Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

AMD announces tri-core, tweaked quad-core Phenoms CPUs

reghardware.co.uk — AMD has formally unwrapped its three-core Phenom X3 8000 series, along with new versions of its existing quad-core Phenom X4 processors, now known as the 9050 line.Interestingly, the The 8650 is 27 per cent faster than the 6000+ at converting an "HD video file" to a mobile screen-sized MPEG 4 file.

Bury

optimusprime01 50 days ago, made popular 50 days ago

754 diggs
digg it

130 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

stejules, on 03/27/2008, -25/+5I've been waiting for this message long time ago. THX! But which quad is better AMD or Intel?
Greetinx Ste!
- Mootabolife, on 03/27/2008, -3/+14Intel by a long shot in performance. Intel by a little in price.
  - spudnic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9AMD really needs to pull something out the bag soon, having no competition in the processor market would be a very bad thing.
    - applemachome, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4maybe software developers would design efficient code.
    - prophetpimp, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1To be honest we don't need faster processor any more. What we need is more efficient processors.
  - warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6The new top of the line AMD chip is £30 cheaper than the bottom line Intel chip and its unlocked so I would say there is a slight price advantage to AMD at the moment and its bigger if you consider that the motherboards cost less than equivalent intel versions.
- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2What the hell does "Greetinx Ste!" mean?
Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -5/+38Translated by Google: AMD desparately releases a few more mediocre, budget-priced chips in hopes to scratch up enough cash to stay in business.

I used to be a huge AMD fan as the Opterons were decimating Intel in the server space. Since the XEON 5100 series tho, AMD hasn't had so much as a deent competitor, and they can barely compete on price. Intel has taken anothen round, and AMD is doing everything it can to hang in there.
- kingmanic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+23The loss of competition can only be bad for us. I have never been a AMD fan but recently did a bunch of low end orders for AMD powered computers to help them stay afloat. The systems aren't' critical, Performance wasn't an issue, and without the competition of another CPU vendor in the consumer space Intel would slow their innovation to pad their profit margin. If it wasn't for AMD I wouldn't have my Core 2 Quad 6600. so I'll throw AMD some business so they both keep pushing themselves.
- warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -1/+10Considering the relative size of AMD its pretty impressive they are keeping it up, and the majority of the markey don't buy top of the line they buy the budget gear and if AMD can sell competive chips at the normal price they will turn a profit, if they can match performance with intel at the £100-150 mark I will happily go with AMD as they have the advantage in motherboards in price and performance.
Skull0Inc, on 03/27/2008, -5/+14AMD strike back!
- ChefAnubis, on 03/27/2008, -7/+3and fails!
- cheezintern, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Too little, too late...AMD is years behind intel at this point. Intel's looking to be releasing an 8 core chip on a 45nm wafer later this year, meanwhile AMD is just releasing (slower) quad cores finally on 65nm wafers.
  - caleb4mj, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I think you're right. Besides, the cheapest dual-core is more than fast enough for everything I need today. I would love to buy quad cores and upgrade, but I don't see a compelling reason to spend more money on this generation of tech. I'll wait until marketing convinces me this time. Good luck.
    - antdude, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1For me, I want for gaming. If I didn't game, I would use my single core AMD Athlon 64.
- InorganicMatter, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I believe you meant:
  
  AMD strike out!
- L.Jenkins, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Someone help me out here. I see everyone bashing AMD here vs. Intel. I've been on Newegg all day trying to choose a new processor, the AMD 6000+ shows specs of 3.0 ghz, and costs about $100 less than the Intel e6600 which shows 2.4 ghz. Both chips have about 90% 5 eggs on Newgg. So what makes the Intel chips $100 better than the AMD?
  - shank2001, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2 The Q6600 blows the 6000+ out of the water, and well worth the extra 83 bucks (just looked on newegg). Quad core VS dual core, and look up some benchmarks. No comparison. Not even in the same league! Don't go on GHz ratings....they are meaningless anymore. My really old 2.4GHz Pentium 4 could not hold a candle to even one core of a core 2 duo running at 2.4, so pointless to compare that spec anymore, except within processor families.
LimeParrot, on 03/27/2008, -5/+26This is a perfect opportunity to ask a totally unrelated question I've always wondered about... (Keep in mind this is coming from a total computer illiterate...) Remember when newer CPU's would just have higher and higher MHz and eventually GHz? What made the computer companies change direction and go with multiple cores? I know you can read up on it on, say, wikipedia, but it's too confusing. Would be nice to get a bottom-line answer from a fellow digger. Thanks! *sorry about off-topic-ness*
- ExRe, on 03/27/2008, -1/+41Because slower, more efficient cores were faster for most applications, used less energy, and put out less heat.
  
