AMD 2008 thoughts?

[Kuzi]

We all know now that the route Intel took in glueing two CPUs together was the better choice. Had AMD done that, we would have probably seen quad core K10's (non native) maybe a year ago. I think when it comes to Barcelona/Phenom, AMD put a lot of time and effort on multi-core performance and also to have a "native" quad core.

That's why generally we see K10's efficiency in highly multithreaded apps higher than C2D, but single core performance is lower, and that leads to lower overal performance. I can't help but think that K10 was designed as more of a server chip than a desktop one, as it performs very nicely in the server space even at only say 2.2ghz.

Overall K10's improvement is pretty good over K8, but from the reviews I've seen, AMD still has some way to go when it comes to caches (latency/size/density compared to C2D). So if AMD can release 45nm Shanghai in 2008, that has tweaked caches with lower latency, 6MB L3 cache, and faster North Bridge, their performance can easily be 5-10% higher than 65nm K10. Which would basically allow it to perform on par with "current" C2D, and a bit slower than the new penryns. With the right price Shanghai can be a winner.

Yes AMD is very very late, and I'm not holding much hope for the B3 stepping K10s that should be released in a few months, cause even with higher frequencies, they still can't compete with Intel's 45nm Yorkfields on price/performance/power efficiency ratio.

Lets hope for AMD's sake they won't mess up their 45nm launch, no more delays or bugs, then they can be pretty competitive. Of course Intel will release Nehalem at the end of 2008 with integrated IMC and that will be a completely different story.

 

[Zenoth]

I still thank AMD to this day for having done such a nice competition to Intel back in 2005 and a couple of years before that. Without K8 at its right time back then Intel wouldn't have felt any pressure to develop a better product. Intel might have brought the Core architecture without AMD to compete them, but I'm sure it'd have taken more time. The year 2006 was crucial for Intel, and they took that opportunity fast enough. And 2007 has been Intel's, completely.

I want AMD to stay on the competitive fronts of the CPU wars. After all, without AMD at all I'm quite certain that Intel would have a pleasure re-organizing its prices (as in increasing them, or at best never decrease them from the point they currently are). If Intel ever becomes a monopoly on everything CPU-related, we're toast. My thoughts for 2008, for AMD, aren't positive sadly, they need nothing short of a miracle to bring them back where they were, at least with PC gamers, only two years or three years ago. But that time has been revolutionized by Intel. All good things come to an end for one end, and it had to be AMD's. After all Intel do have more than half of the "CPU market" for them, especially now, but even before, they always had more resources and, of course, more money. They could afford more researches, more talented engineers for a longer period of time, they could certainly pay them better (if they wanted to). They came up with Core.

I can already imagine a discussion at Intel's office for a new architecture brainstorming:

- "AMD has it right now, their sales have been good enough to reduce ours to a certain extent, I think it's time to take them more seriously"
- "Yeah, and it concerns gaming too, that's a nice market"
- "That's why I am here to present our next major architecture sir"

*hours later*

- "Well Joe, congrats, you and your team seem to have come up with something AMD won't see coming"
- "Thanks boss, AMD wanted to play it tough and seriously, they sent us a message, whether it was intended or not, now we're gonna play the game together and we'll see who's gonna win"

Nah I know, I know, typical exaggeration. I have no ideas how it works. However I do know that K8 "forced" Intel to produce better stuff and faster, that's what's competition is for, and it's good to have it. I wish AMD would announce something big this year, at least an announcement or something, to at least put back some hope and confidence from their current and past consumers who moved to Intel (I am concerned). The only thing I could see AMD doing this year, and, early too, would be to dramatically increase the speed of their not-yet-released Phenom models. At 2.8Ghz+. At those speeds, and at fairly good prices I'm sure they could at least slow down the bleeding ...

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
At 2.8Ghz+. At those speeds, and at fairly good prices I'm sure they could at least slow down the bleeding ...

Six-twelve months ago that would have been true, but as it is right now, not really. The bug free B3 stepping will most likely not be released in quantity till March-2008, and that is only at up to 2.4Ghz, and +2.6Ghz not till May-June. These CPUs have no chance in competing against 45nm CPUs from Intel that are smaller, faster, cooler, cheaper to produce.

AMD can sell those at very low prices, but that will also mean they will continue to lose money. That's why they need 45nm Shanghai as soon as possible, it is their only hope for competing in 2008.

