AMD's roadmaps

[taltamir]

I took the liberty of translating AMDs roadmaps from PR to english:

2006: Hope that intel will continue to use the useless netburst architecture (worse performance per clock on P4 then the P3) instead of something more competitive.
2007: Hope that for some reason the aging X2 cores will still stay competative with intels new generation offerings despite intel's commitment to real performance (vs preceived performance with their netburst debacle), assuming that intel will keep on sucking like it has in the past. Refuse to make an MCM quad core because they are committed to "true" multi core design.
2008: Hope that people will buy the monolithic monster called phenom even though it fails in every aspect. Suggest that they couple it with an inferior AMD video card and AMD chipset for a total suckage experience. Hope that the phenom will suddenly get good yield rates despite being one of the biggest chips ever made. Hope for more investment money (like the one from the government of arabistan). Try to survive till 2009.
2009: Hope that Fusion will beat the pants off of everything else. Hope that nvidia will die as it is locked out by AMD and Intel as each fortifies its own platform. Hope that the intel video card suck.

AMDs plans seem to hinge on the opponents sucking and messing up every single time while they would get lucky. While in fact it is AMD who keeps on making mistakes.

A proper plan should accommodate for both bad or good luck; but apparently AMD's management doesn't seem to understand that.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

Non pr look at whats on the shelves or running in machines all over the globe.
K8 Opterons have done well for there field not getting much glory but keeping a lot of servers running
K10 Barcelona, limited to 2G and under but perform on par with older 2.2-2.4G K8 chips in computational processing.

K8 939 series chips did well opened up the enthusiast market to some great performance, lower heat output and nice overclocking.
K8 AM2 started slow with some extremely overclockable chips that at first did not have better performance than 939 predecessors. These were mainly the first 65nm runs as well as the needed change to DDR2. With DDR1 stocks dwindling, this was a good move. New lines of AM2 K8s continued throughout 2008 with later releases of lower power consuming varieties for Media centers and general use family systems.
K10 Phemom out the gate looks OK but not stellar. Beating it's K8 AM2s clock for clock and below 2.8G depending on benchmark used. Suffers from a bug in the NB of the part that controls when and where memory is stored. Bug occurs during peak traffic where paging gets heavy from such events as multi media including surfing and high end scientific programs that run SMP such as Folding@Home and SETI. A BIOS fix to correct for the Paging will cause a slight performance loss when benchmarked but we won't be able to see it. Expected releases of the bug fixed K10s are not being confirmed at this point. For such a great chip with a lot of promiss this could not have come at a worse time.
Furture CPUs are in the works based on the K10 with improvements to cache speed, a die shrink and possible larger caches is in the works, release date possible 2009 or Late 2008.
The ATI chipset started out low against NVidia. ATI not part of AMD is moved to just video cards. AMD's chipsets did well for the 2006 and 2007 year but not record sales. Spider Platform is released with great promiss of allowing faster buss speeds for more video cards and response to hardware. Runs most if not all the AM2 CPUs extremely well. The downside is cost with only the high end boards available and with lower end models on the way as of this post.

I've tested the 790FX chipset from Gigabyte with a Phenom and Windsor chip. The Windsor dropped in ran cooler, stable and overclocked better than it did in the earlier chip sets (in fact is folding 24/7 now. The Phenom as a little more tricky being the first CPU I ever had to exchange. I was abler to test it for a short time and found results to be great just nothing that would beat Intel hardware at the same speed level or above.

Currently most people don't have much good to say about AMD but they are not going backwards but have come to a standstill in the enthusiast market. They do continue to move a good amount of server chips and larger amount of lower to middle consumer chips. 4th quarter was reported to have seen an increase by both AMD and Intel against other smaller PC CPUs makers.

 

[Greenman]

Yawn.

Thank you for the expert analysis, now go away.

 

[StormRider]

I'm still gonna buy AMD for my future system builds. Their performance is "good enough" for me and I want them around to provide competition to Intel. Without AMD, we would all still be stuck with P4's at super high prices.

 

[mruffin75]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I took the liberty of translating AMDs roadmaps from PR to english:

2006: Hope that intel will continue to use the useless netburst architecture (worse performance per clock on P4 then the P3) instead of something more competitive.
2007: Hope that for some reason the aging X2 cores will still stay competative with intels new generation offerings despite intel's commitment to real performance (vs preceived performance with their netburst debacle), assuming that intel will keep on sucking like it has in the past. Refuse to make an MCM quad core because they are committed to "true" multi core design.
2008: Hope that people will buy the monolithic monster called phenom even though it fails in every aspect. Suggest that they couple it with an inferior AMD video card and AMD chipset for a total suckage experience. Hope that the phenom will suddenly get good yield rates despite being one of the biggest chips ever made. Hope for more investment money (like the one from the government of arabistan). Try to survive till 2009.
2009: Hope that Fusion will beat the pants off of everything else. Hope that nvidia will die as it is locked out by AMD and Intel as each fortifies its own platform. Hope that the intel video card suck.

