erockerYeah, the Phenom FX in your avatar which we will never see stomps it doesnt it? Honestly I'm confused by your statement.

Core2 is a pentium 3 with a lot of cache on steroids. It works, the israelis did a good job.

The K8/K10 has HTT, IMC, etc. It's not your basic FSB where anything made compatible with the mem controller in the northbridge works (excluding other stuff for simplicity).

Intel wins by sheer bruteness. They don't have a lot of innovation going on. Don't let them fool you. This isn't the 80s and 90s. Besides their marketing and many illegal practices (which are vast), the billions they have accrued over the years affords them many world class factories where they can mature and hone process technology at rapid rates. That's what we've been seeing for many years (they make even more money from this). This time it really paid off for them b/c the K10 is extremely late to the party and the kinks still aren't out.

It's always an "if" game, but if k10 was on time, 65nm transitioned well, etc, things would be a lot different today. But that's the story of the little guy. Always getting put down and shit on, even when the big boys fight dirty and have insatiable greed (think of the way Balmer acts). All the while, AMD works harder than everyone, brings more to the market (with incredible prices), yet, they are insulted when they don't win every benchmark known to man, b/c people want to create a stigma that AMD sucks (and some will claim they always have) to further perpetuate ignorance in support of the violent giant that gives them nothing valuable in return. (The same goes for domestic cars over imports, gov't lies over the evidence, etc, it's the way the world works and why the good can't triumph)

Yeah, I could go on for pages about their ethics and not just their business practices (which are sick, see employee treatment overseas and think walmart).

Continue to support your evil overlord. I will have nothing to do with it and intel will never see a dime from me or most of the people I associate with (pricing being the determining factor for others a lot, but a lot also realize the likeness of intel).

edit: people can/will call me a "fanboy", but is that valid term for someone that stands up for what they will believe in, especially in regards to ethics and morals?

TheGuruStudCore2 is a pentium 3 with a lot of cache on steroids. It works, the israelis did a good job.

Then it's a shame that it outperforms most AMD offerings. AMD beaten by a "pentium 3 with lot of cache on steroids"

btarunrThen it's a shame that it outperforms most AMD offerings. AMD beaten by a "pentium 3 with lot of cache on steroids"

It's a somewhat vague reference to the shorter pipeline and obviously using copious amounts of cache to hide mem access delays. And once you get to a certain size of cache when a lot of the program can run inside it, you see a major boost in performance (superpi as an example).
Strip the core2 down to 512 and 256kb per core (aka AMD levels haha) and you see how it truly functions - it's comparable to the K8. It doesn't look so glorious then, now does it? But everything together and it performs really well.

Intel will be getting into trouble come the end of the year if they don't have anything up their sleeve besides 45nm and even more cache (I think I saw 12 MBs on their roadmap!).
I'm not too worried about their copy of HTT and IMC. I'm wondering about delays on it. It has been really hush hush since they touted they were going to have CSI (or w/e they call it now). So it means it's not going well or they're going to try and use it as a surprise.

Who cares what the chip is "based" off of? The fact of the matter is they are fast and they works with the applications we use. The Core 2 is very lightly based off of the PIII. Just like a Ford Taurus is very lightly based off of a car made by Ford years earlier. All of our chips are based off the good ol' 8086 anyways so I really don't see your point.

Seems like interesting news. Would be awesome if they helped design some core architecture for their chips. Time will tell though. Sounds very promising.

oh and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Many People Still dont believe that the Core 2 is just a Evolution of the P3. Pentium Pro, 2, 3, 3Xeon, Pentium M, Core are all P6 Architecture, Which Proves well with Short Pipeline; 486SX/DX, Pentium, Celeron/D, Pentium 4/D were all basis on the Netburst-(Racking the MHZ up to get the same work done as a CPU with lower freq and shorter pipes)-But they had less cache than the P6 CPUs, Excluding the P4 EE Gallatin. Dont get me wrong but P4 Nortwood was the best one out of the P4 Range- Gallatin is just the Northwood with a L3. AMD on the otherhand- Slammed Intel with the A64 754/940/939- They managed To Pull Performance way out with smaller amts of cache- even 754 Single Channel had a performance advantage than the Dual Channel Pentium 4. They Maybe in a Slump but the A64 was the first CPU to take over the market from Intel. Intel had to rely on overseas Hired Hands to Pull something out to get them out of the Sinking Ship, Seems one of the guys that Help Intel has now moved over to AMD. Also if you forgot, now AMD is the affordable choice- The Athlon 6000+ still costs less than the 6400/6420 but still pulls more performance out over those core 2s, the 6000+ is still less than the 6550 and they perform the same, 6000 vs the Allendale 4600, you spend about 5 bux more for the 6000 but its a worthy 5 dollars more, Core 2 6600 vs 6000 you pay more for the 6600 but they perform about the same. Core 2 Quad 6600 vs 6400 they perform the same but you pay basically double for the Quad 6600 CPU, In my book thats still too much for a quad, Also if you fail to realize the Minor FSB jump from 1066 and 1333 is not every much considering the Bus Speed of the AMDs are slower.

