backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 142 comment(s) - last by Chocobollz.. on Jan 12 at 8:14 AM


AMD's Phenom II X4 940 in the wild  (Source: TweakTown)

AMD's Phenom II launch party will kick off Thursday with the launch of its first 45 nm processors.  (Source: techPowerUp!)
AMD is looking to take another shot at market leader Intel

With Intel's 45 nm Penryn dominating three and four core Phenom offerings, chipmaker AMD is desperate to do anything it can to cut into Intel's lead.  The first major change literally split the company in half, separating its manufacturing branches into a new company.

Now we're on the eve of the second major act from AMD:  the launch of the Phenom II lineup codenamed Deneb (4-core) and Heka (3-core).  With AMD debuting its new mobile platform this week, it looks to continue to make even more waves by announcing the first of its Phenom II processors this Thursday.

While details of this launch are currently under embargo, DailyTech received verbal confirmation from sources at AMD that the first of the Phenom II processors will be announced Thursday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

The new processors represent primarily a die shrink as AMD is finally adopting a 45 nm process a year after Intel released a 45 nm die shrink (Penryn) and a few months after Intel released its new Core i7 architecture.

Phenom II processors will feature a 3-digit naming scheme, with X4 for the four core editions and X3 branding for the three core editions.  The 4-core versions will have 8xx and 9xx model numbers, while the 3-core Heka Phenom IIs will have 7xx model numbers. 

The first of new processors will have a 4x512 KB L2 cache, and a 6 MB L3 cache for 8 MB of total cache.  They will come tomorrow, with the release of the Phenom II X4 920 and 940, high-end socket AM2+ processors clocked at 2.8 and 3.0 GHz, respectively.  The Phenom II X4 940 will feature C2 stepping.  In February the lineup is planned to be fleshed out with the release of more four core processors and some three core processors, all AM3 socket designs.  Among the coming models are mid-range X4 805 and X4 810, clocked at 2.5 GHz and 2.6 GHz.  These models will only feature 4 MB of L3 cache, but will also feature 4x512 KB of L2 cache.  Also debuting in February will be the X4 910 and X4 925, clocked at 2.6 GHz and 2.8 GHz, respectively.  These models will have 6 MB of L3 cache and 3x512 KB of L2 cache.

AMD will follow with a high-end AM3 socket quad core, the Phenom II X4 945, which will land late in Q2 2009.  Dual core plans are still up in the air, and new 45 nm dual cores likely will not arrive until the release of the much-delayed K10 architecture, AMD’s upcoming new architecture, which AMD says will come in late Q2 2009 or early Q3 2009.

While the launch of the Phenom II lineup represents AMD's first major launch since late 2007's Phenom launch, many question whether the new processors will be able to reverse the company's market share slide.  Early benchmarks, while suspect in quality, show the Phenom II outperformed by Intel i7 processors.  At high resolutions, the Phenom II may hold its own against Intel's designs due to the processing be graphics limited, but its competitiveness both in gaming and in other applications at stock speeds is in question.

Meanwhile, the folks at AMD tell DailyTech that one of the most exciting developments of the new lineup is its overclocking potential.  They say that the chips, which feature unlocked multipliers overclock very well at can be expected to run in the high 3 GHz range, or even higher with custom cooling solutions.  AMD claims that its chips will be significantly better overclockers than Nehalem.  Claims one AMD employee, "They were cooling with liquid nitrogen and got the things up 6, 7 GHz.  Crazy stuff."

Will AMD's overclocking potential save it from being overshadowed by the Intel i7's formidable out-the-box performance?  Only time will tell, but for those looking to get the scoop on the future of the microprocessor wars, Thursday will be a big day.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Core i7 Overclocking
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 4:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Will AMD's overclocking potential save it from being overshadowed by the Intel i7's formidable out-the-box performance?
Huh? Why would someone compare AMD OC to Intel non-OC performance? Core i7 overclocks quite well itself, so I don't see how Phenom II OC ability will give it a leg up on Core i7.




RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By clovell on 1/7/2009 4:51:06 PM , Rating: 5
Depends on their relative prices.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2009 4:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
Your right Its going to be priced very well to be competitive.

