backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on Jul 7 at 1:00 AM


AMD "Barcelona" die shot. (Source: AMD)
AMD bets on low-power, low-clock processors for its next generation debut

AMD announced today what analysts have been dreading for months: the company will launch its next-generation architecture this August, at top-out frequencies of 2.0 GHz.  This next-generation CPU will become the successor of the existing K8 AMD Opteron lineup.

AMD's press release claims, "With planned availability at launch in a range of frequencies up to 2.0 Ghz, AMD expects its native quad-core processors to scale to higher frequencies in Q407 in both standard and SE (Special Edition) versions."

AMD Barcelona roadmaps from February 2007 indicated the company would launch at a top-out frequency of 2.3 GHz, with an eventual ramp to 2.6 GHz on the way. 

Just this past June the company also announced it could demonstrate Barcelona on working systems immediately.  The part the company left out from its announcement was that the demonstration CPUs ran at 1.6 GHz -- still 400 MHz under the estimated launch speed and 700 MHz under the roadmapped top-out frequency.

To add insult to injury, when DailyTech benchmarked the pre-production 1.6 GHz Barcelona, the CPU did not match Intel's 65nm quad-core offering clock-for-clock.  AMD engineers stress to DailyTech that this benchmark was premature, and that final silicon and software will allow for SSE optimizations and better performance. 

AMD's press release claims the Barcelona Opteron will provide a 70% performance increase in certain database applications; and a 40% increase on certain floating point applications.  The company has maintained this conclusion for nearly six months, though the only benchmarks it has provided to back its case up are simulated SPECint and SPECfp benchmarks released in April 2007.

The 2.0 GHz K10 Opteron announcement comes with another twist; the company will launch its energy-efficient models alongside its performance models at launch.  Originally, these low-power Barcelona derivatives were scheduled for a late 2007, possibly early 2008 launch. 

“AMD has prioritized production of our low power and standard power products because our customers and ecosystem demand it, and we firmly believe that the introduction of our native Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor will deliver on the promise of the highest levels of performance-per-watt the industry has ever seen,” added Randy Allen, corporate vice president of AMD's Server and Workstation division.

The upcoming Barcelona processors are drop-in compatible with current-generation Opteron motherboards.


Comments     Threshold


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

Why...
By JTKTR on 6/29/2007 1:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why I'm an AMD fanboy.... See, I bought an X2 when Conroe was king, I'll by a Phenom even if Penryn is king...But I have no idea why! Can someone fill me in as to why I will consistently by slower chips as long as they are made by the hands of an AMD worker?




RE: Why...
By melgross on 6/29/2007 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 5
Because you're not thinking your purchases through clearly.


RE: Why...
By PCDestroyer on 6/29/2007 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 1
They run a lot cooler. They rate the TDP as a max while Intel rates it as typical TDP


RE: Why...
By defter on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why...
By omnicronx on 6/29/2007 2:54:30 PM , Rating: 3
no.. your wrong.. intel and amd do measure their tdp rating differently. as the poster said amd is maximum and intel is more of an average.

quote:
To make matters more confusing, both companies measure TDP in a different way, oh joy. AMD measures it as the maximum power that a CPU can possibly draw while Intel calls TDP the maximum you are likely to see sustained. One Intel TDP ~= .85 AMD TDP. To correct for this, AMD bumps up the Intel numbers to max draw.


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32...

i know its inquirer.. but the point gets accross


RE: Why...
By JackPack on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why...
By omnicronx on 6/29/2007 3:10:19 PM , Rating: 5
thats nice.. thanks for no link, or quote.. or anything.
On another note all i said was TDP is not TDP. You only proved my point, but thanks for trying.

just incase you need it.. (which you might)
if 65w tdp for AMD =/ 65w tdp for intel
then TDP =/ TDP.. thanks for coming!


RE: Why...
By JackPack on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why...
By Accord99 on 6/29/2007 4:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one review:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/674-4/intel-p35...

The new G0 stepping looks very impressive, even further improving on the excellent power usage of the B2 stepping C2Ds.


RE: Why...
By kenji4life on 6/30/2007 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 4
The only thing he clearly implied is that Intel rates their TDP's lower than AMD does.

He never made any claim that any AMD processor is superior in TDP.

But I will argue that the AMD method is much more reliable, and responsible.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 6/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why...
By Justin Case on 7/2/2007 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, AMD's method is more "responsible" from the point of view of end users, because it lets people upgrade the CPU (as long as it's within the same "family"), or use it under load 24/7 without worrying if their standard cooling solution will do.

Basing a system's thermal design on "average power dissipation" can spell disaster when the person using that system doesn't run it under "average" conditions. Which is why many OEMs ignore Intel's "average TDP" and do their own testing, to make sure the chips won't fry.

For that matter, most also ignore AMD's TDP, because it's usually 10-15% higher than the CPU will ever dissipate, even under full load. But if you're going to use the manufacturer-supplied numbers, I'd much rather use AMD's than Intel's.


RE: Why...
By Accord99 on 7/3/2007 2:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, AMD's method is more "responsible" from the point of view of end users, because it lets people upgrade the CPU (as long as it's within the same "family"), or use it under load 24/7 without worrying if their standard cooling solution will do.

Intel uses family TDPs now too.

quote:
For that matter, most also ignore AMD's TDP, because it's usually 10-15% higher than the CPU will ever dissipate, even under full load. But if you're going to use the manufacturer-supplied numbers, I'd much rather use AMD's than Intel's.

Though power tests have shown there is no significant difference and if anything, it's Intel whose TDP is over-rated.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 7/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why...
By Justin Case on 7/3/2007 3:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
You seem to have missed the point, completely. Hint: the difference lies in the different meaning of the words "maximum" and "typical".


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 7/3/2007 4:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know where you're getting "typical" from - Intel doesn't rate TDP in terms of typical. They rate it in terms of power dissiptated given the maximum expected computational load. While this is not the same as total worst case power, it is worst case relative to what is expected to be encountered by customers in actual use.

If it was typical (i.e., average) as you say, then Intel's TDP would be useless for the purpose it was designed for, which is clearly not the case.


RE: Why...
By Justin Case on 7/4/2007 12:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
Tell that to the people with dual-core Netburst chips... :P

Apparently the "maximum expected computational load" used to calculate their TDP consisted of running Solitaire.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 7/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why...
By Justin Case on 7/7/2007 1:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, so you are posting from Bizarro World. How good are the internet connections over there?

Athlon MPs have a TDP of 60 watts (and that's AMD "absolute maximum" TDP). My company actually owned several of those, they made great graphics workstation CPUs, had the best FP performance by far.

The Pentium EE 955 has a TDP of 130 watts (and that's Intel's "maximum under normal loads" TDP). My company also bought a couple of those (several years later) and it became clear that Intel's "normal loads" did not include compiling under Visual Studio; they kept throttling down to half speed to avoid melting. They run Solitaire just fine, though. In the end, we decided that a 100-watt+ CPU was a bit too "extreme" (ha-ha) for that task.

Also, the EE 955 is a 65nm chip, not a 90nm one (at 90nm it would probably have had a 200-watt TDP). Funny you not knowing that, since you even own one, eh...?

If you want to make stuff up, at least do some basic research first.


RE: Why...
By defter on 6/29/2007 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's Inquirer, a site which posts correct rumours sometimes, but whose writers don't have a clue about technology.

First, TDP != maximum power draw. TDP means Thermal Design Power, e.g. how much power needs to be dissipated over a prolonged period of time. Maximum power draw is quite irrelevant these days, if it occurs only briefly. Let's take an example, suppose that the CPU consumes under load:
- 100W over 9.9 seconds
- 200W over 0.1 seconds

In this case the maximum power draw is 200W, however necessary TDP would be just slightly more than 100W. 200W spike that lasts only 0.1 seconds wouldn't be enough to overheat a chip equiped with a cooler that is rated for e.g. 105-110W TDP.

Second, if you don't belive me, you can check power consumption numbers in Anandtech's reviews. AMD's and Intel's CPUs with similar TDP consume similar amount of power.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 6/29/2007 4:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please see my post below about overgeneralizing what TDP is. There are a number of ways to define/qualify TDP. Your definition is just one of 'n' possible definitions, and as far as I know, yours is not consistent with any definitions used by semiconductor manufacturers.

What I think you should be saying is the average power consumption for your example is just over 110W. Let's leave the TDP figures for people involved in motherboard, heatsink, and system design to use and interpret, since that is what they exist for. Using TDP figures as a measure of processor performance is illogical.

For example, it makes more sense to run a particular benchmark on two different processors, measure their average power dissipation as well as their performance, and then calculate performance-per-watt. Using TDP in these types of evaluations (or in the current discussion) makes no sense.


RE: Why...
By Hare on 6/30/2007 2:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad the difference between two chipsets can be as large as 30W so the comparison is not really valid unless you are actually measuring the heat released from the CPU or can tap directly to the lines feeding just the processor. Power stages on motherboards are also very different. Some top out at 70% efficiency while other get closer to 90%.

silentpcreview.com has pretty good measurements. You might want to check that site out if you are interested.


RE: Why...
By coldpower27 on 6/30/2007 8:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
All this proves is that it's important to measure system power consumption rather then individual power consumption of components.


RE: Why...
By omnicronx on 6/29/2007 2:49:51 PM , Rating: 1
max tdp at idle or max at full load? if Intel is giving average tdp at idle then wouldn't it be close anyways?


RE: Why...
By defter on 6/29/2007 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 5
There is no such thing as:
- max tdp at idle
- average tdp

TDP means Thermal Design Power. If the CPU has a TDP of X Watts, then a cooler must be able to dissipate X Watts continiously.

Basically, TDP means maximum power consumption under load over a prolonged period of time. If the CPU consumes more power over prolonged period of time than its rated TDP, cooler will not be able to cool the CPU and CPU will overheat.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 6/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why...
By defter on 6/29/2007 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, we are talking about modern TDP definitions (Athlon64 & Core2 Duo). And you point to a Pentium II data sheet?


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 6/29/2007 5:43:07 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a question of old vs. new, it's a question of there being no single "right" definition of TDP, and also that using TDP do evaluate performance is not logical.


RE: Why...
By Thorburn on 6/29/2007 3:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
This statement gets thrown around all the time and was true of one or two Prescott and Smithfield core chips, but its certainly way out for Conroes and the like.

Infact since the TDP is given for the entire range (eg. E6300 - E6700 are all quoted as 65w) it really gives a worse case scenario.

An E6700 will be running very close to 65w, a E6300 shouldn't be (closer to 40w) but if you had a poor core that could still pass as say an E6300 with a higher VID (since each die has its own VID setting, up to around 1.325 or 1.4v for early chips IIRC) then it could still be used as it fitted inside the 65w envelope.


RE: Why...
By TomZ on 6/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why...
By clnee55 on 6/29/2007 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
You let your emotion affect your pocket book.

