• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD Responds To INTEL's Roadmap

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Nahalem is still going to come out ~6 months before Shanghai, and AMD has no answer to larabee atm?

Basically it just sounded like AMD saying "we're gonna have competative cpu's with intel, 6 months later..."
 
Allen said: “On Nahalem, Intel is catching up with what we have. Barcelona is here. It is shipping with the largest number of OEMs we’ve ever had. We have level three cache, we've had integrated memory since 2003 and high speed serial links since 2006. I don‘t think there is anything new here.”

And yet they still don't have a chip as fast as Intel's.
 
Hardin said:
And yet they still don't have a chip as fast as Intel's.

My sentiments exactly. If there's nothing new here, then why in blue blazing hell is AMD getting the crap beat out of them in the performance sector??
 
We've been discussing the Neha's on the other subforum and I don't think we will see them until 2009. Shanghai should be out in Nov if AMD says August. I no longer matters that Intel has the faster race horse, the real focus is seeing new technology speed and performance come our way. Please don't bait threads with comments about what crap is getting beaten, we need to stay focused on the technology. Currently AMDs offerings come at a much lower prices for a nice quad rig. Price wise on Intel it's mostly the Q6600, E6600 and E8400 are within a good price range for a smashing performance machine. I have one the Q6600 and it's one hell of a chip I have to say but I'm still having more enjoyment working with the Phenom as it's more of a challange. AMD has a wide range of medium-high speed procs such as the 5600, 6000 and 6400 in Windsor, several Brisbanes and 4 Phenom Quads including the 9150 due any time now. All at under $250US which is pretty impressive for a company with 3 FABs and a negative cash flow.

My next big purchase will be a Shanghai as I'm interested to see what they will do. I think we know to expect a 10-20% performance improvement in the 10.5 CPUs with some running in the 3G range but the data is still spotty. I'm not counting on Neha to be much over the current lay of chips as Intel still has some issues to work out in Penryn along with some new serverlines to be released. Both companies need to deliver more Ticks and Tocks instead of Flips and Flops! I'll back up why I say that, I've been waiting for a Q9550 Penryn since Christmass but gave up waiting.
 
Last edited:
Why should we care about the technology if it doesn't bring any performance increase? CPUs are all about doing things fast. It doesn't matter if there was nothing but tiny monkeys inside a CPU - as long as it performs.
 
Not all tech is about speed. Efficiency, reliability and production costs are some other issues that come to mind. They may not be issues here, (efficiency probably is) but tech is not always just about speed even in CPUs.
 
Not all tech is about speed. Efficiency, reliability and production costs are some other issues that come to mind. They may not be issues here, (efficiency probably is) but tech is not always just about speed even in CPUs.

OK but he does have a point, I remember people harping on about K8 being more advanced than the NGMA/Conroe because it had an integrated memory controller and a serial interface. Nevertheless it was still outperformed in almost every single category by a wide margin.

Businesses care about price, performance and running costs, home users care about price and (to some extent) performance. Nobody other than maybe a few geeky collectors is likely to buy a chip for anything other than these three things and certainly not just because they are convinced that it is really very advanced.
 
Power consumption, reliability and production cost are constants that don't improve continuously, performance is the only variable that advances - and has meaning in the long run.
 
Power consumption, reliability and production cost are constants that don't improve continuously, performance is the only variable that advances - and has meaning in the long run.

Huh?? That pretty much makes no sense. You trolling?
 
You have a point, but I think you are overstating it a bit.

On the business/enterprise side power consumption matters because of running costs, Intel wouldn't be selling millions of LV and ULV Xeons. On the home user side everybody seems to be switching to laptops so power consumption is staring to matter more there too.
 
Power consumption, reliability and production cost are constants that don't improve continuously, performance is the only variable that advances - and has meaning in the long run.

That statement is right except the power consumption IMO. :)
 
Huh?? That pretty much makes no sense. You trolling?
au.gif

Truly, if there were no such constants the industry would be in total chaos.

Tell me does ASIC power consumption increase/decrease constantly or even vary significantly? Regardless of the generation we're looking at TDPs hanging around ~50-120W for server/desktop CPUs. There are no 10W nor 200-300W+ mainstream chips around are there? Were CPUs/platforms less reliable 10 years ago? There's no reason to push expected lifetime of chips/platforms further and further, who's gonna use the same chip for decades? Isn't unit cost the same from generation to generation? Basically, the area of silicon the chip takes dictates it's mfg cost. Mainstream CPUs tend to hang around 100-150mm^2 with production costs of <$50. ASPs ofcourse vary according to state of competition.

There's no way to go over, nor below, these boundaries. Some things are constants because they simply can't be varied - power consumption eg.. Some, such as reliability, are only logical to keep constant. These constants only serve one purpose... Think what has happened to ASIC performance within, say, 10 years...
 
AMDs reduction in power waste will allow the future high end chips to achieve faster overclocks. Overvolting just floods more power onto the chip. If we get a less leaky, more power efficient CPU then we get to OC higher.

Companies running vast farms of servers are very concerned about every watt that gets consumed. This is what gave AMD the crown in the server market albeit in a short lifespan.
 
Back