AMD Bets on Tri-Core Chips as Quad-Core Market Lags

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nighthawk, Nov 7, 2007.

  1. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore

    When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.

    On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    sometime during the first quarter of 2008.

    "We believe that triple core is the right product at the right time to
    serve a broad swatch of market," said AMD vice president Bob Brewer,
    at Monday's briefing in San Francisco.

    AMD stressed the update does not affect its planned launch date for a
    consumer-oriented quad-core chip, codenamed Phenom, which is slated
    for Q4 of this year.

    According to AMD, the the tri-core processor makes sense from both a
    marketing and retail point of view. Due to the slow adoption rate of
    quad-core, as well as the lack of multi-threaded apps that take
    advantage of such processors, AMD is banking on the fact that a
    tri-core processor will offer desktop consumers an attractive
    middle-of-the-road option.

    In particular, Brewer and other AMD executives cited a recent study
    from Mercury Research pointing out that quad-core processors
    represented less than two percent of desktop shipments during the
    second quarter, while dual-core took up the remaining 98 percent.
    Until demand ramps up for quad-core, triple core will serve as
    something of an intermediary, according to AMD. At the same time, the
    company hopes it will also stimulate broader multi-core adoption.

    .......
    Nighthawk, Nov 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nighthawk

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    Nighthawk <> wrote:

    > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >
    > When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    > powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    > have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >
    > On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    > that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    > sometime during the first quarter of 2008.


    Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    Cost savings and hype.
    whoisthis, Nov 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nighthawk

    impossible Guest

    "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>
    >> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>
    >> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.

    >
    > Quad core with 1 faulty core ????


    Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    its hands.

    > Cost savings and hype.


    Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of Dual
    Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #3
  4. Nighthawk

    thingy Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>
    >>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>
    >>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.

    >> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????

    >
    > Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    > that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    > fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    > performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    > and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    > its hands.
    >
    >> Cost savings and hype.

    >
    > Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of Dual
    > Core's stuck together with some extra cache?


    yeah....I am assuming that due to the size of AMD's die it is way easier
    for them to mount 3 rather than 4 cores on a package........so makes
    them cost competitive....

    I get sick of such hype from vendors, IMHO its often not what consumers
    want but what a vendor wants to sell.

    Still if its better bang for the buck than a dual 6000 upgrade (I'd
    like) and fits an am2 socket motherboard then I will look at
    it....anything that makes Supreme Commander more playable is a plus...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 7, 2007
    #4
  5. Nighthawk

    Murray Symon Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > impossible wrote:
    >> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>
    >>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>
    >>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????

    >>
    >> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >> its hands.
    >>
    >>> Cost savings and hype.

    >>
    >> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >> Dual Core's stuck together with some extra cache?

    >
    > yeah....I am assuming that due to the size of AMD's die it is way easier
    > for them to mount 3 rather than 4 cores on a package........so makes
    > them cost competitive....
    >
    > I get sick of such hype from vendors, IMHO its often not what consumers
    > want but what a vendor wants to sell.
    >
    > Still if its better bang for the buck than a dual 6000 upgrade (I'd
    > like) and fits an am2 socket motherboard then I will look at
    > it....anything that makes Supreme Commander more playable is a plus...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    I think it's pure "one upmanship" marketing. In a world where dual cores
    will be the norm and quad-cores will be expensive high-end machines, a
    triple-core option for little on no increase over a dual core may sway some
    buyers. The same reason you bought a 52x CDROM drive instead of a 48x one.

    Murray.
    Murray Symon, Nov 8, 2007
    #5
  6. Nighthawk

    Puddle Guest

    Murray Symon wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>> its hands.
    >>>
    >>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>> Dual Core's stuck together with some extra cache?

    >> yeah....I am assuming that due to the size of AMD's die it is way easier
    >> for them to mount 3 rather than 4 cores on a package........so makes
    >> them cost competitive....
    >>
    >> I get sick of such hype from vendors, IMHO its often not what consumers
    >> want but what a vendor wants to sell.
    >>
    >> Still if its better bang for the buck than a dual 6000 upgrade (I'd
    >> like) and fits an am2 socket motherboard then I will look at
    >> it....anything that makes Supreme Commander more playable is a plus...
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    > I think it's pure "one upmanship" marketing. In a world where dual cores
    > will be the norm and quad-cores will be expensive high-end machines, a
    > triple-core option for little on no increase over a dual core may sway some
    > buyers. The same reason you bought a 52x CDROM drive instead of a 48x one.
    >
    > Murray.


    Already there are games that strain the fastest dual cores from Intel.
    Game developers will always push the limits of CPU's and will be quick
    to utlise extra cores. Plus quad cores aren't exactly that expensive,
    what is it about 450 for a quad core? I think you will see the price of
    quad cores come down in the 1st quarter of 2008 also. So maybe for some
    people dual core is overkill and maybe quad core is also, but for some
    quad cores will be used and then onto 8 cores etc etc :)
    Games will just get better and better!
    Puddle, Nov 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    wrote:

    >"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>
    >>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>
    >>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.

    >>
    >> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????

    >
    >Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >its hands.
    >
    >> Cost savings and hype.

    >
    >Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of Dual
    >Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >

    If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    Nighthawk, Nov 8, 2007
    #7
  8. Nighthawk

    Murray Symon Guest

    Puddle wrote:

    > Murray Symon wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>> admitted that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core
    >>>>>> microprocessor sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>> dual-cores, and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably
    >>>> have a winner on its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>> Dual Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>> yeah....I am assuming that due to the size of AMD's die it is way easier
    >>> for them to mount 3 rather than 4 cores on a package........so makes
    >>> them cost competitive....
    >>>
    >>> I get sick of such hype from vendors, IMHO its often not what consumers
    >>> want but what a vendor wants to sell.
    >>>
    >>> Still if its better bang for the buck than a dual 6000 upgrade (I'd
    >>> like) and fits an am2 socket motherboard then I will look at
    >>> it....anything that makes Supreme Commander more playable is a plus...
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing

    >>
    >> I think it's pure "one upmanship" marketing. In a world where dual cores
    >> will be the norm and quad-cores will be expensive high-end machines, a
    >> triple-core option for little on no increase over a dual core may sway
    >> some buyers. The same reason you bought a 52x CDROM drive instead of a
    >> 48x one.
    >>
    >> Murray.

    >
    > Already there are games that strain the fastest dual cores from Intel.
    > Game developers will always push the limits of CPU's and will be quick
    > to utlise extra cores. Plus quad cores aren't exactly that expensive,
    > what is it about 450 for a quad core? I think you will see the price of
    > quad cores come down in the 1st quarter of 2008 also. So maybe for some
    > people dual core is overkill and maybe quad core is also, but for some
    > quad cores will be used and then onto 8 cores etc etc :)
    > Games will just get better and better!


    Yes, I agree.
    I was speaking more for the mass-market retail chain numbers-driven
    marketing - you know, the Harvey Leeming mailer type of thing.
    Murray Symon, Nov 8, 2007
    #8
  9. Nighthawk

    impossible Guest

    "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>
    >>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>
    >>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>
    >>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????

    >>
    >>Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>its hands.
    >>
    >>> Cost savings and hype.

    >>
    >>Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>Dual
    >>Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>

    > If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    > turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >
    >


    Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal is
    to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD quad-core
    design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever manage to get
    some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be interesting. Since
    there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core processors on a par with the
    first-generation Intel quad cores, it would be shocking if the AMD Phenom
    weren't a significantly better performer than that. But pricing, I think,
    will be everything, because Intel's second-generation quads will easily grab
    the performance honors again.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2007
    #9
  10. Nighthawk

    thingy Guest

    Puddle wrote:
    > Murray Symon wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>> dual-cores,
    >>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a
    >>>> winner on
    >>>> its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>> Dual Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>> yeah....I am assuming that due to the size of AMD's die it is way easier
    >>> for them to mount 3 rather than 4 cores on a package........so makes
    >>> them cost competitive....
    >>>
    >>> I get sick of such hype from vendors, IMHO its often not what consumers
    >>> want but what a vendor wants to sell.
    >>>
    >>> Still if its better bang for the buck than a dual 6000 upgrade (I'd
    >>> like) and fits an am2 socket motherboard then I will look at
    >>> it....anything that makes Supreme Commander more playable is a plus...
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing

    >>
    >> I think it's pure "one upmanship" marketing. In a world where dual cores
    >> will be the norm and quad-cores will be expensive high-end machines, a
    >> triple-core option for little on no increase over a dual core may sway
    >> some
    >> buyers. The same reason you bought a 52x CDROM drive instead of a 48x
    >> one.
    >>
    >> Murray.

    >
    > Already there are games that strain the fastest dual cores from Intel.
    > Game developers will always push the limits of CPU's and will be quick
    > to utlise extra cores. Plus quad cores aren't exactly that expensive,
    > what is it about 450 for a quad core? I think you will see the price of
    > quad cores come down in the 1st quarter of 2008 also.


    8 cores will be arriving at that time....so either Intel keeps up with
    producing "old" dual cores and builds more fabs, or drops the duals in
    order to make 8 core cpus in those fabs.....since the die will be
    smaller, I cant see them continuing with dual core that long....there
    should be an Intel road map somewhere showing this....

    So maybe for some
    > people dual core is overkill and maybe quad core is also, but for some
    > quad cores will be used and then onto 8 cores etc etc :)
    > Games will just get better and better!


    yep, cores are not going to get that much faster in terms of Ghz....so
    games are going to have to get more SMP aware if they want to run better...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 8, 2007
    #10
  11. Nighthawk

    thingy Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>> its hands.
    >>>
    >>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>> Dual
    >>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>

    >> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal is
    > to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD quad-core
    > design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever manage to get
    > some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be interesting. Since
    > there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core processors on a par with the
    > first-generation Intel quad cores, it would be shocking if the AMD Phenom
    > weren't a significantly better performer than that. But pricing, I think,
    > will be everything, because Intel's second-generation quads will easily grab
    > the performance honors again.
    >
    >


    AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....and AMD already seems to
    be talking about price/performance for its new cpus and not about being
    the "dog's bollocks for l33tz gamers"....read in "what we have now
    really sucks" but "what we are launching wont suck so bad"........

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 8, 2007
    #11
  12. Nighthawk

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>> dual-cores,
    >>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner
    >>>> on
    >>>> its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>> Dual
    >>>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>
    >>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal
    >> is to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD
    >> quad-core design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever
    >> manage to get some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be
    >> interesting. Since there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core
    >> processors on a par with the first-generation Intel quad cores, it would
    >> be shocking if the AMD Phenom weren't a significantly better performer
    >> than that. But pricing, I think, will be everything, because Intel's
    >> second-generation quads will easily grab the performance honors again.

    >
    > AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....and AMD already seems to be
    > talking about price/performance for its new cpus and not about being the
    > "dog's bollocks for l33tz gamers"....read in "what we have now really
    > sucks" but "what we are launching wont suck so bad"........
    >


    I don't know about your "damp squib" analogy. AnandTech benchmarked the
    Phenoms at about 115% of the dual-core Opterons -- which isn't much, I'll
    grant you, but it's not exactly standing still either. As I say, Intel has
    it all over AMD now at the upper end of the performance charts, and that
    undoubtedly hurts AMD because it necessarily lower there margins across the
    board, all the time. But for consumers this seems ok to me.
    impossible, Nov 8, 2007
    #12
  13. Nighthawk

    thingy Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "thingy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>>> dual-cores,
    >>>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner
    >>>>> on
    >>>>> its hands.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>>> Dual
    >>>>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>>
    >>>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal
    >>> is to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD
    >>> quad-core design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever
    >>> manage to get some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be
    >>> interesting. Since there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core
    >>> processors on a par with the first-generation Intel quad cores, it would
    >>> be shocking if the AMD Phenom weren't a significantly better performer
    >>> than that. But pricing, I think, will be everything, because Intel's
    >>> second-generation quads will easily grab the performance honors again.

    >> AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....and AMD already seems to be
    >> talking about price/performance for its new cpus and not about being the
    >> "dog's bollocks for l33tz gamers"....read in "what we have now really
    >> sucks" but "what we are launching wont suck so bad"........
    >>

    >
    > I don't know about your "damp squib" analogy. AnandTech benchmarked the
    > Phenoms at about 115% of the dual-core Opterons -- which isn't much, I'll
    > grant you, but it's not exactly standing still either. As I say, Intel has
    > it all over AMD now at the upper end of the performance charts, and that
    > undoubtedly hurts AMD because it necessarily lower there margins across the
    > board, all the time. But for consumers this seems ok to me.
    >
    >


    URL? though I'll go dig at AnandTech anyway.

    15% is good but not a huge biggee...unless its the same price or only 5%
    more....if its got a 20 or 50% markup....no way.

    For "damp squib" I was talking about the AMD Server CPU and not
    necessarily the desktop CPU. I mean it got announced, we looked at it
    and declined to buy any, 2 weeks from now we are going to be ordering
    the Intel 7xxx series Xeons in a Dell R900....the Dell R905 with the
    "new" Opterons is not even shipping as yet....probably looking at 7
    boxes....thats 28 cpus AMD didnt get to sell...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 9, 2007
    #13
  14. Nighthawk

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank
    >>>>>>>> out
    >>>>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths
    >>>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just
    >>>>>> for
    >>>>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated
    >>>>>> from
    >>>>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>>>> dual-cores,
    >>>>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a
    >>>>>> winner on
    >>>>>> its hands.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair
    >>>>>> of Dual
    >>>>>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>>>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the
    >>>> goal is to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the
    >>>> AMD quad-core design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they
    >>>> ever manage to get some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will
    >>>> be interesting. Since there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core
    >>>> processors on a par with the first-generation Intel quad cores, it
    >>>> would be shocking if the AMD Phenom weren't a significantly better
    >>>> performer than that. But pricing, I think, will be everything, because
    >>>> Intel's second-generation quads will easily grab the performance honors
    >>>> again.
    >>> AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....and AMD already seems to
    >>> be talking about price/performance for its new cpus and not about being
    >>> the "dog's bollocks for l33tz gamers"....read in "what we have now
    >>> really sucks" but "what we are launching wont suck so bad"........
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't know about your "damp squib" analogy. AnandTech benchmarked the
    >> Phenoms at about 115% of the dual-core Opterons -- which isn't much, I'll
    >> grant you, but it's not exactly standing still either. As I say, Intel
    >> has it all over AMD now at the upper end of the performance charts, and
    >> that undoubtedly hurts AMD because it necessarily lower there margins
    >> across the board, all the time. But for consumers this seems ok to me.

    >
    > URL? though I'll go dig at AnandTech anyway.


    Here you go:
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3092

    >
    > 15% is good but not a huge biggee...unless its the same price or only 5%
    > more....if its got a 20 or 50% markup....no way.
    >
    > For "damp squib" I was talking about the AMD Server CPU and not
    > necessarily the desktop CPU. I mean it got announced, we looked at it and
    > declined to buy any, 2 weeks from now we are going to be ordering the
    > Intel 7xxx series Xeons in a Dell R900....the Dell R905 with the "new"
    > Opterons is not even shipping as yet....probably looking at 7
    > boxes....thats 28 cpus AMD didnt get to sell...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    impossible, Nov 9, 2007
    #14
  15. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:58:49 GMT, "impossible" <>
    wrote:

    >"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>
    >>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>
    >>>Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>>and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>>its hands.
    >>>
    >>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>
    >>>Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>Dual
    >>>Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>

    >> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal is
    >to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake.


    That is like saying that the Celeron was a mistake. Was it? You
    don't get all CPUs coming out all 100%. Where do you think lower spec
    CPUs come from?
    Nighthawk, Nov 9, 2007
    #15
  16. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:37:21 +1300, thingy <>
    wrote:

    >impossible wrote:
    >> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>>> its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>> Dual
    >>>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>
    >>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal is
    >> to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD quad-core
    >> design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever manage to get
    >> some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be interesting. Since
    >> there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core processors on a par with the
    >> first-generation Intel quad cores, it would be shocking if the AMD Phenom
    >> weren't a significantly better performer than that. But pricing, I think,
    >> will be everything, because Intel's second-generation quads will easily grab
    >> the performance honors again.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....


    From everything I have read 'damp squib' is harsh. We already know
    that due to the architecture they will scale up very well.
    Nighthawk, Nov 9, 2007
    #16
  17. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:37:21 +1300, thingy <>
    wrote:

    >impossible wrote:
    >> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and admitted
    >>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>> Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>> that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>> fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>> performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked dual-cores,
    >>>> and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner on
    >>>> its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>> Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>> Dual
    >>>> Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>
    >>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal is
    >> to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake. But yes, the AMD quad-core
    >> design is very different from Intel's, and -- if they ever manage to get
    >> some out the door -- the performance benchmarks will be interesting. Since
    >> there are already both AMD and Intel dual-core processors on a par with the
    >> first-generation Intel quad cores, it would be shocking if the AMD Phenom
    >> weren't a significantly better performer than that. But pricing, I think,
    >> will be everything, because Intel's second-generation quads will easily grab
    >> the performance honors again.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >AMD's new server quad core is a damp squib....


    Not so, and they are an easy drop-in upgrade to previous Opterons.
    Nighthawk, Nov 9, 2007
    #17
  18. Nighthawk

    impossible Guest

    "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:58:49 GMT, "impossible" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>>that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>>fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>>performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>>dual-cores,
    >>>>and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner
    >>>>on
    >>>>its hands.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>>
    >>>>Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>>Dual
    >>>>Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>
    >>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal
    >>is
    >>to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake.

    >
    > That is like saying that the Celeron was a mistake. Was it? You
    > don't get all CPUs coming out all 100%. Where do you think lower spec
    > CPUs come from?
    >
    >


    I believe I made exactly that point earlier -- except, yes, I think these
    can all be properly classified as mistakes rather than examples of
    engineering genius. The real test, I suppose, would be to find out if Intel
    ever actually had a specific Celeron fabrication process -- or did they just
    accumulate these chips as a by-product of imperfect Pentium fabs? Same for
    any of the lower-spec chips that have come out of Intel and AMD over the
    years. That's not a commentary on the value of those products in the
    marketplace. But just because chip vendors don't market a line of "mistakes"
    doesn't mean that's not what they sometimes sell.
    impossible, Nov 9, 2007
    #18
  19. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:59:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    wrote:

    >"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:58:49 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "impossible" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>> Nighthawk <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out
    >>>>>>> powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you
    >>>>>>> have. In Advanced Micro Devices' case, that's architecture.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend's rumors and
    >>>>>>> admitted
    >>>>>>> that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor
    >>>>>>> sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Quad core with 1 faulty core ????
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Yes. But then it's kind of a shame to throw the whole die out just for
    >>>>>that, don't you think? Many perfectly good chips have originated from
    >>>>>fabrications that didn't quite meet the spec. So long as the chip's
    >>>>>performance turns out to be better than equivalently clocked
    >>>>>dual-cores,
    >>>>>and assuming the pricxe is right, then AMD will probably have a winner
    >>>>>on
    >>>>>its hands.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Cost savings and hype.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Absolutely. But what's the Intel Quad Core design other than a pair of
    >>>>>Dual
    >>>>>Core's stuck together with some extra cache?
    >>>>>
    >>>> If Intel made a quad-core and one core was defective they could only
    >>>> turn it into a dual-core, but AMD's design allows a tri-core.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Well let's not get carried away with the kudos to AMD here -- if the goal
    >>>is
    >>>to fab a quad-core, then a tri-core is a mistake.

    >>
    >> That is like saying that the Celeron was a mistake. Was it? You
    >> don't get all CPUs coming out all 100%. Where do you think lower spec
    >> CPUs come from?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I believe I made exactly that point earlier -- except, yes, I think these
    >can all be properly classified as mistakes rather than examples of
    >engineering genius. The real test, I suppose, would be to find out if Intel
    >ever actually had a specific Celeron fabrication process -- or did they just
    >accumulate these chips as a by-product of imperfect Pentium fabs? Same for
    >any of the lower-spec chips that have come out of Intel and AMD over the
    >years. That's not a commentary on the value of those products in the
    >marketplace. But just because chip vendors don't market a line of "mistakes"
    >doesn't mean that's not what they sometimes sell.
    >

    It is well known this is what happens. 'Mistakes' isn't the right
    word. Perhaps one can call them 'seconds', chips that don't run
    reliably at higher speeds are sold as slower ones, chips with
    imperfect cache sold as lower-spec chips - Athlon / Duron and Pentium
    / Celeron, etc.
    Nighthawk, Nov 10, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bigal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,118
    bigal
    Mar 22, 2006
  2. GraB

    AMD quad-core - even 16-core!!

    GraB, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    376
    Chris Wilkinson
    Jun 17, 2005
  3. thingy

    AMD's new quad core CPUs....

    thingy, Nov 19, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    567
    impossible
    Nov 21, 2007
  4. thingy

    Another AMD quad core review....

    thingy, Nov 22, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    533
    thingy
    Nov 22, 2007
  5. thingy
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    754
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)
    Feb 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page