• 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's 2008 K8 Roadmap

They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
 
Actually, I think AMD's stated intent over the past half year is to compete on price against nVidia and Intel. They don't have the resources to fight any other way. They are not abandoning high-end enthusiasts but they have to be careful with their resources and R&D.

It will probably be 2Q 2008 before any of the high-end K10's start to roll which means Intel has no reason to adjust prices on $300 CPUs just to compete with themselves.

I got no problems with 65nm 2.6GHz K8 CPUs around $100 😀

I'll assume that as 65nm matures they will bin more high performers - It would be great if 2.8-3+ GHz X2's came in at $120.

I'm more interested in driving down those GPU and chipset prices!
 
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

This is actually a good move for AMD. If they can sell cheap cpu's and make a profit on 65nm then more power to them. Just like the 38xx series for video, they are just shrunken die sizes of its big brother. They are able to make a lot of money from this.
 
It's just the way of the business cycle. AMD was low cost chip maker, wth such as K6, until K7/Athlon took off. To make Athlon, AMD had to bide its time while making small gains which resulted in solid engineering breakthrough on the Thunderbird. Afterwards, it enjoyed great success. But, it stands to reason that AMD will not stay on top the majority of the time with its smaller R&D budget. True enough, Intel's Core took the lead and has not looked back. Right now it's simply AMD's down cycle right now until it can breakthrough again with a K11 or something else.

If nothing else, AMD will be a thong at Intel's side to keep the processor prices competitive. We'll still benefit.
 
If nothing else, AMD will be a thong at Intel's side
Click to expand...

Nice Freudian slip--AMD in a thong....and I won't go any further with that, but I know what you are thinking....on a subconscious level.

 
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
 
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
Click to expand...

I think the point that people are missing is the speed bins that Chartered is making at 90nm are gone - they are not being replaced by 65nm product.

Pretty smart move. K10 - the new flagship product - is out performed by the old product. So just eliminate the top end K8 parts and by default k10 is now the fastest part.

Another brilliant idea thought up by AMD's marketing team.

 
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
Click to expand...

The Xeon MP cycle was slower then desktop, it's was only not too long ago where we finally got MP Core based items with Tigerton SKU's. Maybe with Nehalem we will see synchronization across the board.
 
Honestly, people will usually buy the cheapest computer they can that will still do what they want it to. Most people aren't gamers, not to mention that you really don't need a powerful processor for most games.

AMD needs to get their marketing to push the "affordable gamer" platform. Perhaps offer bundle deals to system builders that cooperate.

 
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
Click to expand...

I think the point that people are missing is the speed bins that TSMC is making at 90nm are gone - they are not being replaced by 65nm product.

Pretty smart move. K10 - the new flagship product - is out performed by the old product. So just eliminate the top end K8 parts and by default k10 is now the fastest part.

Another brilliant idea thought up by AMD's marketing team.
Click to expand...

Thats what really gets me... its hard to feel sorry for them when they spit in my face time and time again... oh and guess what, that black edition 6400+ I just bought isn't so black. Its got a max multiplier of 16x, which is the DEFAULT multiplier on it... (compared to 15x on a 6000+)... seeing as how ALL chips can have reduced multiplier the only thing they gave me is the fact it doesn't come with a fan... which is reasonable because using the stock fan from another X2 I had I had to downclock it 400mhz for it to idle at 55c and 67c load... With an expensive zalman 9500 fan I can now run it at stock 44c load 55c... Thank you AMD for screwing another customer.... at least I didn't "upgrade" phenom, only to find out it crashes randomly unless I install a patch that reduces performance by 10-20% making it WORSE then the X2 (to be given to me sometime in the future, for now put up with the crashes)...
 
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
Click to expand...

I think the point that people are missing is the speed bins that TSMC is making at 90nm are gone - they are not being replaced by 65nm product.

Pretty smart move. K10 - the new flagship product - is out performed by the old product. So just eliminate the top end K8 parts and by default k10 is now the fastest part.

Another brilliant idea thought up by AMD's marketing team.
Click to expand...

TSMC has not been fabbing any CPUs for AMD.

When they do outsource, they outsource to IBM.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus

TSMC has not been fabbing any CPUs for AMD.

When they do outsource, they outsource to IBM.
Click to expand...

IBM doesn't do outsourcing of CPUs for AMD either...only Chartered does.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: KingstonU
They've just reached a new level of pathetic as they are now basically saying: "Our new processors are actually worse than our 4 year old ones, so we'll just go back to selling our 4 year old K8 processors again."

And this is coming from an AMD fanboy 😱
Click to expand...

Intel continued to market primarily Netburst products for some months after the Core launch, despite the obvious technical superiority of Core. Netburst was pushing something like 6 years at that point. It's a matter of cost and volume availability, not just performance.

However, IIRC Intel did not launch any new desktop Netburst products in that period (they launched a fair number fo new Netburst Xeons). Granted these "new" K8 products are just die-shrinks, though.
Click to expand...

I think the point that people are missing is the speed bins that TSMC is making at 90nm are gone - they are not being replaced by 65nm product.

Pretty smart move. K10 - the new flagship product - is out performed by the old product. So just eliminate the top end K8 parts and by default k10 is now the fastest part.

Another brilliant idea thought up by AMD's marketing team.
Click to expand...

TSMC has not been fabbing any CPUs for AMD.

When they do outsource, they outsource to IBM.
Click to expand...

Yeah I figured out that I mispoke about TSMC, I certainly did mean Chartered.

 
Originally posted by: nonameo
AMD needs to get their marketing to push the "affordable gamer" platform. Perhaps offer bundle deals to system builders that cooperate.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what they have been doing? This whole 'Spider' deal and all? Honestly, the benchmarks are in and they're pretty revealing (especially this most recent garbage with the TLB bugfix, 57% slower when browsing the internet is, well, crazy, though maybe you would take less of a performance hit with Opera or Firefox 3 or something, depending on how the memory is accessed).

Back to the point at hand, a big part of the issue is the game development. If you look at the standard benchmarks for a game like Supreme Commander, the 'budget' AMD video cards outperform the nVidia ones, even those that are a fair bit more expensive.

And with the pissing contest between Intel and Nvidia, it might be easier to get a SOTA Spider Crossfire system up-and-running than it would 45nm Intel w/ SLI, by a long shot.

In any event, I think that this is probably a good decision for AMD. The only other thing they have to do from this point is fix their processor nomenclature to keep things straight.

FWIW: I am not an AMD fanboy. I had an Intel system previously, and had always wanted to mess around with an AMD-based system. Yet here I am. I want to upgrade my proc and/or motherboard, and the only thought that goes through my mind is "Well... 180 for AM2+ motherboard, 190 for a 6400x2... couldn't I just get a C2Q and motherboard for that much money or a tiny bit more and come out ahead anyway?"
 
Originally posted by: gmofftarki
I want to upgrade my proc and/or motherboard, and the only thought that goes through my mind is "Well... 180 for AM2+ motherboard, 190 for a 6400x2... couldn't I just get a C2Q and motherboard for that much money or a tiny bit more and come out ahead anyway?"
Click to expand...

That's because we all know you don't go AMD for the high end or enthusiast builds. But let's talk lower end mainstream -- a stable, mature AM2 motherboard from a reputable manufacturer will run me about $60. Budget ones dip below $40 after rebate. I can pick up a 5200+ x2 for $119, or go dirt cheap with a 3800 for $60. So for $100-$200 I've got a reliable extreme budget computing platform that has enough oomph for HD video playback, web browsing and gaming.

A 2140 setup won't hit $100, and the $200 AMD setup will get 70% of the $200 overclocked 2140 performance without playing the OC lottery and possibly frying components.

I'd feel pretty comfortable building a stock clocked 3800x2 or 5200x2 machine for my parents or other relatives. A 3.2ghz OCd 2140, not so much.

Now if only AMD made some zippy new socket 939s...
 
Originally posted by: gmofftarki
If you look at the standard benchmarks for a game like Supreme Commander, the 'budget' AMD video cards outperform the nVidia ones, even those that are a fair bit more expensive.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 8800 gt 256 is faster than a 3870 and cost the same. The only area where the 3870 may beat the 8800 GT in some benchmarks is at higher resolutions above 1280 x 1024 due to the lower memory. Since most gamers are still playing at 1280 x 1024 or less, it makes no sense to get a 3870 when the 8800 GT 256 is in stock like they are at newegg right now.

8800 GT 256 at newegg

Edit:

Corrected 3850 to 3870
 
Originally posted by: soonerproud
Originally posted by: gmofftarki
If you look at the standard benchmarks for a game like Supreme Commander, the 'budget' AMD video cards outperform the nVidia ones, even those that are a fair bit more expensive.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 8800 gt 256 is faster than a 3850 and cost the same. The only area where the 3850 may beat the 8800 GT in some benchmarks is at higher resolutions above 1280 x 1024 due to the lower memory. Since most gamers are still playing at 1280 x 1024 or less, it makes no sense to get a 3850 when the 8800 GT 256 is in stock like they are at newegg right now.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point, entirely. The programming of most games these days is oriented specifically around Nvidia graphics cards, and 'optimized' for that purpose.

Supreme Commander is an outlier, granted, and because most games perform far better on Nvidia systems is a good reason to go that route (and I myself chose an 8800GT 512 over a 3870 for that reason). But it shows that the card isn't necessarily the 'weakest link', so much as the pressure put on companies to 'Guarantee Hellgate gets 97FPS at 1680x1050 on an 8800GTS 320MB' or whatnot.

If the specific rendering instructions were less exclusive, the cards would be far closer together in performance, and probably AMD would still be the winner in the performance/price ratio category.

[e] have to learn to close tags.
 
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: Acanthus

TSMC has not been fabbing any CPUs for AMD.

When they do outsource, they outsource to IBM.
Click to expand...

IBM doesn't do outsourcing of CPUs for AMD either...only Chartered does.
Click to expand...

IBMs Fishkill facility has been making chips for AMD for years...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...rication-business.html

Currently, Chartered Semiconductor handles some of AMD's manufacturing, and AMD told Ars Technica last fall that its plans called for Chartered to eventually manufacture CPUs on a 65nm process. AMD also has a long-standing partnership with IBM under which AMD gets to use Big Blue's East Fishkill, NY, plant for R&D and manufacturing.
Click to expand...

I didnt know they also outsourced to Chartered.
 
Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
If only they're release some black-edition 939s.....
Click to expand...

If only they released Brisbane 65nm cores for 939 all along!!!!! But no, they wanted to force AM2 down our throats, and once Core2 was released it was all over...

This is scary - AMD seems to be slowly slipping to the spot of a manufacturer whose sole ability to compete with Intel is in terms of price. It's like the K6 days all over again!!!

AMD needed a homerun with K10/Phenom. It's limping out the door.

IMO they need to focus on getting to 45nm sooner rather than later; Intel is creaming AMD in part because they can put so much cache on their chips, and have had an advantage in performance since Core2 came out.

Why are they bringing back Brisbane, and not deriving 1 and 2 core Phenoms??? Shouldn't they be reducing and consolidating their product line, not expanding it?

They are great at refining technology (like when they went from the first 90nm Athlon XP - "Tbred A" - a near failure that didn't hit clockspeed targets, to the second revision - "Tbred B" - a winner that clocked well at good voltages and even got used in notebooks). They should gut it out with Phenom IMO, get a second revision out that fixes the TLB issue and work on Phenom derived 1 and 2 core processors. Phenom is the future of AMD, not Brisbane.

The fact that they're discussing options like a big 3-core Phenom launch in mid 2008 is laughable -- are yields going to be that bad that far into the year!?!? While Intel is pumping out 45nm Penryn's for similar money that can clock into the 3 GHz range due to the decreased node size.
 
That second revision phenom will be released in "mid to late Q1 2008" according to AMD... that means that they HOPE to finish it by march or april of 08... They simply cannot fix it any sooner. And might take longer, that is why they bring bake brisbane...

Having lower performance means that they can still charge high prices as long as the overall cost is lower... that is, drop in replacement. Making a 939 brisbane is IDEAL as anyone knows right now that you are better off with a p35 and a c2d if you want a total upgrade. Since they are NOT gonna get you to move to AM2, they might as well get you to buy a new CPU from them for your existing socket...

But then again, AMD is currently mismanaged to the extreme.
 
I agree the amount of time and resources it would take to fix this failure just isn't worth it if it can't get here before 2H 2008. They failed. Best they forget about it and limp along with these and put all of their efforts on Shanghai, Bulldozer and Fusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top