Intel Quad Core

i dont think amd is suffering from this intel conroe quad thing anyhow

they have the lower end market now with their cheap cpu's, and the lower end far out weighs the higher end

so while intel might be making good on conroe, amd is must be wipping the floor with them in the lower end hahaha i think anyhow

thats why i dont think amd are to concerned
 
Its true!!!

Like ATI is like Han Solo, and nVidia is Luke and AMD is Leia...

nVidia likes AMD but they have a reason not to get together, and thus ATI marries AMD...
 
killadoob said:
i dont think amd is suffering from this intel conroe quad thing anyhow

they have the lower end market now with their cheap cpu's, and the lower end far out weighs the higher end

so while intel might be making good on conroe, amd is must be wipping the floor with them in the lower end hahaha i think anyhow

thats why i dont think amd are to concerned
Click to expand...

naah, the E6400 and E6300 wipes the floor with AMD's low end chips.

Unless you wanna get an A64 3500+ / 3700+ , which imo wouldn't be too clever when the E6300 goes for around R1500.

AMD had 2 options to counter intel : produce a equally or more powerful CPU, or just reduce the prices on the CPU's by 50%. the last option is definitely much easier in lots of ways and its shows how AMD has been ripping us off...
 
ya but where amd are good is:

i have a 939 pin board

i didnt have to replace my board and cpu only my cpu

big saving
 
h0ll0w said:
AMD had 2 options to counter intel : produce a equally or more powerful CPU, or just reduce the prices on the CPU's by 50%. the last option is definitely much easier in lots of ways and its shows how AMD has been ripping us off...
Click to expand...
With this type of product you charge as much as you can while you can. That's how Intel became such a wealthy company. Once AMD introduced a real competing CPU at a lower price Intel was no longer able to charge the kind of premiums it had in the past. This impacted its stock price at the time.

Intel has always been ahead on the mobile and low power processors. On the other hand AMD beat them to the 64 bit market and as a result defined the instruction set. Now Intel are beating them in price and performance in the desktop market. AMD has already reduced prices quite dramatically and will probably do so again. Now it just remains for them to take Intel on in the mobile arena - Turion is good, but they need something better.
 
Don't think AMD caresa much about Core2 and the Intel Quad Core.
They will be intorducing Quad Core much later than intel but are hoping their design will be better due to Core communications etc...

Right now AMD is concentrating on OEM and Server market where they have grown quiet big. unfortunately this tie we are out of the loop, but when Quad core and K8L arrive we'll be the focus again :)

Kentsfield kicks butt big time though :)
 
no no no intel are clever coz they made sure that they gonna beat amd every where... low end cpu's E6300, low to middle E6400, middle E6600, middle to high end E6700 and high end E6800... intel have muscled out amd... the E6400 if overclocked to 2.8( which is easy even withstock cooling) will run circles around the amd FX 62...

there no question about it... intel have now got cpu's which are in the gaming, media, business and home user's eye... amd have been the king 4 to long and now they have released that they were to slack on there am2's so they pay the price... sure amd are the best its just they didn't think intel were able of createting such monster cpu's!!!

there has been no... change to the am2's other than the fact the there a little faster, but the design is the same as the socket 939. so to me i think they need a wake up. that and next year will be killer with all the new things amd are going to come out with. you see without amd we wont have core 2 duo... so i think now that there's competion they both are going to fight to be at the top of the pile... and i think the whole quad core is crap coz i mean dual core cpu's are still "new" and haven't quite reached there full potenial...
 
Well AMD still kick Intel's but when it comes to servers. I think they will soon bring something out to stay ahead of Intel in the PC market too...
 
ShockG said:
They will be intorducing Quad Core much later than intel but are hoping their design will be better due to Core communications etc...
Click to expand...
I don't follow the story, but I don't think core communications is a good idea ... you want to keep it very simple, so you can add more cores just like that. The company which gets that right will win big.
 
OKay by core communications I mean the HT link. Current Dual cores have 1 link per core, Quad core will have twon a cross like configuration. There is no FSB traffic in such a config, where as on the intel Quad and Dual core all CPU communications are via FSB. Obviously this does not include shared data that resides on the unified cache.

The result of data going to and fro the FSB is that the more cores you add the less the performance scaling, this isn't the case with using HT links where you can add in theory as many cores as you want without saturating the FSB or stalling it with CPU comms only.

How much of an advantage this these HT links are will have to be seen with Quad Core AMD chips. They seem to be betting on that and a few other technologies to bring them to par, with Core2 efficiency.
 
ShockG said:
OKay by core communications I mean the HT link. Current Dual cores have 1 link per core, Quad core will have twon a cross like configuration. There is no FSB traffic in such a config, where as on the intel Quad and Dual core all CPU communications are via FSB. Obviously this does not include shared data that resides on the unified cache.

The result of data going to and fro the FSB is that the more cores you add the less the performance scaling, this isn't the case with using HT links where you can add in theory as many cores as you want without saturating the FSB or stalling it with CPU comms only.

How much of an advantage this these HT links are will have to be seen with Quad Core AMD chips. They seem to be betting on that and a few other technologies to bring them to par, with Core2 efficiency.
Click to expand...

although I agree with you on the FSB being a bottleneck when you add many cores, from implementation point of view, adding more cores and keeping communication between them working properly, will lead to huge complexity of the internal working of the CPU and make it far more difficult to add more cores.

On other hand, if you optimise the FSB access and put more cache but keep the core independend of each other, then it will be extremely simple to have 8 or 16 or 32 cores ... see where I am going ... in short term maybe havig communications between cores will give some marginal improvement, but once the buss becomes optical or something so the FSB speed is not such an issue, then you rather want completely independend cores.
 
No not really at least I don't think so.
Evenb from a distance point POV. sending data to and back within the same package is quicker than going ot the NB then back. Adding more cache is not always a practical solution, because cache takes up more space than logic on a CPU die, and at some point adding more is not practical. With AMD's on die controller they don't need to have as much cache because the link between ram and core is direct and termination is on the core.

Surprisingly enough it's easier to have direct core links than going through FSB. There are less components involved. Dealing with the Northbridge means you also have PCI-e communications to deal with, CPI bus communications to deal with etc... Where as if you work solely in the CPU everything is much easier and scaling HT speed is a non issue because all youre gates in the Die switch at the same speed as the core frequencies, which is not the case when dealing with a NB.

There is also a prqactical limitation to how many cores you can have on a single Die. 8 cores is not possible for either AMD or Intel, even with the new EUV 32nm lithography that Intel will shift to in 2008/9. Believe it or not the AMD cores are even more independant than the Intel cores, they share no cache and each cache is exclusive to each core. Yes with K8L they will have a shared L3 cahce, but that will not serve to offset the latencies that are involved in getting data directly from RAM.

Kentsfield is two core 2 duo's struck together it isn't natively Quad Core, but AMD Quad core will be. That is also the reason why they will be much delayed over Intel's Quad Core. Either way whichever way we look at it, a direct link is always the best option. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X