"I have no idea why I'm an AMD fanboy.... See, I bought an X2 when Conroe was king, I'll by a Phenom even if Penryn is king...But I have no idea why! Can someone fill me in as to why I will consistently by slower chips as long as they are made by the hands of an AMD worker? "


RE: Why...
By Martimus on 6/29/2007 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
Probably because AMD has made superior products in the past at a good price. It is the same reason I went out and bought a Plextor DVD burner recently without researching it, because I had good products from them in the past. It turned out to be a crappy burner because they have changed their manufacturing philosophy, but I had already bought it. The same happened for me when I bought a new Kershaw pocket knife. I went through a bunch of pocket knifes for a while, and the Kershaw Corral Creek was far and away the best quality I found. I lost it about 10 years later, and I went out and bought the same model knife from Kershaw. It looked the same, but it wasn't nearly as nice as the one I had for 10 years. It doesn't keep its edge as long, it doesn't open as smoothly, and sand and debris seem to affect it more than the previous one. I was so surprised at the major change in quality that I looked up what happened. They moved their manufacturing from Oregon to Japan. The quality went down with the move.


RE: Why...
By inorganicmatter on 6/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why...
By daveshel on 7/6/2007 3:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Because you want choices in the marketplace, so you support a vendor whose product is a little behind the curve this time so they will be there for you next time.


Excellent timing AMD....
By kilkennycat on 6/29/2007 5:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just in time for a massive price-cut on the Intel 65nm server quad-processors and the shipment of the first 45nm Penryn server quads clocking at 3.0GHz or higher - and probably at the same price as the 2.3GHz Barcelona. AMD's performance had better prove out to be truly 40% better clock-for-clock in server applications or AMD will rapidly go "under water" as the stock-price bombs and the banks call in their loans.

The ATi acquisition has been termed a "lemon" by another contributor to this thread - right on!! AMD paid 20% over market price for a company that was long on promises and short on delivery for the previous 2 years, plus AMD sank themselves heavily into debt as a consequence. To further compound Hector's totally-idiotic decision, the ATi deal was finally consummated 2-3 months after Conroe shipped and the competitive danger in the CPU business had become very clear. AMD could readily have backed out of the deal but they were totally blinded by the mirage of AMD/ATi deal suddenly making them a full-service core-parts-supplier (a la Intel) ---- but with only a tiny fraction of the process-resources of their big competitor and a suddenly-empty wallet.

For me, I personally gained significantly by the ATi purchase. The deal was so obviously a bad one from the get-go that I sold-out some ATi stock at the 20% premium (stock bought on an acquisition-hunch a few months earlier), and promptly also short-sold a bunch of AMD stock.




RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By nerdye on 6/29/2007 11:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just in time for a massive price-cut on the Intel 65nm server quad-processors and the shipment of the first 45nm Penryn


True, but when is the right time for AMD to release the K10, in 6 months when Intel has even faster 45nm processors available? AMD is in a hole, they gotta get these chips out assuming they are better than the current opterons, and try to earn a little income that will go against their current debt. Yes Intel is PWNING right now, yes AMD is hurting right now, but they gotta do what they can, I applaud their efforts and hope that they can succeed as best as possible.

Core 2 was offered to all of you on the basis that you would switch from AMD to Intel on your best processing machine, core 2 was value priced and still is, competition dictates value, keep it coming. If AMD fails, could IBM or another company replace the Intel vs somebody in the X86/X64 market place, who knows, but lets hope a constant flow of competition continues and the cpu market place doesn't turn into microsoft vista (our way our the highway for $$$, no choice, pay lots, no more blue screen, its a black screen)!


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By TomZ on 6/29/2007 11:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
microsoft vista (our way our the highway for $$$, no choice, pay lots

If you don't like Vista, then simply run XP. Or one of the many flavors of Linux. Or Unix. Or OS-X. You have a number of alternative choices - do cry here that someone is forcing you to buy Vista, because it makes no sense to say that.


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By TomZ on 6/29/2007 11:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, "do cry" -> "don't cry"


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By gescom on 7/1/2007 9:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want it [vi$ta] but still I have to pay for it together with a new notebook. I simply don't have a choice [no, I don't want Apple].


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By TomZ on 7/1/2007 9:47:49 PM , Rating: 3
Just buy a notebook without Windows, for example:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/l...

And quit your whining!


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By gescom on 7/2/2007 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Just buy a notebook without Windows, for example:"

HOW MANY EXAMPLES DO YOU HAVE? THREE MACHINES FROM DELL? HELLO :)

I feel really sorry for you :)
good luck TomZ.


RE: Excellent timing AMD....
By TomZ on 7/2/2007 1:04:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you said that you had no choice to buy Vista. I gave you an example illustrating that you do have a choice (in addition to the choice to by a Mac as you mentioned). Maybe you're not happy with the range of available choices, but at least you do have a choice. I'm sure there are other brands with more machines - I think Wal-Mart has FreeDOS machines IIRC.

And by purchasing one of those machines, you are also reinforcing the perception that there is demand for machines that ship without Windows, which is a good thing, right? After all, if people complain that computer OEMs don't offer machines w/o Windows (as they have), and then OEMs respond with some machines like that and nobody buys them, what do you think the outlook is for seeing more choices in the future?


Energy Efficient part question
By JoKeRr on 6/29/2007 11:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
So what is the TDP rating for the 2ghz native quad core part?? We all know Intel's quad core server processors have 125W, 80W, and 50W parts at different frequencies. Even though, the way TDP is defined differently by Intel and AMD, it'll be nice to know how many watts it consumes. I suppose AMD could say that they're targeting the 'low power' quad cores at high density Blade Servers. Now it'll be really nice if there's a 3rd party benchmark of the 2ghz system from a reputable source, instead of just 'simulated' results.




RE: Energy Efficient part question
By Slaimus on 6/29/2007 11:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
68W probably

Their 65nm node seems to be tuned a little too efficient and not fast enough. It is hard to believe it is based on IBM's 65nm technology, which has 4.7GHz products out.


RE: Energy Efficient part question
By Goty on 6/29/2007 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 3
The manufacturing process is not the only factor in how well the clockspeed will scale; It has a hell of a lot to do with the architecture as well.

