So What happened to AMD processors?

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Multi socket systems (over 2 sockets) are still the advantage of AMD

Not any longer.

IBM has called the performace of Dunnington "Bone crushing".

Even though it has 6 cores, Dunnington is limited to 2 sockets...
The performance IBM is talking about is for a single socket Dunnington if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken.

They are talking about the 3850 and 3950 platforms, which are four and eight sockets.

Thanks for the correction...
However, I am very dubious about how well a >2 socket FSB-based system will do vs the Opterons. Intel has had many systems that were along these lines in the past (though they peaked at 4 cores per socket), and they weren't nearly as effective at 8 cores or higher.

Edit: This is exactly the type of system that Nehalem was designed for...

Here you go.
And here.

You can be as dubious as you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Viditor]

Ummm, that was with a $2.38 Million system which they hope to have available at the end of the year...
http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR...50M2-Linux-DB2-FDR.pdf

 

[Phynaz]

So? That has nothing to do with your prior statement. Dunnington performace isn't lower now than it will be in December.

I can't help but notice that you ignored the HP info.

Anyway, you can have the last word again, I have better things to do than argue with a fanatic.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic Title: So What happened to AMD processors?

Phenom 9850 Black Edition & Foxconn 790GX: $274

 

[Byte]

AMD really needs to revise their notebook strategy, something to truly battle centrino. Maybe the Phenominon platform. Almost no one is actually talking about puma as the half upgraded turion is just not that exciting, however the integrated radeon is quite nice compared to the crap intel X. However most people don't know this, and there is no market and very few design wins. Puma was a perfect time for a marketing face life as there isn't any new processors on the horizon and the 780s is just powerful enough to give the 3D edge until larabee.

 

[myocardia]

Nevermind.

 

[eternalone]

People exaggerate when it comes to Amd Cpu's they are great Cpu's. They can handle anything that humans throw at them, yes intel is ahead right now but someone is always gonna be ahead thats the nature of the game. The quad core phenoms are great post the errata launch problems B3 stepping of course. Yeah watts are high but they're high on all high performing quads. Although Amd just came out with a 65 watt quad core at 1.8 for $145.99 that pretty awesome in my opinion not as fast as the 9850 but still a great deal for a quad core cpu.

 

[Genx87]

Core 2 Duo happened to AMD.

I have three of them in machines at home right now. This is from an AMD fanboi who hadnt purchased an Intel chip since the i486 days.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10

Originally posted by: Idontcare
8 socket!?

According to this quote from the press release you linked to, they will be going up to 16 sockets!

IDC, sounds like it's time to upgrade your 5x q6600 farm...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Phynaz
IBM has called the performace of Dunnington "Bone crushing".

If you find a processor, any processor, to be crushing bones then you are decidely using it incorrectly.

Okay, I might have a new favorite quote.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Core 2 Duo happened to AMD.

I have three of them in machines at home right now. This is from an AMD fanboi who hadnt purchased an Intel chip since the i486 days.

I agree. I have 5 of their CPU's now, and the last Intel chip I had owned was my dual 366 Mhz Celeron (@ 550 Mhz, of course). That reminds me, I sure hated having to use Windows NT.

 

[edplayer]

E7200 for me. First Intel cpu I have owned. Cyrix and AMD up until two weeks ago.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Viditor


First, they are in no way bad quad cores...they just aren't as good as the C2Qs...

Well if they are worse then their C2Qs counterparts, then they're "bad".

Actually, they did release bad cpus...remember the erratum/TLB logic bug present on the early Phenom 9500/9600/9700? They had to go to a new chip revision (B3) to eliminate that problem.

And they released the bad CPUs late.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Genx87
Core 2 Duo happened to AMD.

I have three of them in machines at home right now. This is from an AMD fanboi who hadnt purchased an Intel chip since the i486 days.

I agree. I have 5 of their CPU's now, and the last Intel chip I had owned was my dual 366 Mhz Celeron (@ 550 Mhz, of course). That reminds me, I sure hated having to use Windows NT.

I have nothing against the train of thought that says C2D is what happened to AMD, but I think you have to then also accept the fact that the other thing that didn't happen to AMD was their 65nm process.

Phenom's power consumption sucks ass compared to the historic trajectory that AMD was on with their X2's. Had C2Q not been out forcing AMD to push clockspeed despite TDP then AMD would have been self-limited (by their own rhetoric that >100W TDP's was rubbish) to clockspeeds of about 2.5GHz for the X2 and 2GHz for the K10 in 2007 and early 2008.

So we can say the C2D did eclipse AMD and that has stolen the spotlight as being the issue with AMD today, but seriously where would we (the consumer) be if C2D hadn't happened? Stuck with whatever AMD's paltry 65nm process was able to push out the door at 95W TDP?

Everyone says Phenom scales well and it would be competitive if the clockspeeds were in the range AMD expected them to be (2.8GHz at launch with 3GHz 2-3months later)...so I'd argue Phenom is just fine, 65nm process tech sucks ass for the marketspace it was intended to compete in.

 

[taltamir]

I am still prefering the X2 over the phenoms simply due to power consumption and cost vs performance. The phenom cost too much and consumes too much power to compete with the AMD X2 in my book. That is AMDs greatest failure, they took a step back, while intel took a step forward.

 

[eternalone]

All quad cores consume high amounts of watts, $139.99 is a bargain for a quad core in my book. Great price the new amd 65w quadcore is $145.99.

 

[taltamir]

wow, prices sure went down... 125$ shipped for a 2.3ghz phenom... not bad.
Of course, I am comparing it to a 39$ shipped for a 2.3 BE (best efficiency 45W TDP) X2...
EDIT: wait no, that is not fair, that BE is without a heatsink/fan...
EDIT2: wait, that phenom is a TLB one... the fix for which kills your performance. you can get a 2.2ghz B3 stepping for 140$ though

which makes the phenom, with twice the cores at the same speed, a little over 3 times the price.
However, if you don't OC, you could say that is a better deal then the Q6600, finally!

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: eternalone
All quad cores consume high amounts of watts, $139.99 is a bargain for a quad core in my book. Great price the new amd 65w quadcore is $145.99.

Mainstream 45nm Core 2 Quads uses less power than many 65nm dual-cores. A 1.8GHz Phenom would be painfully slow in most desktop applications and would probably get beaten in almost all apps by a E7300 which uses less than 25W of power.

 

[grndzro7]

What happened to AMD was Intel using their screwed up rebate system and Billions of dollars in kickbacks to lock AMD out of the market.

And the result was AMD falling too far behind in R&D as a direct result.

Think about it.....in 1999 AMD came out with the Athlon...it smoked the P3 & P4. Vendors wanted it, AMD signed deals with a bunch of manufacturers. Intel Withdrew it's rebates and offered $$$ if the companies would stick with Intel...Hell Intel offered even more rebates if a company was 80% intel, and even more if they were Intel exclusive.

This persisted because Intel had so many companies in it's pocket they could manipulate prices and force the other companies to use Intel Processors because with the rebates it made no economical sense to switch to AMD even though they had a better product.

So in short Intel used it's monopoly of the market to lock out AMD.
7 years of AMD having a better product...1999-2006, resulted in nothing.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: grndzro7
What happened to AMD was Intel using their screwed up rebate system and Billions of dollars in kickbacks to lock AMD out of the market.

And the result was AMD falling too far behind in R&D as a direct result.

Think about it.....in 1999 AMD came out with the Athlon...it smoked the P3 & P4. Vendors wanted it, AMD signed deals with a bunch of manufacturers. Intel Withdrew it's rebates and offered $$$ if the companies would stick with Intel...Hell Intel offered even more rebates if a company was 80% intel, and even more if they were Intel exclusive.

This persisted because Intel had so many companies in it's pocket they could manipulate prices and force the other companies to use Intel Processors because with the rebates it made no economical sense to switch to AMD even though they had a better product.

So in short Intel used it's monopoly of the market to lock out AMD.
7 years of AMD having a better product...1999-2006, resulted in nothing.

Maybe they should have gone 10 years with a better product?

 

[Phynaz]

Heh, first post and you use it to revive a two month old thread?

Just how many pages down did you need to go to find somewhere to post your fanboy rant?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: grndzro7
What happened to AMD was Intel using their screwed up rebate system and Billions of dollars in kickbacks to lock AMD out of the market.

And the result was AMD falling too far behind in R&D as a direct result.

Think about it.....in 1999 AMD came out with the Athlon...it smoked the P3 & P4. Vendors wanted it, AMD signed deals with a bunch of manufacturers. Intel Withdrew it's rebates and offered $$$ if the companies would stick with Intel...Hell Intel offered even more rebates if a company was 80% intel, and even more if they were Intel exclusive.

This persisted because Intel had so many companies in it's pocket they could manipulate prices and force the other companies to use Intel Processors because with the rebates it made no economical sense to switch to AMD even though they had a better product.

So in short Intel used it's monopoly of the market to lock out AMD.
7 years of AMD having a better product...1999-2006, resulted in nothing.

Aren't we supposed to pepper such accusations with the words "allegedly" throughout? Hasn't been proven in court yet that this is what happened to AMD's undoing.

If it did in fact occur on a scale that was large enough to impact AMD as speculated then yeah, it such to be the recipient of suck dirty pool.

At the same time if you have executive management that feel their value to the company is so tremendous as to warrant compensation to the tune of millions and millions while employees are getting laid off then you have a right to expect the same wonderful managers to be capable of competently and successfully manoeuvring the business through such challenging business conditions.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Heh, first post and you use it to revive a two month old thread?

Just how many pages down did you need to go to find somewhere to post your fanboy rant?

Noob mistake.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Aren't we supposed to pepper such accusations with the words "allegedly" throughout?

Okay, fine. Allegedly, a certain recently-departed CEO of AMD sucks ass as a CEO, and just about forced them into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, all the while allegedly giving himself large raises and huge bonuses. Was that better?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Okay, fine. Allegedly, a certain recently-departed CEO of AMD sucks ass as a CEO, and just about forced them into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, all the while allegedly giving himself large raises and huge bonuses. Was that better?

Much better

Anyone catch Jim Cramer's Mad Money on CNBC today?

He showcased AMD, talked them up for their GPU products and market results as well as touched on the Shanghai release and their recent spin-off plans for the fabs.

Cramer had rather viceral comments for the dearly departed Hector.

Went so far as to mention Hector is now in charge of the spin-off and the plan (Cramer's plan) is to short its stock as soon as it goes on the market. (foundry co, not amd)

Analysts love a consistent performer, be it good or bad. Hector is decidely consistent and Cramer intends to cash in on it! It was funny because it was true. I'd laugh a lot less if I were an AMD shareholder though.

 

[Phynaz]

I am, I've been trying to sell my shares at $3 all week. No takers.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I am, I've been trying to sell my shares at $3 all week. No takers.

Interesting...since AMD closed above $3 for half of the week, I think you need to have a word with your broker!