 

[thestain]

it was not the glue.. it is the the new Conroe Arch.. hands down way ahead of the old k8 and now k10 from amd.. until amd does a refresh.. bad, and worse for amd.

 

[Kuzi]

You are right, the C2D architecture is great. What I meant there was AMD would be doing much better now had Barcelona and Phenom processors been released say a year ago. Even Intel admitted that native quad core is not easy to do. Native quad core means nothing when you can't produce even 2.4Ghz in quantity, and are about a year late to the game.

AMD really messed up their 65nm process, right now I'm not even sure if they have any 65nm X2's running at over 2.6Ghz. Kinda sad when they have 90nm X2's running at 3.2Ghz. The past few years they've milked their old 90nm process to death and now they are paying for it.

I was holding much hope for Phenom but it has failed in my eyes now, not so much for the performance, but mosly for the delay after delay and the low clock speeds.

They still have a chance to fix things with Shanghai, but it depends how early they can release it, and at what frequencies.

 

[heyheybooboo]

On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

I don't expect things to change from a performance standpoint. AMD is committed (or needs to be 😀 ) to compete on price.

AMD got 4 cores on a die. It's buggy but it's out there. They aim to de-bug and I hope they pull it off. Yorkfield is still a dual-die quad core design. I guess if I had $1,200 or so to burn I'd jump on a QX9650 but that's just not the way I roll...I'll get me a QX9650 - in January . . . of 2009 🙂

I know it's hard to believe but for the overwhelming majority of users there already is enough cpu power to do everything they want.

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

I don't expect things to change from a performance standpoint. AMD is committed (or needs to be 😀 ) to compete on price.

AMD got 4 cores on a die. It's buggy but it's out there. They aim to de-bug and I hope they pull it off. Yorkfield is still a dual-die quad core design. I guess if I had $1,200 or so to burn I'd jump on a QX9650 but that's just not the way I roll...I'll get me a QX9650 - in January . . . of 2009 🙂

I know it's hard to believe but for the overwhelming majority of users there already is enough cpu power to do everything they want.

It's the speed at which those things are done that is important to us all, and mostly gamers.

That we can "do everything" with 4 years-old CPU's, that's cool, and it's true, but it's slow.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

I know it's hard to believe but for the overwhelming majority of users there already is enough cpu power to do everything they want.

The problem with that is: why upgrade? If the marketplace for CPUs was a stagnant as you imply neither Intel or AMD would have as high of a valuation (based on growth) as they do.

It's been pointed out time and time again, the high end must exist and improve steadily for the mainstream to be desirable (and profitable).

You are correct, AMD has always been the 'a little bit slower but a whole lot cheaper' player. But that was before their tremendous growth. The question is, can they shrink and return to the value player role once again or will egos get in the way?

Cyrix and S3 strategy called for an intense focus only on the high volume yet miniscule margin low end market. That didn't work out too well for one, and is barely keeping the second around.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

Well for a few years from 2003 to july 2006 AMD was really on top, but right now they seem to be way behind.

I've been using AMD systems for the last 6 years now, it's time for me to upgrade. I think I'll wait till 2nd half 2008 and see what is available on the market then decide. My trusty X2 is still running fine 🙂

I agree that CPU power is enough for most of us, that's why my plan a few months back was to wait for Phenoms release then get one and OC it to say 3.4Ghz and that would be enough for all my needs for the next couple of years.

But from checking reviews and other forums, Phenoms can't even OC stable to 3GHz, and they are still bugy. And Intel's Yorkfields are looking better and better everyday, the dark side is looking very tempting now 😛

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

Well for a few years from 2003 to july 2006 AMD was really on top, but right now they seem to be way behind.

I've been using AMD systems for the last 6 years now, it's time for me to upgrade. I think I'll wait till 2nd half 2008 and see what is available on the market then decide. My trusty X2 is still running fine 🙂

I agree that CPU power is enough for most of us, that's why my plan a few months back was to wait for Phenoms release then get one and OC it to say 3.4Ghz and that would be enough for all my needs for the next couple of years.

But from checking reviews and other forums, Phenoms can't even OC stable to 3GHz, and they are still bugy. And Intel's Yorkfields are looking better and better everyday, the dark side is looking very tempting now 😛

Oh! The horror of the Dark Side - - 😀

It looks like the quad Yorkies will not be available before the end of February / beginning of March.

According to our sources, while the dual core Penryn (the Wolfdale) will indeed be launched in mid-January, quad core versions (the Yorkfield) will not be available before the end of February / beginning of March. The reason for this delay is a very rare bug that causes a system crash and was only detected in the lab with a new test procedure.

