New Phenom II model on the way it seems...

[TotalLamer]

Phenom II Black Edition TWKR... seems likely to be hand-picked 955's.

http://www.morleydigital.com/2...ii-black-edition-twkr/

 

[soccerballtux]

tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

 

[TotalLamer]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

I don't know about that... I can guarantee you far more than 1/1000 people would notice if you suddenly switched the CPU in their desktop / laptop with an Atom.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

I've been thinking the same thing myself for some time. These are the golden days for consumer CPUs. The low power market (viz. netbooks, etc.) is exploding - of course, the least profitable segment. And look at how the handheld market (iPhone, Palm Pre, etc...) is redefining mobility and what you can do with these devices. This comprises the low-power sector, and it's the only one that's really booming right now.

My guess is, eventually the massively multicore chips will devolve into a niche market, and we enthusiasts will have to pay beaucoup bux for them. Get them while you can! I don't see any of us, even in places like this, needing more than eight cores EVER. There's a law of diminishing returns.

The low-power stuff is starting to disrupt the computing market we've been accustomed to for twenty years. Of course we all know the Atoms are crap CPUs, but most people really don't give a crap about stuff like that. I think inevitably, we're gonna have to start paying a lot more for our multicore goodness.

 

[error8]

It's the old AMD strategy. Take the fastest chip, make it a bit faster ( just a bit), put it in a black box ( no stock cooler cause it can't handle the heat ) and sell it more expensive. It happened before with the 6000+/6400+ cpus. But hell, if you can get 4.5 ghz out of the "tweaker" I don't mind at all.:laugh:

 

[TotalLamer]

Originally posted by: error8
It's the old AMD strategy. Take the fastest chip, make it a bit faster ( just a bit), put it in a black box ( no stock cooler cause it can't handle the heat ) and sell it more expensive. It happened before with the 6000+/6400+ cpus. But hell, if you can get 4.5 ghz out of the "tweaker" I don't mind at all.:laugh:

I don't know if you'll get much more on Air... or even Water, in fact... than most other 955's. More than likely intended to be a very low-volume chip for high-end overclocking. (read: phase-change, liquid nitrogen / helium, etc.) 955's are, after all, currently heat limited on Air and Water cooling both, not voltage limited.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

If anyone could actually use cloud computing or distributed computing to sell computer time to buyers who have jobs that need to be done (preferably highly-parallelized jobs), then your average user could and would have plenty of use for multicore computers. The problems with selling computer time in this fashion have yet to be overcome, however, so I doubt we'll see that anytime soon, if ever.

 

[KingstonU]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

Intel has publicaly stated (if not public then it is a well known fact) that they regret building the Atom, as the profit margins on it are so low, and netbooks that use them are canabolizing the laptop market, so they loose a lot of money because of it. The consumer benefits however, since they are getting a product that adequately addresses their needs (e-mail/office/im), at a much lower price, as CPUs that have more performance are not necessary, and cost more.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: KingstonU

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

Intel has publicaly stated (if not public then it is a well known fact) that they regret building the Atom, as the profit margins on it are so low, and netbooks that use them are canabolizing the laptop market, so they loose a lot of money because of it. The consumer benefits however, since they are getting a product that adequately addresses their needs (e-mail/office/im), at a much lower price, as CPUs that have more performance are not necessary, and cost more.

They are also happy that they aren't selling Celerons there anymore, since Atom makes more margin than Celerons, but getting more profit doesn't mean lots of profit.

The low power/embedded market is hardly where they money is, it's just where the growth is (since it didn't really exist that much before about 2 years ago).
I'm sure AMD would rather try and improve their desktop/decent margin areas than look at the low power/low margin areas.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: KingstonU

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

Intel has publicaly stated (if not public then it is a well known fact) that they regret building the Atom, as the profit margins on it are so low, and netbooks that use them are canabolizing the laptop market, so they loose a lot of money because of it. The consumer benefits however, since they are getting a product that adequately addresses their needs (e-mail/office/im), at a much lower price, as CPUs that have more performance are not necessary, and cost more.

They are also happy that they aren't selling Celerons there anymore, since Atom makes more margin than Celerons, but getting more profit doesn't mean lots of profit.

The low power/embedded market is hardly where they money is, it's just where the growth is (since it didn't really exist that much before about 2 years ago).
I'm sure AMD would rather try and improve their desktop/decent margin areas than look at the low power/low margin areas.

Low power doesn't need to mean low margin.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I guess all the rumors of a new 'FX' in the Summer of '09 may be true after all

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: KingstonU

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

Intel has publicaly stated (if not public then it is a well known fact) that they regret building the Atom, as the profit margins on it are so low, and netbooks that use them are canabolizing the laptop market, so they loose a lot of money because of it. The consumer benefits however, since they are getting a product that adequately addresses their needs (e-mail/office/im), at a much lower price, as CPUs that have more performance are not necessary, and cost more.

Well, Intel could just scale back Atom production/raise prices if it's such a problem for them. Seriously, there's still a huge gap between Atom and Intel's ULV processors.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KingstonU

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
tweaker? Heh.
Poor AMD, the money is in the embedded, low power market now. There is a limited future for multicore computers. Grandma does not need a 16 core monstrosity, nor does anyone else for that matter. Yes, only 1/1000 people crunch maya renders and want them immediately...

Intel has publicaly stated (if not public then it is a well known fact) that they regret building the Atom, as the profit margins on it are so low, and netbooks that use them are canabolizing the laptop market, so they loose a lot of money because of it. The consumer benefits however, since they are getting a product that adequately addresses their needs (e-mail/office/im), at a much lower price, as CPUs that have more performance are not necessary, and cost more.

Well, Intel could just scale back Atom production/raise prices if it's such a problem for them. Seriously, there's still a huge gap between Atom and Intel's ULV processors.

They don't want to let via take over the market now do they?

 

[soonerproud]

From what I have gathered, AMD is not even looking at the netbook market but is instead focused on bringing a powerful, cheap, light and slimline CPU, chipset to market for ultra thin and light laptops that perform magnitudes better than any netbook, have more features and do not cost much more. Intel is probably going to head in this direction too since the margins may be a little higher than the low end netbooks.

 

[lopri]

These chips are not intended for us, from what I've gathered. These chips have 'high leakage' (Umm.. Prescott?) and for whatever reason that's a good thing for sub-zero overclocking, they say. I wouldn't go near them regardless of price or anything.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: lopri
These chips are not intended for us, from what I've gathered. These chips have 'high leakage' (Umm.. Prescott?) and for whatever reason that's a good thing for sub-zero overclocking, they say. I wouldn't go near them regardless of price or anything.

It's been my understanding that fast transistors tend to be leaky transistors, too.

At least if the thermals on my E2140s are any indication.