As for the TDP, all Phenom processors are supposed to remain within the same TDP as like-clocked Athlon64s and Opterons.


By smilingcrow on 6/29/2007 11:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
The data that I’ve seen posted states 95W for 1.9 – 2.3GHz and 120W for 2.4GHz and higher. They will have low power versions for a premium also.


RE: Energy Efficient part question
By defter on 6/29/2007 1:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Their press release says: "are planned for shipment in both standard and low power versions at launch later this summer."

Since both 95W and 68W will be launched together, this would suggest that 2GHz parts have 95W TDP while 68W TDP parts run a lower clockspeed.


RE: Energy Efficient part question
By defter on 6/29/2007 4:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
Intel will introduce 50W 2GHz quad core Xeon to spoil the party in August: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/intel_...


Price is the big question.
By bysmitty on 6/29/2007 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would save all the doom and gloom until after they announce the price. Even if they are not the fastest on the market, there is still a chance that with a competitive price structure, they could have the lead in value.

...bysmitty




RE: Price is the big question.
By smilingcrow on 6/29/2007 12:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
With Xeons supposedly getting a significant price drop in July they aren’t going to have much chance of pricing them high which is what AMD need right now.


RE: Price is the big question.
By rchiu on 6/29/2007 12:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that's the problem though. I am sure AMD can cut price and compete, just like what they are doing right now with K8. But that will not help their bottom line and their financial is pretty bad as it is. If their next gen chip cannot help them make some money back, I don't see how they will have the capital to support both chip and graphic R&D, as well as manufacturing.


RE: Price is the big question.
By DallasTexas on 6/29/2007 12:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Let's try to make some lemonade on what looks like a big lemon of an initial product announcement.

AMD cleverly announced this pig on iPhone friday so that it gets buried with the iPhone hype.

They announced a "low pwr version". Yeah, they can't clock the pig more than 2GHhz so let's call it a "low power" version and say it runs circles around the 6 year old Athlon. Oh goodie.


RE: Price is the big question.
By PCDestroyer on 6/29/2007 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they will set low prices on their processors and are expecting to make the money on their video cards.


RE: Price is the big question.
By TomZ on 6/29/2007 4:19:51 PM , Rating: 1
I don't understand the relationship between the two. It's not like AMD can accept the processor as a loss-leader in order to sell more video cards, since the two are not directly related. I would think AMD needs to make money separately on both CPUs and on video cards. If they can't make money in either of those two areas, then they should exit that portion of the business, which clearly contradicts their apparent strategy.


RE: Price is the big question.
By clnee55 on 6/29/2007 2:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
If AMD has price pressure on the very first release, it will be very diffuclt to recoup the RD cost. Their finance situation will get worse.


Oh, another thing I should mention.
By Amiga500 on 6/29/2007 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
In single or 2 socket systems, Intel will rule.

In 4 or 8 socket systems, the AMD will rule - simply though memory bandwidth.

Even the old Opteron still beats the new Xeons (dual core) in 4 socket systems - simply because of the FSB vs Hypertransport.




RE: Oh, another thing I should mention.
By defter on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, another thing I should mention.
By PCDestroyer on 6/29/2007 3:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
Intel already released conroe based server procs. Even so it's all about the FSB vs. HyperTransport. HT is way faster. That's why the Xeons have higher FSBs than their equal desktop processors.


RE: Oh, another thing I should mention.
By defter on 6/29/2007 3:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Intel hasn't released yet Conroe based processors for 4-socket servers.


By smitty3268 on 6/29/2007 4:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Correct - the comparisons where it loses is 4-socket dual-core Opertons vs 2-socket quad-core Conroes.


RE: Oh, another thing I should mention.
By coldpower27 on 6/30/2007 9:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
As explained the Tigerton 4Way+ processor isn't due to be released till September 2nd 2007. So no in the 4-Way space or greater Intel is still using NetBurst technology for the moment, AMD only does well if the sector Intel is competing with isn't using NetBurst.

Barcelona may or may not be able to go against Clovertown, we will have to see with Tigerton.


By coldpower27 on 6/30/2007 10:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
Correction: The sector Intel is cometing with IS using NetBurst.


By Accord99 on 6/29/2007 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, at 4 sockets Netburst based Xeon MPs beat Opterons in a number of key enterprise benchmarks like TPC-C, SAP-SD and SPECjbb2005.
While memory bandwidth is useful for some applications, big caches and smart chipsets are better for others.

And while there are very few 8S Opteron systems, you can get 16S and 32S Xeon systems from IBM and Unisys.


noobie question
By paccman63 on 6/30/2007 9:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
all of you seem to know so much but i got to ask...if they come out with a slower version of the quad late as it it looks like by this article.....when they finally get the chips up to a better speed will we also need new motheboards too? idont mind spending money but i hate just getting ripped off because a company cant keep a deadline of promise...please dont flame me i said i was a nooobie but i had a question i thot important,,,,thanks pacman/mark




RE: noobie question
By UppityMatt on 6/30/2007 9:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
I wont flame you. The speed of the chip has nothing to do with the socket that it fits in. So when they release faster chips later this year as long as the Socket doesn't change you will not need a new motherboard. And as far as i can tell that is one of the main components of this release is that it will utilize current motherboards as a drop in replacement.


RE: noobie question
By zsdersw on 6/30/2007 10:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
Motherboards are typically designed around certain classes of CPUs, not specific speed grades and can fully support faster versions of the same basic CPU core with, at most, a BIOS update.

In other words, the motherboards will be designed to support Barcelona.. not specific speed grades of Barcelona. Newer and faster versions of Barcelona (newer steppings, etc.) may require a BIOS update, but that's about it.


By DannyH246 on 7/1/2007 8:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
It really makes me laugh when you read about Intel fanboys saying Core 2 is faster than AMD, Xeon is faster than AMD, Intel this, Intel that AMD is dead in the water etc etc.

They just dont get it!!!!

Everybody should be supporting AMD, especially at the moment while things are tough, cos if it wasn't for them Intel would be drip feeding minor little speed bumps to all of us and charging a bomb for it. (Does anyone remember how long it took Intel to give us anything faster than a 486 DX 33??)

We should be thankfull that AMD is around to give Intel competition. (No AMD - forget 64bit folks, Intel would be nicely transitioning everyone onto the great ship Itanic and charging the Earth for it!!)

So lets all hope AMD can get on top of its current Barcelona problems and give Intel something to worry about cos if it doesn't and AMD goes under we all sufffer.




By clnee55 on 7/2/2007 12:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
I am about to sell my house to buy AMD stock. I just want to support AMD so Hector can have a big raise next year.


By Adonlude on 7/2/2007 6:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So lets all hope AMD can get on top of its current Barcelona problems and give Intel something to worry about cos if it doesn't and AMD goes under we all sufffer.


Thats not true. I happen to own Intel stock so If AMD goes under I win. Die AMD die, hehe.


Sad...
By 13Gigatons on 6/30/2007 8:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
After all this time and hype this all they can muster.

I'm going to recommend Intel products for the time being since they are as affordable and have the performance as well.

The Intel 21xx series is a great bargain.




RE: Sad...
By coldpower27 on 6/30/2007 9:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
We will have to see how these stack against the Clovertown's and Tigerton SKU's.

Pentium E21xx is nice but those go against the value Brisbanes.


woah
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/29/2007 2:09:29 PM , Rating: 3
"Just this past June the company also announced it could demonstrate Barcelona on working systems immediately. The part the company left out from its announcement was that the demonstration CPUs ran at 1.6 GHz -- still 400 MHz under the estimated launch speed and 700 MHz under the roadmapped top-out frequency"

"The 2.0 GHz K10 Opteron announcement comes with another twist; the company will launch its energy-efficient models alongside its performance models at launch. Originally, these low-power Barcelona derivatives were scheduled for a late 2007, possibly early 2008 launch."

Sounds to me like their manufacturing equates to putting a hand in a magic hat and randomly pulling things out. Low energy, Low speed, and Normal could come out, but at random. Oh- don't forget the massive stack of faulty chips they are burying in the shallow hole outside the factories- but they won't let press see that....

I don't think these chips will do well. The business sector is what this chip is for, and businesses will not go high-risk. They will choose the mature platform with continual improvements, and Intel's core architecture, with an upcoming die shrink provides exactly that.
Enthusiasts won't be getting this chip en-mass either- why pay a lot for something with no performance gain, and no room for overclocking? The only thing they have selling for them is the novelty of having the first architecture with native quadcore. Novelty is also what was selling the PS3. I ask you this: Is sony doing well with that?




By SiliconAddict on 6/30/2007 1:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the same BS song and dance Intel gave with the Pentium 4?




By Frags on 6/30/2007 2:59:29 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah it is.

Only that's the past and who gives a shite.

FACT IS NOW, that Barcelona is delayed. It's going to be too little, too late.

One can go and restate missteps from each company from the last decade, but WHO CARES?!

Barcelona has no benchmarks. Barcelona PROMISES performance, later..MUCH later. AMD needs Barcelona like YESTERDAY.


Ouch
By colonelclaw on 6/29/2007 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
i feel for AMD here. i work in 3d rendering where speed at any cost is king. traditionally i've always championed AMD over intel but recently i've been forced to buy Xeon over Opteron and this isn't going to change things. here's hoping AMD sort out their problems and start producing faster chips asap




By LTG on 6/29/2007 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
So AMD retracted all their promises about beating Core2 in max performance.

Their remaining promise is "best performance per watt".

So why not at least release benchmarks that prove that?

This is even worse than it seems. The day Barcelona releases Intel is going to drop prices like a rock on chips with equal performance.

For the first time in history a brand new flagship server processor will have a maximum price of $399.

There is just no way for them to recoup R&D like that, which means losing more money that they don't have and can't borrow because they already maxed out their credit line for the last loan.




Time will show !
By crystal clear on 6/30/2007 3:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The upcoming Barcelona processors are drop-in compatible with current-generation Opteron motherboards.


Thats a big plus point for existing users of AMD chips-makes uprgrading cheaper & simpler(hassle free)& time saving.
This way it keeps the existing users of AMD chips under its fold.
Good for motherboard manufacturers also,no need to punch out a new mobo. In short - cost effective & time saving.

quote:
AMD has prioritized production of our low power and standard power products because our customers and ecosystem demand it,


Thats another big plus - appears AMD has been all this time talking to customers(existing & prostpective).
Looks like they went around asking "What do you want from AMD chips".
They have used their TIME productively, whilst R&D was busy with its process.
Its a market oriented approach to production & R&D.

AMD appears to cater to the mainstream customers for a start.

Thats the reason K.K puts it this way in his unique style-

the company will launch its energy-efficient models alongside its performance models at launch. Originally, these low-power Barcelona derivatives were scheduled for a late 2007, possibly early 2008 launch.



quote:
AMD's press release claims the Barcelona Opteron will provide a 70% performance increase in certain database applications; and a 40% increase on certain floating point applications


Thats a matter of time-D.T. will prove it -Rght or wrong.
Lets give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

quote:
AMD bets on low-power, low-clock processors for its next generation debut


Appears AMD wish to play it safe & sure-But the question is will it "click" in the market.

Time will show !




