HT 3.0, AMD's wildcard?

I was just reading the ram bandwidths the other day and I was amazed how awesome Hyper Transport is.

According to wiki's list of bandwidths AMD processors are the one and only pony you can ride to actually take advantage of DDR3. So taking into account that making a built-in memory controller takes much time and effort and Intel isnt even there yet, I came to believe that the next quarters will be AMD's time to get back all the cash-handy boyz out there(enthousiasts).

Sure AMD chips suck compared to Intel's atm but it is really mindblowing to see Intel getting ddr3 motherboards while their cpus cant even handle high end ddr2 modules. Amd on the other hand has cpus that can handle even pc3 12800 modules on stock.

So how hard can it be for AMD to compete in a price/clock war with Intel when they 're already one tech ahead?

P.S: If I dont make much sense already I ll try my best to edit the post.

I also remember seeing good proof that native quad-core design actually did boost performance by a good percentage (2-10% ish) but AMD's new chips are still dogs compared to Intel

I think this would be a monopoly had we seen Intel develop on-chip memory controllers and native quad already.

ASync said:

Intel getting ddr3 motherboards while their cpus cant even handle high end ddr2 modules. Amd on the other hand has cpus that can handle even pc3 12800 modules on stock

Click to expand...

Umm... What?

what makes you think Intel hasn't been working on an IMC for some time now?

they have the resources

all AMD needs to do is have a fire lit under their ***, and maybe they do now, but i'd rather them when on server and ultra low end than worry about us right now

ASync said:

I came to believe that the next quarters will be AMD's time to get back all the cash-handy boyz out there(enthousiasts).

So how hard can it be for AMD to compete in a price/clock war with Intel when they 're already one tech ahead?

Click to expand...

AMD gonna get the enthusiasts back when the 4G+ capable Intel quads are coming out, that really must have been something in that wiki.

Read a bit about nehalem as well or just imagine they said it's gonna be a bigger jump in performance than it was from netburst to Core.

Competing with price is doable but intel gonna end up winning more cash due to their better yields with C2D, clock war with 45nm quads does not seem to be possible with their 65nm process.

ASync said:

So how hard can it be for AMD to compete in a price/clock war with Intel when they 're already one tech ahead?

Click to expand...

Speed of processors isn't only determined by memory speed. A CPU does not just load instructions into RAM. If an application is RAM hungry, then sure it will help to store information in faster RAM. But it would help more to have a bigger L cache, and to load everything as you start proccessing information in L cache.

FYI, my chip at 2.8GHz and RAM at 800MHz does much faster than one of my friend's ~2.6GHz and 1066Mhz (slightly different chip however.) Your mileage may vary, but in my experience boosting the CPU's speed gave much higher benefits than memory's speed/latency/settings.

We had a somewhat similar talk a few months ago if my memory serves me right. Since then we figured out the true nature of "scalability", "vector based time squared" and other math jargon thanks to Frodo.

The big HT Link numbers are impressive but relatively meaningless in terms of performance since even a quad SLI setup won't overload a standard 1GHz HT 2.0 link. The HT link isn't like a CPU's FSB.

I wonder if AMD would have done better if they dumped more money into their FAB plants instead of acquiring ATI. Kinda dissappointed, I'm jumping ship to intel for now, well in 6 months =)

Intel has DDR3, AMD is on DDR2. Neither really can take enough advantage of DDR3 to justify the cost.

In Sandra, (DDR2 800-900)
Phenom 2.6G - 5870Mbs
Q6600 2.7G 5472Mbs.
Athlon lacked the firepower but had a faster IMC.

erasmus372 said:

I also remember seeing good proof that native quad-core design actually did boost performance by a good percentage (2-10% ish) but AMD's new chips are still dogs compared to Intel

I think this would be a monopoly had we seen Intel develop on-chip memory controllers and native quad already.

Click to expand...

I'm seeing about 20-27% improvement over Athlon and near performance against my Q6600.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5365867&postcount=122

terran2k said:

I wonder if AMD would have done better if they dumped more money into their FAB plants instead of acquiring ATI. Kinda dissappointed, I'm jumping ship to intel for now, well in 6 months =)

Click to expand...

They just buy tech from IBM do not develop it so that wasn't an option, not that IBM can keep up with Intel.

AlabamaCajun said:

Intel has DDR3, AMD is on DDR2. Neither really can take enough advantage of DDR3 to justify the cost.

In Sandra, (DDR2 800-900)
Phenom 2.6G - 5870Mbs
Q6600 2.7G 5472Mbs.
Athlon lacked the firepower but had a faster IMC.



I'm seeing about 20-27% improvement over Athlon and near performance against my Q6600.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5365867&postcount=122

Click to expand...

wow dude i just read what u wrote and putting it in that light AMD may not be getting owned as hard as some say.
things might go where intel is better for crunching numbers and AMD is better for gaming. time will only tell.
u kick *** u Cajun ***. (y do i want to call u a coonass?)

and what would have to be done to use the full HT up?

