• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

AMD has sold out production on Zacate:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18280925

Llano seems to have secured many orders too. Cray has already announced a supercomputer which uses Bulldozer processors.

If anything it seems more like AMD has been doing quite well this year in terms of profits but has been more constrained by supply ATM(at least with Zacate).

AMD has made its best profits for a while this year:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20818

Intel maybe more profitable but still for AMD to make a profit during a recession is a good achievement.
 
Last edited:
Really hoping this has one up on SB, possibly looking to drop £1000 or so into a folding/gaming build later in the year so it would be nice to see some alternative and competition to Intel by that point.
 
clocka said:
@JF-AMD: Can you get AMD to work with the x264 developers to add silicon to AMD's chips specifically for x264 encoding, intel's quicksync is extremely fast but uses their own h.264 codec with poor settings. The guys at x264 have contacted AMD before to get amd to create silicon to allow x264 to be encoded with dedicated silicon. a lot of people encode with x264 these days, google, facebook are just 2 examples, its the best h.264 implementation. This would be a huge selling point for a lot of people as people edit videos and put them on youtube a lot, being able to do this far faster would certainly make me want to buy an AMD cpu!

Intel have already been in discussions about x264 with the head developer, if intel gave them the low level api's x264 would fly. they have apparently been telling him some info of how it works but its NDA he said in a post yesterday on doom9 forums. If Intel adds support for x264 that would be a massive blow to AMD as your cpu's would be multiple times slower.
Click to expand...

+1 -- this is absolutely vital in the high-end desktop and workstation space, and EVERYONE uses x264 in the hugely expanding online gaming streaming 'industry'. Get to it, AMD ... as the above poster says, if Intel get this feature and AMD don't, it'll be a huge blow to AMD in a sector they traditionally do well in.
 
pmc25 said:
+1 -- this is absolutely vital in the high-end desktop and workstation space, and EVERYONE uses x264 in the hugely expanding online gaming streaming 'industry'. Get to it, AMD ... as the above poster says, if Intel get this feature and AMD don't, it'll be a huge blow to AMD in a sector they traditionally do well in.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Whoever gets hardware x264 first will have an advantage.
 
So it would also mean the Core i3 2105 would make the i5 2500, i7 2600 or a Xeon a tad redundant for video encoding too?? Sandy Bridge E lacks an IGP and hence looks a tad screwed too.

Cool!

I will ditch my Core i3 2100 and get a Core i3 2105 instead. I was intending to get a Core i7 2600 or a Xeon at some point but it seems these look poor value for money now.

A £110 Core i3 2105 seems to be what I need.





:p
 
Last edited:
Tweaker said:
That is a little short sighted, brand transfer is important for Intel, people know Intel have the fastest chips, therefor they associate Intel with fast and good performance. AMD do a lot of talk about value for money, but when people are in the store picking a laptop, they see the Intel logo and expect good performance, even if it isnt as good by 5% compared to AMD, the branding is too strong for people to buy AMD.
Click to expand...

Actually being faster only helps getting that 1% which is the enthusiast sector to buy over the other. Nearly everything else with Intel brand recognition to the general is public advertising & nothing to do with being the fastest because the general pubic will not by the fastest CPU by anyone they buy the brand they know & as cheap as possible unless someone or somthing intervenes, history has proven that already.

AMD needs advertising which will do a hell of allot more & most likely cheaper then pulling a FERMI just so it can claim to be the fastest but the size & cost of the thing would mean that only the enthusiasts could or would buy it which would change nothing for AMDs CPU recognition outcome outside of enthusiasts which would be a waste of money.
 
Last edited:
Similar clocks to Sandy Bridge engineering samples so it's possible we'll see similar clocks in the final product (most chips being able to run at 4.6-4.8 GHz).
 
I'm sure I remember an old AMD advert during the Athlon/P3 days...
Will have a search on Youtube, involved a train and mild humour.

*searches*

Apart from the logos on Ferraris, I don't remember seeing a recent advert for them...
 
Last edited:
So ****ing cheesy.lol.

I remember them Intel blue freaks too. I ******* hated them, plus Intel's advertising back in the 90's was cheesy and warped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom