What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
91 Comments
- drmangrum, on 03/07/2008, -2/+51AMD has lost a lot of momentum. They've gone from the spunky up-and-comer to almost forgotten outside of geek circles. I just hope they don't go under. It's AMD that's forcing Intel to progress.
- OrangeTide, on 03/07/2008, -4/+45Because we're afraid what Intel will do if they don't have any serious competition.
- GOVATENT, on 03/07/2008, -3/+36I used to be a hardcore AMD fan. All my computer run on AMD cpu's. But I built a intel quad core pc and it runs very nice. I have not used AMD's cpu but i hear that it is nothing compared to intel's. I don't care. AMD to me will do better at some point. (They better not let me down)
- FortyCaliber, on 03/07/2008, -0/+16MS Paint
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/07/2008, -3/+17Unfortunately the Intel quads have much more potential than the Phenoms. I know performance is similar in quad apps, but c'mon, the X2 6400+ beats the Phenoms in gaming! Especially considering the Q6600 is essentially an E6600 with two additional cores. The Intels have much more overclockability and can yield much more performance. Especially since AM2+ boards are more expensive than a good P35 board on the Intel side.
- CCB0x45, on 03/07/2008, -2/+16Every time I compile something, programming...
every time you run multiple applications at once..? What are you trying to prove, 4 cores is bad? - UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/07/2008, -0/+13Apparently that's not fast enough, because they're sold out everywhere.
- trogdor282, on 03/07/2008, -3/+15GIGAHERTZ DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODBYE! -Morbo
- Chadrew, on 03/07/2008, -3/+15No big deal, Intel always were the bigger company.
- MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -1/+12Handbrake ripping, if you want a truly common use. It makes a HUGE difference.
- MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -2/+11processors built - processors sold = processors available
You do the math. - yournightmare, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8OT, but I used to work at Intel. I worked in R&D, developing and implementing the manufacturing processes for new chips. Besides enjoying the actual work, I liked working for Intel. Best company I've ever worked for. Excellent benefits, great corporate culture. It's the only company I've worked for that I would recommend other people to go work for. If that kind of work is something you're interested in, do yourself a favor and apply at Intel--you won't be disappointed.
- dinostabOMG, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8I don't know what all this schadenfreude towards AMD is about. Do people really think we'd be better off without competition?
- EXreaction, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8AMD still has the low cost dual core I'd say. $50 for an X2 3800+, which is more than enough for probably 75% of users.
Plus you can build a very cheap and decent gaming system with it. $150 for cpu+mobo+2gb ram, $200 for a gpu, $200 for a case, psu, hdd, dvd-rw. You would have a pretty nice gaming system for about $550, and to get a system more than a few percent faster you would have to spend a few hundred more. - MrTulip, on 03/07/2008, -0/+7blender and indigo raytracing, water and cloth sim baking etc
- Lasereth, on 03/07/2008, -1/+8AMD controls the $150 market. Simple. All these people saying AMD sux Intel rox aren't doing their homework because AMD is not out of the game and hasn't ever been. They simply control different price segments.
- Captbob007, on 03/07/2008, -2/+9If Intel is making so many of these processors per day, howcome they are nowhere to be found? Newegg has been out of stock for like the past 2 weeks...
- inactive, on 03/07/2008, -1/+7Not anymore. Not with the quads. Not with AMDs that can't handle overclocks and Intels that outperform them like crazy.
- Helicobacter, on 03/07/2008, -1/+7Now is a critical point: If everyone shifts to Intel CPUs it will catalize the following: AMD doesn't get enough cash=> not enough R&D=> Intel gets way ahead => AMD goes Bankrupt => Intel will have no competition => No innovation or progression of Moore's law
- Railz, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5What. These chips go into National Defense System Computers, Space Exploration Vehicles, etc. Trust me, faster is better, even if the average consumer doesn't need it.