What I don't understand is if the chips overclock so well even on air cooling why not release higher clock speeds?


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By TomZ on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2009 6:07:08 PM , Rating: 3
I haven't heard of the i7 being a good overclocker but their low end i7 packs a lot of punch but also has to be paired with a pricey mobo and costly ram. Bang for dollar is good with the i7 low end but rather pricey when you add up all the components needed.

AMD Phenom II will be competitively priced on the cpu level to the low end i7 but can be paired with a fairly inexpensive priced mobo and dare I say nearly free ram. AMD really has the best mobo featured chipsets too for HTPC and light gamers. Previously AMD didnt have overclock potential really making Core 2 one of the best bangs for buck. With the overclock of Phenom II AMD really has a good alternative to Core 2. Given what AMD delivers on the Mobo's I might lean more toward AMD than an Intel Core 2 or Q6600 paired with an NVIDIA mobo. Wow tough call. I think consumers win this round thanks to AMD having a good CPU again.

Phenom II might not win the performance crown from the i7 but might pack the best bang for buck.

For the record my Main rig is an E8400 OC to 4ghz with Radeon 3870 on P45 Gigabyte mobo. My HTPC is a AMD 4850 45watt on Gigabyte 780g Mobo. My Beater/learner system is a AMD X2 4200+ on NVIDIA based ASUS mobo. Before someone says I am biased or a fanbois. Bang for buck baby!


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By FaceMaster on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/7/2009 6:55:58 PM , Rating: 5
Can they not just ban this clown.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By JKflipflop98 on 1/7/2009 7:21:12 PM , Rating: 4
I second that. Please ban this asshat.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By dflynchimp on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By FaceMaster on 1/8/2009 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that America supported free speech.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2009 4:54:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I thought that America supported free speech.


Nope that died when the term 'politically correct' was coined.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By danrien on 1/8/2009 5:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
private businesses are a separate entity from the American government. your point is null.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
You can, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses rights.

But if you want, go make a web site about how you're going to bang peoples mums and leave us alone. Free speach doesn't mean you can go where ever you want and say what ever you want.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By FaceMaster on 1/8/2009 8:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
go make a web site about how you're going to bang peoples mums


HOW HADN'T I THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE? Thanks!

quote:
Free speach doesn't mean you can go where ever you want and say what ever you want.


I'm pretty sure it does.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, that's why you hear cuss words left and right on primetime TV, because there's no such thing as censorship. And as a private entity, dailytech reserves the right to censor who and what they want, as goes with any business, they can deny service to anyone.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Tsuwamono on 1/7/2009 7:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ive only built one intel rig since my AMDs and im not very impressed with it. Mines a E6600 and I prefer my 4200 x2. Atleast it was more stable then this thing. I dont really care about OC.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By murphyslabrat on 1/7/2009 8:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont really care about OC.

And that's why you aren't violently pro-Inel. This is besides the fact that the e6600 is about 30% better at stock.

For the record, I have no idea why Intel went with a DDR3 only approach for i7. Could anyone enlighten me?


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 8:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Because of it's integrated memory controller.

Intel won't support DDR2 when DDR3 is becoming mainstream and prices will soon become parity with DDR2. It would be pointless among other things, such as it would increase the price of the processor.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/8/2009 7:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
DDR3 has advantages over DDR2 when using Intel's new QPI system.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Targon on 1/8/2009 7:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
But at an increased price in terms of memory cost, motherboard cost, processor cost, etc. DDR 3 MAY have advantages, but if I can buy a Phenom 2 and clock it fairly easily to 4GHz/core, I think I would prefer that...


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/8/2009 5:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
It's been possible to do that even with the Q6600 for the past year and a half......


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is supporting DDR 2 and DDR 3 with an intergraded controller.

"AMD was active in JEDEC on making the DDR2 and DDR3 specs similar enough that this one-CPU, two-sockets approach could work." Anand.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/9/2009 8:34:36 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah. It's possible for Intel to do the same, but they are not in dire need for sales, and know that DDR3 will be mainstream eventually, so they can just sit back for a while and watch their product grow, whilst they already have another product (Core 2) which will appeal to those who want a cheap upgrade.
AMD, however, need to take whatever measures they possibly can to make sure the Phenom II actually sells to as many people as possible. I feel they've got this part right.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 7:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up a good point there.

Aren't the AM3 chips also compatible with AM2+ boards?

So if you already have an AM2+ board, you can still purchase a Phenom II AM3 without having to go to the trouble of buying a new motherboard and RAM.
Granted it will be slower than it would be if using it with DDR3 RAM, but it still offers an affordable upgrade as opposed to the i7.

But from what I read, the Phenom II is still having trouble competing against high-end Core 2, and most people who already have an LGA 775 board probably won't think twice about switching if there isn't going to be any performance gain. For thost who already have 775 boards, the cheapest and more beneficial option would be to just upgrade their CPU.

I feel AMD have done everything right to encourage current AMD users to still use their products. Where they are lacking is to encourage Intel users to switch to AMD, and the only way to do that is the obvious.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/7/2009 7:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
Since the memory controller is based inside the CPU's, It depends on weather or not AMD puts the DDR2 memory controller in them.

It sounds like to me that these new Phenoms will not have the DDR2 compatable memory controller.

AMD did every thing they could with what they had, But I was looking for more then they could offer when I built my C2Q.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 7:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. It's just something I read, that's all.
But the point still stands as they are still releasing AM2+ CPU's

Same here when I built my computer.

Only X2's were available at the time. There was absolutely no competition. I wanted a quad-core and AMD didn't have one available.

I have tried a few of the current Phenoms, mostly the 9850. It's a good performer, that's about all I can say.

I am very unbiased as to what goes into my computer. At the time I built my system, Intel waas the best route.
I think if I was to build another I would still stick with Intel.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Laitainion on 1/7/2009 7:44:00 PM , Rating: 3
AM3 processors will still have the DDR2 memory controller, so will work in AM2(+) but AM2(+) won't work in AM3 because they don't have the DDR3 controller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM3


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the that, It's been awhile since I've paid alot of attention to AMD.

about a year ago I probably understood the AM3 AM2+ compatibility better.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Chocobollz on 1/12/2009 8:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It depends on weather ...


Ok, it's rain now so would the PhII got cool enough and get speed improvement? ;-)


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2009 7:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I haven't heard of the i7 being a good overclocker


Then you ain't listening.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By just4U on 1/8/2009 3:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
Heat issues are a concern with the i7 tho. Those suckers get extremely hot.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2009 8:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't you also really restricted on what kind of voltage you can run? Anandtech did an article on it.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is a setting in the bios to disable that. That function is meant more for server and notebook environments.

The I7 920 has been an amazing overclocker. I'm getting one :).

I have to admit, I wish I could go Phenom 2 but the core I7 still kills it with a price.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/7/2009 8:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hear ya!!!

I've now a an intel q6600 (b3 stepping, the oldest school of all)...
I came to think about changing for an i7 setup, as CPU prices for i7 look good enough to me...

But as soon as I started looking at mobo prices for i7, and then add the need for costly ddr3, all the i7's charm vanished away for me.

So the news about phenom II being right around the corner got me interested. I can't wait to see some benches, thermal tests and, most important of all, mobo prices.

My actual Intel setup has given me quite a lot for the last 2 years, but because of prices, I think I'm gonna end up going back to AMD for my next setup.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By warezme on 1/7/2009 10:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't heard that i7 is a good overclocker? LOL!!!

Have you been living under a rock!?

I have an air cooled i7 920 $299, that runs 4.0Ghz all day till the cows come home and can easily run 4.2Ghz for fancy benchmarks. I don't see how Phenom II or III can match that with their track record.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 10:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how Phenom II or III can match that with their track record
It's because AMD makes mainstream CPUs for masses, not a niche chips (like Nehalem) for a rare overclocker in the woods.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By just4U on 1/8/2009 3:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
No their not currently for the masses... to get into a half ways decent i7 setup your looking at a substantial costs. That's more then the "masses" are willing to pay.

Here in Canada for a cheap i7 setup your looking at about $950.00 for mobo, cpu, and 6 gigs of ram. While it's cheaper in the states it's still not cost effective enough for the majority to move over to or even consider under current economic conditions.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not a problem with what you said, except people still quote the 3 channel ram when in fact you can still go dual channel 4gigs without a problem and without any real performance hit.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Integral9 on 1/8/2009 9:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
Four letters. MTBF
In my experience, my overclocked CPUs have never lasted more than a year or two eventhough they operated within their thermal envelope.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By adiposity on 1/8/2009 1:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have a core2duo (65nm) 2.4GHz overclocked to 3GHz, bought at launch, that is still running strong.

-Dan


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By lukasbradley on 1/7/2009 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Deserves a 6.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By FireSnake on 1/8/2009 4:18:08 AM , Rating: 3
They don't want to ship a processor with more then 125W of consumtion I guess (If I remember well I read this somewhere).

In time, when manufacturing process will get better I guess we can expect higher clocks.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Right, AMD's price/performance ratio has always been better than Intel's. Same goes for ATI.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By dj LiTh on 1/7/2009 4:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well OC is just free performance so thats always a plus and you might as well mention it rather than not. Hopefully AMD can sell these chips at a price/performance ratio that will beat the i7, since its obvious that they wont take the performance crown.

Anyone have any info on that K10 architecture?


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By MonkeyPaw on 1/7/2009 5:44:15 PM , Rating: 3
It appears that K10.5 (cpus listed above) have some tweaks to get about 5-15% more IPC over the old K10. Basically, it catches AMD up with Core2. While that's not Core i7, consider that in some cases (games), Core2 is faster than the comparable Core i7. Granted, in other cases (encoding) i7 smokes everything, but AMD's IPC should at least be within striking distance of i7, which is why pricing should make things very interesting.

One thing to remember is board costs. I bet you won't have to shell out $300+ for the motherboard on K10.5 like you do on X58. The best AM3 board might be $200+, but $150 should go a long way.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By wideout on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Targon on 1/7/2009 7:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
With the 45nm process, the newer processors will be a bit cheaper to produce, and if they sell more of them, it will make it worth it.

Take the difference between making $10 on a processor, and making $5 on a processor. Selling for $5 cheaper may get them 3 times the number of sales, so is a better idea overall.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 7:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well OC is just free performance


I wouldn't necessarily say that overclocking is "free"

First of all, overclocking consumes more power. More power = bigger electricity bill. You also have to consider wear on the CPU, appropriate cooling etc etc.

AMD chips have always lacked in overclockability towards Intel chips. This is where they take a hit from enthusiasts who like to overclock the hell out of their CPU's.
I feel that even if AMD have an inferior CPU than Intel at stock, if their overclocking abilities were enhanced, they would see a lot more sales in the enthusiast market.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2009 7:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
Speedstepping works on the i7's while overclocked. Also you can get a pretty damn good OC going on them with little to no voltage increase depending on how "golden" your chip is.

So yeah, its pretty much free performance today.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 7:57:37 PM , Rating: 3
Even if you don't increase voltage, power consumtion still increases ;) It's just more-so when voltages are increased.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Targon on 1/8/2009 7:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
There are times when you can overclock without increasing the voltage though. In cases where the current range of speeds are all at the same power levels, you can often buy the lower end chips and run them at the same speeds as the higher end without ANY adjustment to voltages. For those cases, it really is extra performance for no additional cost.

You are thinking of those who really are trying to max out the performance of their processors, not those who want to save some money by buying the 2.4GHz version of a chip and then run it at 2.8GHz.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2009 4:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Also the biggest problem in the past with overclocking was voltage droop or "v-droop". That's why you typically raised voltages. Because under load the voltage would drop to levels which made the overclock unstable.

The new Intel boards by Gigabyte and I believe Asus now have anti v-droop options and MUCH better power delivery/management than mobo's in the past.

I'm seeing pretty impressive OC's on the i7's with no voltage increase at all.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/8/2009 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
No. If you get a wattage reader and attatch it to the plug of your computer, you will see that even slight overclocks with NO voltage increase will increase overall power consumtion. Clock speeds, FSB or HT Link will be increased, RAM speed in some cases. Power consumtion obviously increases, it's common sense! It increases even more when voltages are increased, that's all.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2009 6:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say OC'ing doesn't increase power consumption at all whatsoever ?

