Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Anandtech] Sixteen Cores, Four Sockets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Anandtech] Sixteen Cores, Four Sockets - Page 2

post #11 of 18
I loved AMD its sad even though there cheaper chips don't offer the same bang for your buck as a Intel
Viperware x 2
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770 Asus SaberTooth Mark S EVGA GTX 980 SC Corsair Vengeance DDR3 8GBs 
Optical DriveOSMonitorMonitor
LG Optical drive Windows 8.1 Dell u2414h Dell u2414h 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
corsair k70 EVGA 1000 G2 corsair 750D Corsair M65 
Mouse PadAudio
steel series game pad LG sound bar 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Go @ 3.8GHz Rocksolid ASUS P5E eVGA GTX 285 4 Gb Corsair XMS2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750 GB Hiatachi 7200 RPM 32MB cache Drive.. Win7 Ultx64/Ubuntu 10.04 Samsumg 26'' 
PowerCaseMouse
PC Power and cooling 750 watt Cooler Master Cosmos S Kone 
  hide details  
Reply
Viperware x 2
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770 Asus SaberTooth Mark S EVGA GTX 980 SC Corsair Vengeance DDR3 8GBs 
Optical DriveOSMonitorMonitor
LG Optical drive Windows 8.1 Dell u2414h Dell u2414h 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
corsair k70 EVGA 1000 G2 corsair 750D Corsair M65 
Mouse PadAudio
steel series game pad LG sound bar 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Go @ 3.8GHz Rocksolid ASUS P5E eVGA GTX 285 4 Gb Corsair XMS2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750 GB Hiatachi 7200 RPM 32MB cache Drive.. Win7 Ultx64/Ubuntu 10.04 Samsumg 26'' 
PowerCaseMouse
PC Power and cooling 750 watt Cooler Master Cosmos S Kone 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by XFreeRollerX View Post
Oh I know I'm just annoyed that AMD is SO far behind these days... Experts claim AMD won't make a decent enthusiast level comeback until mid-2009... Thats pretty far away!
It's really all about how AMD had to prioritize decisions on how to compete with the Core marchitecture. I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with the statement "Core2 slaughters any K8." Now people tend to think that to get "back in the game", AMD would have needed to have an answer to Core2. However this isn't necessarily true. Even when AMD CPUs were performance kings, they still lacked the production capacity to really penetrate the desktop market. The most sensible thing they could do is ensure that they keep as much of their server market share as possible. This was the purpose of Barcelona. AMD knew that as long as Intel relied upon a FSB that their CPU scaling would not be good. They had the advantage with the IMC and they had to hold on to it. While Barcelona does offer a singlethreaded performance-per-clock advantage over K8, the real beneifts are multithreaded performance. This doesn't really help with desktop performance at the moment, but for servers it means everything.

What if instead of defending their server market share they would have decided to go for desktop performance? It probably wouldn't have mattered because they still lack the manufacturing capacity to sell enough, and Intel could easily undercut Core2 prices. Having just purchased ATI, AMD also needed the higher profit margins from selling scalable server processors, so going after desktop performance right away would have been a terrible move. I realize that the decision to improve scaling before performance isn't very popular with most of the computer enthusiasts, but really for AMD it was their only sane option. Before going after desktop performance/market share, they had to ensure their server market share was safe, thus Barcelona. It is commonly said that AMD has no answer to Nehalem, but in reality Nehalem is Intel's answer to Barcelona. Both chips have ironically similar features, and like Barcelona, Nehalem's only real performance improvement is going to be for multithreaded applications.

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
I really like you
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
Von Strauss
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5000x2 BE @ 3.2 ASUS M2R-32 MVP Sapphire HD4850 700/1100 2x1gb G.Skill HZs 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb WD IDE lol LG DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Vista Ultimate 32-bit Sceptre, 1280x1024, 5ms 
PowerCase
Corsair TX 650W Enermax Chakra w/ 250mm Side Panel Fan 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
It's really all about how AMD had to prioritize decisions on how to compete with the Core marchitecture. I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with the statement "Core2 slaughters any K8." Now people tend to think that to get "back in the game", AMD would have needed to have an answer to Core2. However this isn't necessarily true. Even when AMD CPUs were performance kings, they still lacked the production capacity to really penetrate the desktop market. The most sensible thing they could do is ensure that they keep as much of their server market share as possible. This was the purpose of Barcelona. AMD knew that as long as Intel relied upon a FSB that their CPU scaling would not be good. They had the advantage with the IMC and they had to hold on to it. While Barcelona does offer a singlethreaded performance-per-clock advantage over K8, the real beneifts are multithreaded performance. This doesn't really help with desktop performance at the moment, but for servers it means everything.

What if instead of defending their server market share they would have decided to go for desktop performance? It probably wouldn't have mattered because they still lack the manufacturing capacity to sell enough, and Intel could easily undercut Core2 prices. Having just purchased ATI, AMD also needed the higher profit margins from selling scalable server processors, so going after desktop performance right away would have been a terrible move. I realize that the decision to improve scaling before performance isn't very popular with most of the computer enthusiasts, but really for AMD it was their only sane option. Before going after desktop performance/market share, they had to ensure their server market share was safe, thus Barcelona. It is commonly said that AMD has no answer to Nehalem, but in reality Nehalem is Intel's answer to Barcelona. Both chips have ironically similar features, and like Barcelona, Nehalem's only real performance improvement is going to be for multithreaded applications.

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
Very well said my friend. AMD does have a grip on the server market, they need it. You made a great point

I stand corrected.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom 9950 Black Edition @ 3.0Ghz Gigabyte mATX 785G? HD3200 IGP *Passively cooled* 2x1GB WINTEC Crap, 2x2GB Patriot | DDR2 800 1.9v 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital AAKS Series 500GB Windows 7 Enterprise x64 Custom Cooked for SPEED Samsung 58" B650 1080p Plasma Logitech DiNovo Mini 
PowerCaseMouse
Silverstone 350Watt Silent PSU Cooler Master 590 Logitech DiNovo Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom 9950 Black Edition @ 3.0Ghz Gigabyte mATX 785G? HD3200 IGP *Passively cooled* 2x1GB WINTEC Crap, 2x2GB Patriot | DDR2 800 1.9v 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital AAKS Series 500GB Windows 7 Enterprise x64 Custom Cooked for SPEED Samsung 58" B650 1080p Plasma Logitech DiNovo Mini 
PowerCaseMouse
Silverstone 350Watt Silent PSU Cooler Master 590 Logitech DiNovo Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 18
darkcloud89, that quite possibly the single best explanation of the CPU market i have read. It really puts into perspective a lot of AMD's decisions when 90% of these forum readers think only about game/benchmark performance.
post #16 of 18
Intel is going to be busting on the scene soon. I loved AMD back in the Antholon64 days. I really hope they can hang in there within the next few years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
It's really all about how AMD had to prioritize decisions on how to compete with the Core marchitecture. I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with the statement "Core2 slaughters any K8." Now people tend to think that to get "back in the game", AMD would have needed to have an answer to Core2. However this isn't necessarily true. Even when AMD CPUs were performance kings, they still lacked the production capacity to really penetrate the desktop market. The most sensible thing they could do is ensure that they keep as much of their server market share as possible. This was the purpose of Barcelona. AMD knew that as long as Intel relied upon a FSB that their CPU scaling would not be good. They had the advantage with the IMC and they had to hold on to it. While Barcelona does offer a singlethreaded performance-per-clock advantage over K8, the real beneifts are multithreaded performance. This doesn't really help with desktop performance at the moment, but for servers it means everything.

What if instead of defending their server market share they would have decided to go for desktop performance? It probably wouldn't have mattered because they still lack the manufacturing capacity to sell enough, and Intel could easily undercut Core2 prices. Having just purchased ATI, AMD also needed the higher profit margins from selling scalable server processors, so going after desktop performance right away would have been a terrible move. I realize that the decision to improve scaling before performance isn't very popular with most of the computer enthusiasts, but really for AMD it was their only sane option. Before going after desktop performance/market share, they had to ensure their server market share was safe, thus Barcelona. It is commonly said that AMD has no answer to Nehalem, but in reality Nehalem is Intel's answer to Barcelona. Both chips have ironically similar features, and like Barcelona, Nehalem's only real performance improvement is going to be for multithreaded applications.

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
Your posts regarding marketing strategy always make tons of sense to me. Well thought out and logical(hence why i added you as friend )

another rep for you
Edited by kkbob33 - 6/17/08 at 6:49pm
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2...  Gigabyte MB Model : GA-890FXA-UD5, NB : AMD 89... Radeon HD 6850 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 775MHz 960 SPU... G.SKILL Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG EcoGreen F4 HD204UI 2TB 32MB Cache SATA... LG WH10LS30 10X Blu-ray Burner - LightScribe Su... XIGMATEK LOKI SD963 92mm HYPRO Bearing CPU Cooler  Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Hanns-G 28'' 3ms Full HD 1080P 1920 x 1200LCD M... Samsung 19" 1440x900 Envision 22" 1680x1050 RAZER Lycosa Black USB Wired Gaming Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
TOPOWER Galaxis MX Series GAPS-500MX 500W ATX12... COOLER MASTER Storm Scout RAZER DeathAdder Precision Optical Gaming Mouse... RocketFish (Speed+Control) 
Audio
Altec Lansing VS4221 2.1 35 Watts Three-Piece C... 
  hide details  
Reply
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2...  Gigabyte MB Model : GA-890FXA-UD5, NB : AMD 89... Radeon HD 6850 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 775MHz 960 SPU... G.SKILL Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG EcoGreen F4 HD204UI 2TB 32MB Cache SATA... LG WH10LS30 10X Blu-ray Burner - LightScribe Su... XIGMATEK LOKI SD963 92mm HYPRO Bearing CPU Cooler  Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Hanns-G 28'' 3ms Full HD 1080P 1920 x 1200LCD M... Samsung 19" 1440x900 Envision 22" 1680x1050 RAZER Lycosa Black USB Wired Gaming Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
TOPOWER Galaxis MX Series GAPS-500MX 500W ATX12... COOLER MASTER Storm Scout RAZER DeathAdder Precision Optical Gaming Mouse... RocketFish (Speed+Control) 
Audio
Altec Lansing VS4221 2.1 35 Watts Three-Piece C... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
It's really all about how AMD had to prioritize decisions on how to compete with the Core marchitecture. I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with the statement "Core2 slaughters any K8." Now people tend to think that to get "back in the game", AMD would have needed to have an answer to Core2. However this isn't necessarily true. Even when AMD CPUs were performance kings, they still lacked the production capacity to really penetrate the desktop market. The most sensible thing they could do is ensure that they keep as much of their server market share as possible. This was the purpose of Barcelona. AMD knew that as long as Intel relied upon a FSB that their CPU scaling would not be good. They had the advantage with the IMC and they had to hold on to it. While Barcelona does offer a singlethreaded performance-per-clock advantage over K8, the real beneifts are multithreaded performance. This doesn't really help with desktop performance at the moment, but for servers it means everything.

What if instead of defending their server market share they would have decided to go for desktop performance? It probably wouldn't have mattered because they still lack the manufacturing capacity to sell enough, and Intel could easily undercut Core2 prices. Having just purchased ATI, AMD also needed the higher profit margins from selling scalable server processors, so going after desktop performance right away would have been a terrible move. I realize that the decision to improve scaling before performance isn't very popular with most of the computer enthusiasts, but really for AMD it was their only sane option. Before going after desktop performance/market share, they had to ensure their server market share was safe, thus Barcelona. It is commonly said that AMD has no answer to Nehalem, but in reality Nehalem is Intel's answer to Barcelona. Both chips have ironically similar features, and like Barcelona, Nehalem's only real performance improvement is going to be for multithreaded applications.

Really AMD's transition from K8 to K10.5 is remarkably similar to Intel's transition from Netburst to Nehalem. Both transitions would bring improved single-threaded performance and improved scaling. AMD chose to go after scaling first, thus K10 and Intel went with single-threaded, thus Conroe. Now, it's reversed and Intel is improving scaling with Nehalem and AMD aims to improve their single-threaded performance with Shanghai/K10.5.
Well said; but dont forget about their strategy of acquiring ATI and being able to create and sell their own platforms .
> Scotland
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE ASUS M4A89GTD 9600GT OC G.SKILL Ripjaws 4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD Cavier Black Lite-On SATA DVD+RW Windows 7 Professional Samsung BX2335 + Samsung 2253BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft FSP FX600-GLN-E Aspire X-Cruiser Razer Diamondback 3G 
Mouse Pad
Wacom Intuios 4 Medium 
  hide details  
Reply
> Scotland
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE ASUS M4A89GTD 9600GT OC G.SKILL Ripjaws 4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD Cavier Black Lite-On SATA DVD+RW Windows 7 Professional Samsung BX2335 + Samsung 2253BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft FSP FX600-GLN-E Aspire X-Cruiser Razer Diamondback 3G 
Mouse Pad
Wacom Intuios 4 Medium 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lelouch View Post
Well said; but dont forget about their strategy of acquiring ATI and being able to create and sell their own platforms .
QFT... I can't wait to see their own chipset optimized for servers.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Anandtech] Sixteen Cores, Four Sockets