AMD Sitch

Scalability improves efficiency of data processed per clock, over time
meaning

Most of his articles regarding AMD are harsh and way too opinionated IMO. Its one of the main reasons I dont read the front articles much anymore. Tired of seeing poor reporting.

And yes I feel he is totally wrong as well.

I wonder if intel will stick to stacking cores.

Not sure.

AMD has a better dual and quad core architecture but their speeds are just not there yet.

well, they will move themselves to high and low k transitors ...
plus remember their speeds are due to lack of pipelining, that will change on 2008-9

Only speculation at this point though.

savageseb said:

I wonder if intel will stick to stacking cores.

Click to expand...

Intel's idea of a customer is an idiot. A tone cold moron who will recognize nothing more than "Dual core" and high clock speeds, rather than quality products and good performance. They will ALWAYS stack cores. Its what they do. R&D is expensive, so why not get there the cheaper way? Joe blow won't realize that quad core actually means 2 dual cores, or that a dual core is actually 2 seperate cores (as they did with pentium D). I've always found this insulting.

CGR said:

Most of his articles regarding AMD are harsh and way too opinionated IMO. Its one of the main reasons I dont read the front articles much anymore. Tired of seeing poor reporting.

Click to expand...

Me too ...

Cheator said:

Intel's idea of a customer is an idiot. A tone cold moron who will recognize nothing more than "Dual core" and high clock speeds, rather than quality products and good performance. They will ALWAYS stack cores. Its what they do. R&D is expensive, so why not get there the cheaper way? Joe blow won't realize that quad core actually means 2 dual cores, or that a dual core is actually 2 seperate cores (as they did with pentium D). I've always found this insulting.

Click to expand...

Joe blow won't care how it's constructed, so long as it has the right number of cores and is priced right, while Joe Enthusiast will go with Intel's Q6600 since they're affordably priced, overclock well, have spectacular single and multi-thread performance all while using less power than a competitor's slower dual-core.

Cheator said:

Intel's idea of a customer is an idiot. A tone cold moron who will recognize nothing more than "Dual core" and high clock speeds, rather than quality products and good performance. They will ALWAYS stack cores. Its what they do. R&D is expensive, so why not get there the cheaper way? Joe blow won't realize that quad core actually means 2 dual cores, or that a dual core is actually 2 seperate cores (as they did with pentium D). I've always found this insulting.

Click to expand...

Must be a lot of tone cold morons out there, because their strategy is working. They've been selling a hell of a lot of chips, and AMD has not. If a quad-core consists of two separate dies, but outperforms a quad-core that consists of one unified die, then does it really matter that it's using two dies? No, not to 99% of the people buying chips.

benbaked said:

If a quad-core consists of two separate dies, but outperforms a quad-core that consists of one unified die, then does it really matter if they're on two dies? No, not to 99% of the people buying chips. And IMO, the C2D is a superior dual-core design compared to the Athlon X2.

Click to expand...

BINGO

the AMD fans bitterness continues to amaze me

benbaked said:

Must be a lot of tone cold morons out there, because their strategy is working. They've been selling a hell of a lot of chips, and AMD has not. If a quad-core consists of two separate dies, but outperforms a quad-core that consists of one unified die, then does it really matter that it's using two dies? No, not to 99% of the people buying chips.

Click to expand...

excuse me but are you saying Intel´s quad outperform K10 quads?
if so think about what i just posted, or do i need to start drawing you people pictures.


on another note....
not only will amd have top of the line processors, but also top of the line chipsets with integrated video solutions.
http://www.dailytech.com/More+AMD+RS780+Details+Revealed/article8237.htm
loooks niiiice!

savageseb said:

excuse me but are you saying Intel´s quad outperform K10 quads?
if so think about what i just posted, or do i need to start drawing you people pictures.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I don't know whether it is faster or not as I have not yet (and still haven't) seen anything to prove that point one way or the other - only speculation.