- barl0w, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5> Intel making smaller transistors doesn't mean they are ahead
I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. Why make smaller transistors if there is no benefit? In fact, there are huge benefits. One is power consumption, and the other is speed. Intel is also manufacturing their transistors with a completely different bonding process that allows the electrical signals to transfer faster in the smaller package. It is a revolution.
>price to performance ratio
Price to performance is important, but it's not the end-all, be all. Also while gaming rigs are important and do fuel some of the key development, it's really the business users (servers) that Intel is developing for. It's the lower-power and better performance that companies are demanding at this time, as the concentration of datacenters moves from the cost of hardware to the cost of power and cooling. That's why so many hardware companies have got on the "Green IT" bandwagon. - zephyr42, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5AMD has me torn as well between my long love and the hot new fast chip on the block, who is better in about any way you can think *except price*. I really really hope AMD swings around, if they get their architecture down on 45nm they'd own the power consumption and heat output market.
- arsenic0, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5You must not be familiar with how they ship..
Most volume in the beginning goes to the OEM's..Dell's, HP's, etc...all of these OEM's already have platforms fully made just waiting for the processor and a few other parts to be able to ship their product.
Obviously Intel has to please these customers first, because they are the ones buying in huge volume to sell to the mass market.
Eventually though in the next few weeks i am sure NewEgg will be stocked full of them. - trogdor282, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4IBM and AMD already work together on their die process. It's in both their interests to keep out of each other's market segments.
- TnTBass, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Intel is making some pretty damn good CPUs these days. I love my AMD chips, and I would rather see that company succeed, but I'll go where the performance is. If that means I run an AMD quad core because they come out cheaper for the same performance, fine. However, I'm not going to use AMD just cause I like them better. I go for the performance.
- barl0w, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5With the latest screw up from AMD, I'm afraid that it's going to take them much longer to recover than Intel did with their Pentium bug. Their resources and marketing machine is just not as big, and the customers that had signed on to their Barcelona early are now starting to leave in droves, as Intel continues to release 45nm chips, keep wattage use to their promised and advertised amount (unlike AMD), and are outperforming all competition.
I had guessed that it was going to take AMD the rest of this year to stage their comeback, but scratch that. I've seen way too much on the customer end, and it's going to take ALL of next year until they can possibly come back, if they do. I love AMD and glad that the market has competition and choice. Without it we'd all be getting royally screwed by Intel. But, hands-down, Intel is a better-run operation with quality products and people because of their investments in related technologies OTHER than just CPU's. AMD just can't branch out fast enough to create better stability at this time. AMD won't be going away, but they won't win this either, at least for the next few years. - UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/07/2008, -4/+8"It's AMD that's forcing Intel to progress."
For a shining example of this, look at the upcoming GeForce 9 series. Absolutely nothing new being brought to the table. Surprisingly, I bet that ATi's HD4000 series (~June 2008?) will blow the 9-series away. Wouldn't that be exciting? - moofer, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Hector Ruiz will always find a way to let you down.
- gilbes, on 03/07/2008, -7/+10Why exactly are "all" of us awaiting AMDs comeback?
- Railz, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3***** Blender used all four then some. >_>
- ufee, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Back in 2006, I was drooling over a comparable X2 priced at $300. Funny that it's low end now.
- theendlessnow, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3FUD.
It is well known that AMD produces almost that many press releases per day about their 45nm chips.
Get the whole story next time. - Pake, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2AMD has nothing on the price:performance ratio of the new E8XXX line.
- GOVATENT, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2That was not cool. I don't like intel but that was a cheap shot. I don't make fun of intel, i respect both intel and AMD. Even tho I have more respect for AMD. AMD is just a bit behind tho, but with fans like us, they will at some point catch up. (As they announce they are quiting the cpu market) This joke from an AMD fan.
- homer4199, on 03/07/2008, -7/+9Cost per performance is what always wins me over and AMD always beats Intel.
