- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
AMD Delays Release of Quad-Core Athlon II.
- Thread starter Kuroimaho
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
i dont think we really need cheaper quads (sure cheap is always good but from a buisness standpoint), if you want to be cheap, go tri, or dual, cause if you need to cut corners chances are you wont be using all 4 cores to the max anyways.
hmm should be interesting to see how these crippled Phenoms do. I did read an article about them are they based off Phenom II? or based off Phenom I? I remember they have L3 cache of only 2MB instead of 6. Didn't the original Phenoms have 2MB of L3 cache as well? I think this is a great move to promote AMD's strive in the market of non dual cores. Currently Intel's dual core provides a very strong price/performance compared to AMD's dual core. Rather than spending money trying to compete in that market they should focus more on 3 and 4 cores and strive to make those the new 'standard' when it comes to numbers of cpu cores. If their Athlon II tri can perform as good as Intel's dual and for a similar if not cheaper price point they would have a very good competitor for Intel.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Location
- Overland Park, KS
AMD needs to come out with a proper dual core. This way they can appeal to a better market. If they can come out with a 45nm true dual based on the PII architecture I think that they will sit pretty for a while
while that is true, but how soon can they release a dual core in time? With intel's soon release of i5 intel is seemingly moving away from dual core and is focusing on alot of Quads. How can AMD compete if they waste time and money to release a dual core when Intel is slowly letting go of the dual core? Sure there are those who won't buy a quad or upgrade, but then the majority of consumers will see that Intel has quads as a standard level CPU. I mean the hype is all quads these days. Quad core notebooks, quadcore work stations. If you were in the market to buy a new pc from say HP or sony and you see that you can get a quad core machine at not much more than a dual core you would jump all over the quad wouldn't you?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
Sub 100$ all-star overclockers pls 
/pray
/pray
Sub 100$ all-star overclockers pls
/pray
the problem is how far below $100? if its $99 why not get a $710 or $720? Also the 920 is dropping in prices as well. Unless AMD wants to start selling chips at very low prices again like $50-70 I see no reason why someone would go dual core over the X3/X4, and also at that price range they have to be pretty good performers as the E7x00 series can be had for less than $100 now as well.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
I agree, at this point in time it's either get a quad or get a CPU like Atom / Nano.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Location
- Overland Park, KS
Actually with the i5, intel is focusing on a dual core cpu with a integrated GPU. The reason why dual will never go away is simple, heat and cost efficiency. There is no reason for an office personnel/casual user/old grandma to have a quad core machine. All that will do is eat up extra power and despense much more heat. Duals will stay as primary for a long time because of this. Don't forget that us over clockers/gamers/enthusiasts are the minority. Most people out there will not notice if they have a quad or a dual when all they do is go on facebook and check email.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
Athlon II's are quad cores, not duals.
Edit - Er I mean I was referring to the quad line.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Location
- Overland Park, KS
The Atom, while a very cool processor, will not cut it for alot of people. The Atom is great right up until you try to multi task with it, than it bogs down pretty bad.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
Then I would suggest that they get a quad, like the athlon II.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
I would love to have a sub $100 45nm dual with say 4mbs of l3. That would make me the happiest camper on earth!
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Location
- Overland Park, KS
But than we get back to the extra heat, and power consumption issue. We also can't forget about die size. Quads are about twice the die size of a dual. If AMD can get 60 duals out of one silicone platter and clocks them higher, and sells them for less cash than they can pull a better profit from them.
I think this is a subject that we may just have to agree to disagree
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
^^ lol this is one of those topics that can go back and forth for years. Consumers will want the quads for performance, but the manufacturers will want the smaller die size for profitablity.
I think you're referring to clarkdale from Intel. That is a way off, they will introduce Lynnfield first which is an i7 little brother with tri channel DDR3 memory controller disabled and PCI-E graphics controller. It is still a quad. also won't be released until 4Q of 09 where as the Lynnfield will be released Q2 of 09. I think Intel is forcing you to go quad core. with the Lynnfield and Clarksdale you would need to buy new motherboard/memory anyways. Lynnfield will come out first and the cheapest i7 920 is $229.99 I think the Lynnfields could start at $140- and go up all the way to $200. Your thinking is wrong about no need for quad core. It is not about "need" if Intel can market Quad as the new standards consumers will eat it up and buy quads. Like I said, most consumers will go into best buy and see a low end quad core for $599.99 and a high end dual core for $599.99 which one do you think the average consumer will go for? Everyone has a "more is always better mindset" Just like cars, do everyone in california need an SUV? No, but if they're going to pay the same for an SUV out of the dealer as say your Acura TSX why not go for the bigger and roomier vehicle? Will every one need to drive 7 passengers? No but if they ever needed to, having the option is always nice. Just like with quad cores, do most consumers use their quads to their fullest abilities? No but if you ever needed to having the option is always nice. But like I said, I see it as AMD needs to focus alot on their quads and tris, and start letting go of their duals.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
But than we get back to the extra heat, and power consumption issue. We also can't forget about die size. Quads are about twice the die size of a dual. If AMD can get 60 duals out of one silicone platter and clocks them higher, and sells them for less cash than they can pull a better profit from them.
I think this is a subject that we may just have to agree to disagree
This is highly speculative Dolk, you have no idea what the thermals, power consumption and die size are going to be. I could just as easily speculate back that because they are making these new Athlons on 45nm, they'll have thermals / die size / power consumption equal to that of the old dual core athlons that were 65nm.
I'll also ask you this? How many times have you bought a product because it had mo powa? Even if you weren't sure if you were going to need it, you'd just say, oh might as well, for longetivity.
And why would you want to try and market more dual cores when Intel will come behind you and say Atom gives you *similiar* performance for less. That is technically true and the consumer won't know. The yields on cpu's like this are multiple times better than duals.
When I mention Atom I mean the best one, not the horrid single core.
Edit - Agree to Disagree!
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
^^ that's what I want... or a 720.