It's simply just not as big of an issue at it used to be.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By themaster08 on 1/8/2009 6:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, I was replying to the post above yours because I don't think that he understood what I meant.

I agree with your post. I have an option in my BIOS that allows me to lessen VDROOP, and it works a little. There is still some VDROOP ther but it's noticeably less than when the option is disabled.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By theapparition on 1/7/2009 4:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yep,
Don't get that comparison either.

How about this nugget of info too......
quote:
At high resolutions, the Phenom II may hold its own against Intel's designs, but its competitiveness outside gaming also remains to be seen.

Meaning, when applications are graphics limited the Phenom2 is somewhat competitive. However, this is a red herring, since when graphics are improved (on a much faster cycle than processors), you will once again become CPU bound faster with a Phenom2 rather than an i7.

I'll wait until the embargo is lifted and critical benchmarks are released before passing any final judgement.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Sunrise089 on 1/7/2009 5:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
I think the original line was very silly. In fact, at more or less every price point since Summer 2006 we've seen comments in reviews like "The AMD XXXX chip is very close to the Intel XXXX chip at stock speeds, but the easy 50% overclock on stock cooling the Intel chip is capable makes it the easy choice for enthusiasts." This could finally be a shift away from that.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SuperSix on 1/7/2009 6:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Approximate disty pricing:

HDX920XCGIBOX $229.00
HDZ940XCGIBOX $269.00

Launch tomorrow- most disty's have stock.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By Gul Westfale on 1/7/2009 10:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
i recently upgraded my old athlon64 X2 (socket 939 FTW!) mobo to an intel LGA 775-based one. the CPU cost me just $100, but as it was a wolfdale (E5200, 2.5GHz but on a slow 800MHz bus and 45nm) i was able to overclock it to a stable 3.6GHz, on air cooling. google around a bit and you'll see that this is fairly common for these chips.

i know AMD's coming CPUs are quads, and mine is just a duallie, but how much power do you need? if you can get a 3.6GHz dual core CPU for a hundred bucks would you really spend more than twice as much to get a 2.8GHz quad that may or may not overclock?

a few years ago power was important, we needed as much as we could get. those were the days of tualatins and palominos; today even cheap ass emachines computers come with dual core CPUs that would be decent at playing games if they had a real graphics card to work with. for everything besides games and video editing today's machines are overkill.

so AMD will have to do more than say they might overclock better, they will have to prove that they can beat intel on price/performance ratio, and they will have to be consistent across their whole lineup. the fact that they are starting out at only 3GHz does not bode well at all, so let me be the first to doubt their claims of better OC ability.

all in all, the only thing i can say about this launch is "meh". not interested. better luck next time.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
I remember back then they were debating the worth of dual core, yet your 939 X2 was being criticized. Now if you did buy in to the dual core 4200x2 or higher your still able to play any game with it. Yes there are now games that WILL NOT play on single cores, assassins creed for one example will not run on a single core.

Quads are for future proofing, If you get a Core I7 and OC it too 3.6 ghz, you are probably good for a while if you don't do incremental upgrades.

As far as the argument that you upgrade to something cheaper now and get something faster when its cheaper and spend the same amount, all that does is sacrifice quality now for better quality later. If I wasn't so addicted to this stuff I'd probably build a beast and use it for 5 years+.


RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By MrBowmore on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Core i7 Overclocking
By SlyNine on 1/8/2009 7:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
Can it run Giants citizen kabuto ;)


Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 4:47:47 PM , Rating: 3
Did AMD shrink the process tech "catch up" gap this time? I mean did it have more than one year delay after Intel's transition to 65nm, compared to this transition delay of just 1 year for 45nm?

I wonder if AMD is starting to get their new tech somewhat sooner and sooner after every iteration, 1 year now for 45nm and maybe 9 months after Intel for the 32nm? Is it really a solid trend or am I just dreaming? Any expert advice on that?




RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By dj LiTh on 1/7/2009 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a good point, anyone have the answer as i'd like to know that as well


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By BSMonitor on 1/7/2009 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, its already 2009 and it's not yet released. The 45nm Penryns were first released in November of 2007. That's more than a year.

Considering it took over a year to release Phenom II, I doubt we will see 32nm anything from AMD this year. Especially since the AM3 unlocked X4 isn't due until the end of Q2.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 6:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its already 2009 and it's not yet released
Who cares about "released" if you can buy it now at uk.insight.com for example


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By MonkeyPaw on 1/7/2009 5:37:22 PM , Rating: 3
AMD cannot afford to match Intel's transition speeds. From what I've read of past node transitions, Intel purchases the manufacturing tech early and frequently orders all of the equipment that is available (such tech isn't a high-volume product). This comes at a huge cost (in terms of capital and risk), which AMD cannot afford. Consequently, AMD ends up being second to the show. Now that it appears that AMD has plans to outsource some production, they may be able to tap the likes of TSMC, but I don't know how good those products could be. While Intel might be the best at manufacturing, AMD is more than likely second, as both companies are building products on the edge of semiconductor technology. GPUs just don't get as complex, and that's about all outsource fabs make.

Ultimately, for AMD to succeed, it takes either an Intel screwup (Netburst), or a surprise/innovative product (K8). Where AMD really shines is providing customers what they want (Opteron), which I hope will be the case again with Fusion. I think with the proliferation of netbooks and the impending recession, Fusion might be a profitable segment for both AMD and OEMs. More performance, less (system) complexity, and a lower price.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By RamarC on 1/7/2009 5:46:13 PM , Rating: 3
Phenoms are very competitive when it comes to price. For the majority of users, a $100 tri-core has more than enough horsepower. The question is can Phenom II continue to undercut Core pricing while turning a profit.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 7:01:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
GPUs just don't get as complex
Oh really? So you didn't know that GTX 280 has twice as many transistors as Nehalem (1.4 billion vs 731 million in Nehalem)? Here, some free education for ya, enjoy ;)

The next fact you obviously not aware of is that TSMC is already preparing for production of 40nm AMD GPUs.

Now combine these two new (for you) facts: 1) GPUs are way more complex than CPUs (see my proof above or check wikipedia) and 2) GPU tech is thinner than best Intel can offer (40nm for AMD GPU to be released quite soon vs 45nm for Intel) and after that think about the whole picture again, I'm sure it will change quite a bit in your mind.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By JKflipflop98 on 1/7/2009 7:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
GPU's are not as complex as a CPU. Gpu's are good at 1 or 2 things it can do really, really fast. A CPU can do anything you throw at it.

If a CPU were easy to make, it wouldn't cost us the total worth of Nvidia per quarter to keep making them, now would it?


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 7:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A CPU can do anything you throw at it.
Ever heard of GPGPU, OpenCL, CUDA etc? GPU can calculate anything too. Surprise surprise :P
quote:
If a CPU were easy to make, it wouldn't cost us the total worth of Nvidia per quarter to keep making them, now would it?
If GPUs were sold in the same quantities at the same prices as CPUs they would cost us much more than the total worth of Intel per quarter to keep making them, now wouldn't they?


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pryde on 1/7/2009 8:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia 280GTX 1.4B Transistors - 240 Shaders or "Cores"
Intel Nehelam 731M Transistors - 4 Cores

A huge part of Nehelam Transistors are Cache. What you are forgetting tho is that Nvidia GT200 cards are simply enchanced 8800GTX with more Shaders.

Yes a GPU is better at parallal task than a CPU on tasks that can split up. But Parallel computer programs are more difficult to write than sequential ones and a CPU will smoke a GPU at a sequential program.

Does the cost really determine the complexity of the design. I don't think so, a CPU is far more complicated than a GPU. A GPU is designed for 1 specific operation, Parallel Programming. While a Basic x86 CPU would be easy to make it would be slow. Intel has Designed SSE instructions and other improvements into their CPUs that add to the complexity which increase the speed.

What do you see Nvidia and ATI doing? Modifying old Tech alittle and throwing more Cores at the problem.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 8:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Modifying old Tech a little and throwing more Cores at the problem
The only difference Intel has is that it also steals some AMD ideas like HT and IMC, in addition to modifying old tech a little and throwing more cores at the problem. Yeah, a huuuuge difference, unbelievable!

*LOL*


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By nomagic on 1/7/2009 8:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is not the first to include IMC in chip design. Intel also had designed chips with IMC a long while ago (Timna).

In our industry, everybody is learning from others. Claims like "I did it first" doesn't mean anything. Only "I did it better" counts.

From design and development perspective, CPU is more complex than GPU. Transistor count actually means very little. It is easier to make a 100-core CPU with large transistor count than to make a more efficient and better performing next gen CPU.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 9:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only difference Intel has is that it also steals some AMD ideas like HT


So wrong!

Have you ever heard of Intel Pentium 4 HT?

That was the first hyperthreading CPU available

;)


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 9:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
HyperTransport, you lama :)


By themaster08 on 1/7/2009 10:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Touche ;)

I thought you were talking about HyperThreading. I hate it when completely different things have such similar names.

Still, over the years, more ideas have come from Intel, including IMC's ;)


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pryde on 1/7/2009 9:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. How long did AMD MAKE! Intel processors.

AMD founded May 1st 1969. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor.

February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors.

In 1991, AMD released the Am386, its clone of the Intel 386 processor

AMD's first in-house x86 processor was the K5 which was launched in 1996.

1969-1996 AMDs CPU market consisted entirely of Intel Clones or Licensed Intel second source for IBM.

Any CPU that uses the x86 instruction set are a modified Intel 8086 ( the 86 at the end is where x86 got its name from ).

AMDs HyperTransport was not original at all. All it is a point to point interconnect and IMC was used a couple of years before in DEC/Compaqs Alpha 21364.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Fritzr on 1/7/2009 11:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
That should be 1979 for the 8088 clone. The 4004 wasn't released until 1971. Though the first desktop micro was around 1969 using a wired circuit CPU and sold as a smart terminal.


RE: Is the gap getting smaller?
By Pryde on 1/8/2009 12:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yes AMD did make a 8088 clone in 1979 it wasn't until IBM selected the Intel 8088 for its PCs. One of the conditions of IBM using Intel 8088 was that there had to be a reliable second-source CPU manufacturer. AMD

This helped AMD negotiate new license agreement with Intel on the x86 tech and allowed them to second source 8086 and 8088. AMD began volume production of 8088 CPUs in 1982.

If it wasn't for this agreement in 1982 there would be no K5 which means there would be no Athlon etc etc.


Intells sales down
By unclesharkey on 1/7/2009 5:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
I know that AMD is not doing so well but Intells sales are down 23% this quarter. If AMD can just keep at the heels of Intell with their new CPU's and price them competitively then I think they will be fine.




RE: Intells sales down
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2009 5:34:44 PM , Rating: 4
Sales for EVERYTHING is down this quarter in almost every industry. Hardly revealing.


RE: Intells sales down
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 7:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sales are down mostly for the luxury items like Intel's overpriced enthusiast CPUs, everything else is doing more or less fine, which means that while Intel will have hard time selling its overpriced chips AMD will sell a lot of the cheapo K10 derived chips (Kuma, X3 and X4), eating at Intel's market share which is good news.


RE: Intells sales down
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2009 7:28:12 PM , Rating: 1
Right dude. Meanwhile here on planet Earth...


RE: Intells sales down
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 7:58:48 PM , Rating: 1
...recession continued, squeezing consumer wallets and pushing people towards cheaper better-bang-for-buck solutions (i.e. AMD)


RE: Intells sales down
By JKflipflop98 on 1/7/2009 8:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're not getting it. People that are strapped for cash don't buy computer parts at all. They spend what they have on the mortgage and electric bills. Thereby rendering your silly little point moot.


RE: Intells sales down
By Pirks on 1/7/2009 9:26:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
People that are strapped for cash don't buy computer parts at all
And people who were throwing money in the garbage bin by buying overpriced Intel chips are buying AMD now, 'cause people still need computers, you know. It's not like everyone is starving, right? :) Have you ever heard that during recession people buy less Lexuses and more Toyotas? This is the same. Time to study basic economics, buddy.