AMD 4x4 Preview

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Paitence does not exist for people who upgrade every 6 months. Like myself and so many others here.

Though the brillant people over at AMD must think that they have more than enough time to close the performance gap.

Eh I don't care anymore. By the time they actually release the big time games I might just actually move on to a more social and healthy life style.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,677
0
76
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor. :confused:
Not only was AMD first with dual-core, they were first by much longer than a month. Interesting article, though. I wonder why there were no benchmarks?

Sorry, no.

Intel was first with Dual Core on the desktop, while AMD was first with Dual Core on the Server market. The desktop launch was earlier then the server launch. So overall Intel is the first with Dual Core period.

Though it was more like yay we beat AMD :p in launching with the Pentium EE 840.

This time around with Quad Core there is no question, Intel is first with Quad Core in both Servers and desktops.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,677
0
76
Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor. :confused:

As I already explained to mycordia the Hexus article is accurate, Intel was the first with Dual Core.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
AMD brought out the first Dual core via the Opteron. Then Intel brought out there so-called dual core later. AMD actually had a technically true dual core cpu a year or more ahead and Intel. Intel didn't get their non-fsb communication dual cores until the CoreDuo's was released for the lappys.


Jason
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: formulav8
AMD brought out the first Dual core via the Opteron. Then Intel brought out there so-called dual core later. AMD actually had a technically true dual core cpu a year or more ahead and Intel. Intel didn't get their non-fsb communication dual cores until the CoreDuo's was released for the lappys.


Jason

Dont try to introduce logic into this...

How about the fact the K8 was designed from ground up to be a multicore processor while the smithfield was not even a native dual core but two prescotts slapped together. AMD delivered the first dual core cpus to the market that actually needed dual cores....INtel paper launched the EE model that was so scarce it wasn't even funny...Then ofcourse got its arse handed to it in the benches...

You see that is the results you get when you rush to push crap out the door!!!!
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,677
0
76
Originally posted by: formulav8
AMD brought out the first Dual core via the Opteron. Then Intel brought out there so-called dual core later. AMD actually had a technically true dual core cpu a year or more ahead and Intel. Intel didn't get their non-fsb communication dual cores until the CoreDuo's was released for the lappys.


Jason

Sorry completely wrong, not to mention complete BS on using flamboyant AMD biased terminology with "true" Dual Core, it's either Dual Core or it isn't there is no true.

And to put this to rest:

Pentium EE 840 April 18th 2005
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050418044501.html

AMD Opteron Dual Core 8xx and 2xx Series, April 21st 2005
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050421034233.html

What your talking about is Dual Core with intercore communication between the cores happening on the die.

There isn't "technically true" anything.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,677
0
76
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: formulav8
AMD brought out the first Dual core via the Opteron. Then Intel brought out there so-called dual core later. AMD actually had a technically true dual core cpu a year or more ahead and Intel. Intel didn't get their non-fsb communication dual cores until the CoreDuo's was released for the lappys.


Jason

Dont try to introduce logic into this...

How about the fact the K8 was designed from ground up to be a multicore processor while the smithfield was not even a native dual core but two prescotts slapped together. AMD delivered the first dual core cpus to the market that actually needed dual cores....INtel paper launched the EE model that was so scarce it wasn't even funny...Then ofcourse got its arse handed to it in the benches...

You see that is the results you get when you rush to push crap out the door!!!!

Oh were not arguing who's Dual Core launch was better, that is very obvious were arguing who did it first, and that was unquestionably Intel. Intel wanted the PR crown of being first and they got it. The implementation was as quick to market as possible but it was Dual Core, though whether you want one or not is another matter.
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
OK then lets technical...

INtel was first with a Bullshite paperlaunch desktop non native dual core.....and the waves of intel fanatics stroke their e-penises

AMD was first with a true multicore design

Edit: I am just fvcking with you!!!

I can care less who paper launches what just to claim to be first, especially when the product was so sucky. INtel quad core offering rocks, and is only dampened by the realization that mosty things are not optimized to efficiently use much more then 2 cores....
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,677
0
76
Originally posted by: Duvie
OK then lets technical...

INtel was first with a Bullshite paperlaunch desktop non native dual core.....and the waves of intel fanatics stroke their e-penises

AMD was first with a true multicore design

True is subjective terminology and not technical at all I am afraid. Forget the colorful language allright?

A fair representation is this:

Intel was the first with a launch for PR purposes on the desktop.

AMD was the first with a Dual Core that allows each core to communicate with each other on the die itself. AMD was also the first to launch a line of processors on the Servers and not just a single model as well, where parallel processing can be more effectively taken advantage of as Server programs tend to be multi threaded.

Edit: If you say so, it doesn't change any of what I said. They are still facts.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: Duvie
I agree with the 4 video cards, but i like the idea of being ready to run 8x4 platform with the opteron based on K10 comes on in 1H of 07!!!! Read the Quadfather part 2 segement of the article

For me, I really like the idea of 4 video cards (8 displays)...this means I can cut a 7 camera shoot (or 6 cameras and one graphics screen plus one display for control) at home in almost real time.

Actually, one of the first things I thought of when I saw this was the old "Virtual World" Tessla pods (3 screens plus controls). Imagine what kind of game you could play (if they only made the software) using 8 screens, 8 cores, and 8GB of ram!