  You can see the utter failure Intel had with Netburst at the end of it's life. The Prescott and Pentium D's sucked, and AMD was mopping the floor with them with much slower clocked and overall much better cores.
- bigblackclock, on 03/27/2008, -4/+55Bottlenecks.
  
  Imagine a 5 lane freeway converging into a single lane. Increasing the GHZ would be like sending more cars down the freeway to solve the problem.
  
  Introducing more cores is like adding more lanes to the highway.
  - blackdude, on 03/27/2008, -10/+4I liked that analogy, are you a teacher? I literally read this a couple times, nice man.
  - jamesdew, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14not really, increasing the GHz would be like making the cars travel faster
    - webRat, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3No, it'd be like sending more cars down the lane. More cars = More heat.
      - jamesdew, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2that doesnt make any sense, faster engine speeds = more heat but anyway I dont think the point of this analogy is to explain the heat factor.
        
        The point is that the lanes represent parallel processing with each lane representing a processor
      - lateralus, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4but are any of the cars hybrid?
    - Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Ok, if we're following the car analogy. A netburst machine running at 3.8 GHz is like a single lane freeway with cars travelling at 380 mph. Occasionally, there is a crash (failed branch prediction.) The entire mess of cars have to be moved before the lane can open again. Keep in mind that even the best prediction algs fail quite often. Now, picture yourself on a four lane freeway where the cars can only travel 220mph. If there is a crash on one lane, the cars that are caught behind the crash just move to the next less populous ane without much drama and execution continues much more quickly than if it were on a sinle, extremely fast moving lane.
    - dudefaceguyman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, more speed on a single lane highway = WRECKS
      
      Now we should have the best of both worlds. More speed and more lanes! MUAHAHA
  - Neoanarchist, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15Actually increasing GHz is increasing speed, so it would be like increasing the speed at which the cars could travel down the highway which in turn would result in higher output. However, the rest of your analogy is fine. Although Dell's product magazine has had this analogy for years.
    - iofthestorm, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Gah, you're both right but he's more right, ghz=frequency=how many cars per second, which is directly related to speed.
      - jamesdew, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1yes but he implies that running a processor faster is like jamming an already busy road with more cars, thus making things worse which is completly the wrong idea.
        It may be a better option to add another processor than increase Mhz but increased processor speed isnt going to hurt
- chanop, on 03/27/2008, -5/+13can't increase GHZ or MHZ anymore with the material that the chips are made of
  - Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Can't make lemonade from rocks on sunday. . .
  - MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5This is the right answer. It really is not about bottlenecks or heat. It is just that anymore increasing of frequency would make such big chips unstable. This is coming from a computer engineer.
    - chanop, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1ssssshhhh, let them believe in the bottlenecks. I worked for a semiconductor fab for quiet a long time, let them tell me i dont know what i'm talking about, and digg me down
  - com2, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Don't worry 3M's working on it.
- Dopeness, on 03/27/2008, -13/+1Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the reason why they don't just continue on with higher MHz and GHz is because they are having trouble breaking MHZ barriers.
  - matthewf01, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Intel basically was hitting their thermal wall with the I believe 3.6Ghz Prescott... they couldn't make their processors run that fast without totally destroying themselves from heat. So they rethought their "up the clock speed" approach, and took a more AMD-like approach of slower-clocked, but more efficient-per-clock-cycle processors. Adding more cores again, increases efficiency because 4x the data per clock can be processed at a lower speed, and still make for an overall performance gain.
  - MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1This is true. Not sure why you are getting dugg down.
    - CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Moores law.
- halobender, on 03/27/2008, -12/+2I hear it was miniaturization they couldn't make them smaller and thus faster so they had to bundle them together.
- KillSudo, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17The simple answer is heat. Pushing clock speeds with our current technology led to massive heatsinks and hundred + watt chips. They kinda decided that they could fit 2, 4, 6, 8 etc cores on a chip at 2-3ghz per core and this would lead to much better performance for end users. Most people use their pc to multi-task not run just one single application at an insane rate.
  - Mist0r_Wiggles, on 03/27/2008, -8/+1oh I run Crysis, and it is at an INSANE rate constantly, none stop, I tried to slow it down, but it said "***** You" and ran even faster.
  - MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Heat is really not the issue. think about it when add more cores, you are increasing the heat. Adding an extra core would increase the heat by 70 -80%
    - Spuy767, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Ur bad. That is patently false.
- theblt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+16If you remember a few years ago, this is what Intel was doing, while AMD was focusing more on the actual structure of the CPU. That was an odd time in computing as we were no longer measuring performance in GHz, but rather per CPU depending on the benchmarks. That's when AMD took the lead and Intel finally had to get off its ass and create something new instead of just "pushing the GHz".
  
  The problem with just pushing the GHz up higher is that it eventually creates a lot of heat, also you can only push it so far before the chip just becomes unstable. So Intel did a bit of research and actually went back to a structure similar Pentium 3's. It produces less heat, and is just more efficient overall. I'm not sure what sparked the multiple cores, maybe partially due to the research done by Sony/Toshiba with the Cell processor.
  
  Overall, it seems to me while Intel was ahead a several years ago, it was because they were the only dog on the block and they didn't have to innovate. They just pushed the FSB and people were happy. AMD came along, took the crown, Intel finally decided to do some innovations. They found that multiple cores are more efficient as tasks can be delegated to each core. Unfortunately, just as the 64-bit architecture, developers aren't taking advantage of these new features. It's rare that you'll find an application that seriously takes advantage of a quad-core CPU. Hopefully that day comes soon.
  - asdfrewq, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3The thing about 64bit computing is even though a large portion of the market may be running 64bit hardware, the majority are still only using 32bit operating systems. Without a 64bit operating system, the hardware is useless. Multicore processors, on the other hand, can be utilized on any modern operating system and since both intel and AMD appear to have declared multicore the way of the future, software vendors will have no choice but to keep up.
    - BelatedHero, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Could someone explain what exactly 64-bit computing is in a nutshell? I still don't fully understand what this means, is it just a completely different cpu architecture?
    - Harabeck, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4a 32-bit processor works in 32-bit chunks at a time. A 64 works in 64 bit chunks at a time. Which is why for a while amd processors were much faster even though they had less Ghz
      - kronix2, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5AMD's CPUs were faster because their cores were more efficient, and they had an integrated memory controller.
        
        It has nothing to do with x64 support.
  - Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2AMD both caused to the MHz race and ended it.
- deviouskoopa, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4After the answers by ExRe and bigblackclock, no further explanations were/are needed. Continuing speculations regarding MHz barriers and miniaturization are pointless.
- Marglar, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Heat and materials and size are limitations to the speed. Cores sit idle for 90%+ of most modern applications, so it's really wasteful technology. They are just releasing more and more gimmicky processors with few ways to utilize all they have to offer in the mean time..
  - MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2It is true, the way today's applications are written they do not make much use of multiple cores. engineers are hoping that eventually software will get written such that they spawn multiple threads, which can make use of the multiple cores. Until then with multi-core chips you really only have a potential for extra performance.
- bryxal, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2The real reason is because they can't anymore, the technology just doesn't allow it. Heat dissipation and voltage"leakage" make it so that they can't do that anymore so they need to find more ways to increase performance. While Dual Cores are useful More than 2 is not as useful in many situations (for consumer application).
- warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1There is a limit to how fast you can make them without using too much power and generate obscene amounts of heat so what they did was concentrate more on how to do more with the speed you have(AMDs ideaology with the Athlons) rather than more speed at all costs(Intel Pentium 4s) there was more headroom to get power in increasing effeciency than there was in making them faster so Intel eventually went that way as well with core2 and with their money and facilities behind it they made the performance leap we saw with the new processors.
- dcmjzero, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3few reasons:
  1. pushing to higher clock speeds was starting to cause problems. heat was a major one. and intel found out that higher clock speeds do not always make up for a poorly designed chip. the pentium 4 was the major example of both of these problems.
  2. it was the obvious next step. people have been putting multiple cpus in computers for a while. they were just on separate chips. it is more cost effective to put them on the same chip because they take up less space. other chip architectures had been doing this for a while (like arm).
  3. this one is just the reverse of #1. to make chips actually perform faster required them to make smarter designs, not just use a higher clock speed. for a long time an amd cpu with a low clock speed would out perform an intel chip with a high one. with the new core (and core 2) architecture, this is no longer the case. they did this by shortening the pipeline, adding memory on the dye, and using better branch prediction.
  4. amd was advertising more performance per watt. this was true because lower clock speeds use less electricity. having 1 chip instead of 2 saves on power.
  - Matty007, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Not sure if people remember this, but the reason server type motherboards have more then 1 spot for processors and home desktops only have one is because Windows requires a licenses for every processor on the board, and knowing that nobody would purchase extra copies of Windows, Intel decided to put several cores onto one chip, which gets around that problem. Not because it was more efficient to do so.
- xenuxenuts, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2First some background. Over all speed is affected by clock speed (GHz) and how much work the cpu can do per clock cycle (Instructions per Clock cycle -- IPC). To double the IPC requires more than doubling the size (# of transistors) of the cpu because it has to figure out what instructions it can do at the same time. Not only does mean increasing the IPC makes the chip more expensive to make, it also means there's more transistors generating heat. But probably the biggest factor is as those cpus get more complicated, it takes more effort to verify that everything works correctly.
  
