOL, nice one. I guess you dont like the facts? Seriously, is it so damaging and demoralizing? there was a huge difference on K8 and P4, leaving the P4 in the dust. Even new P4s didn´t help that. Yet, its not allowed the other way in some form? Why do you make it to that AMD engineers are like 13 year olds? Perhaps you missed what AMDs main design focus is on. Its servers, not desktops.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
What are you talking about? Last time I checked I stated BOTH wider data paths and bigger buffers. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Do you understand English at all?I said :Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
So my point was that you think those changes are nothing at all,just minor tweaks to the core,piece of cake,nothing important...If you think that it's easy to add something as OOO loads to a cpu without much redesigning,you need to read a lot of stuff first.It's VERY hard thing and that's the reason why designs(be it ibm,amd ,intel etc.) take so much time to come out from fabs.From paper/software simul. to a working MPU,it's a very long road.Quote:
Heck,by the look of your post,it seems like a 13 year old kid could have made a better job than AMD did,with such a small number of advancements.
The advancements are significant,and by how much we'll find out pretty soon,come Q2 and server variants are out.And remember,on server front,AMD is not the one stuck with old FSB and off die mem. controller.They jumped to next gen IMC(supporting many different types of memory standards) and a new improved version of Hyper Transport(that will be totally revamped with introduction of DC2.0 in 08')
jees ... by the sheer number of rabid offtopic intel fanboys in here *i'm looking for the intel section sign on the door*
why can't you little agro boys just STFU if you don't have something on-topic to add?
i guess its just pure ignorance or stupidity...
I think they are still trying to get those years of repression from Prescott out of their SystemQuote:
Originally Posted by flytek
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Now why do you think that. AMD never had a 20-40% advantage over the hot running pressies. I for one am happly Intel built Netburst arch. And the Itanic CPU. How much of what Intel has learned threw mistakes and misfires will help intel In future chips. I would bet a lot.
I was reading how Nehalem will use HT again. I really had to laugh! I would very much like to see were Intel has said future HT would allow 8 threads to be read from 4 cores. Than of course Nehalem will scale to 8+ cores on a die. So that would be 16+ threads at once. Come on were did Intel say the future HT would do that? Link anyone.
Most are aware of Intel's Mitosis. It makes much more sense that Intels new improved HT will allow 1 thread to be used by all available cores. 2 threads by 2 cores for each thread. In Nehalems 8 core die This will be a huge success in multi core apps. and in single core apps it will be untouchable.
I am betting this is what Intels new improved HT will be. As anything else is just plain foolishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I second that. The Amd uATX systems rock. I'm building two now with Mobile Semprons, one to be used as firewall and the other as a fileserver. Dead cheap and consumes only a few watts when undervolted (the Asrock boards are nice for this) and with a Picu Psu. It's even more fun to put them together than a main rig. Because it's sooo darn cheap! You can even use the stock cooler on ultra low rpm. :)
It should be good when we can buy dual core 65nm Semprons. Then we are talking nice and cool running budget rigs!
I completely agree Intel has learned a great deal from their Mistakes, AMD learned from Intel's mistakes as well. Esp after they started picking up some of Intel's Top designers from their Itanium and Yohan Projects. Though the MOST important thing they have learned is that Doing processing is Easy, Keeping the processor busy but not wasting work is hard. And that is mostly what is going to help AMD, putting more work into idle hardware. There are only a few cases today where AMD isn't close to Conroe, and they specifically are when throughput is more important than latency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
Again nn you got me. Link to were Intels Top designers from Itanic and Yonah.Left to join AMD. I believe A few of India's top designers left Intel for AMD after their massive failure with CSI . I know a couple of flunkies left Itanic for AMD but I believe they got the boot. As for your Yonah Enginneers leaving Intel isreal for AMD germany I would very much want to see that link.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I agree that getting more out of less is effient. But I would say that Most of us are happy with C2D and many who are not. But they don't count as they won't buy c2d reguardless. All intel really needs to do with C2D is add ondie memory controller and CSI and its A whole new ballgame. But I believe Intel is going for the Kill with Nehalem .
The name Nehalem is a Town I believe . But whats really interesting is the other spelling Neplilim (Children of the gods)
interesting use of wordsQuote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
http://news.com.com/2100-1006-6055595.html?tag=tbQuote:
director of Itanium circuits and technology
I wonder if that means he knows alot about Itanium's design :rolleyes:
If your trying to get the best bang for your buck its AMD. If you want performance and money is no object then its Intel. AMD's mobos are priced nearly half the cost of a decent Intel board. AMD's high end boards start at about $80 for most. Intels start at $150 with the same features as the $80 or $100 AMD's you got to put $50-70$ in more just for a decent OCer when most AMD boards will top out a cpu for $80 to $100 vs $150-$170. So a person with cost in mind is going to go with AMD. But if your all about performance and know your stuff you'll go Intel.
Some people still think Higher GHZ = Better so they will still go with Intel if they see a P4 or they might go with AMD over a C2D because AMD's GHZ is higher. To a normal person there thoughts are. More GHZ = faster again flashes in there minds. Some people don't know about C2D. And just the K8 and go or stay with that. Most users never come here or see any kind of forums or reviews for that matter. Some people don't even care.
Amen to that. I think it's safe to say that the people loyal to AMD will remain loyal even if it means keeping their s939 for a while. It's also safe to say that the (bad?) "salesmen" flooding "our" threads 1) won't sell us anything and 2) will remain Intel fanboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
For some, there is no justification in paying a higher price for bragging rights and, for others, those same bragging rights are of the utmost importance.
exactly, upgrading the CPU isn't on anyone's top list. More Ram, Better GPU, and more storage usually come first and are often the most helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunK
So The Top HP designer left Intel after less than a year with Intel . Didn't take long for Intel to get rid of the loser. When he didn't deliver on time he got the boot . Big deal. Still waiting On those Israel engineers leaving Intel for AMD. Link please. While your looking check and see how many ATI designers left ATI/AMD for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Or he left a ship before it sank,and joined a new one,with better future...Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
Rest assured dear Turtle1,AMD is not going anywhere anytime soon.And they are ready for the battle,just as you think intel is (i don't doubt that either)
Shunk you got it all wrong. This thread was about K8L es chips In DEC . Never happened. Most OF the hype has been proven to be just that hype.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunK
AMD says K8L is faster than AMD X2 by 40%. From the die shots this is a pure BS % unless their saying in certain apps. If thats the case C2D is faster by 40% in certain apps.
I could careless if you buy AMD or Intel. That would apply to every member of this forum . Except those with hidden agenda's.
But you guys are over hyping K8L . Its also strange thats its the same people who said Intel fixed the Spring IDF 06 results. I just find it amusing from an enthusist point of view that these people can be so broadminded when it comes to AMD and yet so narrow minded when it comes to Intel.
I have never every said AMD64 was not a good chip for its time. I like ondie memory controller. I believe C2D should have had it. But Intel wanted to have CSI inplace as well. So its wait and see. Just as K8L is wait and see.
But this hype of the K8L when we basicly know the changes that are being made. Is a joke. Than the AMD demo of the K8L running Task manager. And no one allowed to see inside the box. If AMD was going to show K8L . It should have been 1 core running real apps. and everyone allowed to see inside the box.
Sorry if it looks like a fish and it swimms like a fish and it smells like a fish its fishy.
How many knew what C2D was 1 year before it was released. or 6 months befor it was Shown . Very few. there was know hype except a few who had Dothan rigs that new it was going to be great.
I doubt you would see any Intel fanboys in these threads if you guys didn't over hype . Or say things like K8L will destroy C2D. . Its really pure BS. when you say K8L will destroy C2D when you all know K8L will be up against wolf/york. But you deny that. Just as you denied the spring idf 06 results.
Instead you say Intel won't have 45nm out in 3rd qt. But than you say AMD a much smaller weaker company will be out ahead of the roadmaps. But I guess if as a company you put out a bunch of road maps you can point to the right one and say right on schedule. I guess AMD has learned from the Inquirer. Put out enough fud some is about to be true. Example 4x4 was orginally hyped as an enthusist gamer setup. When AMD failed they changed it to multi thread Ultra. You guys bit right into it hook line and stinker.
