AMD Reveals Upcoming Plans.

[Swatrecon_]

Have we already forgotten the A64 days with the FX-57 and FX-60? Performance leaders and fun chips to play with.

yea, seriously. Everyone says "OMG, AMD IS GOING DOWN TEH DRAIN! THEY ARE SO LAME, LULZ!!!" But come on. Intel was behind with their P4's for as long as AMD's been behind now. People need to get a grip.

[Epsilon84]

Have we already forgotten the A64 days with the FX-57 and FX-60? Performance leaders and fun chips to play with.

Not to mention the Athlon 1GHz days. Or the early Athlon XP days.

Ever since the original Athlon came out, AMD has had a faster CPU than Intel upon release of a new CPU. The Athlon was faster than the Pentium 3, the Athlon XP was faster than the P4 (at launch, P4s caught up later), Athlon 64 was faster than the P4 also, X2 was faster than PD.

Phenom breaks this trend, it's the first AMD CPU since the original Athlon that *doesn't* beat the competing Intel CPU.

[xlink]

how about a simple reality check instead. AMD can and has spent a decade without needing to take the performance crown.
Thus instead of pushing the limits of performance, dragging the prices down...
Which definitely benefits the majority of users.

lets see from 1999-2006
1999 AMD in the lead
2000 AMD in the lead
2001 AMD in the lead
2002 Intel in the lead
2003 too close to call
2004 AMD in the lead
2005 AMD in the lead
2006 AMD in the lead

I'm sorry I'm used to being a raging AMD fanboy and AMD not being competitive at the performance level pisses me off


if you're OCing, a 4Ghz q9650 is around 25% faster per clock than athlon 64. that's a 50% diference in single threaded performance against the highest of athlon x2s. And in multithread performance it's worse with phenom not really being able to scale past 2.7Gh or so that's a 67% disparity. AMD has NEVER been behind that bad before even in what was considered intel's golden era where their PI was untouchable and the PII was even more amazing.

[gallag]

AMD always had the marketing of faster for cheaper, slower for cheaper is not as good no mater what way you look at it nnstep.

[villa1n]

Not to mention the Athlon 1GHz days. Or the early Athlon XP days.

Ever since the original Athlon came out, AMD has had a faster CPU than Intel upon release of a new CPU. The Athlon was faster than the Pentium 3, the Athlon XP was faster than the P4 (at launch, P4s caught up later), Athlon 64 was faster than the P4 also, X2 was faster than PD.

Phenom breaks this trend, it's the first AMD CPU since the original Athlon that *doesn't* beat the competing Intel CPU.

They took a risk and it didnt pan out, I m sure intel experiments with multiple architectures with their budget, amd has to gamble. But i m still running my old athlon 1600 xp lol , for my linuxmint box.

[Nedjo]

It's nonsense to judge about AMD future globally from the POV of advanced XS member...

AMD has all it needs to improve its' position: bigger output of G2 65nm chips, so that OEM's and channel are satisfied with supply. Competitive performance in mid range segment with 4xxx+ and 5xxx+ dual cores, and quadcore w/o burden of unfortunate bug!

On top of that AMD has superior platform offer that's really important for big OEM's!

having the uber-killer-king-of-the-hill CPU does help trough "halo" effect, but it's not of existential importance for the company.

[SocketMan]

Amd can just sell their IGP's there is lots of money in that ,speacially if they can come up with some "oem" platform and get it throe to people that Intel IGP's suck.
AMD Igp + Phenom tri core ="butterfly platform"?

A64 was not that good when it came out ,nowhere near the P4 back then.
You all know what happened.Same thing with the phenom.
Phenom B2 is like the first A64's socket 754.
Give it time.