- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
So, how about those dual core celerons?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel's 2008 Roadmap: a definite dis to AMD
- Thread starter Audioaficionado
- Start date
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
Bloomfield is Nehalem with IMC, CSI, 8MB shared L2 among the 4 cores each capable to run dual thread, or in short the real Quad.
Since GPU's became mainstream those were more important with games but doubt a P4 could run Crysis well, better get an E6400 and a 8800GT.
Comes on the 20th of January with Ketnsfield.
OP
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #23
That's the one I want
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01268/
And Intel continues the dissing. As I mentioned much earlier:
And Intel continues the dissing. As I mentioned much earlier:
The low end is about to be innovationless for a bit longer, it seems
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Location
- Issaquah, Washington
We really have no reason to b*tch about anything Intel does anymore considering the leaps and bounds they have made in less than two years. I say this because every time I was ready to build my new computer something better or faster was just being released. AMD on the other hand has been hittin the crack pipe thinking that all their lawsuits will put them back in the game. Sure it "might" happen some day but that day could be twenty years or more away and by that time the computer might become totally unnecessary as newer tech will be running everything.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
I tend to disagree a bit there dan. Intel is only successful now because they finally bothered to use their monstrous resources into producing a real architecture that wasn't focused on pure clock speed like netburst was. They finally realised the consumer isn't stupid. This it what Intel should have been all along, and with thier resources, they will always lead the way in die shrinks.
AMD is down right now, but they will survive. You can garrentee they ain't just sitting around waiting to die, they have roadmaps for the future that may reshape the computer as we know it. The problem they made was to sit on their A64 architecture for too long before advancing.
And the multiplier issue with these new procs is probably how Intel intends to combat us overclocking cheaper chips. They are trying to force us to higher end chips. The increase in FSB is just a marketing gimick that suits their needs.
my 2 cents.
AMD is down right now, but they will survive. You can garrentee they ain't just sitting around waiting to die, they have roadmaps for the future that may reshape the computer as we know it. The problem they made was to sit on their A64 architecture for too long before advancing.
And the multiplier issue with these new procs is probably how Intel intends to combat us overclocking cheaper chips. They are trying to force us to higher end chips. The increase in FSB is just a marketing gimick that suits their needs.
my 2 cents.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Location
- Stockton Cal, USA, Earth
AMD in it's present form might disapear, but the chips won't..the company will just be either restructured, or they'll be bought out...probably by VIA.
Worst case scenario: AMD gets bought by Intel, and they combine the technologies, and sit on their laurels for a couple of yrs and prices skyrocket.
I won't be upgrading for as many yrs as my system is still viable,but it will still be interesting to see what develops in the next few months/yrs.
My 2cents too.
Cheers All,
Doc
Worst case scenario: AMD gets bought by Intel, and they combine the technologies, and sit on their laurels for a couple of yrs and prices skyrocket.
I won't be upgrading for as many yrs as my system is still viable,but it will still be interesting to see what develops in the next few months/yrs.
My 2cents too.
Cheers All,
Doc
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Location
- Tau'ri
Those RD790 boards that start at 100 dollars and go to 270 dollars. ALL include PCIE 2.0 and either 8x/8x or 16/16 crossfire support. Something you can not get on an intel board for under 200. 99 dollars for a FULL crossfire board. WOW
So the rd790s are cheaper. IMHO
However...
intel has the performance on CPUs right now that AMD does not. We can only hope that something changes to continue to fuel the innovation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Location
- Connecticut
I'll cry if Intel buys AMD! Two years from now we'll have processors equivalent to the Q9450 at six times the price because they're "better"!
Although maybe then I could sell my e6600 for $900
Although maybe then I could sell my e6600 for $900
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
I'm still trying to figure out why people keep claiming Intel will refuse to innovate and raise prices ridiculously. They've had a huge lead over AMD for over a year and a half and they've slashed prices drastically and both cut die sizes and will be coming out with a new architecture soon. How is this anything but the exact opposite?