[qote]
So taking into account that making a built-in memory controller takes much time and effort and Intel isnt even there yet,
[/quote]

And does it matter, they are still beating AMD up and down with out one, and it has been common knowledge that Intel is working on an IMC, but frankly, they dont need it irght now so it is not a #1 prioriy

also, intel has DDR1333FSB CPU's out and i beleive DDR1666 cpu's on the way or out already, so yes they are getting up there on the banwidth and just because intel CPU doesnt directly match the speed of the ram, doesnt mean the system doesnt use it, otherwise we wouldnt have mobo' capable of 1333+ ram support.



http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=539276

AMD does not care for the enthusiasasasasit! nor does intel, they go where money is to be made.. and that is low to midrange.

Mr.Guvernment said:

And does it matter, they are still beating AMD up and down with out one, and it has been common knowledge that Intel is working on an IMC, but frankly, they dont need it irght now so it is not a #1 prioriy

also, intel has DDR1333FSB CPU's out and i beleive DDR1666 cpu's on the way or out already, so yes they are getting up there on the banwidth and just because intel CPU doesnt directly match the speed of the ram, doesnt mean the system doesnt use it, otherwise we wouldnt have mobo' capable of 1333+ ram support.



http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=539276

AMD does not care for the enthusiasasasasit! nor does intel, they go where money is to be made.. and that is low to midrange.

Click to expand...

Not really a DDR(1333 or 1666) CPU that's up to the mobo and chipset MC. Dropping a 800 FSB CPU into that socket is of little use unless you oc the dust out of it's FSB. DDR3 is expensive at this point so Bang for the buck is still in DDR2 with some cheap 8000 and 8500 out. I don't think Intel is beating AMD, AMD is now beating itself for not making K10 rule and being late. With the problems fixed on K10, we will see a small bounce back. The ledge that Intel now sits on was just pushed up by a tidal surge in sales so AMDs reach is further off for now. All future R&D will more than likely focus on Power and Efficiency in the consumer market. We may get some 3.2-3.4 ocs out of these up and commind duals. We will see server chips move into the 2.2 to 2.4 range, that's a done deal in B3 release. Phenoms will be a little more speeding running up to 2.6 by end Q1-08, 2,8G Maybe. If AMD can do this then they might secure a small market shared, it's a great chip only slightly outclassed by Kentsfield clock for clock.

the price is unreal, i wanted ot put together a new rig, $400 for 2G of ddr3!!!


You can put it that way, but Intel current CPu's are beating AMD's cpu's, even if AMD did it to themselves.

I am really interested in the completly platform from AMD, i looks promising, i want to build a rather nice rig come early new year and c2d is on my list right now... unless AMD can get something out fast

Mr.Guvernment said:

the price is unreal, i wanted ot put together a new rig, $400 for 2G of ddr3!!!


You can put it that way, but Intel current CPu's are beating AMD's cpu's, even if AMD did it to themselves.

I am really interested in the completly platform from AMD, i looks promising, i want to build a rather nice rig come early new year and c2d is on my list right now... unless AMD can get something out fast

Click to expand...

The big question is do you want something that will oc past 3.2 now or would you be happy with from stock to 3.0G OCs. If you answer is to OC 3.2 and better then you will just go with Intel as that is where they leave a dust trail. Cost factor is too close to use it as the deciding point unless you consider as you can get cheap mobos for either but be cautious what you get on the Intel side as low FSB will eat up any performance gained. Junky AM2 boards can be a problem also. I spent a little more for the Phenom in board cost as it's mostly high end boards at this point. I'm thoroughly with both boards so I can't complain. I'm Optimistic for both chips, my results are about what I expected.

i am likely going to go with a 6600 and stick it into my ip35-e, i already have my 4400 @ 3.1 now, but not sure yet, i have time for this, and my Xmas bonus just came in though of $3700, so now i have it burning a hole in my pocket, and moving into a new place (just renting until i can buy in a couple years) i am tossed between

-selling my rear projection HD tv for about $800-$1000 US, and get a nice LCD one that would suit my new place better
-get a better home audio system slowly (budget of about $5k)
-Start my new rig with a budget of about $2k including WC)

i hate decisions!

Mr.Guvernment said:

I am really interested in the completly platform from AMD, i looks promising, i want to build a rather nice rig come early new year and c2d is on my list right now... unless AMD can get something out fast

Click to expand...

As I already have a 8200 find it hard to imagine AMD could threw out anything before their 45nm procs what would be better than that. Cool OCs like hell, SSE4 and cheap, takes it less V to hit 3.7G than 3G for my K8 and with SSE4 it's gonna give K10 a run for the watts.