TheGuruStudIt's a somewhat vague reference to the shorter pipeline and obviously using copious amounts of cache to hide mem access delays. And once you get to a certain size of cache when a lot of the program can run inside it, you see a major boost in performance (superpi as an example).
Strip the core2 down to 512 and 256kb per core (aka AMD levels haha) and you see how it truly functions - it's comparable to the K8. It doesn't look so glorious then, now does it? But everything together and it performs really well.

Intel will be getting into trouble come the end of the year if they don't have anything up their sleeve besides 45nm and even more cache (I think I saw 12 MBs on their roadmap!).
I'm not too worried about their copy of HTT and IMC. I'm wondering about delays on it. It has been really hush hush since they touted they were going to have CSI (or w/e they call it now). So it means it's not going well or they're going to try and use it as a surprise.

The Taurus was the name Replacement of the 500, Ford Released the 500 last year or year before but no one knew what it was, so it didnt sell that well so Ford went back with the Name Taurus. The Focus is the replacement of the Aspire.

erockerWho cares what the chip is "based" off of? The fact of the matter is they are fast and they works with the applications we use. The Core 2 is very lightly based off of the PIII. Just like a Ford Taurus is very lightly based off of a car made by Ford years earlier. All of our chips are based off the good ol' 8086 anyways so I really don't see your point.

hmm, read the title and the first thing i could think was "stop! collaborate and listen!"

Core 2 = P3 with more cache and die shrinks.

AMD = K8 with a few low latency enhancements internally.


Thing is... it doesnt matter how good it is on paper, Intel are winning clock for clock and can achieve HIGHER clocks.

Every intel overclocker (even on stock cooling) can break 3GHz, and the 45nm chips break 4Ghz - AMD are having trouble hitting 3Ghz, so unless they can pull something good off... they are in trouble.

(Its not impossible to pull an awesome chip out - the core2 was intels success story, its just that AMD's ace in the hole -Phenom- was a flop)

I remember AMD K6 sockets that were compatible with intel and amd but that was when they were good i remember amd used to be a manufacturer (correct me if im wrong but was something like that) of intel cpus.

As everyone knows that things that compatible with 2 different architectures perform worse because its not optimised.For example board with slots for ddr 2 and ddr 3 dont perform as well as ddr 2 or ddr3 only boards

I just dont like how amd have gotten into the way of updates rather than full new
its kinda like what Valve does with episodes they dont bring out a completely new game but improve on the old one eg AM2+

Phenom should have been the new high end performance with quads and high caches and a big tag to match but make it so the performace justified the price

Athlon for mid range have duals and tri cores, cut the cpu speed maybe have a slightly differnet arcitecture or different size die that costs less to make where that be a bigger die or smaller one whatever is cheaper.

Then see the more efficient die for the phenomes ect

Have cheapo Semprons like ultra cheap try to make em more price orientated than performance with good out of box performance where we dont have to change the voltage or the frequency ect to get good performance more for good multitasking rather than gaming or migh intensive programs like 3d modelling. More for the media centre or the office user or budget pc user.



AMD have always been more efficient becasue the core 2 and quads are all just steroid beefed up old architectures, like the quads are just 2 of the core 2 s glued together (way very genius intel) where as the AMD made new cpus more efficient that performed the same but used up less of everything.

The Taurus was the name Replacement of the 500, Ford Released the 500 last year or year before but no one knew what it was, so it didnt sell that well so Ford went back with the Name Taurus. The Focus is the replacement of the Aspire

Ummm, no . . . to stand corrected the Taurus itself was a brand new to the market in the mid 80s. The 500 was intended to replace the Taurus, Ford had even gone to the extent to drop the nameplate - round about the same time that the sales for the 500s plummeted, so the Taurus name was quickly brought back.

The Aspire was ended in 97 (last model year). The Focus was intended to replace the Escort.

