I'll give them £7.50!. everyone on the OcUK forum should chip in a tenner and buy them out
grand idea.
-
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.
Possible AMD takeover
- Thread starter Vlad Drac
- Start date
grand idea.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,922
- Location
- fife, Scotland
I can see it now, the "OcUK Phenom Black Edition 9950"
Good post.
Yep I remember the "Wintel" days very well.
IIRC AMD actually beat Intel in race to 1 GHz. And then they came up with the Athlon 64 which was the second big punch for Intel.
Shame that AMD is in poor shape at the moment but to be honest I knew this would happen almost as soon as I saw the first technical specs for "Conroe".
Well AMD should just stop being a sorry excuse for themselves and lieing to people all the time, of course people are disappointed in them when they bring out a graphics card which was marketed as the brand new killer card and it doesn't even beat Nvidias 6 month old card by a long shot. One thing is being down, another is admitting it and doing something about it, and adjusting to the situation. That is not done by trying to persuade people to buy their products based on lies and false promises.
VIA is an interesting company these days, they just announced their new processors for the low-power market this week which they claim is up there with Conroe on the effectivity in those segments. That's how C2D started out too, as a mobile chip architecture so that might be promising, even though i doubt that they have the money to pull it through.
VIA is an interesting company these days, they just announced their new processors for the low-power market this week which they claim is up there with Conroe on the effectivity in those segments. That's how C2D started out too, as a mobile chip architecture so that might be promising, even though i doubt that they have the money to pull it through.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 11,365
- Location
- Knowle, Solihull, UK
The thing is if IBM do buy AMD they might rebadge the chips as IBM chips. I remember the IBM chips in the early 90s - IBM Cyrix IIRC - and they weren't much good at all!
The current state of affairs isn't good though. Competition is good - without AMD embarassing Intel I very much doubt we'd have Conroe today. Competition encourages progress
If I had some spare money I'd be tempted to buy AMD shares now as they're rather low!
The current state of affairs isn't good though. Competition is good - without AMD embarassing Intel I very much doubt we'd have Conroe today. Competition encourages progress
If I had some spare money I'd be tempted to buy AMD shares now as they're rather low!
Those IBM 'Cyrix' chips were actually made and designed by a totally separate company called Cyrix who were fabless CPU engineers... IBM just fabbed the chips, Cyrix designed them, they both got a cut of the money by dividing up the chips and selling them under their own names and such.
Edit: Also, didn't VIA buy Cyrix? Hence their 'C3' (or Cyrix 3)? IBM's in-house designs are actually extremely powerful chips, not for desktop units, though. Things like POWER6 and such.
Edit: Also, didn't VIA buy Cyrix? Hence their 'C3' (or Cyrix 3)? IBM's in-house designs are actually extremely powerful chips, not for desktop units, though. Things like POWER6 and such.
Careful not to confuse internet-based hype with marketing blurb. From what I remember, the 2900XT was launched as a competitor to the 8800GTS... it may have been considered as an ultra-high end card at one point, but AMD were reasonably quick to revise those suggestions.
Too many people bit down hard on the 320 shaders pr whatever they're called and quickly spread poo everywhere about AMD pwn20ring Nvidia because of it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 265
Imagine a CPU market with more than two major players. That would be qutie something and change the shape of things dramatically, if they could all provide competative CPUs. In fact, CPUs are the main computer component monopolised....perhaps the only actually. The thing is, as much as it is good to have competition to drive consumer prices down and drive development for better products, do we really care that much given the current prices by Intel? I think they are massively reasonable and they are not taking the biscuit of there alreayd major dominance in the market anyway even with AMD so far away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 11,365
- Location
- Knowle, Solihull, UK
Intel Processors are great, and way ahead of AMD right now performance wise, and its a known fact they use better quality materials as well.. and dont know about now but intel have used technology to downclock if they overheat, whereas AMD procesors used to/still do go into meltdown.. well unless they have now added this feature dunno.
Im not completely Anti AMD.. i mean i have used them before in systems i have built.. cheaper.
Even dell for years wouldnt touch AMD, only recently have they started selling 1 Desktop product which utilises it...
