Things are looking better for AMD

[frostedflakes]

Im going to start off by aying i like AMD, they offer good CPU's at the $100 or lower price point right now. And every system in my house is AMD other than my main rig in sig.

That said AMD really needs to get there crap together, they have been falling apart since the core2 days and show no signs of turning it around. There new Phemon II CPU's arnt even competeing with anything intel has made in 2 years, they are competeing with 2+ year old core2 quads in performance. Now with SB out AMD is really going to take a pounding. Overclocking is not done by enough people for SB being locked out to effect much of anything in overall sales, its not going to drive droves of customers to AMD thats for sure.

I have high hopes for BD but unless we are talking a 50+% IPC improvement(i think i have a better chance of winning the lottery than this happening) i think LGA 2011, which will probably be out the same time or close to BD, is going to murder it and we will still be right where we are now with all AMD CPU's selling for $250 or less because they cant compete and the top intels still being $1000+, a complete reversal of the A64 vs P4 days.

I don't think it's so much that AMD has been doing worse since the Core 2 Duo, just that Intel has been on the top of their game since then. AMD just got lucky during the P4 days. K8 was a solid architecture, but it wasn't anything revolutionary either. Yes they had some firsts (integrated memory controller, 64-bit extension, monolithic dual core, etc.), but this probably wouldn't have been enough to compete with Intel if they were doing well. If they had continued to improve upon and revise the P6 architecture instead of pursuing Netburst, I bet Intel would have dominated during the Athlon64 years as well. And even if AMD had the superior architecture, they've always lagged behind at least a little in fabrication technology, which really puts them at a disadvantage compared to Intel.

 

[AtenRa]

Up until the SB 2500/K release, AMD's Phenom II X6 could keep up with Intel's i7 (up to 950) in multithreaded apps.

At $220, Core i5 2500K destroys AMD's high end X6 chip and will force them to lower the price of X6 chip to the point of little to no profit.

SBs are just 216mm when Phenom II X6 is 346mm, clearly AMD needs the 32nm manufacturing process just to be competitive for 2011, cause from 2012 Intel will start the 22nm and we will have the same circle all over again.

Intel's Core i3 2000 lack of O/C will not help AMD's sales in the low end market, it is the half EU's and the low performance of integrated graphics in Intel's low end chips that will help AMD's Llano cpu's to compete in that Market sector. Both SB and Llano will be at 32mm and both Quad core CPU's will have the same die size at ~200-220mm. Llano will be better in graphics and SB better in CPU performance, but i believe that Low End users will prefer to have better graphics and be able for the first time to get decent performance in current games from a low budget CPU/GPU.

 

[BD231]

Good job AMD, way to make your brand new six core chip get eaten alive within months of its release. All of the sudden one cpu comes along and your entire performance line up is reduced to overpriced outdated crap ....

.... AMD is like the family alcoholic, no matter how hard they try they generally let you down.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Intel's Core i3 2000 lack of O/C will not help AMD's sales in the low end market, it is the half EU's and the low performance of integrated graphics in Intel's low end chips that will help AMD's Llano cpu's to compete in that Market sector. Both SB and Llano will be at 32mm and both Quad core CPU's will have the same die size at ~200-220mm. Llano will be better in graphics and SB better in CPU performance, but i believe that Low End users will prefer to have better graphics and be able for the first time to get decent performance in current games from a low budget CPU/GPU.

The Core i3 2100 should be fairly close in most accounts for the CPU side compared to Llano. Nehalem had more changes in the CPU core but also gained the integrated memory controller - the combined performance gains in single thread was only 7-10%. So the performance gains from Deneb to Llano might lie 3-5%. That's not the focus I think with Llano's CPU core changes, its about lowering CPU power consumption and minimizing bandwidth usage. i3 2100, being a dual core chip has a 149mm2 die. Most will probably care about the graphics.

Situation with Bulldozer might not be too much different from Llano either when looking from a performance perspective, unless its heavily threaded. Going from 3 execution units to 2 might only reduce performance by 2-3%, or so, but its there. The higher latency data cache will impact it by another 2-3%, and the reduced size maybe additional 1-2%. L2 cache is 2MB, shared between the cores in a module, but the latency is 18-20 cycles.

They have architectural improvements, but probably there to mitigate the effects listed above. High latencies and smaller cache sizes indicate high(er) frequency design. There's a good chance that 8 core(4 module) Bulldozer parts being competitive in heavy multi-threading against competing Intel parts, but the biggest focus about Bulldozer is probably about reducing core sizes. Servers make multi cores more useful, and being able to cram more cores without increasing die size is a very good thing against a manufacturing king like Intel.

