• 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 gets phenomenal with Phenom processors

MrSeanKon

MrSeanKon

MrSeanKon

Permabanned
Joined
15 Nov 2006
Posts
164
Location
Visit Athens
AMD today officially announced its new Phenom processor brand for its next-generation Barcelona architecture. The new Phenom branding will find its way on AMD’s next-generation Stars family of desktop processors. Phenom processors will coexist with AMD’s current Athlon 64 and Sempron processors; however, Athlon 64 processors cater towards entry-level while Sempron caters towards value consumers.
More info is here
 
Doubtful. Intel went PR crazy with the Conroe. We knew months in advance that it was stupidly quick. AMD are either taking a different route or they have something to hide.

And jesus when are AMD going to stop with all this "true quad core" guff. They act like waiting until they can produce a wholly quad die is somehow better. I can assure you their share holders think otherwise!! It's clever how they twist what is technically a die packaging disadvantage into a PR "advantage" though.
 
Jokester said:
True quad core? I was laughing at their "true octo core" claim with their FASN8 setup. FASN8 must be the worst product name in IT history surely?

Jokester
Click to expand...

Could be worse - it could be the iFASN8!
 
NathanE said:
Doubtful. Intel went PR crazy with the Conroe. We knew months in advance that it was stupidly quick. AMD are either taking a different route or they have something to hide.

And jesus when are AMD going to stop with all this "true quad core" guff. They act like waiting until they can produce a wholly quad die is somehow better. I can assure you their share holders think otherwise!! It's clever how they twist what is technically a die packaging disadvantage into a PR "advantage" though.
Click to expand...

Yeah Intel did, and they stuffed themselves in the process. No one wanted the outdated P4's when they had heard about just how much faster/cooler/quieter systems would be with the C2D.
AMD might be hiding something, but far more likely is the simple fact that they don't want to screw the channel and the sales of the current Opteron and X2 processors.

As for the true Quad core. I have no problem with that, it is true. 4 cores on 1 die is something intel will no be doing for well over a year (unless Penryn changes that, but i don't think that is the plan).
FASN8 is quite clearly the stupidest name ever.... why would they change it? I heard they couldn't keep 4x4 due to some car thing or other but the other name they had was fine. FASN8 just sound awful.
 
Kamakazie! said:
Yeah Intel did, and they stuffed themselves in the process. No one wanted the outdated P4's when they had heard about just how much faster/cooler/quieter systems would be with the C2D.
AMD might be hiding something, but far more likely is the simple fact that they don't want to screw the channel and the sales of the current Opteron and X2 processors.
Click to expand...

Only the enthusiast market really knew about Conroe prior to it's launch and that represents a tiny percentage of Intel's overall business. If AMD released benchmarks and ES to other reviewers and it turned out to be 50% faster than anything out there, if anything the only effect will be for enthusiasts to stop buying high end Conroe sysems.

Jokester
 
Theory is, a true quad core gives you better power effeciancy.

If AMD can pull it off they can clock it high enough yet it keep it cool and low power enough to have Intel sweating in the server market again. Thats how AMD like to play it, cater to servers first and the desktop will follow.

Intel like to do it the other way round, cater to the delltop first and the servers later at a nice premium. Hence their inelegant double-dual core. Then again, AMD went for actual double dual core... but i think everyone ignores the old 4x4 these days.
 
Benchmarks depend on what megahertz you can get the processor running at. Although by this point AMD should know the answer to that.
 
Jokester said:
Only the enthusiast market really knew about Conroe prior to it's launch and that represents a tiny percentage of Intel's overall business. If AMD released benchmarks and ES to other reviewers and it turned out to be 50% faster than anything out there, if anything the only effect will be for enthusiasts to stop buying high end Conroe sysems.

Jokester
Click to expand...

That is not strictly true. Plenty of people new about it, including business purchasers and the like.
If i remember rightly, the quarter before C2D was released was Intels worst in a long time.I don't think they had aggressively cut pricing on the P4s by that time and if it was a case of only being the enthusiast market (which is tiny) then they still shouldn't have been as bad as they were. Now i know at that time AMD was still very strong, but i don't think it makes up for the difference. AMD really doesn't have the capacity/size to undercut their own processor range like Intel does.
I would just say be patient, i don't think there is any sinister reason as to why AMD is holding off on the benchmarks.
 
There are advantages to 'true quad core' processors: they don't have to stick data on the FSB and clog it up, for starter.

AMD's dual/quad/blah-core/CPU implementation (since Opteron) has been must more elegant than Intels': their QuadFX reflects this...

The only current problem (and it's a reasonably large one) is that their CPUs aren't on the same level as Intel's at the moment.
 
mrthingyx said:
.

AMD's dual/quad/blah-core/CPU implementation (since Opteron) has been must more elegant than Intels': their QuadFX reflects this...

.
Click to expand...

Whats elegant about slapping two sockets on the same mobo?
 
mrthingyx said:
There are advantages to 'true quad core' processors: they don't have to stick data on the FSB and clog it up, for starter.
Click to expand...
Only Intel's Smithfield did that. Presler and all their Core Duo/Quad chips have a shared L2 cache and additional wiring between the cores on the same package.

Besides even Smithfield was fine if the OS was multi-core aware which Server 2003 is. That OS, Vista and Server 2008 are all multi-core aware and will schedule threads intelligently to avoid L2 cache misses. They will reschedule the same thread over and over onto the same core if possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom