Its official....AMD has bought ATI

Status
Not open for further replies.
UltimaParadox said:
Still a bunch of nothing, Gamespot is just an article talking about the technology, and I didn't even bother to read the inquirer articles.

Say what you want, but as far as it goes even if 4x4 hits the market, which I doubt it will. Probablly vaporware, its not going to see an outgoing response of people rushing to buy it.
Click to expand...

I remember people saying the same thing about dual cores before they launched.

prepare to insert foot, chief.
 
orkan said:
I remember people saying the same thing about dual cores before they launched.

prepare to insert foot, chief.
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between a dual core processor and the 4x4 platform.

In its current conception the 4x4 platform will require you to buy 2 processors and 2 video cards.

The reason dual core is catching on is because both cores are on one dye, thus techinically one processor, there is not more to buy. Plus its your only option at this point.

It all comes down to dollars and simplicity. In its current form 4x4 is just not ready for the majority of people out there, including a big majority of the enthusiasts. Its just too expensive. That is why Dual GPU solutions is still pretty much a rarity.
 
So you are saying that SLI and Xfire are a rarity?

This thread makes me giggle.
 
I don't know, it sounds pretty good to me. The more threads that can be processed at once the better. It's not like having extra processors isn't going to benefit anyone. I have a few games now that support multiprocessing, more are obviously on the way, and if you're doing anything besides games, you're going to see a nice benefit. Also, the OS distributes threads across the cores/CPUs, so the more cores/CPUs you have the more the system-level stuff gets spread out. Even if your game/app doesn't directly support MP it will still benefit a little bit. (not 4 cores worth, but there are plenty of other things that do) I think it will be cool enough for the early adopters, and as it gets refined with more software support, it will catch on quickly like dual cores, SLI, XF, etc.
 
The thing about the 4x4 'support' from the game manufacturers that is overlooked is that they're not saying anything will specifically take advantage of 4x4. They just are making their games multithreaded. Which means that the games will take abetter dvantage of dual core systems like Conroe and FX-6x series, quad core like Kentsfield just as much as it would the 4x4 platform. 4x4 is just one way to get a higher number of processor cores into the system, and the dual GPU part of it can be done on multiple platforms as well.

Going back to a point in your discussion with Poncho and Intel's marketing/AMD's market share..first of all, nothing is proven that what Intel has done is illegal. the antitrust suit is still in information gathering stage. However, Ponchi's point seems valid to me. Once AMD had a stable platform that performed consistently better than Intel, AMD started making market share gains, and that momentum really started before the suit was filed.
 
I have seen that steam site as well.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that nvidia makes $100 on every SLI rig. ... which I'm sure is no where near the real number... but for the sake of argument... 100$

5,000 x 100 = $500,000

5000 is a pretty big number when you are looking at a profit/loss statement. There's your reality. Sure... still a very small amount of the "general public" that you think they should cater to.

All advances that EVENTUALLY become technology for the general public, start out in one place and one place alone: Enthusiasts

One thing I still can't figure out. Why are people like you so AGAINST 4x4? Why are you against ANY new technology? You damn it before it is even out. Seems a little oft to me.

You don't plan on using it... groovy... don't buy it. Nobody here told you that you must, or will force you when it comes out. Why not leave the "bashing" for the "general public" that doesn't know any better?
 
orkan said:
I have seen that steam site as well.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that nvidia makes $100 on every SLI rig. ... which I'm sure is no where near the real number... but for the sake of argument... 100$

5,000 x 100 = $500,000

5000 is a pretty big number when you are looking at a profit/loss statement. There's your reality. Sure... still a very small amount of the "general public" that you think they should cater to.

All advances that EVENTUALLY become technology for the general public, start out in one place and one place alone: Enthusiasts

One thing I still can't figure out. Why are people like you so AGAINST 4x4? Why are you against ANY new technology? You damn it before it is even out. Seems a little oft to me.

You don't plan on using it... groovy... don't buy it. Nobody here told you that you must, or will force you when it comes out. Why not leave the "bashing" for the "general public" that doesn't know any better?
Click to expand...


I like quad-core better than 2 x dual CPU's...
I will never go dual GPU...
Offers nothing to me.

And oh yeah...what Mobo's are comming out for this? ;)

Terra - Simple as that...
 
You forgot... Offers nothing currently.

Never know what the future will hold. I say encourage all manufacturers to keep pumping out faster parts for cheaper prices. We win!
 
orkan said:
You forgot... Offers nothing currently.

Never know what the future will hold. I say encourage all manufacturers to keep pumping out faster parts for cheaper prices. We win!
Click to expand...

I repeat:
Quad-core CPU's makes more sense to me that 2 x dual-core CPU's...

Terra...
 
Terra said:
I repeat:
Quad-core CPU's makes more sense to me that 2 x dual-core CPU's...

Terra...
Click to expand...

Not really, cause you're getting dual memory busses with an HT link inbetween them. On an Intel system, the more procs or cores you add, the less bandwidth you have cause they are all having to go outside of the cpu, down the same bus, to make calls to memory. With amd, the memory controller is on the chip operating at a MUCH higher frequency. Then you have 4x4. A quad core will be 4 cores accessing the same bus. In Intels case, a slow one at that. In 4x4, each dual core has it's own set of RAM that the cpu's take snoop over a 2000mHz HT link. MUCH more efficient.
 
D-OveRMinD said:
Not really, cause you're getting dual memory busses with an HT link inbetween them. On an Intel system, the more procs or cores you add, the less bandwidth you have cause they are all having to go outside of the cpu, down the same bus, to make calls to memory. With amd, the memory controller is on the chip operating at a MUCH higher frequency. Then you have 4x4. A quad core will be 4 cores accessing the same bus. In Intels case, a slow one at that. In 4x4, each dual core has it's own set of RAM that the cpu's take snoop over a 2000mHz HT link. MUCH more efficient.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read any of the posts on Extremsystem.org's forum and how well the quad-core "Kentsfield" scales?
Sure don't sound like it?
The quad-core LGA775 CPU comming out this year?
That runs on Conroe mobo's?
No need for a new mobo, just exhange the CPU and *BAM* from dual to quadcore...

Terra - You do know that the Conroe does fine without a IMC don't you?
 
Terra said:
Have you ever read any of the posts on Extremsystem.org's forum and how well the quad-core "Kentsfield" scales?
Sure don't sound like it?
The quad-core LGA775 CPU comming out this year?
That runs on Conroe mobo's?
No need for a new mobo, just exhange the CPU and *BAM* from dual to quadcore...

Terra - You do know that the Conroe does fine without a IMC don't you?
Click to expand...

You do realize that AMD designed the Athlon 64 to be scalable up to 8 cores right? 2 YEARS AGO. I'm not saying there won't be a single chip multi core AMD...if fact there most definately will. This is just another architecture for different applications.
 
Terra said:
Have you ever read any of the posts on Extremsystem.org's forum and how well the quad-core "Kentsfield" scales?
Sure don't sound like it?
The quad-core LGA775 CPU comming out this year?
That runs on Conroe mobo's?
No need for a new mobo, just exhange the CPU and *BAM* from dual to quadcore...

Terra - You do know that the Conroe does fine without a IMC don't you?
Click to expand...

And yes I did go through their forum. The Kentsfield scales like an Intel would. It still has a huge bottleneck that it can't overcome. 4 cores sharing a 1066mHz quad pumped external bus. Why do you think Intel felt it necessary to add 8 frikkin megs of L2 cache? And, since cache is the most expensive part of the chip manufacturing process, you can bet your sweet ass that these EE Quads will START in the $1500 plus range. I don't know for sure, but judging from the last EE's to come out with one core and a fourth of the cache that ran over $1000, it's not too far fetched. Now this kinda puts them into the .077 percentile, doesn't it?
 
Terra said:
I repeat:
Quad-core CPU's makes more sense to me that 2 x dual-core CPU's...

Terra...
Click to expand...

I second that motion because that will be cheaper and get more bang for buck for the consumer. I always thought being [H] was getting the best bang for buck, by buying the midrage and overclocking, it seems the 4x4 platform is basically just throw as much stuff together to get it to work.

I guess only time will tell, but I am still leaning towards vaporware.
 
D-OveRMinD said:
Why do you think Intel felt it necessary to add 8 frikkin megs of L2 cache?
Click to expand...


Ummmm... maybe because Conroe has 4mb and Kentsfield is basically 2 conroe cores attached? :rolleyes:

I do agree with you to a point.... there isn't many gains with quad core due to the FSB bottleneck for the average desktop user. Of course... NOBODY using a desktop can take advantage of 4 cores regardless of how the memory is connected to it. Software simply doesn't take advantage of 4 cores... so IMC or no IMC it's irrelevant. Though the FSB isn't going to be an issue very soon anyway so all of this is moot. By the time AMD has a competitive product, if they even get one in the next couple years, Intel will be onto something else and AMD will be playing catch up again. Oh.. and the price point for this IIRC will be around 1000-1200 dollars. That may change.... but that's what I've heard.
 
UltimaParadox said:
Yeah but that does not include the graphics cards, which makes the bulk of the cost in systems, and does their price also include the cost of two dual core CPUs. I believe they are only pricing the platform.
Click to expand...


I was responding to the comment about the price of the CPU only, Intel's Kentsfield, which is a quad core, single processor.
 
Poncho said:
I was responding to the comment about the price of the CPU only, Intel's Kentsfield, which is a quad core, single processor.
Click to expand...

Hah was a little misleading, but yeah that makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Terra said:
I like quad-core better than 2 x dual CPU's...
I will never go dual GPU...
Offers nothing to me.

And oh yeah...what Mobo's are comming out for this? ;)

Terra - Simple as that...
Click to expand...

dvd shrink for the win!
 
Poncho said:
Ummmm... maybe because Conroe has 4mb and Kentsfield is basically 2 conroe cores attached? :rolleyes:

I do agree with you to a point.... there isn't many gains with quad core due to the FSB bottleneck for the average desktop user. Of course... NOBODY using a desktop can take advantage of 4 cores regardless of how the memory is connected to it. Software simply doesn't take advantage of 4 cores... so IMC or no IMC it's irrelevant. Though the FSB isn't going to be an issue very soon anyway so all of this is moot. By the time AMD has a competitive product, if they even get one in the next couple years, Intel will be onto something else and AMD will be playing catch up again. Oh.. and the price point for this IIRC will be around 1000-1200 dollars. That may change.... but that's what I've heard.
Click to expand...

But the Conroe has 4 mb for a reason too. :rolleyes:

Nobody can take advantage of 4 cores on the desktop? I'm sure people said that not long ago for dual cores. And I can bet you everyone on the HardOCP boards could use one if they had it. You have been looking at it all wrong anyway. You keep looking at individual program gains, which I do agree with. What you're missing is the smoothness that comes from running multiple programs with more cores. Windows has thread handling built in as do most modern OS's. You open another program, your OS threads it properly on the fly using all cores. You may have 4 programs open that are only single threaded, but you OS will manage them across multiple cores without bogging down one. And you say "by the time AMD has a competitive product." AMD's current gen procs are still very competitive with the Core 2's, with the K8L looming on the horizon. I swear, Intel finally gets a SLIGHT lead for once in the past 3 years and everyone thinks AMD is doomed... Don't bet on it.
 
D-OveRMinD said:
But the Conroe has 4 mb for a reason too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Enlighten me please? :)

AMD's current gen procs are still very competitive with the Core 2's, with the K8L looming on the horizon.
Click to expand...

You got any preformance data?
Remember thhe K8L is not a new architechture, it's a tweaking of the curent design...

I swear, Intel finally gets a SLIGHT lead for once in the past 3 years and everyone thinks AMD is doomed... Don't bet on it.
Click to expand...

*chough*
Slight?
Please take a look again.

But I don't hope AMD is over.
That would be bad for us consumers.
But my first computer was called Commodore 64
And I know the Intel/AMD story from the beginning.

AMD 8086, 80286, 80386, Am486..they all sucked compared to Intel's CPU's(and they licensed the tech form Intel.)

Their K5...not good compared to Intel's Pentium

K6 came close, but never superceeded the offerings from Intel.

K7(Athlon) despite early design problems did outpace the PIII, but the P4's came back with a vengance, and the K7/P4 dealt equal blows...this brings us from 1982 to 2001..with AMD trailing and not besting Intel...some 21 years.

The came the K8, as Intel hit their thermal barrier with the netburst tech.
AMD beat the netburst tech(allthoug my Pentium D 950 65nm, does quite well..either if I am decoing...or gaming, never breaks 44C)....but then Intel made the conroe...

Did you notice how fast Intel's engineers whiped up the Conroe after they got aware(venturing first into unknow territory bears it's price, somtimes there is sand in the grease, unforseen things happens.) that the Netburst architechture would't reach 10Ghz?

You talk about the "last 3 years", like it's been forever...info notice: It hasn't.

AMD has always limped behind Intel(except for the K8)...and after the Conroe they are doing it again.

Intel 65nm...tech mature...where is AMD?

Intel Conroe...IPC surpreme...AMD is trailing again.

Intel Conroe memory lantency/preformance(not synthetic benches, real world
use....fast...and that without the IMC...AMD left behind again.

Intel Kentsfield...4 cores, in one LGA775 socket....no need for a new mobo like the AMD 4x4...Intel engineering again.

And don't forget that intel is not just the biggest CPU player.(~80% marketshare)
They are the BIGGEST player in onboard graphics...+50% marketshare of the total graphics market.
Chipsets, LAN, WiFi, laptops are some of the things Intel makes too...
And Intel devolped and introduced the PCI Bus, PCI-E bus and USB.
And look at the 2005 revenue (in million of $):
Intel: 35 466
AMD: 3 917

Intel is ~10 times bigger than AMD...since 1992 they have been the world largest supplier of semicondutor tech...and even then with a revenue bigger than AMD has today (5 091 milion $ in 1992 revenue for Intel)

Intel is back, where they always have been(for the last ~21 years of the last 24 years)...in front and they are agressive...both in preformance, price and the speed of next-gen implimation.(new cores, new die tech(45nm ect))...

Intel is going forward...fast...and they don't plan slip up again.
Intel is MASSIVE...and FOCUSED now...they got the people, they got the money and they got the knowlegde.
So sorry if I don't give more for the 3 years AMD had it's glory than they are worth...

Terra - You gotta know the entire story...not just Netburst vs AMD64
 
Terra, your last post is something I expect to hear in movie trailers. No doubt your right, but the way you present it , is hilarious :D

I dont think AMD is going anywhere either. With their 64 regime they have gathered a large solid base of fans who will only construct amd based systems. Well atleast thats the idea I have and I know I wont be putting up any Intel based system for myself and my friends. Dont ask me why, guess its a fan thing :D
 
No... its a PERFORMANCE TO COST RATIO THING.

Just like it always has been for us AMD people. Big blue will never figure out that people will buy a cheaper processor for 1-5% less performance... then overclock it up to par.

AMD knows this. ... and THIS is why we are where we are today.

Despite fear mongerers like Terra. The likes of which are plentiful on every forum on the internet.
 
orkan said:
Big blue will never figure out that people will buy a cheaper processor for 1-5% less performance... then overclock it up to par.
Click to expand...

The market that does this... Intel doesn't really care about. Besides... with Conroe the price/performance ratio is in their favor anyway. This market is VERY small.... thus, not a concern.
 
orkan said:
No... its a PERFORMANCE TO COST RATIO THING.

Just like it always has been for us AMD people. Big blue will never figure out that people will buy a cheaper processor for 1-5% less performance... then overclock it up to par.
Click to expand...


But it seems that Intel did figure this out, and thats why people are hyped on the Conroe. Besides my laptop I've never had an Intel system but this time 'round I think I might.
 
sam0t said:
Terra, your last post is something I expect to hear in movie trailers. No doubt your right, but the way you present it , is hilarious :D
Click to expand...

Please elaborate?

I dont think AMD is going anywhere either. With their 64 regime they have gathered a large solid base of fans who will only construct amd based systems. Well atleast thats the idea I have and I know I wont be putting up any Intel based system for myself and my friends. Dont ask me why, guess its a fan thing :D
Click to expand...

A fan thing?
Madre mia... :rolleyes:

Terra...
 
orkan said:
No... its a PERFORMANCE TO COST RATIO THING.
Click to expand...

And the pure preformance is killed by Conroe :rolleyes:

Just like it always has been for us AMD people. Big blue will never figure out that people will buy a cheaper processor for 1-5% less performance... then overclock it up to par.
Click to expand...

You mean like AMD has to O.C to compete with the Conroe? :rolleyes:

AMD knows this. ... and THIS is why we are where we are today.
Click to expand...

You mean by that that INTEL is the bigest CPU supplier?

Despite fear mongerers like Terra. The likes of which are plentiful on every forum on the internet.
Click to expand...

Did you want anything, besides invalid arguments? :rolleyes:

Terra - Did you even bother to read my post?
 
Let me start off by saying that all of my computers have been AMD platforms.

Now that has been said... I think its obvious that Conroe is dominating here. A $300ish EE6600 can give a $810 fx-62 a good run for its money... yeah.. performance wise, Intel owns.. price wise... Intel owns. You'd have to be a DIE-HARD amd fan-boy to be taking AMD's side in this.
 
dagon11985 said:
Let me start off by saying that all of my computers have been AMD platforms.

Now that has been said... I think its obvious that Conroe is dominating here. A $300ish EE6600 can give a $810 fx-62 a good run for its money... yeah.. performance wise, Intel owns.. price wise... Intel owns. You'd have to be a DIE-HARD amd fan-boy to be taking AMD's side in this.
Click to expand...

QFT!

Terra...
 
dagon11985 said:
Let me start off by saying that all of my computers have been AMD platforms.

Now that has been said... I think its obvious that Conroe is dominating here. A $300ish EE6600 can give a $810 fx-62 a good run for its money... yeah.. performance wise, Intel owns.. price wise... Intel owns. You'd have to be a DIE-HARD amd fan-boy to be taking AMD's side in this.
Click to expand...


Oh make no mistake, I wholeheartedly agree that Intel put out some good tech here. The best in years from either side. I just hate all the people spreading FUD that this is the end of AMD, the merger will kill them and ATI, and AMD has nothing in the pipeline that can come close to Intel.

In all honesty, there is nothing that any of us can do until a few months has passed and AMD/ATI opens up about what they are about to do. As it sits right now, they can't say anything until the merger is complete. I'm looking forward to some exciting new tech from them. But as for the pure CPU numbers right now, Intel has the winning hand.
 
Bottom line:

All the closet intel lovers are all jumping out the door now that intel actually has something worth talking about. Its been 3-4 years now that they've been stuck in the closet, wishing they had something to brag about. Conroe gave them that.

In typical fanatic style, they are all now back on the intel podium carrying signs that read "down with AMD" and having rallies so they can all "educate" the public about how AMD will surely cause their computer to catch fire.

I'd take the word of a crack addict over these people. litterally.
 
orkan said:
Bottom line:

All the closet intel lovers are all jumping out the door now that intel actually has something worth talking about. Its been 3-4 years now that they've been stuck in the closet, wishing they had something to brag about. Conroe gave them that.

In typical fanatic style, they are all now back on the intel podium carrying signs that read "down with AMD" and having rallies so they can all "educate" the public about how AMD will surely cause their computer to catch fire.

I'd take the word of a crack addict over these people. litterally.
Click to expand...

You can exclude me then, and some others: In praise of older CPUs

Bottom line:
Intels new lineup has brought them back in the preformance lead again, a place they have held in 21 years since 1982.
Intel is still and have always been the #1 supplier of CPU's

Terra...
 
I'm going to have to say that I'm going to stay AMD for the rest of this year, I'm currently building a new rig and will be going AM2 not because of the performance but because 1.) the E6300 won't be shipping until later this year anyways, 2.) I want to wait for the boards to be a bit more mature, not to mention I want SLI and not Crossfire, 3.) only 25% of Intel's CPU shipments will be Core 2 Duo chips.

Next year when there are plenty of chips around and enough "tried and true" mobos out there will I go Core2Duo.

But, honestly, if you're saying Core2 isn't that much faster then AMD's offerings then clearly you're smoking something. Gaming wise it isn't that terribly different but for everything else, for day to day stuff it's pretty clear that even the lowend Core2 chips are much faster.
 
Terra said:
Intels new lineup has brought them back in the preformance lead again, a place they have held in 21 years since 1982.Terra...
Click to expand...

Somebody's smoking something. But it isn't me.
 
yeah , intel finally made a half decent cpu and terra is all over it ,

wait for the amds next gen cpu , then comapre the performance of the 2,

..and no am2 cpus are not next gen, those are just calm before the storm of whoopass intel is going to receive !
 
Hi, I was looking for the ATI Flavor forum, when suddenly a giant e-penis flew from the screen and blew out the television.

SOMEONE HAS SOME 'XPLAININ TO DO!

But really, how about if the Conroe masturbation doesn't take place all over the board? Yes yes, I know Conroe walks on water. Conroe saved the whales. Conroe doesn't eat meat.

Got it, got it...
 
Look at the two posts above yours terra. People are sick of hearing about it. This thread is about AMD + ATI... not intel vs. amd. It's been entertaining up till now, but you won't hear reason... so... Either you take this conroe flag of yours someplace else or I alert a mod to the constant AMD bashing thats being done outside the intel forum.

You have your place on this board... use it.

This is an AMD/ATI thread. Want to post off topic some more - we can get a mod.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top