 

[AmberClad]

As far as I know, the high end Yorkfields are still on track. That site you just linked - that rumor about the QX9650 was first posted weeks ago, and there has been no confirmation from any other site. A much more reputable site, Digitimes, has on the other hand confirmed that Intel is delaying, the non Extreme Edition Penryns:

Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

The three CPUs that Intel plans to delay are the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550, added the sources.

*cracks whip* Get it into gear AMD...quickly.

EDIT: You know, in introspect, it's almost hilarious now how Intel seemed almost frantic with phear, to put a damper on the Phenom launch by sending out those QX9770s.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
As far as I know, the high end Yorkfields are still on track. That site you just linked - that rumor about the QX9650 was first posted weeks ago, and there has been no confirmation from any other site. A much more reputable site, Digitimes, has on the other hand confirmed that Intel is delaying, the non Extreme Edition Penryns:

Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

The three CPUs that Intel plans to delay are the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550, added the sources.

*cracks whip* Get it into gear AMD...quickly.

EDIT: You know, in introspect, it's almost hilarious now how Intel seemed almost frantic with phear, to put a damper on the Phenom launch by sending out those QX9770s.

Tech Report contacted Intel and got this response:

45nm Core 2 Quad launch is planned for Q1'08, and we are still on track for that. We can't comment on web speculation.

Not exactly a denial 😛

...in introspect, it's almost hilarious now how Intel seemed almost frantic with phear, to put a damper on the Phenom launch by sending out those QX9770s

And All's Fair in Luv and CPU PR Wars!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

Well for a few years from 2003 to july 2006 AMD was really on top, but right now they seem to be way behind.

I've been using AMD systems for the last 6 years now, it's time for me to upgrade. I think I'll wait till 2nd half 2008 and see what is available on the market then decide. My trusty X2 is still running fine 🙂

I agree that CPU power is enough for most of us, that's why my plan a few months back was to wait for Phenoms release then get one and OC it to say 3.4Ghz and that would be enough for all my needs for the next couple of years.

But from checking reviews and other forums, Phenoms can't even OC stable to 3GHz, and they are still bugy. And Intel's Yorkfields are looking better and better everyday, the dark side is looking very tempting now 😛

I have to admit, I'm somewhat of a very minor AMD fanboy... I don't have anything against Intel, it's just that I've used AMD stuff since the 486 days and have always been happy with their products. Nothing against Intel at all, just that I've always been happy with AMD for the price. But, now that I see how well Intel is doing with their new products I just don't see how my next build can be a Phenom. I'm still happily using my x2 939 system, but come spring time I'm planning on a new build. I just don't see AMD having anything competitive at that time. A buggy quadcore that is slower and who knows how well it can overclock vs. a proven C2D... Hopefully AMD can pull a rabbit out of it's hat, but I just don't see it happening this time.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
On the high end Intel is kickin' AMD - that's pretty much always been the norm.

Well for a few years from 2003 to july 2006 AMD was really on top, but right now they seem to be way behind.

I've been using AMD systems for the last 6 years now, it's time for me to upgrade. I think I'll wait till 2nd half 2008 and see what is available on the market then decide. My trusty X2 is still running fine 🙂

I agree that CPU power is enough for most of us, that's why my plan a few months back was to wait for Phenoms release then get one and OC it to say 3.4Ghz and that would be enough for all my needs for the next couple of years.

But from checking reviews and other forums, Phenoms can't even OC stable to 3GHz, and they are still bugy. And Intel's Yorkfields are looking better and better everyday, the dark side is looking very tempting now 😛

Oh! The horror of the Dark Side - - 😀

It looks like the quad Yorkies will not be available before the end of February / beginning of March.

According to our sources, while the dual core Penryn (the Wolfdale) will indeed be launched in mid-January, quad core versions (the Yorkfield) will not be available before the end of February / beginning of March. The reason for this delay is a very rare bug that causes a system crash and was only detected in the lab with a new test procedure.

But yet the work from MUCH more reputable sites says that Intel is taking it's time becuase AMD cpus suck so bad.

No reason to ship a cpu that competes against your own product.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

But yet the work from MUCH more reputable sites says that Intel is taking it's time becuase AMD cpus suck so bad.

No reason to ship a cpu that competes against your own product.

Please try to keep up, Phynaz.

