AMD prepares dualcore 45nm surprise - Callisto

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

That really isn't the problem. P2 is right there clock for clock. Also, it would be AMD's cheap P2 versus Intel's High-end dual core. Intel would have to cut back on profits bigtime. Cutting a chip's price in half cuts profits from a little to even being in the red.

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

That really isn't the problem. P2 is right there clock for clock. Also, it would be AMD's cheap P2 versus Intel's High-end dual core. Intel would have to cut back on profits bigtime. Cutting a chip's price in half cuts profits from a little to even being in the red.

But why would Intel need to cut prices by 50% against a processor that AMD will never be able to manufacture in any meaningful volumes? They would lose much more in overall sales than they will lose right now even if everyone, who could get their hands on it, bought a P2 X2 instead of a E8x00.

AMD needs a smaller die 45nm dualcore. Only that would put pressure on the Intel dualcore lines of CPUs.

 

[JackyP]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I see your point, but we're not comparing K8 to Core2, we're comparing Phenom 2 to Core 2. With these AMD Dual P2's having 6mb of L3 cache, it might perform even better then their Core 2 Duo counterparts. They are essentially the same clock for clock now. With that added L3 just for two cores and not four, the performance will be even better.

Wake up, PhII is slower than 65nm Core 2s. Anything else is speculation on your part (maybe you're right - maybe not).

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

That really isn't the problem. P2 is right there clock for clock. Also, it would be AMD's cheap P2 versus Intel's High-end dual core. Intel would have to cut back on profits bigtime. Cutting a chip's price in half cuts profits from a little to even being in the red.

What are you smoking, and can I have some? It must be some trip.

Intel doesn't have a high-end dual core. There is no such thing as high-end dual core. The most expensive dual core intel is the e8600 at $270, and that's because it's almost a novelty item -- it's almost $100 more than the next-highest dual-core, the E8500 at $188. I didn't know that a trip could take you back in time to 2006, when Intel's dual core was high-end. Let us know when you get back!

And what are you talking about with AMD's cheap Ph2 vs. Intel's expensive chip? Cheap is how AMD could decide to price it. Yes, AMD could practically give these chips away. So could Intel, and Intel would be losing less money on each chip, since the Intel 45nm cost a lot less to manufacture than AMD's dual core PhII. And Intel has a hell of a lot more cash to weather a loss than AMD does in a price-war.

Like I said, let us know when you get back.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Isnt this a bad thing overall for AMD? It does clear the inventory somewhat for the cores that didnt make the cut for the X3/X4 but this leads to other problems. Once the demands for these products based on a crippled core picks up, AMD has no choice but to start purposely cripple the good cores as time goes by. Yields improve over time as well so the chances of maintaining the level of "bad" cores (at the time of the PII X2 launch) is going to diminish.

Unless they launch these first then replace these with the native 45nm X2s under the same branding.

I guess they will just phase these out and replace them with triple-cores if there are any price cuts for the PIIs.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: JackyP

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I see your point, but we're not comparing K8 to Core2, we're comparing Phenom 2 to Core 2. With these AMD Dual P2's having 6mb of L3 cache, it might perform even better then their Core 2 Duo counterparts. They are essentially the same clock for clock now. With that added L3 just for two cores and not four, the performance will be even better.

Wake up, PhII is slower than 65nm Core 2s. Anything else is speculation on your part (maybe you're right - maybe not).

Actually, that's not quite true. There are plenty of benchmarks demonstrating just the opposite. I think you need some caffeine.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

Gosh, I feel dirty even posting a serious statement in this mortifyingly stupid thread. I have a word, and it starts with B and ends with N and rhymes with VAN!

Don't feel bad - in spite of the fact that the OP is an obvious AMD fanboi, there has been some worhwhile discussion here. As long as folks are willing to keep an open mind and don't get too emotional (and why get all emo over silicon?) this thread is OK. :thumbsup:

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Isnt this a bad thing overall for AMD? It does clear the inventory somewhat for the cores that didnt make the cut for the X3/X4 but this leads to other problems. Once the demands for these products based on a crippled core picks up, AMD has no choice but to start purposely cripple the good cores as time goes by. Yields improve over time as well so the chances of maintaining the level of "bad" cores (at the time of the PII X2 launch) is going to diminish.

Unless they launch these first then replace these with the native 45nm X2s under the same branding.

I guess they will just phase these out and replace them with triple-cores if there are any price cuts for the PIIs.

I agree with CM. The fact that AMD will intro "the new X2" indicates a lack of confidence that yields will improve in a meaningful way, and also brings the ASP down.

 

[taltamir]

WOW! AMD has such a high failure rate that they will start selling X4 with TWO failed cores as dual cores? this is very bad for AMD. (why are people trying to spin this like its a good thing?)

 

[magreen]

No, taltamair, you don't understand -- you can activate the disabled cores on ebay.

 

[taltamir]

lol
people are disabling the bios TLB fix... so why not reenable defective cores too... I mean, its OK if the computer blue screens here and there because the CPU is a LITTLE defective [/sarcasm]

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: magreen
No, taltamair, you don't understand -- you can activate the disabled cores on ebay.

:laugh:

haha almost sig worthy this quote is. Almost ruined my LCD with coffee.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: fusion238


AMD has another surprise for Intel. It's preparing a CPU codenamed Callisto and this is a new CPU that we haven?t seen on the roadmap before.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....iew&id=12086&Itemid=35

This news about a Phenom II based chip with two cores is very stunning and some people are comparing it to how ATI has quickly overpowered Nvidia in nearly every segment of the graphics card marketplace.

If Callisto is derived from the thoroughbred line of the Phenom II CPUs, then AMD may overpower Intel in the range of $75-$300 high performance CPUs that run on either nearly free DDR2 memory or optional DDR3.




* Just an enthusiast (not fanboy) that owns Intel, AMD, ATI, Nvidia systems and parts. Ordering new Phenom X3 720BE with Biostar 790 mb.

With a marketing dept like this, AMD is sure to dominate the forumz like never befar!


* Just an enthusiast (and sometimes asshat) that has been owned by every Intel, AMD, NV, ATI part I ever bought because it depreciated in value faster than a 3-day old dominos pizza left over the weekend on the breakroom table. Ordering new pizza today and 2L MT dew.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

You guys are all forgetting something, just because AMD releases some incredible crippled Phenom II and sells it to people like us super cheap through NewEgg.com/ZZF/whatever means NOTHING. We represent maybe 1% of the market.

AMD is only holding onto the ~20% market share it has because business types got hooked to the original Opteron when it was slapping NetBurst Xeons around, and AMD hasn't taken too much of a beating in the server market (at least their chips are still better at SOMETHING). Intel is likewise continuing its stranglehold on the CPU market because they never lost any consumer market share with the whole NetBurst fiasco; WE all knew that the Pentium 4's sucked trout from day one, so we bought Athlon XPs super cheap and then bought FASTER Athlon 64s and X2s cheaper than the NetBurst crap, THE CONSUMER saw "DUDE UR GETTN A DELL11!!lol" with an Intel Inside blurb at the bottom and the only manufacturer moving any decent amount of AMD powered product was HP. Intel has the $$$ to ramp up marketing when their product sucks ass, like NetBurst did. AMD had one shot at taking the crown; it started with the K7, and they didn't carry it through with the K8 because they couldn't get deep enough into the consumer market.

Wow, that makes absolutely no sesne. I need caffeine

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Greenhell6
I am just ready to go back to AMD, I have always had great luck with there products and now they have something that makes me want to jump back in.

what kind of great luck?

Pot of gold falling out of the sky at your feet after you bought the cpu kind or limo full of Hawaiian Tropic models pulling over and asking to adopt you kind?


If you are saying that it worked as advertised, that is not great luck

 

[extra]

Phenom IIs are great chips and I'd consider one if I was building now but... I don't think I'd call one with disabled cores "stunning"... More like, okay, smart business sense to sell them for something rather than just tossing the failed ones.