- GOVATENT, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Funny, I was going to say blender as well. lol. I do a lot of 3d stuff with blender. So ya, i found the quad core a lot faster than a 3 computer render farm. Also, my friend has a dual quad machine, you should see that thing render.
- Stevethegreat, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Actually it IS a big deal. Now that AMD is practically dead, expect Intel to start overpricing its products, widthen the refresh cycle and -worse of all- start putting out multiple -new- sockets for its processors, we'll turn back -in other words- to the good old days of Intel tyranny when a new CPU meant a new mobo (each and every time!) and Celeron were like 300 bucks. As a matter of fact, Intel already preps their two new sockets which would exist in parallel (!!) for mainstream desktop CPUs (different mobos for using processors of the same generation ?!), no wonder that gamers are abandoning the platform....
- XTX7X, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Indeed. I saw this earlier today and it nearly made me cry.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2-9-GHZ-X2-INTEL-CORE-2-DUO-77 ...
For those too busy to read, the guy was selling an e4300 (1.86 GHz stock if my memory serves me) which he had been able to overclock to 2.9 GHz. He branded it as a 5.8 GHz Core 2 Duo. - inactive, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2The key will be Fusion versus Nehalem. If AMD doesn't deliver at this point THEN we can start talking about AMD being in trouble.
- davidrools, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2They're all going to HP/Dell/Acer/Apple/etc.
- jayzeus, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Someone posted this about AMD:
http://digg.com/hardware/A_M_D_Cuts_Time_Needed_to ... - Haphazardness, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2I've got an e8400 with no problems whatsoever in an Asus Maximus Formula(needed a simple bios update first though). I've had it overclocked with a slightly upgraded cpu cooler from 3.0 to 3.6 and still runs at 38-42c under load. I hear people have been overclocking them to 4.0 with the the stock cooler.
- TimDigg, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Really I was thinking they had to come out with more colorful ones....
/just being an ass ignore me - entity447, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1so when will I be able to buy one... it's been out of stock for weeks
- davidrools, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1my bad. got confused with the 45W TDP.
- robbiemuffin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1lol! :) well thank you, that is the math.
- glue, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1I've heard the E8400 is having problems so I was considering a Q6600. I'm also not entirely sure there's a decent, affordable motherboard that handles 45nm without screwing with the bios. So, I wait.
- fuze44, on 03/07/2008, -2/+3Good grief, why are you getting dug down? AMD is a computer user's best friend regardless if they use AMD chips. AMD's mere presence in the market keeps Intel from charging even more for their procs.
- Misos, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1I give much kudos to AMD - if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't be where we are in the market today. The same thing could be said about Intel, but AMD has been known and marketed as having better-priced CPUs - that's a good thing (on AMD's part). Fact is, tho, Intel chips and boards are damned good value if one doesn't have to penny pinch.
If someone wanted a system for $200 and wouldn't budge beyond that, I'd go AMD. For the $40-50 chip range, AMD has it. Intel has nothing comparable to AMD in that price range. But higher-up...
If one is willing to spend $300 or more on a system, Intel is the best investment. I recently built a $380 system with an E2180 and a Gigabyte P35-DS3L, and am completely happy with it. If quad cores ever dip to around $100 a pop, I'll grab one. Until then, a dual-core 2.0ghz chip OCed to 2.6ghz is perfectly capable of handling the few games I play, and day to day applications.
I'd like to see AMD 'reign' has it had a few years earlier. They need to get their mobile processors up to par, tho, in order for that to happen. - CanIGetAWitness, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1"having problems" is rather vague, but the q6600 was my second choice, it's just that my apps won't do much with a quad and I'm past the benchmark bragging rights stage. The q6600 is coming down in $ compared to the 45nm over pricing, but not when I bought my e8400. I put an e8400 on a GA-P35-DS4 rev 2.1 ($165) with an F8 bios and the cpu was recognized, I was somewhat surprised since the F11 bios is the one you need to use the cpu. "screwing" with the bios is a way of life with new tech, if it makes you nervous, buy a Dell.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is