Plus if Intel DOES in fact do such a thing, AMD, while moving at it's slow-but-steady pace, will still be enough in the game to prevent Intel from making such a bone-headed move. (Much like they are now)
Relax people, it's not the Silicapocolypse yet
Plus if Intel DOES in fact do such a thing, AMD, while moving at it's slow-but-steady pace, will still be enough in the game to prevent Intel from making such a bone-headed move. (Much like they are now)
Relax people, it's not the Silicapocolypse yet
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Location
- Tau'ri
I'm still trying to figure out why people keep claiming Intel will refuse to innovate and raise prices ridiculously. They've had a huge lead over AMD for over a year and a half and they've slashed prices drastically and both cut die sizes and will be coming out with a new architecture soon. How is this anything but the exact opposite?
Plus if Intel DOES in fact do such a thing, AMD, while moving at it's slow-but-steady pace, will still be enough in the game to prevent Intel from making such a bone-headed move. (Much like they are now)
Relax people, it's not the Silicapocolypse yet
Because all of those innovations have been scheduled for the last few years..
They are not going to spend the money to refurb their fabs to produce 45nm and then since they have no competition, not use them... I have changed my mind though, they do not need to "innovate" anything over the next two years, as long as they do what all the companies do... keep tweaking their stuff until they do come out with a better architecture.
And you are right... those people that scream AMD is dead! They are not and they are not going anywhere. They may be number 2 for a while thats true, but thats a far cry from being dead.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
I don't think intel can really afford to push RnD as hard as they have been to get the new 45nm chips out with huge new FABs.
From a business standpoint it would be incredibly foolish to keep innovating when the new yorkfields and wolfdales will stomp anything AMD will bring out for a while.
This is just consistent with what intel has done in the past. They go really hard on RnD for a while, take it easy and use that profit to recycle the money back into more RnD.
Like Neur0mancer said, they'll tweak for a while, collect profits, then see where they want to go with RnD.
(Using RnD for research and development)
Edit - EchoTheDolphin brought up the point of intel slashing their prices repeatedly. The budget CPU market is where most people buy, so intel still wants to stay competative there, aka slashing prices. But, I think AMD have dug a hole for themselves because the only market share they are catering to right now is the cheaper side of the CPU business. AMD simply cannot compete with high end intels because they just don't spend enough or as much as intel on RnD. I really believe AMD may give up the super high end consumer processing market and only cater to the low to mid-range, which is pretty much what ATI has already done. AMD and ATI lost to Intel and Nvidia in the high end consumer market place, and I don't think its worth it financially to try and catch up.
From a business standpoint it would be incredibly foolish to keep innovating when the new yorkfields and wolfdales will stomp anything AMD will bring out for a while.
This is just consistent with what intel has done in the past. They go really hard on RnD for a while, take it easy and use that profit to recycle the money back into more RnD.
Like Neur0mancer said, they'll tweak for a while, collect profits, then see where they want to go with RnD.
(Using RnD for research and development)
Edit - EchoTheDolphin brought up the point of intel slashing their prices repeatedly. The budget CPU market is where most people buy, so intel still wants to stay competative there, aka slashing prices. But, I think AMD have dug a hole for themselves because the only market share they are catering to right now is the cheaper side of the CPU business. AMD simply cannot compete with high end intels because they just don't spend enough or as much as intel on RnD. I really believe AMD may give up the super high end consumer processing market and only cater to the low to mid-range, which is pretty much what ATI has already done. AMD and ATI lost to Intel and Nvidia in the high end consumer market place, and I don't think its worth it financially to try and catch up.
Last edited:
Maybe a bit off topic but still relevant with the whole roadmap thingie.
Tweaking goes a long way. It would be pretty cool to see the market stagnate and both Intel and AMD just tweak what they got atm. Take the VGA for an example back in early '90s. There was little tech advance but the programmers were providing better graphics every year with the same gear.