I was more responding to Cheator about his comment of a quad-core being two separate dies, or a dual-core being two separate cores. My point was and is that 99% of the people buying chips do not care how the performance is attained, they don't care about the inner workings - they care about the end result.

benbaked said:

That's not what I said. I don't know whether it is faster or not as I have not yet (and still haven't) seen anything to prove that point one way or the other - only speculation.

I was more responding to Cheator about his comment of a quad-core being two separate dies, or a dual-core being two separate cores. My point was and is that 99% of the people buying chips do not care how the performance is attained, they don't care about the inner workings - they care about the end result.

Click to expand...

well, the means justify the results here, no doubt.

all the doubting caused by propaganda is cause this is the first time Scalability is introduced into the world and no one seems to understand how it helps the core sub-system.(that is actually a lie i can name lots of scalable ciscuitry)
even though amd already explained it.
K10 would be the intel killer of 2007 if they let it out.
And i dont think a multi billion dollar company would risk it all on unproved R&D.


EDIT:

ever heard of the fibonacci series?

1)1
2)2
3)1+2=3
4)3+2=5
5)5+3=8
6)8+5=13
7)13+8=21
8)21+13=34
9)32+21=53
.
.
.
see the trend? the rate of change in the Fibonacci sequence is an irrational number, an infinitesimal number, or Floating point. Irrational numbers are never ending.

AMD has played it smart, Time is an irrational factor. So a discrete proportion is unattainable and never ending, you can approximate to the rate of change as much as you want, but you will never get an exact proportion, since an irrational number cannot be expressed in fractions.

This is what happens when you add a scalability system to whatever you are processing, whether it be energy, money or data, oiver a period of time. The circuitry becomes "smart", in a sense.

Now at the "Macro level", rules have not changed. the speed of the processor again becomes an important factor which holds you back. more importantly the subsystem is ultimately the one holding you back, and k10 is that improved subsystem.

People keep underestimating the workings of scalability, When benchmarking starts coming out it will be hell broken loose, and people everywhere should begin to see what great new technology is coming.
New energy efficient systems will start popping out of nowhere, and everyone will say, AMD did it first.
And that is Bull**** cause this is plain old math.

Intel , however, is going for further MHZ´s. they are always ahead on transitor technology.
in the end it is the material that you use , which limits the amount of MHZ you will get, no matter how much power management you do.

In the end X86 is old and is dying. and both companies know this, god only knows what these 2 R&D testers have stored for us.

Cheator, thanks for reminding me of those 2 very important initials, lol

benbaked said:

Must be a lot of tone cold morons out there, because their strategy is working. They've been selling a hell of a lot of chips, and AMD has not. If a quad-core consists of two separate dies, but outperforms a quad-core that consists of one unified die, then does it really matter that it's using two dies? No, not to 99% of the people buying chips.

Click to expand...

Plenty of morons out there, yeah. You can see it when you're driving down the highway.

My point isnt performance. Its perfectly obvious core 2 duo beats AMD at alot of stuff. However, AMD's dual core was actually dual core. Intel's was 2 cpus on 1 die. AMD's first quad will actually be a quad core. Intel's is just 2 dual cores. This means that AMD has done all the proper R&D and sells a proper dual core. Intel wanted to get it out quick, and didn't care about lieing to their customer, so they put out a dual core which wasn't really dual core, just 2 friggin cpus seperated on the same die.

My point IS that AMD is simply a better company. They put TIME into ****. They don't just realease a half assed product with no R&D behind it. Thats why i stick with them. I don't care about 3 more fps in fear .

Do note that this is my opinion, so none of you have to agree. I was just responding to something I found interesting and true.

Cheator said:

Plenty of morons out there, yeah. You can see it when you're driving down the highway.