Honestly, though..what's the price point going to be here...it's gotta be ABSURDLY low and these hafta OC extremely well for these to have any appeal at all.

Also, allow me to translate this part of the op:

and some people are comparing it to how ATI has quickly overpowered Nvidia in nearly every segment of the graphics card marketplace.

HEY LOOK GUIS I TOOK A MARKETING CLASS LOL!11

 

[AstroManLuca]

Wow, so AMD is releasing more low-end chips? Do they compete anywhere other than low-end and midrange? Even the Ph II 940 is only a midrange CPU - a pretty good one, but the fact remains that AMD has no answer to i7.

I still like the Phenom II and I will likely pick one up in the next few months, but this fanboyism is ridiculous.

 

[taltamir]

* Just an enthusiast (and sometimes asshat) that has been owned by every Intel, AMD, NV, ATI part I ever bought because it depreciated in value faster than a 3-day old dominos pizza left over the weekend on the breakroom table. Ordering new pizza today and 2L MT dew.

You lack appreciation for finely aged food...

You guys are all forgetting something, just because AMD releases some incredible crippled Phenom II and sells it to people like us super cheap through NewEgg.com/ZZF/whatever means NOTHING. We represent maybe 1% of the market.

AMD is only holding onto the ~20% market share it has because business types got hooked to the original Opteron when it was slapping NetBurst Xeons around, and AMD hasn't taken too much of a beating in the server market (at least their chips are still better at SOMETHING). Intel is likewise continuing its stranglehold on the CPU market because they never lost any consumer market share with the whole NetBurst fiasco; WE all knew that the Pentium 4's sucked trout from day one, so we bought Athlon XPs super cheap and then bought FASTER Athlon 64s and X2s cheaper than the NetBurst crap, THE CONSUMER saw "DUDE UR GETTN A DELL11!!lol" with an Intel Inside blurb at the bottom and the only manufacturer moving any decent amount of AMD powered product was HP. Intel has the $$$ to ramp up marketing when their product sucks ass, like NetBurst did. AMD had one shot at taking the crown; it started with the K7, and they didn't carry it through with the K8 because they couldn't get deep enough into the consumer market.

Wow, that makes absolutely no sesne. I need caffeine

I am not sure what you are getting at... so what is it that we are actually forgetting? AMD and intel both make a 45nm chip, the phenom 2 vs the core2... while intel has high yields and makes dual or quad cores, AMD has poor yields and make quad cores that they sell as triple or even dual cores depending on how many cores are FUBARed.
This is not good for AMD as it still costs the same to manufacture as their quad cores.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
but the fact remains that AMD has no answer to i7.

Well the i7 is really a niche market at this point in time so for a company like AMD, it would be economically suicidal for them to pour money to compete in such a small market.

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: magreen
No, taltamair, you don't understand -- you can activate the disabled cores on ebay.

:laugh:

haha almost sig worthy this quote is. Almost ruined my LCD with coffee.

Dangit, I was shooting for the sig/ruined LCD double whammy.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

That really isn't the problem. P2 is right there clock for clock. Also, it would be AMD's cheap P2 versus Intel's High-end dual core. Intel would have to cut back on profits bigtime. Cutting a chip's price in half cuts profits from a little to even being in the red.

What are you smoking, and can I have some? It must be some trip.

Intel doesn't have a high-end dual core. There is no such thing as high-end dual core. The most expensive dual core intel is the e8600 at $270, and that's because it's almost a novelty item -- it's almost $100 more than the next-highest dual-core, the E8500 at $188. I didn't know that a trip could take you back in time to 2006, when Intel's dual core was high-end. Let us know when you get back!

And what are you talking about with AMD's cheap Ph2 vs. Intel's expensive chip? Cheap is how AMD could decide to price it. Yes, AMD could practically give these chips away. So could Intel, and Intel would be losing less money on each chip, since the Intel 45nm cost a lot less to manufacture than AMD's dual core PhII. And Intel has a hell of a lot more cash to weather a loss than AMD does in a price-war.

Like I said, let us know when you get back.

No high end dual cores? Tell me a better high-end dual core. There isn't. Therefore it is high end.

Also, Intel may have a much higher stockpile of resources, and i doubt they are going to take AMD seriously on this. They will still charge the same ridiculous amounts for their processors. AMD could (and probably will if they market this well enough) dominate the mainstream processor market if this comes to life.

No, there isn't any drug use going on here.

 

[magreen]

There's no faster single core than the Athlon 64 4000+. Does that make it "high end"? Would cutting into AMD's sale of the thing by intel producing a faster single core cpu (such as a core-based celeron) affect AMD's profits, since it would be cutting into AMD's "high end"?

There's no faster Pentium 1 than the 166MHz p5c. Is that also high end?

We can name whatever we want to be high end. But for a discussion of company's profits, there's only one definition that's relevant.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: magreen
There's no faster single core than the Athlon 64 4000+. Does that make it "high end"? Would cutting into AMD's sale of the thing by intel producing a faster single core cpu (such as a core-based celeron) affect AMD's profits, since it would be cutting into AMD's "high end"?

There's no faster Pentium 1 than the 166MHz p5c. Is that also high end?

We can name whatever we want to be high end. But for a discussion of company's profits, there's only one definition that's relevant.

You can not compare old and obsolete CPU's compared to what we have today. Are you ACTUALLY denying that the E8xxx line is not high-end? You've gotta be kidding me. Those are gamer and OC'ers favorite CPU's. They are the fastest processors for single threaded applications at the moment. Definitely high end.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: magreen
Isn't the E8x00 line of dual core Core 2 cpus faster than the phenom II clock-for-clock at single threaded apps anyway? So why would this cause any worry for intel? If they need to adjust their prices on low end dual core a bit, they'll do so, as they have continually done over the past 3 years since core 2's debut.

That really isn't the problem. P2 is right there clock for clock. Also, it would be AMD's cheap P2 versus Intel's High-end dual core. Intel would have to cut back on profits bigtime. Cutting a chip's price in half cuts profits from a little to even being in the red.

What are you smoking, and can I have some? It must be some trip.

Intel doesn't have a high-end dual core. There is no such thing as high-end dual core. The most expensive dual core intel is the e8600 at $270, and that's because it's almost a novelty item -- it's almost $100 more than the next-highest dual-core, the E8500 at $188. I didn't know that a trip could take you back in time to 2006, when Intel's dual core was high-end. Let us know when you get back!

And what are you talking about with AMD's cheap Ph2 vs. Intel's expensive chip? Cheap is how AMD could decide to price it. Yes, AMD could practically give these chips away. So could Intel, and Intel would be losing less money on each chip, since the Intel 45nm cost a lot less to manufacture than AMD's dual core PhII. And Intel has a hell of a lot more cash to weather a loss than AMD does in a price-war.

Like I said, let us know when you get back.

No high end dual cores? Tell me a better high-end dual core. There isn't. Therefore it is high end.

Also, Intel may have a much higher stockpile of resources, and i doubt they are going to take AMD seriously on this. They will still charge the same ridiculous amounts for their processors. AMD could (and probably will if they market this well enough) dominate the mainstream processor market if this comes to life.

No, there isn't any drug use going on here.

maybe if it cost very little to make, but the cost to make that x2 is exactly the same as making the x4, because it is an x4 with two broken cores.
This makes it much less lucrative for AMD.. this is a market they do NOT want to dominate, its better for them to have better yields and not have enough cores to sell an x2 based on the x4.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
but the fact remains that AMD has no answer to i7.

Well the i7 is really a niche market at this point in time so for a company like AMD, it would be economically suicidal for them to pour money to compete in such a small market.

niche? what niche? its the fastest CPU on the market, intel just overprices it because of it, but there is nothing niche about it. And they achive it on 45nm, meaning that it costs about the same to make as the amd x4 or the C2Q (well, maybe a little more because of their new gate tech that allows core shutoff).