 

[beginner99]

Intel's Core i3 2000 lack of O/C will not help AMD's sales in the low end market, it is the half EU's and the low performance of integrated graphics in Intel's low end chips that will help AMD's Llano cpu's to compete in that Market sector. Both SB and Llano will be at 32mm and both Quad core CPU's will have the same die size at ~200-220mm. Llano will be better in graphics and SB better in CPU performance, but i believe that Low End users will prefer to have better graphics and be able for the first time to get decent performance in current games from a low budget CPU/GPU.

Yet I don't think this matters. Basically all business users are completely fine with any crippled intel graphics. And most home users too. It's enough for anything excepted gaming and maybe some special applications.
Therefore even if AMDs graphics are much better, it won't matter IMHO.

And of course AMD would rise prices if Bulldozer was an unexpected success. But that would have nothing to do with good or evil or making more money. It's just economics more demand -> higher price. They can't just build new factories so availability is limited.

 

[Vic Vega]

I don't think it's so much that AMD has been doing worse since the Core 2 Duo, just that Intel has been on the top of their game since then. AMD just got lucky during the P4 days. K8 was a solid architecture, but it wasn't anything revolutionary either. Yes they had some firsts (integrated memory controller, 64-bit extension, monolithic dual core, etc.), but this probably wouldn't have been enough to compete with Intel if they were doing well. If they had continued to improve upon and revise the P6 architecture instead of pursuing Netburst, I bet Intel would have dominated during the Athlon64 years as well. And even if AMD had the superior architecture, they've always lagged behind at least a little in fabrication technology, which really puts them at a disadvantage compared to Intel.

I wouldn't say AMD got lucky, their engineering was soundly better going back to PIII vs Athlon. That advantage was persistent up to Core 2 Duo.

 

[Castiel]

Good job AMD, way to make your brand new six core chip get eaten alive within months of its release. All of the sudden one cpu comes along and your entire performance line up is reduced to overpriced outdated crap ....

.... AMD is like the family alcoholic, no matter how hard they try they generally let you down.

This!

Also the I3 2100 puts a hurting on everything from the Athlon II lineup and match's up good with a PII X4 940

 

[Modelworks]

Intel and AMD could produce a 200 core chip and it wouldn't matter to the majority of users. I would be more impressed with a single core 5Ghz chip. At least with the single core cpu I can use it with all my apps not just a select few.

 

[jacktesterson]

The majority of benchmarks are pure crap in my opinion.

I buy based on what I see.

If I see a difference, I'll upgrade. If I don't, I won't.


If I sit down on my 1090T @ 4.2GHz and do anything, I'm totally happy.

I have a i7 950 in my Office upstairs, Do I notice any difference in what I do? No.

People take paper benchmarks way too seriously.

I have AMD in my main two systems simply because they were cheaper to build at the time overall and can still do anything an Intel can.

 

[Edrick]

SB does not really add anything to the high-end. Sure, its 4-core variant is as fast as the previous extreme edition 6 core chip, and it runs cooler. It's not faster, though. This is why I think AMD has an opportunity to at least catch up with intel performance-wise.

So you actually think a 4 core AMD chip will beat a 2600K?

I'm just saying that SB is going to open things up for AMD at the low end, and they have a chance to take back the performance crown with an 8-core Bulldozer. One would think that with all this time and research, Bulldozer will be at least 25% faster than the current Phenom II's clock-for-clock.

Sure AMD may hang on to the sub $120 market. But as soon as AMD releases an 8 core BD, you can bet Intel will release their LGA2011 cpus to keep AMD in their place.

 

[Castiel]

Sure AMD may hang on to the sub $120 market. But as soon as AMD releases an 8 core BD, you can bet Intel will release their LGA2011 cpus to keep AMD in their place.

I'll believe all the hype about BD when i see it. Right now it's nothing.. Pretty much like a 1920 shader 6970

 

[Phynaz]

I don't understand why so many people think Bulldozer is going to be such a high performance cpu. Listen to what AMD has been saying for the last two years. Their target is small die and performance / watt. They have flat out said that top performance isn't what they are designing for.

 

[maddie]

Yet I don't think this matters. Basically all business users are completely fine with any crippled intel graphics. And most home users too. It's enough for anything excepted gaming and maybe some special applications.
Therefore even if AMDs graphics are much better, it won't matter IMHO.

And of course AMD would rise prices if Bulldozer was an unexpected success. But that would have nothing to do with good or evil or making more money. It's just economics more demand -> higher price. They can't just build new factories so availability is limited.

I remember HP salesmen advising that color monitors was not so important. Businesses didn't need it.

I remember it being argued that 16 color graphics was quite sufficient for business.

I remember video playback being seen as frivolous for business.

The eternal cry of those unable to see the future.

 

[Bearach]

I'll believe all the hype about BD when i see it. Right now it's nothing.. Pretty much like a 1920 shader 6970

Please show me genuine links of AMD actually hyping Bulldozer all the time, and them actually saying there would be that many shaders?

I personally don't think they've hyped it at all much. In fact quite the opposite. It's been the fanbois or supporters that have.

 

[beginner99]

I remember HP salesmen advising that color monitors was not so important. Businesses didn't need it.

I remember it being argued that 16 color graphics was quite sufficient for business.

I remember video playback being seen as frivolous for business.

The eternal cry of those unable to see the future.

Depends on when they said that. Probably not yesterday.

I'm talking about now but looking back makes me doubt that will change soon. In my department I would guess at least 50% of people are still on P4...and 945 IGP. (I think this is the same IGP with the initial Atom chips)
I do not need 3D applications for my work.

I mean integration ok, but amd could save money (die space) with a smaller gpu as example. The inovation (=seeing the future) is the integration of the gpu not its performance lvl.
I just don't see how anyone can play 3d games with such a setup. seriously mid-range graphics card that blows it away isn't that huge an investment considering rent, food, healt care,...

 

[Castiel]

Please show me genuine links of AMD actually hyping Bulldozer all the time, and them actually saying there would be that many shaders?

I personally don't think they've hyped it at all much. In fact quite the opposite. It's been the fanbois or supporters that have.

I didn't say anything about Amd. I'm talking about all the Fanboi's over all the forums

 

[richierich1212]

there are more Intel fanboys than any other, look in the mirror Castiel.

 

[trollspotter]

yesterday you had to spend $1000, now you can spend $300.

Lies, you still have to spend $1000. If not, tell me where to buy this $317 CPU that can match i7-990x TODAY. You're a moderator, so I think your statements should be more precise.

Moderators are able to post freely as members. Consider their moderator position separately from their member postings. Just so you know, this is considered a moderator callout which is not permitted. I see you are a new member here, so please, read the Terms of Service and also the forum rules and guidelines before posting further. Your member name in and of itself draws attention to your intentions here so it's not a stretch to say that you will be watched closely.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr

 

[Castiel]

there are more Intel fanboys than any other, look in the mirror Castiel.

I'm a fanboi because i don't waste my money on Amd? :whiste:

 

[richierich1212]

I'm a fanboi because i don't waste my money on Amd? :whiste:

No, with the way you're anointing SB as the greatest ever.

 

[Genx87]

I dont see where things are looking up for AMD. Intels new midrange just beat AMDs highend.

 

[Castiel]

No, with the way you're anointing SB as the greatest ever.

Please rich. Everyone knows the Itanium was the best processor ever made.

Amd WAS a great budget processor for the masses but right now it's downright overpriced.

I3 2100 - Lets say 129.99 on newegg
PII X4 940 - 135.99

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=80

They trade blows with the I3 being the better gaming processor. It gets a lot worse when you compare it to the Athlon II X4 lineup. Amd gets its asskicked

 

[AtenRa]

I think people underestimate Llano, they think the GPU is only for gaming.

AMD Fusion APU Era Begins

Personal Supercomputing

Much of a computing experience is linked to software and, until now, software developers have been held back by the independent nature in which CPUs and GPUs process information. However, AMD Fusion APUs remove this obstacle and allow developers to take full advantage of the parallel processing power of a GPU - more than 500 GFLOPs for the upcoming A-Series "Llano" APU - thus bringing supercomputer-like performance to every day computing tasks. More applications can run simultaneously and they can do so faster than previous designs in the same class.2

a list of companies to create software for AMDs Fusion APUs

• Adobe
• ArcSoft
• Codemasters
• Corel
• CyberLink
• DivX
• EA / BioWare
• Firaxis
• Gazillion
• Microsoft
• Nuvixa
• Earthsim
• Roxio
• Sega
• Turbine
• Viewdle
• ViVu

 

[flexcore]

I was hoping that when GloFo was started they would have the funding available to accelerate their process technology. I think this is one of AMD's biggest issues. (That and R&D funding.) They have to be able to deliver their designs in a timely manner or they are only going to fall farther and farther behind.

 

[Edrick]

the way you're anointing SB as the greatest ever.

Well, as of today, SB is the greatest 4 core CPU (x86) on the market. Of course these things change monthly, but I do not see how anyone can prove otherwise as of today....fanboy or not.