It's not about a Porsche
By Samus on 6/30/2007 4:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's about a Honda. Nobody buys high performanace cars in the masses. AMD want's to play the company that sells what people want and need, not what people can't afford or don't need.




Mid Range and Low End Here We Come
By Sceptor on 6/30/2007 6:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, it looks like AMD cannot get it's act together on the CPU/GPU front. What a shame!!

I was expecting great things from Barcelona...looks like no real competition here for Intel.

The good news is that the consumer should win for the short term. AMD will have to remain in the "value" (ie low price/moderate performance) category for the near future. Not bad for a mid-range PC...not good for people wanting the high end computing parts.

Intel & Nvidia will continue to have high margins (on high end SKU parts) while AMD will look for meager earnings on everything they produce (CPU & GPU).




By James Holden on 6/29/2007 12:17:36 PM , Rating: 4
Buying a non-competitive solution just to assure there will be two competitors is retarded.

AMD pulled the performance and price crown in 2003, and I didn't "buy AMD" back then just to make sure I'd have two choices in 2007.

No, the problem is the asinine management. Near zealous CEOs with no clear goals other than "to break the monopoly". A 5 billion dollar acquisition of ATI that turned out to be one of the largest lemon deals of the decade. Abysmal public relations and even poorer marketing.

I'm sick of the monopoly whinefest. If they want to be competitive they should pull their heads out of their asses and quit pretending its 2002.


By James Holden on 6/29/2007 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 3
I challenge you to find one IT manager (i.e., at least $100k worth of systems at a time) who makes his purchases based on that philosophy.


By Xenoterranos on 6/29/2007 12:45:31 PM , Rating: 1
Sun. They're using AMD procs in their Constellation supercomputer. The entire reason why they don't use Intel chips is design ideology.


By James Holden on 6/29/2007 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
They're not using AMD because they're concerned about AMD going out of business without Sun's help. They're using it because they've invested a ton of money and R+D into Torrenza.


By melgross on 6/29/2007 1:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
They also expected higher performing units.

You can bet that if they expected such lame problems from AMD, they would have thought twice about it.

The same for Cray.


By jpeyton on 6/29/2007 2:07:33 PM , Rating: 4
Not at all. Sun/Cray went with AMD for their HPC needs for a few reasons:

AMD has superior power management features. This is true of the current generation Opterons as it is true for Barcelona. PowerNow! in its current implementation is better than Intel SpeedStep, and Barcelona will only expand on that.

HPC requires extremely high component densities. Raw CPU power isn't as much of a concern as CPU power per square inch. If you look at the Top500 supercomputing list, the Intel Clovertown clusters have clock speeds of 2.33GHz per CPU; their higher clocked parts simply put out too much heat for high-density HPC use.

Does this mean Barcelona is going to be a success? Not at all. So far, AMD has been one disappointment after another. But they are on the right track in regards to their design philosophy for Barcelona. Better performance per clock and superior power management should be their goal, not overall clock speed.


By jpeyton on 6/29/2007 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 4
Forgot one more (rather large) reason:

HyperTransport & Torrenza. By opening up development for the Opteron socket to partners like Sun and Cray, AMD is guaranteeing their dominance in the HPC market. HyperTransport allows AMD to scale much better than Intel in 4/8 socket nodes.


By sviola on 6/29/2007 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, for what I know, the SOI process won't work well, beyond 45nm, and IBM is looking into high-K solutions as Intel is using on its 45nm processors.


By Amiga500 on 6/29/2007 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'd be very surprised if any do.

Not too many companies think long term (about things like that) these days.

Irregardless of IT managers, if AMD do go under, and Intel become a total monopoly in the x86 market, you can be sure that the long term pain you will suffer is much greater than the short term pain of getting a slightly slower AMD for the same money.


By Ringold on 6/29/2007 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 3
So instead we should waste our money with lower performance and reward poor execution by AMD with unearned revenue?

If we're going to prop up failed businesses, why don't we just nationalize the microprocessor industry? That solves the whole problem, doesn't it, Amiga, supporter of communist Chavez? :P (No, I haven't forgotten)

Additionally, Intel will never have a monopoly in this space. If AMD approached collapse it's already been rumored that private equity vulchers are circling the already-wounded AMD animal. They would come in with an LBO, take a machine gun to the management, install quality leaders, hold on to the firm for several years while inefficiencies are painfully burned out of company and then put AMD back on the market with a good bit more debt burden than it had before but much healthier fundamentals and, on the average, significantly better performance than firms that didn't go through the process.

In that sense, the best thing any of us could do for AMD is to NOT buy their product if it isn't a compelling one. Corporate welfare is an idea based in emotion, fear, and misunderstanding of markets, not one based in any kind of business logic at all. Again, not surprising from a Chavez defender.


By Kuroyama on 6/29/2007 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Your oft repeated blind faith in the perfection of the "free market" is no less naive than the faith of someone that Chavez will do what is best for Venezuela.


By TomZ on 6/29/2007 4:40:41 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, because after all, open-market and state-planned economies have done about equally well, when you look back in history. I mean, you can't hardly tell any difference in terms of economic efficiency, standard of living, etc. between the two, right?

NOT.

I don't think that the OP was advocating "blind faith," but if for some reason I was force to give "blind faith" to one of those two systems, I'd choose open market without any hesistation.

We'll see how Chavez does in Venezuela. Considering his hero is Castro, let's hope he can create a better situation than Castro has for Cuba.


By Kuroyama on 6/29/2007 5:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say anything good about communism? No. I only said that a belief that a 100% free market economy is the best would be just as naive as a belief that Chavez's twisted behavior is being done purely for the sake of what is best for Venezuela (rather than simply because he is a megalomaniac who believes himself to be omnipotent and infallible).