AMDs plans seem to hinge on the opponents sucking and messing up every single time while they would get lucky. While in fact it is AMD who keeps on making mistakes.

A proper plan should accommodate for both bad or good luck; but apparently AMD's management doesn't seem to understand that.

Oh god Taltamir..when will you stop with this garbage??? Do you actually do anything else other than post on here?? Your posts remind me of Fuad from Fudzilla..

Yes AMD hasn't got the *best* performing CPU's at the moment.. in fact, the current Phenom's and Barcelona's should be avoided entirely until they get the errata under control..

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with AMD/ATI's chipsets...in fact the latest chipsets (such as the 690G etc. as well as the 700 series that's just been released) are quite good...I'd actually prefer those to the Nvidia chipsets and I've got pretty much all nvidia chipsets right now (two 6150's and a 6100 in our laptop)..

I don't see Fusion beating anything really...but I do see it saving a lot of money for OEM's and bringing in even cheaper PC's... and I don't see them stopping at just integrating the video card, I also see them integrating a crappy onboard sound chip as well... anything really that they can throw onboard.

And I agree with the post by StormRider... AMD's performance is more than enough for me... my Turion X2 2.0Ghz laptop is more than powerful enough (other than the crap 7200 Go video card...), and my 4400 and 4600 X2 desktops are more than powerful enough as well...

I don't see why *everyone* needs a great overclocking chip or the fastest performing chip.. if it gives good performance, and is a good price...then there is nothing wrong with it..

I'd probably look into using an Intel chip, except they offer pretty horrible integrated video, which is one point where ATI (and to a lesser extent IMO, nvidia) is more advanced..

 

[opmike]

I'm failing to see the point in this thread. There are a myriad of criticisms one could launch at AMD and many are more than justified. However, this sounds like yet another asinine rant from the OP.

 

[mruffin75]

Originally posted by: opmike
I'm failing to see the point in this thread. There are a myriad of criticisms one could launch at AMD and many are more than justified. However, this sounds like yet another asinine rant from the OP.

He does this quite often...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: mruffin75

Originally posted by: opmike
I'm failing to see the point in this thread. There are a myriad of criticisms one could launch at AMD and many are more than justified. However, this sounds like yet another asinine rant from the OP.

He does this quite often...

I think almost all I ever see is anti AMD posts from the OP.

AMD certainly has stumbled quite a bit, but once Phenom matures, so long as they price it in line with how it performs compared to the competition, then I'll consider it. The Radeon 3850/3870 are far from the fastest cards on the market, but AMD can't make them fast enough. If they compete with Phenom in the same way they are with the Radeon 38x0 series, it'll be a decent choice for a lot of people.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: mruffin75

Originally posted by: opmike
I'm failing to see the point in this thread. There are a myriad of criticisms one could launch at AMD and many are more than justified. However, this sounds like yet another asinine rant from the OP.

He does this quite often...

QFT.

 

[Greenman]

Rollo?

 

[Regs]

I guess I can buy an X2 next year. While I'm at it, I'll pick up a VCR too.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Regs
I guess I can buy an X2 next year. While I'm at it, I'll pick up a VCR too.

:beer:

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Regs
I guess I can buy an X2 next year. While I'm at it, I'll pick up a VCR too.

LMAO, but X2 aren't that old tech i think...

 

[v8envy]

taltamir, I have advice for you that may improve your health and lengthen your life by YEARS.

Sell that 6400+ in FS/FT, buy an Intel rig, and be happy. It's not AMDs fault you have buyer's remorse. You chose to support the underdog with your wallet and are now having a hard time living with that choice.

We're all aware of their non-stop stumbles. But even so, they're miles ahead of where they used to be -- competing with Cyrix for the ultra budget unstable and buggy PC segment.

Yes, their balance sheet looks frightening but I don't think they're going to implode this year or next. Yes, their entire PR department should be replaced. Yes, Barcelona currently reeks to high heaven and is only suitable for the "enthusiasts who don't care about performance or value" market.

But seriously, you're acting like Hector showed up to your house to drown your kittens. It's just tech, stop taking it so hard. I mean, this stuff is dirt cheap even at the high end.

 

[taltamir]

Actually I WANT amd to stay in business. Competition is GOOD... I am just pissed that are so poorly managed. shooting itself in the foot in every turn. I am an AMD fan, have been for years, have been buying them exlusively for years. And I am sick and tired of seeing such a talented company get run down by execs that don't seem to know jack about anything.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: mruffin75

Originally posted by: opmike
I'm failing to see the point in this thread. There are a myriad of criticisms one could launch at AMD and many are more than justified. However, this sounds like yet another asinine rant from the OP.

He does this quite often...

QFT.

somethings just make me laugh on this forum.

"I'm still gonna buy AMD for my future system builds. Their performance is "good enough" for me and I want them around to provide competition to Intel. Without AMD, we would all still be stuck with P4's at super high prices." -StormRider

The irony.. Sympathy for a company. I wonder how much you even know about AMD.

-First off, AMD advertising totally sucks compared to Intel.
-Intel's video cards suck, taltamir, but they were "WAY" more stable than ATI's crappy drivers back when the 7K and 8K series were out. nVidia had more polished drivers during 2002. Though it did change after the launch of new set of drivers, Catalyst. Not a big fan of CCC, but it never really did bother me, not to mention you get to download the sotware drivers w/o CCC support.
-AMD didn't make video cards until they merged. Even so, ATI's so-called department is still producing the video cards, just under the new name, AMD. So has Intel made better video cards than AMD? Before the ATI merge, hell yes. And how are you going to convince someone who doesn't need nVidia or ATI laptop graphics to switch out of Intel graphics for a laptop?
-I think the real irony is that people posting here are really just trying to watch the fan boys stumble. I admit I'm stupid, good luck.

GG kidz

 

[taltamir]

In restrospect, this is the dumbest thread I ever started. I meant it to be a humorous commetary about how much AMDs management sucks and how ruiz has been destroying a great company the past couple of years.

Instead I just created a flame bait. Lets just let it die and say we all came out wiser.

 

[mruffin75]

Originally posted by: fire400

somethings just make me laugh on this forum.

"I'm still gonna buy AMD for my future system builds. Their performance is "good enough" for me and I want them around to provide competition to Intel. Without AMD, we would all still be stuck with P4's at super high prices." -StormRider

The irony.. Sympathy for a company. I wonder how much you even know about AMD.

-First off, AMD advertising totally sucks compared to Intel.

Uh...that may be affected by the fact that AMD has virtually no money compared to Intel.

-AMD didn't make video cards until they merged. Even so, ATI's so-called department is still producing the video cards, just under the new name, AMD. So has Intel made better video cards than AMD? Before the ATI merge, hell yes. And how are you going to convince someone who doesn't need nVidia or ATI laptop graphics to switch out of Intel graphics for a laptop?

Well for laptops it's virtually impossible, since the only laptops offered with any sort of decent dedicated video chips are priced way too high. Want decent DX9 or 10 video with your laptop? Then be prepared to pay well over $2,000...(not because the video chips themselves cost that much, but just because usually they're put into machines that are branded with Ferrari/Lamborghini etc. styling...so they have a price premium)..

-I think the real irony is that people posting here are really just trying to watch the fan boys stumble. I admit I'm stupid, good luck.

GG kidz

I admit, I haven't bought an Intel system since my Celeron 366 days.. however I don't really see myself as an AMD fanboy..

My last "big" purchase was a socket 939 system, so that's why all my PC's today are AMD systems... just haven't done the big upgrade.. and when I do, I'll be looking at the total system, not just the CPU...

But at the same time, I'll be looking at AMD over Intel anyway.. why? Well.. being in the computer industry and keeping up with *both* sides of the CPU war..I was suprised to see that the people involved in purchasing new systems, had *no* idea of AMD..they were basically the camp who say "Intel don't make anything bad"...

One conversation I remember was with another tech who was looked on as the "expert" and was asked by management all the time what systems to buy..

Me: "Hey.. why don't you ever tell them to buy an AMD system?"

Tech: "What!?!?! AMD??? They're crap!"

(Note: This was during the whole Prescott/nuclear meltdown situation)

Me: "Uh...have you seen AMD's Athlon64's at all?"

Tech: "No... the last AMD chip I saw was the K6..."

Me: "Well that Prescott CPU and board you just purchased for the manager is running at 80C in the BIOS screen with a crappy case. My Athlon64 at home is running at about 30-40C at the BIOS screen...with a crappy case"

Tech: "Really? Oh I didn't know that..."

Me: "So would you consider AMD chips next time?"

Tech: "No"

Me: "Why not?"

Tech: "Because I just like Intel"

That's what infuriates me about techs in general...they really had no idea what they were selling, just that it was Intel and it "was the best"..when it clearly wasn't...

I think at that time Intel could have lumped a piece of poop into an Intel box and people who *should* have known better, would have gobbled it up without question...

Plus...another discussion I saw on this board a couple of weeks ago.. was about a guy who bought an Athlon64 X2 and found that his single threaded DOS app wasn't running much faster... some moron said "Buy a C2D system..it'll be faster!"...

Now...I admit...it may be say 5% faster if that.. but at the cost of a whole system upgrade!?!?! The *real* answer is...."try and run two instances of the app at the same time!"... That way no matter *what* CPU you have, whether it be Intel or AMD...you'll get close to twice the performance!

And right now I have no idea where this rant is going... but I've typed so much I can't be bothered cancelling it

 

[nyker96]

I can see how this topic gonna turn out ... just let it be, if AMD gonna die it's gonna die I guess, someone else will take their place eventually.