  As far as clock speed goes, cpus use pipelining, which is like an assembly line. Basically, one stage will fetch the next instruction, the next (several) will decode it, then some will schedule it with other instructions, then several stages will execute it or read/write to memory, then a stage or 2 will write the results to the register file and complete it. As you add more stages, you can increase the clock speed, but there are cases where you have ditch all of the work in the pipeline and start all over (mis-predicted branches). As you make your pipeline deeper, as in the P4, that really eats into the over all speed (and ups the energy usage) because you're throwing away a sizable amount of work. And, the more stages you add, the more transisters you have to devote to keeping track of all those instructions that are in it. You also have some overhead, so doubling the number of pipeline stages doesn't mean you'll double the clock speed of the cpu.
  
  So, right now we're at the point where it makes more sense to have 2, 3, 4 etc cores on the die.
- LimeParrot, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Thanks a lot guys; very well articulated. =)
algorhythmix, on 03/27/2008, -3/+27This has kind of started to feel like Razors ...2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 ..
- dracflamloc, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6i dont know why you are dugg down for that. its a pretty amusing analogy
  - jhshukla, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2what happened to cars?
- Harabeck, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I think there are diminishing returns on both though. I read somewhere much past 8 cores wont be worth it.
Dopeness, on 03/27/2008, -11/+2AMD needs to get their ***** together. Releasing Tri-Core CPUs after releasing Quad?
- TechCF, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8The tricore is there to replace the dual cores
  - jsuther, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6No the tri-cores are quads processors. Quad prcessors in which one of the three cores doesn't meet spec so it is disabled and sold as a tri-core. This increases yields by AMD and lowers the cost of quad core processors. You will likely only see tri-cores from AMD because they have native quad core on the die where Intel has a pair of dual cores on a single die. If Intel was to do the same thing they would need to sell their partial bad quad cores as a dual cores because of they way they make chips.
badqat, on 03/27/2008, -5/+7Still not enough...AMD needs to lead in performance, and quit playing catch up without actually catching Intel.
- warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Easy to say, but AMD are a small company and Intel a big one, they had an advantage in some brilliant engineers and surprise before now Intel looked at what they did and learned the lesson they won't soon make the same mistake again.
Shadowgamers, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2But will they be able to catch up to Intel with this is what I want to know...
digdug2008, on 03/27/2008, -2/+10Here we go, AMD Vs Intel wars...
- Cockslap, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Well, right now its a one sided battle between a 6 year old and mike tyson.... not a very fun war if you ask me.
  - lnxfi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Speak for yourself. I'd pay to see that.
Cory70, on 03/27/2008, -15/+4AMD STILL /FAILS
NeoNevermore, on 03/27/2008, -1/+10Finally! Some decent competition with Intel.
I prefer Intel chips but we always need to see some competition... it would help boost productivity and lower prices. The last thing I would want is having no options.
kingo123, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6OMG this is what we all have been waiting for */end sarcasm .

I know things are tough for AMD, but I hope they make some more stronger strides in their new generation of processors. At the moment, it's very hard to justify buying a AMD processor.

Also, rumour has it (and I mean rumour - UK spelling) that AMD are lowering their investment into processor development and focusing on investing in the graphical marketplace with their newly acquired ATI brand.
- MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Actually what most people do not realize is that most appilcations cannot make use of multiple cores unless you are running multiple applications at a time. So i can see why they would want to de-emphasize on just putting cores together and invest in graphics which has proved to be very profitable because of gamers.
  - TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2true but who doesn't run firefox(with 10 tabs open), utorrent, some java stuff on the web(say yahoo pool), some video/photo media and a media player all at once...thats not uncommon for me...
rexprime, on 03/27/2008, -13/+2[This is a perfect opportunity to ask a totally unrelated question I've always wondered about... (Keep in mind this is coming from a total computer illiterate...) Remember when newer CPU's would just have higher and higher MHz and eventually GHz? What made the computer companies change direction and go with multiple cores? I know you can read up on it on, say, wikipedia, but it's too confusing. Would be nice to get a bottom-line answer from a fellow digger. Thanks! *sorry about off-topic-ness*]

think of it like widening a road from 1 lane to 2 or even 4 lanes, the speed limit is the same but you are no longer stuck behind granny in the pinto going 30 in a 40mph zone so traffic can go faster.
- legendxx, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6learn to use the reply button
NeoPlatonist, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I built my computer back when AMD was smoking Intel with an Athlon X2, but the way things are going my next computer will have a Core 2 Duo. (Quads are out of my budget and, frankly, I doubt I will need that kind of performance for a few years still)
- spudnic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5There isn't a huge difference in price between the dual and quad cores to be honest, and they are more future-proof.
  - tomz17, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Agreed on the price, but disagree on the future proof.
    
    Please stop using the word future-proof in terms of computers... After years of experience, my advice to people is to buy the computer product that works best for you today (financially, performance-wise, etc.), in a year or two both choices will be about equally obsolete.
- halobender, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3The Athlon X2 is a good processor.
ColinZeal, on 03/27/2008, -8/+0Tri-core? Like driving in the wrong lane. More cores AMD, not core-less!
Sizzor, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4Too little, too late?
- hybridcreation, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Beat me to it.
  
  AMD is grasping at straws.
Ub3rL33ch, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Intel is still faster. Gonna be awhile before AMD bests Intel again.
Marglar, on 03/27/2008, -5/+8I bring this up in every multi-core dig I see. Most of us are aware that most modern apps (90% of them) hardly utilize a 2nd core, we don't need more idle cores, we need faster speeds.

Stop with the gimmicks (6 and 8 cores! woo) and increase the funds to your engineering and research and figure out how to get over the mid 3ghz hump.
- Hoover889, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9the mid 3 GHz hump is not caused by a problem in chip architecture, it is because of limitations in the speed that an electron can travel in a circuit. at 3 GHz an electron cannot travel more than 100cm between cycles, and that is assuming that the metal is superconductive in reality it travels closer to 75cm between cycles, multi core increases the time between cycles and sends data down different paths.
- webRat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13We don't need more idle cores or faster speeds. We need programs to start checking for other cores and taking advantage of them. :p
  - Marglar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I can agree with that... :)
  - ApokalypseNow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5That's a start, but don't forget that we do run more than one application at a time, even if we are not thinking about it. Even with a paltry dual-core setup, if you have one core handling Windows, anti-virus, background email, and mp3 player, you can have the whole second core dealing with whatever you're actually working on. I agree though, we do need more multi-threaded applications.
- KillSudo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually no, I like my powerful efficient quiet quad-core. Also most of the apps that matter already take advantage of multi-threading. Nero Recode and Winrar are two examples of programs normal people can use already. I find my most limiting factor is the harddrive. Even when using a raid 0 or 750gb High Density drive you always end up waiting on it. Quad-Core rules for the simple fact I can run my virus scan, Torrent, Usenet, burn a Dual-Layer dvd at 6x, and re-encode video while playing Call of Duty 4. :P Q6600 overclocks to 3.0ghz fairly easy if you know what you are doing.
- KillSudo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1http://www.denniskarlsson.com/smp/
  
  http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=854892
  
  Browse through those two lists and see if you use any of those applications. You may be surprised.
- MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1or they could invest in writting applications that are multi-threaded.
theblt, on 03/27/2008, -3/+7Wasn't this news on Tom's Hardware like 2 months ago? Or is this something new that I'm not getting?

Essentially these are AMD's quad-cores with a defective core that they electronically disable, then sell as a tri-core.
- Psythik, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6Well the Core 2 Solo is just a C2D with a defective core...
dmadip, on 03/27/2008, -8/+2haha.. .tri core... DID they miss the Intel Press release about Quad Cores? oh wait that was a year ago.... weak
- rohanch, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Do you really believe AMD doesn't have Quad-core already too? Even if you thought they didn't, if you had actually read the article, you'd see they do.
  
  And Intel has recently announced tri-core processors too. It's because they're cheaper than quad-core and therefore easier to sell and more useful for home users.
BryanG412, on 03/27/2008, -12/+1AMD sucks
- BruceDude, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6No. They're just behind Intel now.
  
  Its always good to have competition. The companies constantly compete for your money by cutting prices to make more sales and coming out with more products.
leerayIG88, on 03/27/2008, -3/+9i love my turtle.
BruceDude, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5FINALLY.

Now let's see those 45nm Quads!
Colindean, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Excellent review and benchmarks at http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424
Foxcow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6AMD v. Intel. The war is cyclical.
tfox2k1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7AMD is in bad shape. Intel has completely taken over the high end processor market. I believe the only thing keeping AMD alive is the console market.

The .45nm Penryn chips are simply amazing and it will be at least a year before AMD even releases a .45 based upon their previous performance.

I hope AMD survives, Intel is already inflating their prices.
- ipodman715, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1.45nm would be very small.
- betacmag4u, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Look at the top 10 super computers in the world all AMD or IBM .........
DeFex, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Celeron has new competition!
DeFex, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually it is nice they unlocked the black edition on the upper multipliers. it may compete quite well in real useage with a Q6600 and its cheaper. a down side is the chipset you have to use with it.
barf314, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9They would sell millions if they just named the individual cores 'Power', 'Wisdom', and 'Courage'.
- ileftfark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"It's too dangerous to go alone! Take this!"
SecrtAgntMan, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3why do they even try???

AMD get this through your head, no matter how many GPU's and CPU's you make you will never beat Intel and Nvidia

Case and point-9800 GX2 and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
- outsider787, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6They try because they were #1 at one point not too long ago. I'm sure glad you're not working for AMD right now.
  They need all the positive thinking they can get, to catch up, and leap ahead.
  - SecrtAgntMan, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1yea but now nvidia/intel has the upperhand and it's gonna be a looong time before they can make a comeback that's what i think
- icewolf316, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6If they stopped trying then you would be paying much more for CPUs than you are now.
  - SecrtAgntMan, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1true but still the only thing that they are good for will be when they release a new GPU then the 9800 GX2 will drop in price
    
    they're only good for lowering prices is all
- pcpimpster, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Why do they try? AMD64, X2, 9800 Pro, in case your memory erases itself based on a rolling two year period.
  Back then AMD and ATI had the performance crowns, it would only be bad for us consumers if they stopped trying.
  Look for a middle priced forked CPU/GPU arch.(like: xbox 360) from AMDTI in the coming years that "could" shake up both markets.
  - SecrtAgntMan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1true if they didn't make it for the 360 it might not be at the price it is at today, TY eveyone for answering my question
sislam02, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4intel heats up faster and takes more energy, AMD is more reliable & more efficient

(source: intel seminar with college professors)
- icewolf316, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6That was true with Netburst architecture, which is obsolete right now.
iduridur07, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3It is easy to justify buying an AMD processor nowadays. The X2s are cheap and the 780g is made for an HTPC.
- lukemann, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2The x2 is more then ample enough for 90%+ of consumers. Hell if it wasn't for Vista most consumers would do fine using a 1.1 ghz P3. Doesn't take a lot of power to surf the web and type some documents. The high end x2's paired with a new NVidia card will do fine for any game release this year and probably even next. The only benefit of the quad core Intel is if you are doing multithreaded operations like encoding video. That is a very small segment of the market. I think AMD has lots of room to breath here. I currently own x2 3600 overclocked and a 2180 overclocked and am happy with both.
tsupersonic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes, yes AMD's processors aren't up to par against Intel's Core lineup. However, Intel won't let AMD die. They need them to stay in business otherwise they'd get tons of anti-trust
pyrates, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I think AMD's strategy of not including a lot of cache is hurting their performance. It's the only thing that makes sense in why converting the video to mpeg4 for mobile's was so fast. But it is slower against the older processor when the video is being converted to HD formats.
InorganicMatter, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2So how's that native quad core die working out for them?

Epic phailure.
garryw, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2the 45nm chips are just too darn nice to not buy.
- cbittle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Now if only I could see it... (/joke)
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

AMD announces tri-core, tweaked quad-core Phenoms CPUs

Login or register to add a comment