AMD quad cores in 2007

[Yanagi]

Let me start off with that this is probably old news and most of you already know about it but is it only me whos really ticked off reading Ed's article about it at overclockers.com? Ed's rambelling.

In what way is this a bad thing? AMD is beeing innovative and we all know they are taking a different approach than Intel. And a quad core server chip cant be a bad hting seeing as dual cores most likely will have less than double the die size of a single cored CPU. Am I the only one dissagreeing with him are others ticked off aswell?

Comments please

Ps. Sorry if this is a repost Ds.

 

[Actaeon]

This guy is a tool.

He is comparing CPUs to buses, suicide bombers, and space rockets.

I don't feel like ranting about every one of his statements, but I'll put in my 2 cents. He feels his opinion is the right one, and only the right one. As if, these companies havn't put much thought into this dramatically different platform.

Yeah, those multi-CPU servers and workstations we currently use... thats just like a suicide bombing. :rolleyes;


This Multi-whatever has been done before, and IT WORKS.

Harddrives - Why don't we just create one large terrabyte HD? Forget about RAID/Extra HDs... its just like suicide bombing your computer.
Memory - Why don't we just make a single 2GB stick and limit motherboards to just one DIMM? We surely don't want to pull a Spuntnik.
Videocards (SLI) - While, not mainstream, its done, and its been shown to have dramatic increases.

I'm sure almost everyone here has multiple DIMMs in their computer, and alot have multiple HDDs (I have 2 of each).

Oh, and we did use multiple stages/rockets in our Saturn V rockets. It wasn't just one big booster. He makes crappy arguements.

In his own world, multiple harddrives, multiple DIMMs, and those multi-CPU servers we've been building for all these years is wrong. He has no performance claims to back any of his statements up (other than his imaginary bus/highway line, and some space mission, which isn't even correct).

Hes a tool, seeking attention from the computer enthusiasts, hoping they would read his article, just like we have.

 

[Sonic587]

That is one of the most poorly worded and simple minded articles I've ever read. Does he have any idea of how CPUs work? He makes with little to no technical data to back up his rather large claims. Seems like a more power more MHz fanboy to me.

 

[DragonFire]

While I dont fully agree with him, he does have a point. If dual or even quad core cpus were such a great thing we would have them already. Also, if its so great, why doesnt everyone have a dual setup now? Why doesnt Dell or anyone else sell dual setups to customers? Really simple, must people have no use for them because there arnt enough apps/games that make use of it.

 

[sandorski]

Recent events causes his arguement to fail.

A couple years back, AMD mumbled something about a 3ghz barrier and that they had no plans to release a > 3ghz Desktop CPU. That lead to a short-lived controversy based on the conjecture that AMD was leaving the Desktop CPU Market.

Intel seemed to carry happily on their way to the 10ghz P4, but began having serious(not catastrophic, but serious) issues once they exceeded 3ghz. As recent happenings at Intel show, they too seem to be abandoning the ever greater mhz to faster computing philosophy.

He probably is right, that eventually Intel, AMD, IBM, or someone else will figure out how to get around current problems, but what's Intel/AMD to do in the meantime? Not plan any improvements just because someone might erroneously call it a "Kludge"?