The money Intel spent on the Itanic well prove to be their best investment ever. I doubt the cpu will every make a dime for Intel. But somewhere down the line we shall see it pay off. Maybe C2D 4 issue was just the beginning. Maybe Nehalem is 5 issue or even 6 issue. Itanic is what 8 or 6 issue processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I believe that with my whole heart and soul. AMD is not going anywhere soon.
well, theres nothing wrong with 4x4 as a gaming setup, it could run sli just fine, although ofcourse theres little reason to get 4x4 for that, but people also like dual socket setups, so 4x4 will sell, theres little doubt about it. also, i was one of the ones who didnt really believe in the conroe hype, and i thought it wasnt going to be available for a while, just judging by intel's previous track record, so conroe doubters werent just amd fanboys. star doesnt seem that great though, cerebus sounds a lot more interesting. one thing about star though, is that 4x4 using star processors will be pretty awesome.
1) http://www.chip-architect.com/news/O...teger_Core.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
ALUs are cheap transistor wise and if AMD/Intel wanted they could put 50 of them. The reason they DON'T do that is because the problem with x86 has never been insufficient processing power, rather the inability to keep those processing components FEED.
2) Itanium has a few nice design features, however it has a serious problem when it comes to advancing the architecture because Explicitly parallel programming functions on the theory that there are a set number of execution slots. Meaning if Itanium when from 3 to 4 slots, you would have to recompile EVERYTHING to make use of it and if you don't that slot is filled with a NOP which wastes energy. And nothing from Itanium is any Use for ANYONE in x86 MINUS the branch prediction and MicroCode engine.
3) in Theory Conroe can Issue up to 5 uOpts at a time and AMD can only do 3. yet strangely having nearly double doesn't even equate to 50% performance advantage.
4) to Each their Own.
I like dual socket M/B also they have there uses. What is cerebus. I know it only from a comic book aartvark character. Good point NN but you are forgetting about the russian company Intel bought. Nehalem will show you why they bought it.
cerebus is fusion's first architectural code name. theres not much info on it, except that it might exist, it will have a gpu onboard, and it has some sort of architectural improvements over k8l, nothing really specified though.
I like the fusion idea. But to be honest Raytracing has gotten my attion above all other graphics design. I am very sure this is were Intel is heading. But I must say ATI gpu on a future amd processor sounds very very interesting. I do think AMD should drop the roadmap name away from cerebus tho. I mean they don't like K9 which I do. Doctor WHO. Very cool DOG with lots of smarts. Cerebus will no doubt become the aartvark of CPU'S. Maybe AMD sees Intel as an ant. LOL .
One thing about Cerebus that puzzles me is. Many say ATI gpu on die with cpu be very hot and just for the middle and low end.
I see it as much much more. I see it as a very powerful gpu on a die with amd cpu's. Maybe on a 4 core processor for gaming . 2 gpu cores running with 2 cpu cores.
I see this as a high end product not a middle lowend product.
this is a lowend solution, there is no possible way that the memory subsystem would hold up for a high performance graphics chip let alone 2, unless amd decides on itanium-sized cache. the onboard gpu will work wonders for physics processing if amd wants to go in that direction though.
http://news.com.com/AMD+lures+high-r...3-6055595.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Turtle 1
A high ranking designer means manager, not the guy in the trenches, nn is misleading somewhat as it was only one person which was high profile enough to generate a headline.
Yonah was not designed by the same group, as far as has been reported no designers (at least high ranking ones) have left IDC to join AMD. So taht is a little bit of FUD on his part.
Guys, back on topic before I lock and delete this. It's going around in circles. Thanks.
Please don't delete this thread! It's very entertaining!
Any K8L ES previews yet? I can't wait to see how incredibly they perform with 40-50% higher IPC, 50% faster clock speeds and the 25% performance boost from RHTT!
I'm really looking forward to building a "best bang-for-buck" AMD K8L system with one of those $60 full-featured mobos and bargain-bin DDR667 ram that will let me overclock a $200 K8L to it's full C2 raping potential. OTOH, since the CPU isn't really important when AMD is far behind in performance, performance per watt and bang for buck, maybe I should buy new ram instead? $400 worth of new ram could get me 3% better performance than I have now with my $130 ram...
TIA
now I can't tell if you are retarded or trying to be sarcasticQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Hes being sarcastic + wildly over-exaggerating some of the things said in this thread, I guess he is trying to get the thread locked and/or start a flame war?
Thread Locked.