Less than two weeks ago Tech Report questioned Intel on the 45nm Core 2 Quad launch delayed due to erratum and Intel issued this spin:

45nm Core 2 Quad launch is planned for Q1'08, and we are still on track for that. We can't comment on web speculation.

Intel chose not to deny the delay or the errata. It is clearly a ""non-denial denial""

And less than 2 weeks later Intel ""announces"" Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

C'mon. Give me a break!

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
And less than 2 weeks later Intel ""announces"" Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

C'mon. Give me a break!

not that im in the know on the issue, but if there were really a bug on the quadcore parts, then all the models would have been recalled, including the QX9650.

i have to wonder why you are using the lack of information as proof of a rumor.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Phynaz

But yet the work from MUCH more reputable sites says that Intel is taking it's time becuase AMD cpus suck so bad.

No reason to ship a cpu that competes against your own product.

Please try to keep up, Phynaz.

Less than two weeks ago Tech Report questioned Intel on the 45nm Core 2 Quad launch delayed due to erratum and Intel issued this spin:

45nm Core 2 Quad launch is planned for Q1'08, and we are still on track for that. We can't comment on web speculation.

Intel chose not to deny the delay or the errata. It is clearly a ""non-denial denial""

And less than 2 weeks later Intel ""announces"" Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

C'mon. Give me a break!

I don't recall Intel announcing any delay. Could you provide a link please?

 

[Pyrokinetic]

Well, I too am a bit of an AMD fanboy -- hence my recent upgrade to an AM2 590 SLI board with an X2 3800+ to tide me over (at $65, why not?) until the new dual-core Agena cores come out for AM2/AM2+. I really have no use for quad core at this point - maybe in 2-3 years, after games are made with dual cores as a "minimum" requirement.

I stayed with AMD because it was a far cheaper upgrade than Intel, and now I can budget more for a much better GPU, which I feel is more important anyway.

Most of the stock Intel C2Ds will outperform my OC'd X2, but I really do not care all that much. I am happy with my upgrade, budget-minded as I am.

 

[Kuzi]

not that im in the know on the issue, but if there were really a bug on the quadcore parts, then all the models would have been recalled, including the QX9650.

i have to wonder why you are using the lack of information as proof of a rumor.

You guys know that every CPU has some bugs, but if the CPU is running perfectly then I don't think it matters much. In AMDs case, the TLB erratum was more serious, that is why it messed up their Phenom launch, and requires a new respin.

At this point, it doesn't really matter for Intel if they delayed some new CPUs a couple more months. They are probably just taking their time since AMD has no competing product, and maybe working on getting a new stepping out with "less" bugs. 5GHz OC on air anyone? 😉

 

[harpoon84]

I believe AMD is destined to again play the price game in 2008, I don't see their rather lackluster product roadmap indicating otherwise. Their current offerings can't even compete with Intel 65nm, let alone 45nm. Already, just 1 month after launch, Phenom has had a pricecut. I think this is a precedent for things to come, especially once Intel ramps up their 45nm quads.

Shanghai will bridge the gap somewhat, but is due in the same timeframe as Nehalem, which is supposedly a monster. Rumors are that it shows a greater improvement over Core 2, than Core 2 did over Netburst, which would be amazing if true.

So, if you look at it in the context of Nehalem vs Shanghai, the performance gap would probably grow between Intel and AMD, not shrink.

I think K10 can be summed up as "A day late and a dollar short". Some may call me a pessimist, but hey, feel free to bookmark this thread and bump it a year from now, I'm fairly confident my assertions will be proven correct.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I think K10 can be summed up as "A day late and a dollar short". Some may call me a pessimist, but hey, feel free to bookmark this thread and bump it a year from now, I'm fairly confident my assertions will be proven correct.

Actually if you read the storied history of the K5's development, release, and market reception you might come to the conclusion that some poster's off-colored remarks that "K10 = K5 x 2" are actually quite apropos.

The strategic issue for AMD is that they went into this gun-fight without a viable backup plan (not one they have publicized at least).

There is no "NexGen developing a K6" out there right now for AMD to buy up and bring their chip design in-house such that AMD could release an entirely new-design K11 next year and let the K5x2 fade away as a bad memory.

And there are no DEC alpha design teams left for them to hire-in to develop another K7.

I suppose they could snag a SUN or IBM design team and bring them in to inject some fresh ideas into their internal stalled out design team...

I mean come on, look at that THG article comparing Stars core versus K8...that's all they got for 4 years of investment? THAT is what AMD management was holding out for instead of doing an MCM with K8 to release a quad chip in the meantime? Yikes!

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
And there are no DEC alpha design teams left for them to hire-in to develop another K7.

I suppose they could snag a SUN or IBM design team and bring them in to inject some fresh ideas into their internal stalled out design team...

I mean come on, look at that THG article comparing Stars core versus K8...that's all they got for 4 years of investment? THAT is what AMD management was holding out for instead of doing an MCM with K8 to release a quad chip in the meantime? Yikes!

I have to disagree here. I think AMD has some of the brightest design teams in the world. Their problems seem more related to bad decisions made than anything else, and probably the fact that they have a lot less cash than Intel.

Had AMD set out to just improve on single core performance when compared to K8 some years back, I'm sure the end result would be better than a 15% (average) improvement. But maybe the native quad core design took more time and resources than they had expected, and that cost them too much in the end.

Imagine a dual core K10 that performs 30% better than K8, then AMD just sticks two of those together on the same die like Intel does and makes a quad core. That would have worked better for them performance wise, manufacturing wise, and probably would have been released a while ago.

AMD is just very late, their 65nm process is messed up, and now they need a great 45nm launch as soon as possible or it won't be much of a fight.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: Idontcare
And there are no DEC alpha design teams left for them to hire-in to develop another K7.

I suppose they could snag a SUN or IBM design team and bring them in to inject some fresh ideas into their internal stalled out design team...

I mean come on, look at that THG article comparing Stars core versus K8...that's all they got for 4 years of investment? THAT is what AMD management was holding out for instead of doing an MCM with K8 to release a quad chip in the meantime? Yikes!

I have to disagree here. I think AMD has some of the brightest design teams in the world. Their problems seem more related to bad decisions made than anything else, and probably the fact that they have a lot less cash than Intel.

Had AMD set out to just improve on single core performance when compared to K8 some years back, I'm sure the end result would be better than a 15% (average) improvement. But maybe the native quad core design took more time and resources than they had expected, and that cost them too much in the end.

Imagine a dual core K10 that performs 30% better than K8, then AMD just sticks two of those together on the same die like Intel does and makes a quad core. That would have worked better for them performance wise, manufacturing wise, and probably would have been released a while ago.

AMD is just very late, their 65nm process is messed up, and now they need a great 45nm launch as soon as possible or it won't be much of a fight.

You forget that sticking two dual core processors with seperate IMC's on a single die is a difficult thing to get working. You may need to have each one control a seperate DIMM slot (Like Quad FX does), which means you need to use at least 2 sticks of RAM, and to get the best performance 4 (Since it is dual channel, and AMD split up the IMC a while ago to increase bandwidth.) It may have been just as difficult to design a K8 MCM quad core as it was to creat a native quad core, and they figured that the native solution was a better solution anyway. Intel never needed to worry about that, because it uses a Memory Controller based on the North Bridge instead of the processor.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Martimus
You forget that sticking two dual core processors with seperate IMC's on a single die is a difficult thing to get working. You may need to have each one control a seperate DIMM slot (Like Quad FX does), which means you need to use at least 2 sticks of RAM, and to get the best performance 4 (Since it is dual channel, and AMD split up the IMC a while ago to increase bandwidth.) It may have been just as difficult to design a K8 MCM quad core as it was to creat a native quad core, and they figured that the native solution was a better solution anyway. Intel never needed to worry about that, because it uses a Memory Controller based on the North Bridge instead of the processor.

Good point, so you could be right. Though I remember reading somewhere that AMD's 8-core might be just 2xquad cores on a single die. Why move away from the native solution if it's better.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: Martimus
You forget that sticking two dual core processors with seperate IMC's on a single die is a difficult thing to get working. You may need to have each one control a seperate DIMM slot (Like Quad FX does), which means you need to use at least 2 sticks of RAM, and to get the best performance 4 (Since it is dual channel, and AMD split up the IMC a while ago to increase bandwidth.) It may have been just as difficult to design a K8 MCM quad core as it was to creat a native quad core, and they figured that the native solution was a better solution anyway. Intel never needed to worry about that, because it uses a Memory Controller based on the North Bridge instead of the processor.

Good point, so you could be right. Though I remember reading somewhere that AMD's 8-core might be just 2xquad cores on a single die. Why move away from the native solution if it's better.

Yields? They suffer enough as it is on the native quad right? They'd be even worse on a native octo