Hehehe...OCHungry is just mad AMD chips aren't that desirable (from a performance perspective) right now. He came and crapped in a Core 2 overclocking thread before too....DesignReactor??....maybe....hehehe
Hehehe...OCHungry is just mad AMD chips aren't that desirable (from a performance perspective) right now. He came and crapped in a Core 2 overclocking thread before too....DesignReactor??....maybe....hehehe
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Actually, there is something that every one of you aren't catching on to, though it seems quite obvious to me. As long as AMD keeps selling processors, they won't be going out of business. Intel is the best example that you don't have to have the best performing chip to be able to stay in business, and continue to make money.
lopri
Elite Member
- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,212
- 597
- 126
Honestly Kentsfield isn't interesting to me. (and yes its resemblance of Smithfield is striking, too.)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2840&p=4
Check the 2nd slide. That's what Intel had to say about the benifits of quad-cores. Most of the same can be said for Smithfield. (from Prescott) Is there anything that interests you as consumer? I don't get the same excitement I got from C2D sneak-preview benches early this year. I consider myself early adopter and went through 4 C2Ds already but for my day-to-day usage (which is comprised of Office, media players and burning, light photo editing, light web publishing, web browsing and of course gaming) I don't see much of the benefit of dual-cores. After countless dual-core Opterons and Core 2 Duos, what I ended up is a 'mere' single-core Opteron 146 @3.0GHz and E6400 @3.4GHz. And I can't tell the difference between the 2 systems. (Honestly my main rig has been the Opteron rig due to GTX SLI and Raptors)
I'm not downplaying the technical achievement of quad-cores, AT ALL. Actually it is amazing especially from thermal and manufacturing point of view. Intel is at least a full generation ahead of any ASIC/IC manufacturers in the world and their achievement should valued. But the claims that quad-cores will bring immediate performance benefit to the desktop are downright deceiving. (Or does everyone here really run 3DMax on a regular basis?)
I wouldn't comment much on 4x4 other than that it looks to be, in current form, a joke.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2840&p=4
Check the 2nd slide. That's what Intel had to say about the benifits of quad-cores. Most of the same can be said for Smithfield. (from Prescott) Is there anything that interests you as consumer? I don't get the same excitement I got from C2D sneak-preview benches early this year. I consider myself early adopter and went through 4 C2Ds already but for my day-to-day usage (which is comprised of Office, media players and burning, light photo editing, light web publishing, web browsing and of course gaming) I don't see much of the benefit of dual-cores. After countless dual-core Opterons and Core 2 Duos, what I ended up is a 'mere' single-core Opteron 146 @3.0GHz and E6400 @3.4GHz. And I can't tell the difference between the 2 systems. (Honestly my main rig has been the Opteron rig due to GTX SLI and Raptors)
I'm not downplaying the technical achievement of quad-cores, AT ALL. Actually it is amazing especially from thermal and manufacturing point of view. Intel is at least a full generation ahead of any ASIC/IC manufacturers in the world and their achievement should valued. But the claims that quad-cores will bring immediate performance benefit to the desktop are downright deceiving. (Or does everyone here really run 3DMax on a regular basis?)
I wouldn't comment much on 4x4 other than that it looks to be, in current form, a joke.
Rock Hydra
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2004
- 6,466
- 1
- 0
They're probably banking on the fact that people are not going to do things in a proceedural order anymore, they're just going to be able to do it all at once.
Ding Ding Ding!! we have a winner!!! Tell him what he won Johnny!!!!
AMD wont be going anywhere. they got a huge foothold in the server markets now and so one or 2 product cycles out of the lead will not kill them...they had the lull in the K7 line when Intel hit its stride with the northwoods and the doom and gloomers came out then....
I have quad cores now!!! 2 boxes....I now what can take advantge of 4 cores and what cannot...most will not need them....I could always use them....I will wait for a kentsfield and a K8L...
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,665
- 21
- 81
If my major was marketing, which it isn't, I'll have a better time explaining what's happening. All though neither is my major English, but I still post on here. What's bothering most of us is uncertainty. AMD has basically admitted they are the underdogs which they always were and will continue to push forward no matter what the competition throws at them. In this day and age, developing customer relations and a consumer base is crucial for any company. So when you have a company that promises nothing for an answer to it's customer base it could be quite disconcerting.
Competition is an uncontrollable outside the marketing wheel. Intel learned that the hard way. Price, product , promotion and place is the only thing they can control. Amd has been working too much on place than product. They also had every right too since they knew their product was better but had to make the product more available to their targeted consumer. They have done so. However at the same time they were working on that contingent of the marketing mix Intel decided to change their product. It took Intel 2 years to catch on. So how can we blame AMD for finally losing to a better product? Bragging rights lost by AMD fans? That's all it comes down too.
The real trouble starts when that marketing wheel stops turning. Intel has put theirs on over drive while AMD is still puzzle piecing theirs together. AMD will return with an answer but they simply do not show the aptitude to make the marketing wheel work in tangent. Comes to no surprise, Intel hasn't been doing so great either.
The reason why AMD has shown no real higher performing product or core advancement was simply because their consumer base did not demand it. We live in a world where customer relations is a must for selling a product. When you consumer base does not show demand for a higher performing part, they simply won't make it. They did exactly what their consumer base wanted. They offered them a product with lower power consumption (through revisions). They offered them direct connect architecture for nested servers, they offered them dual core which helped considerably in floating point applications, they offered them more addressable ram. To come to point - AMD offered what their customer base wanted. This is what a company must do to survive. They cannot control their competition. In this instance AMD could not control Intel's introduction of a new product line.
Now the demand is clear. The customer wants a new product and a answer. It's only a matter a time. The only variable in any marketing equation is execution, obviously. AMD is showing confidence to the consumer and the stock holders. AMD's track record in the past 5 to 6 years have been flawless. To me, Conroe has gave AMD the perfect opportunity to win over an even larger consumer base.
AMD is in perfect position to counter hard and Intel knows this. Do not let Intel make you think the heat is on AMD. In a matter of fact it's quite the opposite.
Competition is an uncontrollable outside the marketing wheel. Intel learned that the hard way. Price, product , promotion and place is the only thing they can control. Amd has been working too much on place than product. They also had every right too since they knew their product was better but had to make the product more available to their targeted consumer. They have done so. However at the same time they were working on that contingent of the marketing mix Intel decided to change their product. It took Intel 2 years to catch on. So how can we blame AMD for finally losing to a better product? Bragging rights lost by AMD fans? That's all it comes down too.
The real trouble starts when that marketing wheel stops turning. Intel has put theirs on over drive while AMD is still puzzle piecing theirs together. AMD will return with an answer but they simply do not show the aptitude to make the marketing wheel work in tangent. Comes to no surprise, Intel hasn't been doing so great either.
The reason why AMD has shown no real higher performing product or core advancement was simply because their consumer base did not demand it. We live in a world where customer relations is a must for selling a product. When you consumer base does not show demand for a higher performing part, they simply won't make it. They did exactly what their consumer base wanted. They offered them a product with lower power consumption (through revisions). They offered them direct connect architecture for nested servers, they offered them dual core which helped considerably in floating point applications, they offered them more addressable ram. To come to point - AMD offered what their customer base wanted. This is what a company must do to survive. They cannot control their competition. In this instance AMD could not control Intel's introduction of a new product line.
Now the demand is clear. The customer wants a new product and a answer. It's only a matter a time. The only variable in any marketing equation is execution, obviously. AMD is showing confidence to the consumer and the stock holders. AMD's track record in the past 5 to 6 years have been flawless. To me, Conroe has gave AMD the perfect opportunity to win over an even larger consumer base.
AMD is in perfect position to counter hard and Intel knows this. Do not let Intel make you think the heat is on AMD. In a matter of fact it's quite the opposite.
The only way AMD will cease to exist is if they go BK, and the only way that will happen is if they lose a long term price war with Intel. Hopefully their directors aren't stupid enough to let that happen.
I don't think Intel wants AMD to disappear either, as long as AMD is pegged at ~20% overall marketshare Intel will be happy because they won't be considered a monopoly, plus they will continue to control the majority of the market.
I don't think Intel wants AMD to disappear either, as long as AMD is pegged at ~20% overall marketshare Intel will be happy because they won't be considered a monopoly, plus they will continue to control the majority of the market.
I'd think the heat is on both. Intel profits will be way down due to excess inventory of old Netburst CPUs, and AMDs acquisition of ATI, whilst giving them a platform to build on for the future, puts a short term strain on their finances - it could be a risky move if they encounter a few lean quarters.
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,665
- 21
- 81
Intel has always had one distinct advantage. Disposable income (over necessities). Though it was quite surprising to me that Intel had to "cut the fat" of middle managment. Maybe times are changing? My perspective is Intel is trying to maintain while AMD is trying to grow.
That same effect could easily be done on a dual core system, seeing how in 99% of the games today the second core offers no benefit. And that's only physics that we're talking about. No amount of cores can replace the vertex and pixel shaders on a gpu, and it's the PS that's responsible for the special effects in modern games.
I think you are dreaming and need to wake up. It's funny how you intel fans fail to realize that It's Intel that is in the verge of going BK while AMD keeps growing. Now that antitrust is in full swing the only loser is Intel.
It's also funny not to admit Intel's quad core(s) is just another PR right before AMD's K8L's true quad. So much hype for core 2 died down in less than 2 months. This one will die in less than 2 weeks.
You know what's really funny? The fact that I've been using the "PR" quad at work for about a month now. Pretty good for a dead product.
Tell me, how is Intel, which despite having its worst quarter in decades, still turned in a net profit of $800 million in its most recent quarter close to bankruptcy.
It seems to me the hype "died" down because Core 2 Duos are now readily available. The huge increase in performance shown in March is now common-place, anybody who wants one can get one. In 6-7 weeks, Intel has shipped almost as many Core 2 Duos as AMD has with X2s in total.
I saw the dailytech benchmarks. I'm sure you did too.
I don't remember all of it and don't want to bother linking you to it but I do distinctly remember a 3D Studio Max 8 Render going from 20 secs to 11 secs. So I think this Elmer-glue approach is working pretty damn fine, thank you.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
I'm beating a dead horse here when I say who uses 3D studio max every day enough that those types of gains would be worth it? I'm betting that most people who think they need a quad core don't do anything that would make the cost justified.
This has all been said before so please stop beating the dead horse with 3DSMax which very few people here probably even use.
I know what Intel is doing, they're just releasing product because they can and it makes them look good. In reality I think it's still early for quad to be adopted by mainstream and it won't. Likely it'll be an expensive high end chip beyond the consumer level.
Intel says they've shipped 5 million Core 2 Duos:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2840&p=2
HKEPC says AMD forecasts selling roughly 4.7 million X2s for the first 3 quarters of 2006.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=646684
Rock Hydra
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2004
- 6,466
- 1
- 0
Of course they're cherry picked, early on the process probably didn't even yield that many chips, so they obviously had to test through a lot of them. And since you don't need that many ES chips they probably just kept the very best.
Anyways, the newer week retail chips are actually very overclockable too, so intel has obviously gotten the hang of pumping out higher clockable chips in volume.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter