AMD strategy... What do you think

[ahock]

I think in my opinion AMD made a wrong decision in the 64-bit arena.... If its true that their K8 core is design a dual core from the start..... I think it would be best that they release first the dual core design ather than the 64-bit extension which up to now is still useless due the delay Microsoft OS. If they release dual core first then I think they would easily stolen a huge market share against Intel since having a dual core will have a distinctive performance edge. Yes AMD leads in gaming but from those are not somehow very very big plus on other applications Intel still leads with their HT.

What do you think.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think this thread is flame bait and has already been discussed no less than 30,000 times before on these forums.

That said. I don't think you understand the features. x86-64/AMD64 is not a feature they added to the K8 because they thought 64-bit processing would be useful. The K8 IS a 64-bit processor that's backward compatible with 32-bit software. Period.

Also, if you're saying the only area AMD leads in is games and Intel leads in every other type of application because of Hyper-Threading, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[clarkey01]

No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

64-bit computing in the sense that you have increased dynamic range is too soon... almost nothing needs that much precision yet. But in the sense that the x86 64-bit standard brought more general purpose registers will be helpful as soon as 64-bit apps are created.

 

[Wingznut]

My $.03...

Dual core is the future and it will be huge. There's really no doubt about it.

And saying that AMD should've released dual core 2-3 years ago really isn't relevant. It's not like they have both technologies completed and sitting on a shelf, with the only decision to make of which to ship first. Dual core designs have been in the works for years... It just takes time for a new technology to mature.

 

[Malladine]

dual core means little to me and will continue to mean little until a multi threaded game is released - that is until Unreal 3

Tim Sweeney: For multithreading optimizations, we're focusing on physics, animation updates, the renderer's scene traversal loop, sound updates, and content streaming.We are not attempting to multithread systems that are highly sequential and object-oriented, such as the gameplay.

Implementing a multithreaded system requires two to three times the development and testing effort of implementing a comparable non-multithreaded system, so it's vital that developers focus on self-contained systems that offer the highest effort-to-reward ratio.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
My $.03...

Dual core is the future and it will be huge. There's really no doubt about it.

And saying that AMD should've released dual core 2-3 years ago really isn't relevant. It's not like they have both technologies completed and sitting on a shelf, with the only decision to make of which to ship first. Dual core designs have been in the works for years... It just takes time for a new technology to mature.

True... also... hardware needs to precede software, otherwise you have software that runs like crap on current hardware and nobody wants that.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
My $.03...

Dual core is the future and it will be huge. There's really no doubt about it.

And saying that AMD should've released dual core 2-3 years ago really isn't relevant. It's not like they have both technologies completed and sitting on a shelf, with the only decision to make of which to ship first. Dual core designs have been in the works for years... It just takes time for a new technology to mature.

I agree with that...It however could have been released when the A64 was released..I could have used it then instead of the HT with my P4 and had better results....

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

I'm a pure gamer, but I find dual core interesting.



I know you were just aiming that at the flamers, though
I'd actually buy a dual core chip if I could reach decent frequencies from it.
I'm sure my system would feel much more responsive, even though I wouldn't notice "a boost in numbers" directly from the applications I use. I think it would be worth it, though. It may even usher me to do more things with my system than I did before.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

I'm a pure gamer, but I find dual core interesting.



I know you were just aiming that at the flamers, though
I'd actually buy a dual core chip if I could reach decent frequencies from it.
I'm sure my system would feel much more responsive, even though I wouldn't notice "a boost in numbers" directly from the applications I use. I think it would be worth it, though. It may even usher me to do more things with my system than I did before.

You wouldn't have to worry about anti-virus software or other automated Windows "tools" hindering game performance.

Maybe I don't fully understand multithreading, but it seems to me it would be fairly easy to multithread a game. Just create a separate executable for sound... or physics... or network stuff for online games.

 

[sbuckler]

The reason dual core is arriving now is sizes have shrunk enough to fit 2 processors on 1 chip, and the chip makers have hit a hurdle with speed increases. 2-3 years ago speed was still doubling every 18 months, and the size of the chip to do dual core wouldn?t have made economic sense.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: sbuckler
The reason dual core is arriving now is sizes have shrunk enough to fit 2 processors on 1 chip, and the chip makers have hit a hurdle with speed increases. 2-3 years ago speed was still doubling every 18 months, and the size of the chip to do dual core wouldn?t have made economic sense.

True... the 1 MB cache 130nm Athlon 64's were rather large... double that for dual cores and they wouldn't be getting many cores per wafer...

 

[Icepick]

Hindsight is 20/20. AMD made a business gamble when they decided to put a rush on getting 64 bit processors to market instead of focusing entirely on dual core. IMO they made the right decision based on the information and projected release dates of 64-bit Windows available at the time. The majority of end-user apps are single threaded and won't benefit immediately from dual core.

If MS had stayed on track and released 64 bit Windows last year, long before Intel had 64 bit capability for the desktop (except in the corporate server arena) AMD would have made a HUGE splash and may have even ushered in a paradigm shift in the whole AMD vs Intel debates.

(Personally, I believe there was collusion between MS and Intel in the 64-bit OS delay but, that's off the topic of this thread )

 

[redhatlinux]

My perspective is that Dual Cores will be FANTASTIC !!. Winblows is only a part of the equation. How about one OS running in 32bit mode on 1 core and a true 64-bit OS running on the other ??. Add file sharing between the two and the WORLD is available to you??.

Lets face the truth here. Intel fakes 2 cpu's with all the HYPE cause the pipe is soooo long and so little is DONE on each cycle that 'stuffing' 2 streams keeps the processor 'busy'.

Two real cpus that complete more work per cycle, 64-bit work...... nuff said

Dr Eric Knott

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: icepik
Hindsight is 20/20. AMD made a business gamble when they decided to put a rush on getting 64 bit processors to market instead of focusing entirely on dual core. IMO they made the right decision based on the information and projected release dates of 64-bit Windows available at the time. The majority of end-user apps are single threaded and won't benefit immediately from dual core.

If MS had stayed on track and released 64 bit Windows last year, long before Intel had 64 bit capability for the desktop (except in the corporate server arena) AMD would have made a HUGE splash and may have even ushered in a paradigm shift in the whole AMD vs Intel debates.

(Personally, I believe there was collusion between MS and Intel in the 64-bit OS delay but, that's off the topic of this thread )

YOu may have something there...however if true I would still blame AMD to not see that coming...I mean who is MS going to bow to??? INtel with dominance in the sector??? Dual core leaves no dependence on anything new as the same apps HT was gaining from and giving Intel its last areas of dominance would have more then given AMD the boost....(Intel chips with HT off would lose all the remaining areas of leads over current FX55...I have tested this in multimedia threads and itis right. Top p4's would lose up to 20%)

NOw I understand jeffs post on the 130nm process and it not be economical until 90nm, but I would have still focused my resources on that and getting that out faster...

 

[slash196]

I like what I've seen of the dualies so far. I'm salivating over AMD dual-core stuff. If the dual core chips can be overclocked like the singles, that's game-set-match for me.

 

[Keysplayr]

Multicore CPU's are where everyone is headed. Intel, AMD, IBM, others.
AMD's strategy should be to get some advertising going. Commercials, Radio, TV. Otherwise, they will pretty much be stuck where they are now. You know, they are stuck at the "What's AMD?" area. Intel is almost a household name.

Oh and redhatlinux, don't take this the wrong way, but I would take Winblows over crappix any day of the week. But that's just me.

 

[hippotautamus]

Dual core chips make a lot of sense for pretty much everyone (save budget users). Even gamers, who are far more concerned with being able to run one thread at high speed, will certainly not see their gaming performance suffer a whole lot with a dual core. It will, however, allow them to rip movies to DivX in the background while running Half Life 2 16AF 8AA...

This is what I am looking forward to. My only concern that they won't overclock all that well.

That said, I think AMD did the wise thing in pushing a64. They've completely captured the gaming market first (the easiest one to convert - performance is everything, not brand loyalty). Now they begin their push into the developer and corporate market with dual cores, meanwhile dropping the prices (hopefully!) on their single cores a bit to make them appeal to the mainstream user market.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

amd already has a huge performance advantage over intel without dual cores, if they had released dual core a long time ago they wouldn't have made as much as they did on their k8's

 

[Markfw]

I like what I've seen of the dualies so far. I'm salivating over AMD dual-core stuff. If the dual core chips can be overclocked like the singles, that's game-set-match for me.

Me too ! Except by the time the apps are multi-threaded, I will be at quad cpu (2x2) !! 4x F@H !!!!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: redhatlinux
My perspective is that Dual Cores will be FANTASTIC !!. Winblows is only a part of the equation. How about one OS running in 32bit mode on 1 core and a true 64-bit OS running on the other ??. Add file sharing between the two and the WORLD is available to you??.

Lets face the truth here. Intel fakes 2 cpu's with all the HYPE cause the pipe is soooo long and so little is DONE on each cycle that 'stuffing' 2 streams keeps the processor 'busy'.

Two real cpus that complete more work per cycle, 64-bit work...... nuff said

Dr Eric Knott

Right... but up until now, two real cpus was a 80%+ cost increase to the system... So hyperthreading was a great alternative, not to mention FREE.

And "Dr Knott" im sure you know that 64bit does NOTHING for most applications, all you gain right now by going to windows-64 is some memory addressing and increased artificial benchmarks, along with an enormous pile of unstable beta software and drivers.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

I'm a pure gamer, but I find dual core interesting.



I know you were just aiming that at the flamers, though
I'd actually buy a dual core chip if I could reach decent frequencies from it.
I'm sure my system would feel much more responsive, even though I wouldn't notice "a boost in numbers" directly from the applications I use. I think it would be worth it, though. It may even usher me to do more things with my system than I did before.

Im sure a dual core K9 (yes thats what it is now called) 2.2 Ghz will be good enough for games. And like somone else said, running norton and windows update in the background wont hinder game performance.

But I feel for AMD who planned for dual core way before Intel did. Tejas and nehalem were all single core netburst chips ment to hit speeds of over 10.25 Ghz, unless they had (and I doubt) smithfield as a back up plan.

It just seems funny how they go from "Ghz is everything" to "Forget Mhz, Dual core is the way".

I would rather Intel say "We'v seen the light" instead to investors " We knew a long,long time ago that this was the path".

I believe if the P6 design was kept mainstream after the Pentium 3 and Netburst the marketing tool wasnt born then Intel would be much, much stronger then in the tech front then where they are today.

Bob combwell (Ex Intel guy) left due to his opposition to netburst, I think theres a video of him online somewhere talking to some students about netburst, IA 32 etc.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Remember just because microsoft is slow getting out of the door doesn't mean there aren't 64bit capable apps and OS's. Linux for example is no where near the level of MS in market, but a large ammount of people use it.

Dont rush the chip, i would rather have a really nice chip instead of a chip really early but bad.

-Kevin

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

I'm a pure gamer, but I find dual core interesting.



I know you were just aiming that at the flamers, though
I'd actually buy a dual core chip if I could reach decent frequencies from it.
I'm sure my system would feel much more responsive, even though I wouldn't notice "a boost in numbers" directly from the applications I use. I think it would be worth it, though. It may even usher me to do more things with my system than I did before.

You wouldn't have to worry about anti-virus software or other automated Windows "tools" hindering game performance.

Maybe I don't fully understand multithreading, but it seems to me it would be fairly easy to multithread a game. Just create a separate executable for sound... or physics... or network stuff for online games.

You need to synchronize those threads with the main thread. This is where it become interesting