AMD's new quad core CPUs....

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    thingy, Nov 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >
    > All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    > around it....


    I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    a lot more up-beat.

    It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    me. <shrug>
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>
    >> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >> around it....

    >
    >I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    >a lot more up-beat.
    >
    >It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    >than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    >backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    >me. <shrug>


    Once they ramp up speeds and later go to 45nm, their speed will scale
    up better than Intels.
    Nighthawk, Nov 20, 2007
    #3
  4. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb Nighthawk typed:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>
    >>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>> around it....

    >>
    >> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review
    >> which is a lot more up-beat.
    >>
    >> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less
    >> powerful than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper
    >> and more backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a
    >> reasonable deal to me. <shrug>

    >
    > Once they ramp up speeds and later go to 45nm, their speed will scale
    > up better than Intels.


    I hope so. We need AMD to keep Intel honest.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 20, 2007
    #4
  5. thingy

    thingy Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>
    >> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >> around it....

    >
    > I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    > a lot more up-beat.
    >
    > It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    > than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    > backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    > me. <shrug>


    There are sort of some pluses....yes, AM2 socketed motherboards will run
    these CPUs...so that is an improvement over Intel's "policy" of
    releasing new chipsets for new cpus...personally I think Intel's
    strategy is a scam.....a way to generate chipset revenue off cpu
    revenue....motherboard vendors get to sell more motherboards so everyone
    is happy except the poorer consumer.....but RAM and disk controllers
    move on....so after say 3 years the motherboard I think there is a
    reasonable justification to replace the motherboard/cpu/ram sub-set as

    Some concern around the lack of performance against the Athlon64x2 let
    alone the Intel Quad...some games clock 100+ frame rates for the dual
    core CPU with the new AMD quad somewhat behind.....however 115 or 106
    frames per sec make no real difference...One of the better wins is where
    SCommander runs better on the AMD quad core than the dual core. Here we
    are down around 30~40 frames per second, so 5 frames more is a big win
    and more likely to be noticed....

    So, yes it is not all bad....however the people who buy computers to
    play games are I think more discerning on the components and shop at the
    upper end. While at the bottom the value segment is going to buy a
    machine and who cares what cpu it has....AMD sits in the middle with
    these cpus, neither good enough to challenge Intel up the top, or have
    enough of a margin selling bulk at the bottom....ie I think these chips
    sit in no mans land...for AMD that is very bad IMHO.

    Take me, I'd consider going for the AMD quad because it runs SC better,
    but looking at it I'd more likely say 30fps is marginal, Ok I get it up
    some by upgrading from a 6000x2 to a Quad but its not much.....or I can
    bite the bullet and spend $200~300 more and get a way better Intel CPU
    and gain a lot more fps.

    regards

    thing
    thingy, Nov 20, 2007
    #5
  6. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>
    >>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>> around it....

    >> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    >> a lot more up-beat.
    >>
    >> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    >> than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    >> backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    >> me. <shrug>

    >
    > Once they ramp up speeds and later go to 45nm, their speed will scale
    > up better than Intels.
    >
    >


    How so? look at the overclock reviews, Intel has always been able to
    ramp up Ghz way beyond AMD....netburst may have been a disaster in
    itself but the consequence is Intel seems to know how to get the GHZ far
    higher.....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 20, 2007
    #6
  7. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>
    >>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>> around it....

    >>
    >> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review
    >> which is a lot more up-beat.
    >>
    >> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less
    >> powerful than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper
    >> and more backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a
    >> reasonable deal to me. <shrug>

    >
    > There are sort of some pluses....yes, AM2 socketed motherboards will
    > run these CPUs...so that is an improvement over Intel's "policy" of
    > releasing new chipsets for new cpus...personally I think Intel's
    > strategy is a scam.....a way to generate chipset revenue off cpu
    > revenue....motherboard vendors get to sell more motherboards so
    > everyone is happy except the poorer consumer.....but RAM and disk
    > controllers move on....so after say 3 years the motherboard I think
    > there is a reasonable justification to replace the
    > motherboard/cpu/ram sub-set as


    Yeah, I know what you're saying but, other than gamers, I think with today's
    computing power the replacement time is going to start climbing towards 10
    years rather than 2 or three. It seems mobo manufacturers have taken this
    into account by using conductive polymer capacitors in their more expensive
    boards rather than those (almost disposable) aluminium electolytics.

    > Some concern around the lack of performance against the Athlon64x2 let
    > alone the Intel Quad...some games clock 100+ frame rates for the dual
    > core CPU with the new AMD quad somewhat behind.....however 115 or 106
    > frames per sec make no real difference...One of the better wins is
    > where SCommander runs better on the AMD quad core than the dual core.
    > Here we are down around 30~40 frames per second, so 5 frames more is
    > a big win and more likely to be noticed....


    Most games do better on two faster cores than they do on four. With a few
    exceptions. This holds true for Intel CPUs as well as AMD. It's in the
    coding, very few games have been written for four cores whereas there are a
    lot of games that have been written for either dual core or hyperthreading
    (which translates better to dual core CPUs than quad core). This will
    change. In a year/18 months all games will be written to take advantage of
    mutiple cores. For now, fast dual cores rule the roost (with the few
    exceptions noted).

    > So, yes it is not all bad....however the people who buy computers to
    > play games are I think more discerning on the components and shop at
    > the upper end. While at the bottom the value segment is going to buy a
    > machine and who cares what cpu it has....AMD sits in the middle with
    > these cpus, neither good enough to challenge Intel up the top, or have
    > enough of a margin selling bulk at the bottom....ie I think these
    > chips sit in no mans land...for AMD that is very bad IMHO.


    I'm hoping that these AMD "Phenom" chips are just the start of better
    things. As they fine-tune them, then take them to 45nm I'd like to believe
    that they'll be able to take Intel on in most markets.

    > Take me, I'd consider going for the AMD quad because it runs SC
    > better, but looking at it I'd more likely say 30fps is marginal, Ok I
    > get it up some by upgrading from a 6000x2 to a Quad but its not
    > much.....or I can bite the bullet and spend $200~300 more and get a
    > way better Intel CPU and gain a lot more fps.


    Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD to keep
    them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power and market
    dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 20, 2007
    #7
  8. thingy

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:55:23 +1300, thingy <>
    wrote:

    >Nighthawk wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>>
    >>>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>>> around it....
    >>> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    >>> a lot more up-beat.
    >>>
    >>> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    >>> than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    >>> backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    >>> me. <shrug>

    >>
    >> Once they ramp up speeds and later go to 45nm, their speed will scale
    >> up better than Intels.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >How so? look at the overclock reviews, Intel has always been able to
    >ramp up Ghz way beyond AMD....netburst may have been a disaster in
    >itself but the consequence is Intel seems to know how to get the GHZ far
    >higher.....
    >

    Architecture. Improvements, like 2x faster cache, slated for releases
    to come will see them ramp up very well from what I have read in
    various articles, especially when socket AM3 comes out. It isn't
    about sheer GHz.
    Nighthawk, Nov 20, 2007
    #8
  9. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:55:23 +1300, thingy <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>>>> around it....
    >>>> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review which is
    >>>> a lot more up-beat.
    >>>>
    >>>> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less powerful
    >>>> than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper and more
    >>>> backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a reasonable deal to
    >>>> me. <shrug>
    >>> Once they ramp up speeds and later go to 45nm, their speed will scale
    >>> up better than Intels.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> How so? look at the overclock reviews, Intel has always been able to
    >> ramp up Ghz way beyond AMD....netburst may have been a disaster in
    >> itself but the consequence is Intel seems to know how to get the GHZ far
    >> higher.....
    >>

    > Architecture. Improvements, like 2x faster cache, slated for releases
    > to come will see them ramp up very well from what I have read in
    > various articles, especially when socket AM3 comes out. It isn't
    > about sheer GHz.
    >


    Then it is not really speed but efficiency/effectivness....while AMD
    beat the netburst architecture dead for that, Intel has moved on....AMD
    might well be slightly more effective per clock, but if Intel can
    compensate for this by having a higher clock (which it is) Intel
    wins....ie what matters is how fast an application runs per second (or
    dollar)....

    regards

    thing
    thingy, Nov 20, 2007
    #9
  10. thingy

    thingy Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
    >>>>
    >>>> All I can say is.........looks like a disaster, Intel runs rings
    >>>> around it....
    >>> I read your comment with a sinking heart... only to read the review
    >>> which is a lot more up-beat.
    >>>
    >>> It seems that the initial release of AMD quad core CPUs are less
    >>> powerful than Intel quad cores sure. However, they're also cheaper
    >>> and more backwards-compatible. Dollar-for-dollar it seems like a
    >>> reasonable deal to me. <shrug>

    >> There are sort of some pluses....yes, AM2 socketed motherboards will
    >> run these CPUs...so that is an improvement over Intel's "policy" of
    >> releasing new chipsets for new cpus...personally I think Intel's
    >> strategy is a scam.....a way to generate chipset revenue off cpu
    >> revenue....motherboard vendors get to sell more motherboards so
    >> everyone is happy except the poorer consumer.....but RAM and disk
    >> controllers move on....so after say 3 years the motherboard I think
    >> there is a reasonable justification to replace the
    >> motherboard/cpu/ram sub-set as

    >
    > Yeah, I know what you're saying but, other than gamers, I think with today's
    > computing power the replacement time is going to start climbing towards 10
    > years rather than 2 or three. It seems mobo manufacturers have taken this
    > into account by using conductive polymer capacitors in their more expensive
    > boards rather than those (almost disposable) aluminium electolytics.


    Um, I think that is a marketing/image thing, so many people got badly
    burned, hells bells I lost three motherbaords to bad capacitors....and
    two of those were expensive ($500) dual p3 motherboards....that hurt...

    So gigabyte are leading the way by having solid state caps....some
    people will be buying theirs for that reason alone...and some will buy
    if all else is equal, I know I would.

    >> Some concern around the lack of performance against the Athlon64x2 let
    >> alone the Intel Quad...some games clock 100+ frame rates for the dual
    >> core CPU with the new AMD quad somewhat behind.....however 115 or 106
    >> frames per sec make no real difference...One of the better wins is
    >> where SCommander runs better on the AMD quad core than the dual core.
    >> Here we are down around 30~40 frames per second, so 5 frames more is
    >> a big win and more likely to be noticed....

    >
    > Most games do better on two faster cores than they do on four. With a few
    > exceptions. This holds true for Intel CPUs as well as AMD. It's in the
    > coding, very few games have been written for four cores whereas there are a
    > lot of games that have been written for either dual core or hyperthreading
    > (which translates better to dual core CPUs than quad core). This will
    > change. In a year/18 months all games will be written to take advantage of
    > mutiple cores. For now, fast dual cores rule the roost (with the few
    > exceptions noted).


    yep, so buying a AMD 6000x2 today probably makes the most sense, a year
    from now the AMD 4 core will be at 3Ghz, maybe 3.3....then it will be a
    good buy....

    However I could buy an intel cpu'd motherboard now and upgrade the CPU
    later as well...potentially a better deal.

    >> So, yes it is not all bad....however the people who buy computers to
    >> play games are I think more discerning on the components and shop at
    >> the upper end. While at the bottom the value segment is going to buy a
    >> machine and who cares what cpu it has....AMD sits in the middle with
    >> these cpus, neither good enough to challenge Intel up the top, or have
    >> enough of a margin selling bulk at the bottom....ie I think these
    >> chips sit in no mans land...for AMD that is very bad IMHO.

    >
    > I'm hoping that these AMD "Phenom" chips are just the start of better
    > things. As they fine-tune them, then take them to 45nm I'd like to believe
    > that they'll be able to take Intel on in most markets.


    I wonder....I hope so as well...but I think AMD is on a slippery slope
    and Intel is pushing them......look at it this way, AMD's server cpu is
    a non-event....it came out too slow and in some cases has not even
    shipped yet!! (Dell tell me they are still not available!!!) The desktop
    CPU is showing the same issues, ie lack of winning performance....

    >> Take me, I'd consider going for the AMD quad because it runs SC
    >> better, but looking at it I'd more likely say 30fps is marginal, Ok I
    >> get it up some by upgrading from a 6000x2 to a Quad but its not
    >> much.....or I can bite the bullet and spend $200~300 more and get a
    >> way better Intel CPU and gain a lot more fps.

    >
    > Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD to keep
    > them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power and market
    > dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.


    yes.....I bought 2 AMD cpus this year...one (the 4000x2) is going to go
    into my file server next year (or maybe the year after)....at which
    point I think I will be getting an Intel CPU to replace it....I might
    want to support AMD, but that also means AMD needs to be good enough to
    deserve my $........

    I dont see the point in keeping a dead duck afloat.....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 20, 2007
    #10
  11. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD
    >> to keep them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power
    >> and market dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.

    >
    > yes.....I bought 2 AMD cpus this year...one (the 4000x2) is going to
    > go into my file server next year (or maybe the year after)....at which
    > point I think I will be getting an Intel CPU to replace it....I might
    > want to support AMD, but that also means AMD needs to be good enough
    > to deserve my $........
    >
    > I dont see the point in keeping a dead duck afloat.....


    Eeek! That has the ring of tempting fate. Let's hope that we don't find
    ourselves in a position where there is no AMD and Intel are back to charging
    $1,000+ for a mid-range CPU again in the future.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun. (Who's running an Intel CPU after years of AMD-only)
    ~misfit~, Nov 20, 2007
    #11
  12. thingy

    thingy Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD
    >>> to keep them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power
    >>> and market dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.

    >> yes.....I bought 2 AMD cpus this year...one (the 4000x2) is going to
    >> go into my file server next year (or maybe the year after)....at which
    >> point I think I will be getting an Intel CPU to replace it....I might
    >> want to support AMD, but that also means AMD needs to be good enough
    >> to deserve my $........
    >>
    >> I dont see the point in keeping a dead duck afloat.....

    >
    > Eeek! That has the ring of tempting fate. Let's hope that we don't find
    > ourselves in a position where there is no AMD and Intel are back to charging
    > $1,000+ for a mid-range CPU again in the future.


    yes I know....not happy....but there is a saying, dont fight a battle
    unless you have to and dont fight it unless you can win....the AMD/ATI
    combo is showing signs of mega stress IMHO....

    Looks at how thins have gone in the last few years.....For a healthy
    environment I'd expect AMD/ATI to leapfrog Nvdia/Intel, then Intel/nvdia
    to leap frog in turn....going back a few years that is what was
    happening....then it was no more leap frogging but just about matching,
    or an improvement (from ATI) but it was small and lasted a few weeks....

    ATi's "best" card barely matches the GT8800 mid range card but its a 2
    slot card to boot...Nvidia's GTX/ultra top end cards look set for a
    revamp real soon (before Xmas?) All ATI does is roughly match Nvidia's
    price / performance ratio...now AMD does the same thing....

    Someone once said (Tom's hardware?) it is only worth upgrading if you
    can jump 2 generations or you wont really see a decent improvement for
    your money...these offerings are a fractional improvement....

    regards

    thing
    thingy, Nov 20, 2007
    #12
  13. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>> Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD
    >>>> to keep them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power
    >>>> and market dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.
    >>> yes.....I bought 2 AMD cpus this year...one (the 4000x2) is going to
    >>> go into my file server next year (or maybe the year after)....at
    >>> which point I think I will be getting an Intel CPU to replace
    >>> it....I might want to support AMD, but that also means AMD needs to
    >>> be good enough to deserve my $........
    >>>
    >>> I dont see the point in keeping a dead duck afloat.....

    >>
    >> Eeek! That has the ring of tempting fate. Let's hope that we don't
    >> find ourselves in a position where there is no AMD and Intel are
    >> back to charging $1,000+ for a mid-range CPU again in the future.

    >
    > yes I know....not happy....but there is a saying, dont fight a battle
    > unless you have to and dont fight it unless you can win....the AMD/ATI
    > combo is showing signs of mega stress IMHO....
    >
    > Looks at how thins have gone in the last few years.....For a healthy
    > environment I'd expect AMD/ATI to leapfrog Nvdia/Intel, then
    > Intel/nvdia to leap frog in turn....going back a few years that is
    > what was happening....then it was no more leap frogging but just
    > about matching, or an improvement (from ATI) but it was small and
    > lasted a few weeks....
    > ATi's "best" card barely matches the GT8800 mid range card but its a 2
    > slot card to boot...Nvidia's GTX/ultra top end cards look set for a
    > revamp real soon (before Xmas?) All ATI does is roughly match Nvidia's
    > price / performance ratio...now AMD does the same thing....
    >
    > Someone once said (Tom's hardware?) it is only worth upgrading if you
    > can jump 2 generations or you wont really see a decent improvement for
    > your money...these offerings are a fractional improvement....


    All excellent points. However, I remember the days of an Intel Virtual
    monopoly, of buying Cyrix/AMD CPUs not because they were better but because
    they were one-third the price of Intel CPUs. I'd hate to go back to those
    days because, you can bet your bottom dollar, the moment Intel believe that
    they have a solid advantage by a reasonable margin, their prices will climb.

    Hey, I have Intel/nVidia here. I have to go with the best value. It doesn't
    mean I like what could happen to AMD/ATI. I wish them all the best, for all
    of our sakes.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 20, 2007
    #13
  14. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh interweb thingy typed:
    >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>> Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope enough people decide to buy AMD
    >>>> to keep them afloat. I'd hate to see Intel with the amount of power
    >>>> and market dominance they enjoyed 6 or 7 years ago again.
    >>> yes.....I bought 2 AMD cpus this year...one (the 4000x2) is going to
    >>> go into my file server next year (or maybe the year after)....at which
    >>> point I think I will be getting an Intel CPU to replace it....I might
    >>> want to support AMD, but that also means AMD needs to be good enough
    >>> to deserve my $........
    >>>
    >>> I dont see the point in keeping a dead duck afloat.....

    >>
    >> Eeek! That has the ring of tempting fate. Let's hope that we don't find
    >> ourselves in a position where there is no AMD and Intel are back to
    >> charging $1,000+ for a mid-range CPU again in the future.

    >
    > yes I know....not happy....but there is a saying, dont fight a battle
    > unless you have to and dont fight it unless you can win....the AMD/ATI
    > combo is showing signs of mega stress IMHO....
    >


    AMD's cpu/gpu "fusion" project has barely gotten started. And who knows what
    that could turn out to mean for the entire industry? With so much processing
    power going flat to waste in most applications right now, it's high time
    someone took a different approach. Seems a bit premature to be writing AMD
    off.


    > Looks at how thins have gone in the last few years.....For a healthy
    > environment I'd expect AMD/ATI to leapfrog Nvdia/Intel, then Intel/nvdia
    > to leap frog in turn....going back a few years that is what was
    > happening....then it was no more leap frogging but just about matching, or
    > an improvement (from ATI) but it was small and lasted a few weeks....
    >
    > ATi's "best" card barely matches the GT8800 mid range card but its a 2
    > slot card to boot...Nvidia's GTX/ultra top end cards look set for a revamp
    > real soon (before Xmas?) All ATI does is roughly match Nvidia's price /
    > performance ratio...now AMD does the same thing....
    >


    The mid-range is where Nvidia and ATI has always made its money -- and
    parity there is a good thing for consumers, I think. Instead of just letting
    the best chips slowly drift down in price to the mid range, you now have
    these companies both competing to deliver high-end performance at mid-range
    prices right from the start of the product cycle.

    > Someone once said (Tom's hardware?) it is only worth upgrading if you can
    > jump 2 generations or you wont really see a decent improvement for your
    > money...these offerings are a fractional improvement....
    >


    I agree. Bechmarks pointing to 10-15% improvements in performance are rarely
    going to translate into perceptible differences for users. No sense then in
    trying to benefit from incremental upgrades, which are inevitably
    over-hyped. The first-generation quad cores from Intel and AMD both fall in
    that category, since you can get cheaper dual core chips from either
    manufacturer that will rival the best of the early quad cores like the
    Q6700. But things are moving fast now -- "generations" are turning over
    quicker, so who knows what that means anymore.
    impossible, Nov 21, 2007
    #14
    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. Adrian
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    628
    Benjamin Gawert
    Mar 19, 2007
  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
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    419
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
  4. Nighthawk
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    560
    Nighthawk
    Nov 10, 2007
  5. Ian

    Intel Core 2 Quad CPUs Comparison

    Ian, May 5, 2008, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    801
Loading...

Share This Page