In the auto world, it is very rare for a car manufacturer to terminate a great-selling vehicle line without "testing the waters" with a new, similar model. i.e. the Chevy Malibu was revamped in 2004 to the new Epsilon body, after this new style was readily accepted by the public, GM gave the OK to go ahead and terminate the Grand Am (which had become Pontiac's best selling car, ever; and GM's second best selling vehicle - right on the heels of the Cavalier). The Grand Am was then replaced by the G6, built on the Epsilon platform.

I'd have to agree with you there, I bought some a few months ago and lost pretty big. Now my stock is worth half of what it was. It's cheap, buy it up people!! Even though I lost half I know in the long run (hopefully shorter than longer), I will make my money back plus some. I'm really glad that AMD is taking steps to fix things rather than scrambling to sell and run. They really need to come out with an archetecture that buries Yorkfield in the way the A64's buried the Pentiums. Hopefully the cycle will continue. But, yeah if you like AMD and want them to succeed, buy thier stock. If you need help on where to start buying stock, PM me and I can give you some recommedations on where to go.

as much as I'm not a fan of AMD, I am ATI loyal, and do intend to invest some money within the very near future. I'd really like to see AMD roll back in to the arena and give Intel a run of it.

Just to be a bitch...

Some people are of the attitude:
"Lets buy AMD and support them! they will get better and make new chips!"

I am of the attitude
"Lets not buy shitty products, because they'll think thats where the money is"
also known as
"buy the fastest, so that they know to make fast products"

:laugh: spot on, mate!

If supporting AMD is of interest to people, they'd much rather buy AMD shares than processors. If you see the company going down, you can quickly sell off your shares and minimise loss but buying an AMD processor at the moment is stupid because if it underperforms when pitted against a similarly priced offering from Intel, you get back nothing for what you pay but a free ticket to the blind fanboys' club (anticipation, hope, jumping at good news from AMD, feeling sad when it fails benchmarks..etc.)

MusselsJust to be a bitch...

Some people are of the attitude:
"Lets buy AMD and support them! they will get better and make new chips!"

I am of the attitude
"Lets not buy shitty products, because they'll think thats where the money is"

I never exactly said that. Putting words in my mouth is hardly effective. I doubt most people even here have a need/use for a cpu faster than an O/Ced black edition or phenom quad. There's nothing wrong with wanting/having the fastest, but it usually comes down to price. As far as price goes, AMD is hardly making a shitty product. Just remember, w/o those "shitty" CPUs those C2Ds and quads would be 3 times the price.

And if you know AMD's business model and motive, that's exactly the opposite of what they strive for. Intel on the other hand...

Yall talk as if AMD Processors can't perform worth shit???

Not ture at all....

:confused:

It doesn't, just that other than the sub-$150 processors, every other AMD processor gives you lesser for what you pay compared to what an equally priced Intel processor gives.

btarunr:laugh: spot on, mate!

If supporting AMD is of interest to people, they'd much rather buy AMD shares than processors. If you see the company going down, you can quickly sell off your shares and minimise loss but buying an AMD processor at the moment is stupid because if it underperforms when pitted against a similarly priced offering from Intel, you get back nothing for what you pay but a free ticket to the blind fanboys' club (anticipation, hope, jumping at good news from AMD, feeling sad when it fails benchmarks..etc.)

I wish I had a lot of cash to buy shares. It hasn't been this cheap in a long time. Which equals big profit when they rebound if you can buy some.

People seem to have short memories. We've all been hearing this "AMD sucks and is dead" since at least the K5. History repeats itself.

TheGuruStudI never exactly said that. Putting words in my mouth is hardly effective. I doubt most people even here have a need/use for a cpu faster than an O/Ced black edition or phenom quad. There's nothing wrong with wanting/having the fastest, but it usually comes down to price. As far as price goes, AMD is hardly making a shitty product. Just remember, w/o those "shitty" CPUs those C2Ds and quads would be 3 times the price.

And if you know AMD's business model and motive, that's exactly the opposite of what they strive for. Intel on the other hand...

I was not quoting you directly. No insult was aimed at a specific person or their comments, its just a recurring trend i am seeing.

Your comments about intel may be true in some aspect... but it doesnt negate that intel have the better product (for me at least), so thats where i'll spend my money.

AphexDreamerYall talk as if AMD Processors can't perform worth shit???

Not ture at all....

:confused:

I own AMD and intel systems - and the AMDs perform like crap for the same amount of money, with less upgrade prospects (phenom doesnt work on AM2, only AM2+ - so why should i risk the same happening again with the next generation of AMD chips?)

WarEagleAUSeems like interesting news. Would be awesome if they helped design some core architecture for their chips. Time will tell though. Sounds very promising.

oh and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

I think this is good news will bring competativeness back up also i couldnt agree with you mre IMO the thing thats really holding AMD back and the onyl thing they SHOULd change isnt the socket type isnt blowing money on a diff mem controller isnt shrinking the die or adding more transistors or ramping up clocks since the A64 line was introduced thats all they've really changed what i think would help AMD is instead of doing all that take 3/4 of the money out of all of those catagories in the R&D labs and drop it on a new core architecture...i mean seriously alot of us use water companys now are making amazing air cooling and a slight amount of us are using exotic cooling like phase or pelter. hell with all of that i wouldnt care if AMD was still using .18u as long as their processors actually competed more than they do...i mean i love amd havent owned intel in years but honestly all they really have going for them atm is price and well....that isnt enough anymore and seeing how many processors AMD has made since the intro to A64 i think they need a new core arch..thats were intel has always had them. i mean seriously they arent that far behind regardless of delays amd has only been what at the most 3/4 of a year behind in manufacturing proccess etc....but were intel has them is every 2 years intel basically comes out with a new architecture wereas AMD simply ups the clocks adds a core and shrinks the die....

@TheGuru
An AMD share isn't expensive. It costs lesser than a processor, and is a safer investment if you want to financially support AMD while it rolls out a "Intel killer, God-like" processor

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Five_Hundred
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus

MusselsI was not quoting you directly. No insult was aimed at a specific person or their comments, its just a recurring trend i am seeing.

Your comments about intel may be true in some aspect... but it doesnt negate that intel have the better product (for me at least), so thats where i'll spend my money.

I own AMD and intel systems - and the AMDs perform like crap for the same amount of money, with less upgrade prospects (phenom doesnt work on AM2, only AM2+ - so why should i risk the same happening again with the next generation of AMD chips?)

I spent about $150 for a 6400+ @ stock of 3.2Ghz, I think thats a pretty good bang for the buck...

Yes Intel performs better in most cases then AMD at least at the time of writing this, but I cannot agree with AMD being crap.

(I don't intend to contradict myslef with writing this, but) I own an AMD system and I can tell you that I have no complaints about it none what so ever and with friends of similer setups then I that use an intel system of equal Processing power then me, I some how manage to out performe them...

btarunr@TheGuru
An AMD share isn't expensive. It costs lesser than a processor, and is a safer investment if you want to financially support AMD while it rolls out a "Intel killer, God-like" processor

not to mention AMD get ALL the money, and not a mere percentage of it (retailers get a lot of it too)

^ i vote that as the method for people to support AMD.

Solaris17I think this is good news will bring competativeness back up also i couldnt agree with you mre IMO the thing thats really holding AMD back and the onyl thing they SHOULd change isnt the socket type isnt blowing money on a diff mem controller isnt shrinking the die or adding more transistors or ramping up clocks since the A64 line was introduced thats all they've really changed what i think would help AMD is instead of doing all that take 3/4 of the money out of all of those catagories in the R&D labs and drop it on a new core architecture...i mean seriously alot of us use water companys now are making amazing air cooling and a slight amount of us are using exotic cooling like phase or pelter. hell with all of that i wouldnt care if AMD was still using .18u as long as their processors actually competed more than they do...i mean i love amd havent owned intel in years but honestly all they really have going for them atm is price and well....that isnt enough anymore and seeing how many processors AMD has made since the intro to A64 i think they need a new core arch..thats were intel has always had them. i mean seriously they arent that far behind regardless of delays amd has only been what at the most 3/4 of a year behind in manufacturing proccess etc....but were intel has them is every 2 years intel basically comes out with a new architecture wereas AMD simply ups the clocks adds a core and shrinks the die....

LOL. Okay, they have to continually shrink the process to literally make money. The dies practically double in size with each new core. Not to mention that you can't increase speed much w/o a smaller process and the thermal envelope would be like preshott. I think you have your views on AMD and intel reversed in regards to the last half of your post.

Musselsnot to mention AMD get ALL the money, and not a mere percentage of it (retailers get a lot of it too)

^ i vote that as the method for people to support AMD.

I totally agree (I guess it didn't sound like that earlier). But when you're a poor SOB...