Thinking in an other perspective, the PC buisness has strayed far away from the route the rest tech biz follow. The less consumption, less weight, less size seems to be everywhere from vehicles to cell phones, still the pc industry isnt following it. The GPUs ask for more watts than ever before. The cpu's powerconsumption is only a trend, motherboards have grown bigger and cooling devices remind me of the Eiphel Tower.
45nm CPU but the whole unit is as big as ever... not much of a change. Lowering consumption by lower the size is not much of an advancement imo.
Tweaking goes a long way. It would be pretty cool to see the market stagnate and both Intel and AMD just tweak what they got atm. Take the VGA for an example back in early '90s. There was little tech advance but the programmers were providing better graphics every year with the same gear.
Thinking in an other perspective, the PC buisness has strayed far away from the route the rest tech biz follow. The less consumption, less weight, less size seems to be everywhere from vehicles to cell phones, still the pc industry isnt following it. The GPUs ask for more watts than ever before. The cpu's powerconsumption is only a trend, motherboards have grown bigger and cooling devices remind me of the Eiphel Tower.
45nm CPU but the whole unit is as big as ever... not much of a change. Lowering consumption by lower the size is not much of an advancement imo.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
Intel got big and fat over decades somewhat normal among unchallenged companies, AMD got slow in a few years, can't find them any better than Intel in this point of view, especially if I take a look at the Phenom VS Athlon core shootout at TH.
What roadmaps does AMD have and how far will those be delayed ?
I guess you mean SSE5 and On die GPU as the induestry reshaping wonders.
Intel can easily counter SSE5 several ways, and the GPU requires software support if AMD loses more marketshare it is going to be hard to force on the market especially if Intel goes another wat, DX11 might be when the GPGPUs will really matter.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Location
- Connecticut
I definitely don't think AMD will go under, it definitely will keep going. But Shiggity is right when he says AMD is now catering to the low to mid-range market. Most of us here are in the upper-mid and high-end market (at least when we buy them ). If Intel only needs to compete in the lower half of the market, the upper half will stagnate. The only reason Intel would want to spend money on the high-end is if they will make a profit out of it. And how would pumping money into RnD yield a profit for Intel if they already blow away AMD? All we would have to look forward to is die shrinks and factory OC's
). If Intel only needs to compete in the lower half of the market, the upper half will stagnate. The only reason Intel would want to spend money on the high-end is if they will make a profit out of it. And how would pumping money into RnD yield a profit for Intel if they already blow away AMD? All we would have to look forward to is die shrinks and factory OC's 
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
If you keep buying it, they'll keep making it.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Location
- Santa Clara, CA
I actually dream that this could be a reality, instead of the more GHz, more Watts, and boards. I remember there was a demo of a game that was only about 1MB, but had graphics and sound of a normal CD sized game. I personally believe that programmers are either lazy or have their hands tied with the "more GHz, more Watts, and boards" philosophy that stops them from coding software that should be blazing at the CPU power we have now.
There are games that have roughly the same graphics, but one game will perform admirably while the other is complete hogwash (ie. CoD:4 vs Crysis). It may not be the best comparison but if the market put an emphasis on efficient code rather than GHz, I think the Intel vs AMD phenomena could stabilize.
Or maybe it might just be my fever talking...
Could that not also be AMD's blessing in disguise?
They have done nothing but play catchup against Intel's superior processors for the last few years and here is their chance to do just that.
If intel raises their prices would that not curb some ppl to buy more AMD products?
I am no AMD fan ( look at my sig) but I just might build my wife a AMD setup since she is still using an old 1.8ghz P4 w/ 20gb HD. It's high time for her to get a new PC.
They have done nothing but play catchup against Intel's superior processors for the last few years and here is their chance to do just that.
If intel raises their prices would that not curb some ppl to buy more AMD products?
I am no AMD fan ( look at my sig) but I just might build my wife a AMD setup since she is still using an old 1.8ghz P4 w/ 20gb HD. It's high time for her to get a new PC.
