I don't have any particular loyalty to any company but if Intel moves too far ahead of AMD, I'm afraid that there won't be any affordable Corei7 as there won't be any competitive pressure. I haven't even read of any rumors from AMD. I don't want to go back to the days of mainstream processors being $500+.
Does AMD have an answer to Core i7?
- Thread starter sparks
- Start date
Deneb is coming out roughly at the same time as the i7 but based on early reports should only be as fast as Intel's Penryn generation. That might turn out to be good enough to compete if AMD opts for really aggressive pricing. However AMD seems to be stuck in a rut of constantly being a generation behind, and they have been ever since Conroe came out in the fall of 2006.
When were mainstream processors $500+? As far as I can remember Intel has used a fairly standard pricing structure for many many generations of chips. Either way, with the move to 45nm AMD should be able to apply some pricing pressure thanks to smaller die sizes. In terms of pure performance, it doesn't look like AMD will be able to compete with i7 at the mid-high to high end.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Intel released pricing on the mainstream Nehalem already its set at $284 I believe +- a buck or 2.
Were did you get that $500. figure from ? Lets wait for deneb befor we throw it to the low end. Same as Nehalem . We seen some stuff But not on fully working system. Next week is going to be better than the last 2.
- Sep 28, 2005
- 21,070
- 3,575
- 126
ROFLROFLROFLROFL.
+1
AMD bearly has a an answer to Yorkfield. You think it has any hopes in answering bloomfield?
As someone said, only if they can price it right.
But no bloomfield will rip AMD a new one.
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
I think he was referring to the Pentium II and III days where the mainstream and high end CPUs were insanely expensive. Even the lower end Celerons of the day were 150 to 200 dollars.
Seriously, everybody should sincerely hope that AMD pulls themselves out of this CPU rut they are in. Without AMD's Athlon successes, we wouldn't have our Core 2s or Nehalems. We'd still be rocking Netburst CPUs, probably just entering the Prescott or Cedar Mill core era, and no dual core CPUs at all.
Amd answer is lower prices plus not requiring ddr3 or a $250 motherboard. Other than that, not really.
Unfortunately that's not what it is looking like right now. When AMD presented the rosy roadmap back in July 2007, yes, Bulldozer was meant to compete head on with Nehalem in 2009. Now it's a different story. Bulldozer is off the roadmap and looks like a 2010-2011 part for sure; on the server side that is definite, on the desktop we don't know for sure, but AMD wouldn't introduce it on the desktop before servers. Bulldozer isn't going to compete with Nehalem, it is lucky if it competes for very long with Westmere. Given the current release schedule, I would expect Bulldozer to compete with a mix of Westmere & Sandy Bridge. Not pretty for an architecture (presumably) intended to go up against Nehalem.
AMD doesn't need an answer to Nehalem in Q4 2008; Deneb is going to compete with Yorkfield and despite the fairly low price of the Bloomfield CPU, when the platform cost is taken into consideration, the Deneb solution will be much lower priced. AMD will face competition from Yorkfield, which is already going to be a tough competitor for Deneb. When mainstream Nehalem arrives in the second half of 2009 with platform costs equalized, then they are in trouble. At that point they will have to compete with smart pricing.
AMD is at a point right now where (it seems to me at least) that they are sticking to technology that they can bring to market quickly and with minimal R&D. With AMD desperately looking to cut costs, spending a lot of money bringing a ground-up new architecture to market may not be what is in their best interest. I'm sure we will see Bulldozer sometime, but given how far it has slipped in the roadmap I would guess that it is more than a simple delay.
That assumes Deneb is out before Nehalem...if Nehalem beats Deneb to the marketspace then the only thing Deneb will be competing with Penryn for is lowest price.
Likewise with Bulldozer and Nehalem...AMD can claim Bulldozer is their response to Nehalem but if Westmere (or gasp Sandy Bridge) releases before Bulldozer then Bulldozer won't be competing with Nehalem except maybe in price.
I suppose AMD could claim Phenom was to compete with Pentium-D and not Core 2, but that's not how the customer's viewed the playing field and their vote is the one that counts.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Seconded.
Yeah, I remember those days. I actually bought my first AMD chip, which was nowhere near cheap, I might add, during that same time period. I could have afforded a more expensive chip, but wanted to make sure (at least in my own mind) that AMD didn't flounder. Luckily for both them and my myself, they released the amazing Athlon less than a year later.
I agree completely with the second paragraph, also. I'm worried about them now, though, especially with the looming release of Nehalem. Nehalem is a monster.
edit: Just thought of something-- E6600 release price was $316 (officially), and better yet, the Q6600 debuted @ $851.:shocked:
The israeli elite engineering r&d team is working for AMD on their new architecture, and they're keeping it a secret right now. Who in the hell in their right mind would show all their cards? They won't. That's fact.
One thing that a lot of people are forgetting is that there is no way that the i7 platform (mobo+cpu+ddr3) is going to be cheap. Intel is now king of the hill (for now) and is going to milk all the enthusiasts.
Things are slowing down now, and the Core 2 platform is winding down. Most people are going to be still using Core 2 (Even enthusiasts) for the next year at least because of high prices of Nehalem.
Get used to it, it's a return to monopoly, at least in the short-term. 4GHz 45nm Core2 is the best we'll have for at least a year, in the mid-range enthusiast segment. Of course, high-end enthusiasts will go for Nehalem and get the buggy chipsets and crappy first-run error-ware.
One thing that a lot of people are forgetting is that there is no way that the i7 platform (mobo+cpu+ddr3) is going to be cheap. Intel is now king of the hill (for now) and is going to milk all the enthusiasts.
Things are slowing down now, and the Core 2 platform is winding down. Most people are going to be still using Core 2 (Even enthusiasts) for the next year at least because of high prices of Nehalem.
Get used to it, it's a return to monopoly, at least in the short-term. 4GHz 45nm Core2 is the best we'll have for at least a year, in the mid-range enthusiast segment. Of course, high-end enthusiasts will go for Nehalem and get the buggy chipsets and crappy first-run error-ware.
No.
AMD's CPUs are doing very well, performance wise, right now, in every respect except for one single thing, code that is heavily utilizing SIMD backend performance. Core2 is simply wider there.
But this is not a trivial thing since every benchmark this forum's population reads measures performance almost exclusively that way. (the fact that AMD does well in server benchmarks is often attribute to that AMD 'scales better', however the fact that also different types of benchmarks are used is usually not taken notice of.)
Also, big, time consuming CPU work loads for typical desktop applications today is, can and should be vectorized for SIMD execution. So Intel have their performance priorities exactly right, even outside their benchmark one-upmanship. But what seems like a widespread belief that Core2 is 'generally' faster than Phenom or X2 is simply wrong.
AMD's performance on vectorized code (per clock, per core) is not set to increase in the close future. AMD's ability to compete will only come from offering more cores or more clock per dollar. The ability of that 'competitiveness' to show through in benchmarks is pretty slim though. Particularly for an audience that believes in over clocking.
So, Deneb's backend vector resources won't get better than Phenom. Meanwhile i7 will neutralize or even considerably exceed any advantage AMD has today in i/o. So no, AMD definitely don't have any answer to i7 aka Nehalem. Deneb will be a nice CPU though, cool and capable, but it won't compete with Intel at the highend. On the contrary. The Intel advantage, that today is partially just perceived, will become thoroughly real and genuine throughout the spectrum of applications.
AMD is slated to achieve much greater vector performance eventually. However I have doubts about that AMD will survive as a major x86 manufacturer for long enough to roll that out the doors. And Intel is along all the way with their Larrabee so times will remain hard whatever.
Intel is simply so much bigger with much greater resources. Only way AMD could have remained as a competitor to Intel was to achieve +30% market share. Since that failed due to circumstances that maybe will be regulated in court, AMD is simply screwed. I don't see any way around that. That of course also means that we as consumers are also screwed, but I doubt many are really going to ever realize that to it's full extent. Instead we are going to see a lot of reasoning along the lines that Moore's law is at end, market has no need of more CPU power, is demanding other features, etc. And a lot of you are going to buy it.
AMD's CPUs are doing very well, performance wise, right now, in every respect except for one single thing, code that is heavily utilizing SIMD backend performance. Core2 is simply wider there.
But this is not a trivial thing since every benchmark this forum's population reads measures performance almost exclusively that way. (the fact that AMD does well in server benchmarks is often attribute to that AMD 'scales better', however the fact that also different types of benchmarks are used is usually not taken notice of.)
Also, big, time consuming CPU work loads for typical desktop applications today is, can and should be vectorized for SIMD execution. So Intel have their performance priorities exactly right, even outside their benchmark one-upmanship. But what seems like a widespread belief that Core2 is 'generally' faster than Phenom or X2 is simply wrong.
AMD's performance on vectorized code (per clock, per core) is not set to increase in the close future. AMD's ability to compete will only come from offering more cores or more clock per dollar. The ability of that 'competitiveness' to show through in benchmarks is pretty slim though. Particularly for an audience that believes in over clocking.
So, Deneb's backend vector resources won't get better than Phenom. Meanwhile i7 will neutralize or even considerably exceed any advantage AMD has today in i/o. So no, AMD definitely don't have any answer to i7 aka Nehalem. Deneb will be a nice CPU though, cool and capable, but it won't compete with Intel at the highend. On the contrary. The Intel advantage, that today is partially just perceived, will become thoroughly real and genuine throughout the spectrum of applications.
AMD is slated to achieve much greater vector performance eventually. However I have doubts about that AMD will survive as a major x86 manufacturer for long enough to roll that out the doors. And Intel is along all the way with their Larrabee so times will remain hard whatever.
Intel is simply so much bigger with much greater resources. Only way AMD could have remained as a competitor to Intel was to achieve +30% market share. Since that failed due to circumstances that maybe will be regulated in court, AMD is simply screwed. I don't see any way around that. That of course also means that we as consumers are also screwed, but I doubt many are really going to ever realize that to it's full extent. Instead we are going to see a lot of reasoning along the lines that Moore's law is at end, market has no need of more CPU power, is demanding other features, etc. And a lot of you are going to buy it.
z1ggy
Lifer
- May 17, 2008
- 10,010
- 66
- 91
Get used to it, it's a return to monopoly, at least in the short-term. 4GHz 45nm Core2 is the best we'll have for at least a year, in the mid-range enthusiast segment. Of course, high-end enthusiasts will go for Nehalem and get the buggy chipsets and crappy first-run error-ware.
-AMD might nto be up there with performance..but they can compete with Intel forever because they offer low end cpu for budget buyers who may not wish to OC or game.. or do anything but just surf the web and check there email. In fact I would say the majority of computer users fall into that category. I run a small at home computer repair business..and I would say 75% of people don't even know what RAM is.. or what stands for. Intel is to microsoft as AMD is to Apple..like Vee said..they are a huge corp. but AMd can still be popular..but it is liek when you think of a computer..most people think of Intel..most people have no clue who AMD are. As far as power and speed of CPu's..AMd will never catch up I don't think which sucks as a consumer because Intel could jack up their prices...but as new technology comes out the old stuff will go down in price. It is just a matter of time and money..
-AMD might nto be up there with performance..but they can compete with Intel forever because they offer low end cpu for budget buyers who may not wish to OC or game.. or do anything but just surf the web and check there email. In fact I would say the majority of computer users fall into that category. I run a small at home computer repair business..and I would say 75% of people don't even know what RAM is.. or what stands for. Intel is to microsoft as AMD is to Apple..like Vee said..they are a huge corp. but AMd can still be popular..but it is liek when you think of a computer..most people think of Intel..most people have no clue who AMD are. As far as power and speed of CPu's..AMd will never catch up I don't think which sucks as a consumer because Intel could jack up their prices...but as new technology comes out the old stuff will go down in price. It is just a matter of time and money..
When it comes to one company dominating the market, it may seem odd, but so far at least Intel has been much kinder to consumers dominating the market with Core 2 than AMD did when they dominated with Athlon 64.
From 2003 till the release of C2D in 2006, AMD really took advantage of their performance lead and charged top dollar for everything. Even in early 2006, I remember paying $170 for an Opteron 144 - a 1.8GHz single core. A year later, I bought a dual-core X2 3600+ for $60. AMD didn't release a single dual core below $300 despite Intel having duals as low as $130 (Pentium D 805) prior to C2D. When C2D came out and blew AMD away, Intel offered the E6300 (much faster than the $300 X2 3800+) for $183. Intel was pricing its quads at $266 before AMD even had a competing part out.
So in reality, big bad Intel (how AMD fanboys like to view them) has actually been much kinder to consumers than AMD.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
- Jan 31, 2000
- 5,817
- 1,029
- 126
I think Deneb's will sell well if priced aggressively and clocked high enough.
Advantages:
1) Low-power consumption
2) Cheaper motherboards
3) Cheaper DDR2 ram support
4) Amd's sticker is prettier than Intel's
5) Easier to install the Heatsink/fan
6) You can write off your purchase as a gift to charity (AMD)
Advantages:
1) Low-power consumption
2) Cheaper motherboards
3) Cheaper DDR2 ram support
4) Amd's sticker is prettier than Intel's
5) Easier to install the Heatsink/fan
6) You can write off your purchase as a gift to charity (AMD)
6) You can write off your purchase as a gift to charity (AMD)
LOL! It sure seems that way doesn't it daveybrat. It's also the only way to safeguard intel's monopoly, gotta support the underdog sometimes.
VirtualLarry is right. Intel raped the consumer in the 486 and P2 days. I remember paying too much money for too much cpu in 1998, and years before that. AMD brought some real competition, and hopefully will, once more.
To put things in perspective, it's only been 2 years since Intel has so thoroughly dominated the hearts and minds of enthusiasts and computer afficianados.
Now to the important part, Vee, what an incredible post!!!
Vee, I have to say, you hit the nail on the head.
Quote:
AMD is simply screwed. I don't see any way around that. That of course also means that we as consumers are also screwed, but I doubt many are really going to ever realize that to it's full extent. Instead we are going to see a lot of reasoning along the lines that Moore's law is at end, market has no need of more CPU power, is demanding other features, etc. And a lot of you are going to buy it.
That's it. Without competition we will see some really lame excuses for Intel, and high prices.
One thing may come of not having a lot of CPU resources, software may have to become more efficient again! At least a little bit, and hopefully it will pass and we will get killer cpus and progress once more. Parallelism is not going to solve world hunger. Definitely not. It's going to take 15+ years for code to take advantage of it to any real level, that most users will be able to reap the benefits.
Again, Vee, what an incerdible post. BRAVO.
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
If AMD is screwed, why does intel have nothing to compete with my #2 system in my sig? NOTHING. Any intel solution comes with a HUGE caveat -- pathetic IGP, OR much higher power consumption. Trust me, I've looked at every possible scenario and Intel has nothing that can compete with it in terms of price, performance and power usage.
Sure, it would be nice if AMD could have better benchmarks, but not everyone worries about that when deciding which components to buy a machine.
Sure, it would be nice if AMD could have better benchmarks, but not everyone worries about that when deciding which components to buy a machine.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter