What's the AMD stratagy for i5?

Ok, so it's the same core at 32nm, point is that it's gonna be a big leap forward in performance and efficiency from those parts that it replaces. :D
 
Impulse said:
Ok, so it's the same core at 32nm, point is that it's gonna be a big leap forward in performance and efficiency from those parts that it replaces. :D
Click to expand...

Allendale i believe is built on the nehalem microarchitecture and should be pretty damn awesome
 
Impulse said:
Why is there no reason for more powerful CPUs in notebooks unless it's to feed a GPU? There are plenty of people who do a lot of work on their notebook (actual work, not gaming) and they would certainly enjoy a more powerful processor, that's some lousy logic.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a need for more powerful notebooks for sure.
But the fact is, it is a small market. They are expensive and suck back power. And whatever incredibly small advantage an i5 would hold over a P2 in a laptop case, the GFX platform of ATi would make it extremely competitive, if not market leading. Hell they would have the cost advantage as well considering they wouldn't have to stuff a competitors (Nvidia) GFX card in there!
 
Where the hell are AMD's 45nm laptop offerings? It's been 8 months since the launch of the first 45nm processors, and 3 months since the Athlon IIs, but no signs of Turion II or whatever. The problem now is that when AMD's new 45nm notebook processors come out, it's roughly the same time the new 32nm Arrandales come out, and it's the same old situation again, where AMD's notebook processors are clearly inferior to Intel's in every single way, in performance, heat, and battery life. And with Intel's new on-die GPU supposedly having a 2x performance increase over the 4500MHD, the gap between Intel's and AMD's graphics should be much narrower. Had 45nm notebook processors come out in July or August, AMD would enjoy several months of being very competitive with Intel in the notebook front.

Supposedly AMD's going to wait until the new 8xx-series chipsets to be released before launching 45nm notebook processors, I don't see why AMD can't pair the existing 780M chipset with 45nm. It works on the desktop (Phenom II's backwards compatibility with older chipsets) so why can't it work on the notebook.

Intel managed to use the existing chipsets when launching new mobile processors at least twice. In 2006, when they launched mobile Core 2, which worked perfectly on the older 945GM chipsets intended for Core 1. And also, earlier in 2008, when they launched mobile 45nm Penryn processors, which also worked fine with the 965-series chipsets intended for 65nm Core 2s. So why can't AMD?
 
Impulse said:
Intel isn't raking a ton of cash in over the Atom/netbook trends either, the profit margins for the Atom are minuscule compared to other processors and the only reason Intel entered that market space was so someone else like VIA wouldn't swoop in and take their place... But netbook sales are actually eroding other laptop sales which are much more profitable for Intel, and they (along with MS) have actually tried to discourage netbook manufacturers from pairing the Atom with more powerful GPUs or larger screens in order to curb the whole netbook fad in general.
Click to expand...

Awe, poor Intel for having to make a profit off of a demanding market, to make sure its competitors stay at the curb. I don't think Intel's profit margins are any less on the Atoms then the Celeron M's they replaced. They are cheap as dirt to make and a little over priced for some models if you ask me.
Welcome to the real world intel, netbooks aren't a fad!
 
Pylon said:
Where the hell are AMD's 45nm laptop offerings? It's been 8 months since the launch of the first 45nm processors, and 3 months since the Athlon IIs, but no signs of Turion II or whatever. The problem now is that when AMD's new 45nm notebook processors come out, it's roughly the same time the new 32nm Arrandales come out, and it's the same old situation again, where AMD's notebook processors are clearly inferior to Intel's in every single way, in performance, heat, and battery life. And with Intel's new on-die GPU supposedly having a 2x performance increase over the 4500MHD, the gap between Intel's and AMD's graphics should be much narrower. Had 45nm notebook processors come out in July or August, AMD would enjoy several months of being very competitive with Intel in the notebook front.

Supposedly AMD's going to wait until the new 8xx-series chipsets to be released before launching 45nm notebook processors, I don't see why AMD can't pair the existing 780M chipset with 45nm. It works on the desktop (Phenom II's backwards compatibility with older chipsets) so why can't it work on the notebook.

Intel managed to use the existing chipsets when launching new mobile processors at least twice. In 2006, when they launched mobile Core 2, which worked perfectly on the older 945GM chipsets intended for Core 1. And also, earlier in 2008, when they launched mobile 45nm Penryn processors, which also worked fine with the 965-series chipsets intended for 65nm Core 2s. So why can't AMD?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is a very small market. Power users don't by laptops, they buy desktops. And ya, good luck on that Intel GFX that is going to kick everyone's ass, and a mobile version in laptops no less! Haha.
 
I'm typing this from a laptop while on vacation in Japan. Let me tell you, with the amount of video encoding I've done in the past 5 weeks, a quad-core nehalem wouldn't be enough. Now, I know the market for laptop "power" users is small, but don't kid yourselves, wanting more laptop processing power is distinctly different from wanting to choose more processing power at the expense of portability, heat, and battery life.

The reason laptops don't have as much power as desktops is not a matter of need(more cpu power is always better) so much as it is a lack of choice where the trade-off is always with portability, battery life and cost.

It is a fact that every laptop user with a gram of common sense would take a cpu with more performance provided that it does not cost more and does not drain more battery over one with less performance. I3s promise more performance for less power consumed.

Of course, more processing power is only one area laptops need to improve on. With SSDs, there is parity between laptops and desktops in hard-disk performance, but not in capacity and only when comparing with desktops with single drives.

Whether in memory, storage, or graphics, laptops will always need to be as good as desktops and at the same time provide longer usage between rechargings.

In any case, the mobile market is surpassing the desktop in volume. Eventually, I3s will replace C2Ds in the mobile space. That is called progress and it is a huge area where AMD is sorely lacking in.
 
funkydmunky said:
Exactly. It is a very small market. Power users don't by laptops, they buy desktops. And ya, good luck on that Intel GFX that is going to kick everyone's ass, and a mobile version in laptops no less! Haha.
Click to expand...

yeah i have a friend that has a asus netbook with a nvidia 9300 in it and it can play full 1080p video if you use the right setup. mainly the 64bit version of mediaplayer classic with the right codecs that let you offload the video to the gpu. i have tech friends that used macbooks but now use netbooks from asus because of form factor and because they can do anything they need on them.

just noticed some info has come out for notebook cpu's from amd. nothing to special but its a start i guess. http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15353/1/
 
Last edited:
funkydmunky said:
Yes there is a need for more powerful notebooks for sure.
But the fact is, it is a small market. They are expensive and suck back power. And whatever incredibly small advantage an i5 would hold over a P2 in a laptop case, the GFX platform of ATi would make it extremely competitive, if not market leading. Hell they would have the cost advantage as well considering they wouldn't have to stuff a competitors (Nvidia) GFX card in there!
Click to expand...

Why does GPU performance keep entering into the equation here? For most of the marketplace (i.e. non-gamers) it means nothing... Oh right, it enables you to play back ripped/downloaded HD content... Yay? Guess what a good chunk of average consumers want to watch on their laptop, online streaming content for which a better GPU won't help one bit until Adobe gets off it's lazy ass. The majority of them could care less whether the stuff they download/pirate or rip is in HD or not, so GPU performance/options are kind of a moot point. Otherwise manufacturers would be pushing back against Intel a lot harder given what they've done to sabotage Ion.

The entire point of this is how much more efficient the new stuff is gonna be compared to old C2D parts that couldn't shut down cores to conserve power, didn't have HT, and absolutely need to be paired with a discrete GPU chip; and the new stuff does this while being substantially more powerful. You seldom get both things at once on the mobile market (improved power and efficiency), that's why the new parts are huge, that's why AMD is in so much trouble. And soon there'll be IGPs on Intel's new parts as well, making them even more efficient.

funkydmunky said:
Awe, poor Intel for having to make a profit off of a demanding market, to make sure its competitors stay at the curb. I don't think Intel's profit margins are any less on the Atoms then the Celeron M's they replaced. They are cheap as dirt to make and a little over priced for some models if you ask me.
Welcome to the real world intel, netbooks aren't a fad!
Click to expand...

I wasn't shedding a tear for Intel, just replying to this notion that they're somehow glad that the Atom is such a hit or that they're better off for it (from a strictly business pov), they're not, and it's clear they would rather have it not catch on any more than it has. Even if profit margins are the same as they were for the Celeron M, that never sold in the quantities that Atom is selling at (for a variety of reasons).
 
Last edited:
Impulse said:
I wasn't shedding a tear for Intel, just replying to this notion that they're somehow glad that the Atom is such a hit or that they're better off for it (from a strictly business pov), they're not, and it's clear they would rather have it not catch on any more than it has. Even if profit margins are the same as they were for the Celeron M, that never sold in the quantities that Atom is selling at (for a variety of reasons).
Click to expand...

Intel isn't stupid. They knew a new market was emerging, designed a product, and capitalized on it. And you have the brains to say they didn't want it? Sure they wished they could sell power sucking overpriced chips, but guess what? Competitors were waiting to take the the pie if Intel didn't want it. I have serious questions on your logic in this regard.
 
What questions? We essentially agree... Intel would love for the Atom and netbooks not to exist, but they do, and so they entered that market segment and took it over, doesn't mean they're glad they had to do so. Same way MS was forced to extend XP licenses in order to satisfy a demand... Intel, as a business, would be better off if netbooks had never taken off and this notion of "good enough" computing hadn't taken root. Obviously once it did they had to react tho, and they were more than capable of it.
 
Impulse said:
What questions? We essentially agree... Intel would love for the Atom and netbooks not to exist, but they do, and so they entered that market segment and took it over, doesn't mean they're glad they had to do so. Same way MS was forced to extend XP licenses in order to satisfy a demand... Intel, as a business, would be better off if netbooks had never taken off and this notion of "good enough" computing hadn't taken root. Obviously once it did they had to react tho, and they were more than capable of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Intel is too concerned about netbooks. Most netbooks AREN'T primary computers, at least those sold in the developed world. They tend to be secondary machines that people pick up for various reasons so the way I look at it is that a LOT of netbooks would have never materialized as types of purchases simply because people buy netbooks because they cheap, light and small.

I bought my Eee PC because of this. I wouldn't have just bought a another laptop since I have two tablets and a conventional laptop already. Netbooks are nice gadgets that can do a lot but they really aren't good enough for everyday all day computing but are great in certain situations.
 
That may be true amongst enthusiasts and more advanced users, but I see a lot of people on a budget buying them as upgrades to old systems (when they might've opted instead for a $300-400 desktop). People that have realized (thru others) that they don't need anything else for word processing and web browsing, etc. Basically, I think there's an increasing number of people with very basic needs that are using 'em for everyday computing, sometimes 'till they have the funds for a more full-featured system for home and whatnot.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
no it wouldnt.. but overall it depends on the application.. yes a 5ghz dual core would be faster then a 2.3ghz octo-core if you are using single threaded apps.. but a 2.3ghz octo-core when it comes to multi-threaded apps is way faster..

heres the math.. it may help you understand why they do this..

5ghz dual core each core is 5ghz.. so 5x2= 10ghz multi-theaded cpu power
2.3ghz octo-core has 8 cores at 2.3ghz.. so 2.3x8= 18.4ghz multi-threaded cpu power
3.2ghz quad core has 4 cores at 3.2ghz.. so 3.2x4= 12.8ghz multi-threaded cpu power

there is 1 exception though with the i7.. it is not 8 cores at 2.66ghz but in actuality its 8 threads at 1.33ghz each.. since the i7 uses hyperthreading which creates 4 virtual cores that are shared over the 4 physical cores it ends up turning into 50% power on each core for each thread.. so each core supports 2 threads..

there are also a lot of variables between the core architectures as well..

but the primary reason for what AMD and intel are doing is that they are able to double or triple the total output of a chip while still staying within a specific thermal design.. when you start talking about dual cores doing 5ghz.. you are talking about thermal ratings in the 200-250w range.. and if its a 45nm chip which it has to be then you are talking about a thermal design wattage of 300-350w.. its just not feasable nor practical to do this.. and this is also why intel never came out with a 4ghz p4 processor.. it was not worth it in the long run since the power requirements for the chip would of been in the 130-140w range.. when they were able to create a dual core at 2ghz making it a 4ghz chip at half the power..
Click to expand...
Did u mean that u would only get 50% advantage per core, or 50% because of hyperthread? (on the i7)
 
Last edited:
Strategy well price match performance and cost against intel like they always do i.e. offering 3 cores vs dual core price. The phenom 955 already dropping in price and same price point as the i5 more or less.
 
The 965 is already close to i7's in a lot of stuff, and even or faster in many games.

i5 is not worth the hype, as one of the biggest advantages of i7 over Phenom 2 is the massive multi threaded power of the chip due to hyperthreading. i5's do not have HT.

They are nice, and will satisfy intel lovers who cant afford an i7, but for pure price/performance Ph2 is still the champ. i5 mobos are not as bad as i7 ones, but not as cheap as some quality budget AM2+/AM3 mobo's either..

Still waiting on final benches and oc results, but a 955/965 should still be very close and perhaps faster in some stuff.

Personally, I prefer a cpu with an unlocked multiplier, so thats another big plus for Phenom II's for me heh :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top