Maybe intel should just buy up AMD? lol, bad thing about that would be no competition so prices would increase
Im not completely Anti AMD.. i mean i have used them before in systems i have built.. cheaper.
Even dell for years wouldnt touch AMD, only recently have they started selling 1 Desktop product which utilises it...
Maybe intel should just buy up AMD? lol, bad thing about that would be no competition so prices would increase
I wouldn't go so far as to say that -
AMD CPUs do throttle and shut down now-a-days. They don't just fry like the old Durons did. I mean, welcome to 2003...
And, 'better quality materials'? What? So are you saying Intel use a slightly better TIM or something?
Can't disagree on the performance front, though.
AMD CPUs do throttle and shut down now-a-days. They don't just fry like the old Durons did. I mean, welcome to 2003...
And, 'better quality materials'? What? So are you saying Intel use a slightly better TIM or something?
Can't disagree on the performance front, though.
Yep they did, only just but they did none the less.
Unfortunately, both manufacturers have abandoned the Ghz race now for more parallel architectures. Instead of upping the clock speed they just do more work per clock which makes a lot of sense really. I'd like to see a 10Ghz chip in the not too distant future (not for any other reason but curiosity) but I'm convinced we'll see 32 core chips before then!
The real problem is that die shrinkage has a finite limit. Coupled with current leakage at ever smaller die sizes and heat output there could be a real problem achieving a genuine 10Ghz. At least with multi core you replicate your known working architecture (with its voltage issues sorted) and pack as many as you can in to your given chip size. I think thats where further miniaturisation will benefit most. More cores/cpus on one chip.
I think you are right in that Via did buy Cyrix IP. Via are very much in a niche market now, and one which I'm surprised Intel don't really mount a challenge in. Mini-itx integrated chipsets for set top boxes and HTPC's are a growing market in my opinion. I'm still waiting for a really high powered mini-itx chipset that runs passively cool and will play/record HD content over N based wifi. My wallet is at the ready!
Intel Processors are great, and way ahead of AMD right now performance wise, and its a known fact they use better quality materials as well.. and dont know about now but intel have used technology to downclock if they overheat, whereas AMD procesors used to/still do go into meltdown.. well unless they have now added this feature dunno.
Im not completely Anti AMD.. i mean i have used them before in systems i have built.. cheaper.
Even dell for years wouldnt touch AMD, only recently have they started selling 1 Desktop product which utilises it...
Maybe intel should just buy up AMD? lol, bad thing about that would be no competition so prices would increase
I doubt that Intel use "better quality materials" than AMD. Since AMD still outsource a significant portion of there output to third parties like TSMC and IBM, and have joint ventures with IBM too, I doubt quality is an issue.
RE: Dell, again I doubt this was a quality issue. I think it'll transpire in the current Anti-trust case between AMD and Intel, that Intel offered "incentives" to Dell to stop them becoming an AMD customer
Oh, and clock throttling has been a feature of AMD chips for years now....
Pray for good competition. Else prices will spiral upwards and the cheap computing we have grown used to will disappear!
And your evidence to support such a dumbfounded accusation?
In fact it's only in recent months/years that Intel have m managed to obtain higher yields than AMD. Therefore you could argue that AMD have/did have a better, higher quality process.
Firstly, Intel is releasing a processor called Silverthorne for that sort of market. It's an in-order execution core so, to be honest, it's going to be a bit crap anyway.
VIA on the other hand is just releasing a processor for that same market with 1MB of L2 cache, an out-of-order execution core and is capable of 3 uOps per cycle, similar to the Athlon 64, except it has a similar ability to fuse instructions like Intel's Core. All this means VIA's next processor is actually going to be a very capable little chip, especially for its market.
Apparently they could run Crysis on it.
Edit: Just thought I'd point this out, unlike VIA and Centaur's previous designs, its floating point unit is very powerful, even up against modern architectures.
Last edited:
They did have an all in one product ready to be realsed years ago. Was based on a Celeron and a chipset that used rambus memory.
When the MTH (memory translator hub) chip was found to be suspect the project was canned at the last minuite.