My point isnt performance. Its perfectly obvious core 2 duo beats AMD at alot of stuff. However, AMD's dual core was actually dual core. Intel's was 2 cpus on 1 die. AMD's first quad will actually be a quad core. Intel's is just 2 dual cores. This means that AMD has done all the proper R&D and sells a proper dual core. Intel wanted to get it out quick, and didn't care about lieing to their customer, so they put out a dual core which wasn't really dual core, just 2 friggin cpus seperated on the same die.

My point IS that AMD is simply a better company. They put TIME into ****. They don't just realease a half assed product with no R&D behind it. Thats why i stick with them. I don't care about 3 more fps in fear .

Do note that this is my opinion, so none of you have to agree. I was just responding to something I found interesting and true.

Click to expand...

GTengineer said:

BINGO

the AMD fans bitterness continues to amaze me

Click to expand...

Yeah... i'm bitter cause AMD didn't adopt DRM as fast as AMD did. I am bitter because AMD wasn't bothering with a new core, just clocking netburst higher and higher. I am bitter because I never got to taste the wonderful fruit of RDRam. I am bitter because I didn't like the intel commercial and was all like "zomg they have a commercial! Thay r bettar than amd!". I am bitter because my cpu isn't as hot as the sun when its running idle. I am bitter because the socket 775 mounting system is just so awesome compared to that crappy K8 one.

Screw AMD, I am going intel from now on. No more good computers! Its all **** from here .

Cheator said:

Yeah... i'm bitter cause AMD didn't adopt DRM as fast as AMD did. I am bitter because AMD wasn't bothering with a new core, just clocking netburst higher and higher. I am bitter because I never got to taste the wonderful fruit of RDRam. I am bitter because I didn't like the intel commercial and was all like "zomg they have a commercial! Thay r bettar than amd!". I am bitter because my cpu isn't as hot as the sun when its running idle. I am bitter because the socket 775 mounting system is just so awesome compared to that crappy K8 one.

Screw AMD, I am going intel from now on. No more good computers! Its all **** from here .

Click to expand...

LMAO

I don't think ED would have such a long rant if he really knew what that system was doing.
They were playing STALKER maxed out on AMD's pretty E&S 2400x1600 projector and encoding the video into 1080p(h264) in REALTIME and transmitting it live with only a second delay.
Do you know how much processing power you need to do that on the fly?!
I'd need 2 C2D's; one for the game, one for the encoding, the C2Q would be starved of memory doing something soo demanding.

You Intel fans may have the better processor at the moment, buy why are soo many major corporations not catching on in their server hardware?
Why is the NYSE still using 90nm Opterons and waiting for AMD's Barcelona? It's all about efficiency and performance-per-watt, you don't want 100'000 watts of heat to literally melt your market.

[noob] I believe the C2D is "teh awesome" and the C2Q is "t3h fail". [/noob]
I'd rather have a 2P platform rather then a C2Q.

Just my crazy ideas in the form of text...

P.S. Post #17 won the thread.

Cheator said:

My point isnt performance. Its perfectly obvious core 2 duo beats AMD at alot of stuff. However, AMD's dual core was actually dual core. Intel's was 2 cpus on 1 die. AMD's first quad will actually be a quad core. Intel's is just 2 dual cores. This means that AMD has done all the proper R&D and sells a proper dual core. Intel wanted to get it out quick, and didn't care about lieing to their customer, so they put out a dual core which wasn't really dual core, just 2 friggin cpus seperated on the same die.

Click to expand...

Who cares. The A64 X2 beat the Pentium D not because it had a crossbar connecting two separate cores on-die, it beat it because it was a faster core and its lower heat production allowed AMD to run at clock speeds closer to its single-core version.

My point IS that AMD is simply a better company. They put TIME into ****. They don't just realease a half assed product with no R&D behind it. Thats why i stick with them. I don't care about 3 more fps in fear

Click to expand...

What do you call the Quad FX? Slower than the QX6700, (heck slower than the FX-62 in most games and desktop applications) and consumes twice as much power as a QX6700.