As far as your idea of history goes, I am not aware of any pure "free market" economies in the world. I am referring to Ringold's regular remarks about how much he loves Hong Kong for being the most free market economy around, as if he somehow believes that copying the system worldwide would produce a world-wide Hong Kong (i.e. apparently paradise or something), and the general tone in the vast majority of his posts that a freer market is always better (although often true, it is far from an absolute).

Anyways, this is all off topic. Who cares if Amiga allegedly likes Chavez? The question here is whether to support AMD even if their chips are slightly inferior to Intel's. Sometimes you defer instant gratification by investing a dollar today to get back two dollars next year. The suggestion here is that buying a 5% inferior AMD chip today will result in a payback later on if it helps keep AMD afloat, and Ringold's blind faith that no bankruptcy or restructuring could result in AMD ceasing to compete with Intel's top tier chips is just naive. (for instance look at what happened when VIA got ahold of Cyrix; the Eden has its own niche and it certainly isn't competing against a Core II)


By TomZ on 6/29/2007 5:56:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The suggestion here is that buying a 5% inferior AMD chip today will result in a payback later on if it helps keep AMD afloat, and Ringold's blind faith that no bankruptcy or restructuring could result in AMD ceasing to compete with Intel's top tier chips is just naive.

We're in agreement on that! If AMD wants us to buy their product, they have to make it superior. Pity points count for nothing compared to benchmarks and other performance measures.


By Ringold on 6/29/2007 8:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can click on Amiga's name and look at a couple recent posts. He seemed to think nothing odd at all was afoot with Chavez's closing of media opposition.

As far as Venezeula's economy, economic leading indicators, much to my own surprise, are alreading furiously flashing red. I figured it'd take at least another year for things to fall apart, but nay, the markets speedy response has surprised even me.

As for free markets, we agree, they typically are better without direct government intervention. And no, there is no paradise, but Hong Kong does have the worlds most free economy and it's growth rate shows what a free economy can do.

As for AMD my faith in the market is well placed I believe. Unless interest rates really head north (which they could), I absolutely believe someone would be willing to pick up a near-death AMD (especially if it's from mismanagement), leverage it up with debt, machine gun anybody not up to snuff in the organization, make expensive and painful adjustments that wouldn't of looked good on a quarterly report, and then years later once it's all done dump it on the stock market. My faith is justified, I believe, because firms that come out at the end of that process typically outperform firms that muddled along on their own, making accusations of "corporate raiders" misplaced. There's too much money to be made in the processor game, especially in a duopoly situation.

I don't know what really set you off about free markets, perhaps my sarcastic comment at nationalizing the industry, but no type of government intervention here at all would lead to a desireable outcome, and giving AMD pity purchases would only reward bad behavior. I don't really think you could construct a strong argument here that the free market isn't working precisely as it should. I'm actually curious why the stock price isn't lower than it is already...


By Kuroyama on 6/30/2007 4:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know what really set you off about free markets

It was that Amiga's comment here had nothing at all to do with communism, Chavez, or any such thing. Even if Amiga were the devil incarnate it still wouldn't effect whether or not his argument was valid.

I happen to agree with Amiga500 on this point and exclusively buy AMD processors because their mid-level parts are roughly competitive with Intel's on a performance per dollar basis, and so I might as well support the underdog as a way of keeping the market more crowded and hence prices lower. (alas my job only allows me to buy laptops from an "approved" list, all of which are Intel based, so overall I've still probably given Intel more money than AMD)


By kenji4life on 6/30/2007 1:45:26 PM , Rating: 4
I have always preferred AMD, and even now I don't consider buying AMD "pity purchasing" I recently bought a mid-level processor and motherboard at fry's for less than a hundred bucks. The alternative from intel? still P4's and that's just not a deal to me. Do I think AMD is doing as well as they could? No. But that doesn't mean that it's easy either. Some of you act as if AMD is being as naive as Intel has been in the not too distant past *coughnetburst*. Let's not forget that AMD has consistently lit a fire under Intel's ass, which is the largest reason Intel even has any good products out right now. I really doubt people at AMD are sitting around moping because they aren't doing well. Does that mean they will beat intel in performance anytime soon? Maybe not.. but that doesn't mean they are failing as a company.


By spluurfg on 6/30/2007 6:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
He never said markets were perfect.

Having an open economy rewards performance. Hence there is an incentive to do well, and if, say, senior management cannot perform, they are more than happy to approve a private equity buyout to replace the management. Naturally, greed tends to be a problem, but that's where government regulation comes in.

Dictators/Despots/Demagogues worry mostly about staying in power, and often have little incentive to make public improvement their first priority. Also, since they are the law, there tends to be preciously little to keep their power in check.

So while you may wear your Che Guevara shirt with pride, believe it or not there is some sense in market economies. Unless you can name me a nation that has a successful, developed nation with a closed economy and no financial services industry.


By Amiga500 on 7/2/2007 4:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
If we're going to prop up failed businesses, why don't we just nationalize the microprocessor industry? That solves the whole problem, doesn't it, Amiga, supporter of communist Chavez? :P (No, I haven't forgotten)


Failed businesses?

They aren't exactly dead yet

Failed for what reason?

Maybe failed because Intel abused their position to prevent the K8 establishing the market it should have for AMD...

Oh, and your ignorance knows no bounds. Chavez is a socialist, not a communist - there is a massive difference, I suggest you go find out about it before spouting more crap. I'd also like to know how you think you know my political opinion considering it was NOT expressed in any of my (1) posts re Chavez - I stated the FACTS regarding the case, and did not expand around them whatsoever.

Unfortunately, you do appear as the stereotypical head-in-the sand American that doesn't know anything about what is happening in half the world, and doesn't give a sh_t about it either. [BTW for the other Americans on here - I do have relations over there, and have been over there, I know the stereotype is misguided for most]


By FNG on 6/30/2007 3:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe
quote:
irregardless
is really a word =), I am going to have to be that guy on this one because I F-ing hate the use of that term.


By TomZ on 6/30/2007 3:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like that word either, but I don't think it's correct to say it is not a word.

irregardless

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \?ir-i-'gärd-l?s\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.


http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregard...


By A5 on 6/29/2007 12:33:18 PM , Rating: 3
If AMD goes away, someone else (looking at IBM), will buy up their remnants and enter the desktop market - it's too big now for just one company.


By calaverasgrandes on 6/29/2007 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I really dont see IBM getting backin that game. They sold off their desktop/laptop divisions to lenovo because they said the "margins just arent there". They seem to be doing fine with their power series. Why would they want to step into the low profit margin processor war with intel. They dont.

(and uh thanks anandtech for the assertion that I may possibly be a robot)


By Targon on 6/29/2007 6:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
The PC market is too low-margin, but the processor market is quite a bit better for many reasons.

Cost of motherboard(including GPU)+CPU+memory+case+power supply+hard drive+DVD+/-RW+flash card reader to produce isn't much lower than the price the distributors and/or retail stores pay for these machines. As a result, you need to sell at a HUGE volume in order to make any reasonable profit at all, and a bad quarter can kill your profits for a year.

That compared to manufacturing the CPU and selling it, which provides a higher profit margin than a full computer system. Of course, that is due to manufacturing the parts yourself instead of contracting other companies for their parts...


By melgross on 6/29/2007 1:38:44 PM , Rating: 4
More like a 15-20% difference.

But, yes, even a 5% difference in large, or even medium systems, is enough to make a purchase decision. That can save a company quite a bit of money during the systems lifetime.

The upfront cost difference is minimal when compared to the time saved over a year.

And if a program can finish late in the day, rather than after hours, it can make a big difference to the personnel workload, not having to carry it over to the next day.


By Some1ne on 6/29/2007 3:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
No, I think what he was saying makes sense is buying for what offers the best price/performance right now, as opposed to worrying about asinine/alarmist theories regarding what might happen "3 years from now" as the result of that purchase.


By retrospooty on 6/29/2007 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 5
"Buying a non-competitive solution just to assure there will be two competitors is retarded."

I agree with you there. It is retarded. We do need AMD to stay competitive to keep Intel honest, but AMD must do that by being competitive themselves, and executing to plan.


By JoKeRr on 6/29/2007 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it is, Intel's 65nm manufacturing is a lot more mature than AMD's, and not to mention AMD's quadcore is single die whereas Intel's clovertown is dual die, that just further decreases yield for AMD. Naturally price can only go as low as yield allows.


By TemjinGold on 6/29/2007 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a great idea. How about you go ahead and keep buying the underdog to keep it alive while the rest of us keeps buying whatever is the best price/performance at the time?

Do you seriously think 1 person or even all the readers of Daily Tech combined can make a difference in whether or not AMD goes down through 1 cpu purchase? If you like wasting your money like that, I'm not here to stop you. But if you can't see why that's futile, I feel sorry for you.

Your options are more likely to be "buy the best today and pay more in the future" or "buy the underdog today and pay more in the future."


Don't believe the Intel FUD
By Beenthere on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By LTG on 6/29/2007 3:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
At least you're not biased.

What is it, are you one of the AMD engineers who lost a job in the last 3 rounds of layoffs?

Otherwise there's no basis for you to claim Barcelona will be far superior in august.


RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By Ringold on 6/29/2007 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in hopes the criminals at Intel will burn in Hell with Bill Gates and his band of scum sucking cronies.


/me backs away slowly...


RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By Frags on 6/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By penter on 6/30/2007 6:43:44 AM , Rating: 1
Hey I remember INTEL claiming over the past generations it will be 40% over the competitor AMD, as was with conroe, and guess what: it was NOT 40%. They claim with Penryn 40% and guess what: it will NOT be 40%.
They claim all they want, they never deliver.
At least AMD is't talking bulshit.
(They never told that AMD on 65nm would be any better, just cheaper and cooler)


RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By coldpower27 on 6/30/2007 9:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
It was 40% over Pentium D, which was true, for Conroe vs Windsor they were claims something 20%. So your simply remembering incorrectly.


RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By jhtrico1850 on 6/30/2007 11:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
http://news.com.com/Intel+strikes+back+with+next-g...
Intel expects its forthcoming Conroe and Merom chips to deliver a performance advantage of at least 20 percent over chips from Advanced Micro Devices that are slated to be released at the same time, an Intel executive said Friday.

When has Intel claimed 40% over AMD again?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200704190...
Intel also claims that top-of-the-range Penryn-based desktop PCs will be 15% faster in imaging-related applications, 25% faster in 3D rendering, more than 40% faster in gaming and will be able to encode video up to 40% faster when SSE4 optimized video encoders are used.

Boo hoo


RE: Don't believe the Intel FUD
By Frags on 7/5/2007 4:37:00 AM , Rating: 1
Intel has mainly compared their processors to their previous generations.

AMD mainly compares their processors to Intel.

One thing you learn in Marketing is when a competitor compares themselves to another in their Ads, they concede that they are REALLY not better.

So far Barcelona has NOT lived up to CLAIMS and AMD has consistantly Advertised at trade shows how their Quad core solution is THE solution over Intel. Funny, I thought you had to actually HAVE a product out to make such claims.

The TRUE FUD is claiming Barcelona is all THIS and when it's not, then claim it's a leader in TDW because the claims of performance cannot be lived up to the theoretical powerpoint foil.

So WHO isn't talking BULLSHIT again?


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki