• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Cancels 10-Core, 20-Core Server Processors

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Great link! 😀 Never new it existed. Will have to register and let them know that the only real solution is to buy AMD hardware. Even with NV graphics installed, consumers will still have to rely on intel software.
 
Idontcare said:
I thought this thread was about AMD cancelling their 10/20-core opterons?
Click to expand...

Right. Hasn't been about that since the first couple posts mind you, it quickly sidetracked into how AMD is finished as usual. The 'enthusiast' forums as we've known them are finished though, except for a few places around the net. It's now about manipulating perception for shareholder/short seller gain...

But more on topic, here's Charlie's explanation:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/06/why-did-amd-drop-two-cores-from-server-chips/
 
Chiropteran said:
Don't you have a radeon 5870? How are you any sort of authority on the subject?


http://communities.intel.com/message/147536 Yeah, looks like excellent driver quality. LOL.
Click to expand...

(sorry this is off-topic)

Owned a C2D Sony with Intel graphics. Worked flawlessly for years and years. No graphical issues; played movies/videos fine and did some older gaming titles fine too. (this is definitely not an ample sample size, but realize that Intel has a HUGE portion of the GPU pie. Lots of volume will always mean there are issue reported....)

Your anti-Intel agenda gets a little old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Idontcare said:
I thought this thread was about AMD cancelling their 10/20-core opterons?
Click to expand...

The announcement to me seems less about the CPus and the fact that the platform itself is now off the table as well. That means no PCI-E 3.0 and triple-channel memory.
 
ExarKun333 said:
The announcement to me seems less about the CPus and the fact that the platform itself is now off the table as well. That means no PCI-E 3.0 and triple-channel memory.
Click to expand...

It really sounds to me like partner/OEM support just wasn't there for a short lived socket that probably would not have seen high volume.
 
Idontcare said:
Did Bulldozer/Interlagos result in the server market share bump and trend reversal they were wanting it to be?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I remember some analysts and blogs stating AMD would see a 10-15% market share a few months after release but it's only been a moderate increase. Still in ARM territory, basically. Same things that plagued them in the desktop arena resulted in sub par increase in the server space as well: poor IPC, power consumption and competition from their own chips compatible on the same platform.
 
It doesn't help them at all that a cheaper CPU cost just gets lost in the overall system cost and you end up within 5% of the cost of an intel server.
 
piesquared said:
Right. Hasn't been about that since the first couple posts mind you, it quickly sidetracked into how AMD is finished as usual. The 'enthusiast' forums as we've known them are finished though, except for a few places around the net. It's now about manipulating perception for shareholder/short seller gain...

But more on topic, here's Charlie's explanation:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/06/why-did-amd-drop-two-cores-from-server-chips/
Click to expand...


+1 Good read - this could be a good move by AMD after all. So basically what I saw is the more cores you add, the worse performance you get per core which will kill the single threaded performance even more. Less cores + IPC increases will balance the overall performance and have better power consumption.
 
Last edited:
SLK said:
+1 Good read - this could be a good move by AMD after all. So basically what I saw is the more cores you add, the worse performance you get per core which will kill the single threaded performance even more. Less cores + IPC increases will balance the overall performance and have better power consumption.
Click to expand...

That's true for memory bandwidth constrained tasks - is Interlagos starved as it is?
 
I sure hop intel has the smarts to let AMD bring DDR4 first like intel did on DDR3 . Stay away intel let AMD bring DDR4 to market . It a win for intel.
 
More games are CPU-bounded vs. GPU-bounded. That's what will kill Intel's $300+ CPU market in the long run. Plus, you're average customer still hasn't found a way to take full advantage of the quad-core CPUs being stuck in computers for the last 3-4 years.

Honestly, if operating systems and apps get more efficient (doing more with less), the reason to buy that expensive CPU will slowly start going away and battery life will become a far more important factor. And right now, ARM is KILLING Intel in that department.
 
Zor Prime said:
Hold on and wait for someone to mention that Intel competes with itself which keeps prices down.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see someone make a statement like that about $1200 quads they clearly don't understand how the market works.

Amd hasn't had anything competitive with Intel for quite a few years now so why aren't quads already at $1200???

If you can explain that you will know why that statement makes no sense.
 
Makaveli said:
Whenever I see someone make a statement like that about $1200 quads they clearly don't understand how the market works.

Amd hasn't had anything competitive with Intel for quite a few years now so why aren't quads already at $1200???

If you can explain that you will know why that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

AMD hasn't had anything competitive in the upper tier of the desktop/server segment, yes, but not competitive at all? Er...

Imo, under $200 the best chip to get would be a 960T and considering it's on sale often for $110 it's an amazing bargain. Which brings me to my point:

AMD combats the performance gap with more attractive prices. Until SB hit the gap wasn't really that large and many many gaming rigs were built on Phenom II's for a reason and that's because of the awesome bang-for-your-buck. AMD's AM3 platform was a better buy for performancet-to-price when compared to 1156 from top to bottom.

Bulldozer was a horrendous miss on the performance front but even worse is that the chips are priced too high and you get people making statements like the one you made above while completely neglecting recent history. It's different now, though, absolutely. But it's different because of Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge and not Deneb/Nehalem.

It's going to be interesting to see how Intel prices their future chips. AMD has walked away from the high end desktop arena and focusing less on the desktop in general, but it's also at a time where a chip like the 2500K offers more than you could ever want or need as far as computing goes. They're price adjustments will depend on both their previous gen chips as well as the lesser demand and need for super fast super awesome CPUs. Remember, it was the gaming community that drove a lot of that progress and innovation but now we're more GPU-centric and not a growing market compared to mobile 😛
 
pelov said:
AMD hasn't had anything competitive in the upper tier of the desktop/server segment, yes, but not competitive at all? Er...
Click to expand...

Good post and very true, but I am speaking specifically about the high end desktop segment 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top