backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by mykalccook.. on Sep 5 at 3:00 AM


Bobcat aims for advanced performance at under 1 watt of power consumption per core.  (Source: AMD via Anandtech)

Bulldozer packs a major redesign, with two integer cores sharing an FPU. AMD says the approach optimizes performance per die size.  (Source: AMD via Anandtech)

The Llano packs a K10-derived core (pictured here) paired with on-die DDR3 and a 5000-series GPU.  (Source: AMD)
Can Bulldozer, Bobcat, and Llano allow AMD to dethrone CPU kingpin Intel?

AMD has plenty to cheer about of late.  Almost out of the red in its latest fiscal report, the company has surged ahead to become the top seller of discrete GPUs (as of July).  The company also is sitting on a pile of cash -- $1.25B USD -- from a settlement with Intel over Intel's alleged attempts to pay cash payouts to OEMs to not use AMD CPUs (and several other alleged anticompetitive actions).  With the U.S. Federal Trade Commission promising to keep a watchful eye on Intel, the ball is now in AMD's court to deliver a competitive CPU product.

Today at the Hot Chips conference held at Stanford University, the company discussed some new details on its trio of upcoming architectures (Bobcat, Llano, Bulldozer) that AMD hopes will revitalize its CPU unit and offer a turnaround akin to what it pulled off in the GPU sector.

First up is Bobcat.  Discussed as far back as Computex 2007, this architecture covers lightweight 1-10 watt TDP processors for mobile computers such as netbooks.  In that respect it's AMD's first true challenger to Intel's wildly successful Atom. 

AMD has had CPUs billed as netbook processors, but they were too power hungry to be true competitors.  For example, last year's single core AMD Athlon 64 L110 CPU, which debuted in Acer subsidiary Gateway's LT3103u netbook, clocked in at 1.2 GHz and consumed 13 watts of power.  Compare that to Intel's Atom N270, which launched nearly a year earlier and offered 1.6 GHz speed and a tiny 2.5 W power envelope.

To put things in context AMD is targeting under 1 watt per core with Bobcat, a dramatic improvement over the L110 and other currently-offered low-power processors from AMD.

While both Atom and Bobcat are similar in number of pipe stages for the CPU (16 stages for the former, 15 for the latter), the Bobcat is an out-of-order CPU which should give it a performance edge over Intel's otherwise similar design.  The design features 64 KB of L1 cache, and 512 KB of L2 cache.

Bobcat notably will likely never be sold as a stand-alone CPU (or at least AMD has announced no plans to do so).  It will first pop up early next year as an AMD's first Fusion CPU dubbed OntarioOntario will feature 2 Bobcat cores paired with an AMD GPU.  The combined system-on-a-chip (SoC) will be produced at the 40 nm node at TSMC's chip fabs.

AMD even has a catchy name for the package -- it's not a CPU, it's an APU (Accelerated Processor Unit).

Turning to Bulldozer, the new CPUs target the performance desktop and notebook sector and offer a significant redesign, shifting the architecture in an interesting direction.

Following Intel's Nehalem (i7), Bulldozer is a more modular design.  AMD is opting for a bit different design on the modular level, though.  It's opting for a two-integer core design capable of servicing two threads, with a common floating point unit (FPU) between the cores.  While obvious lacking the performance of 2 full cores with a FPU each, the dual-core module design is only 12-percent larger than a single core design at the node size.  And AMD promises the performance boost on average will be significantly more than 12-percent, so this seems a smart tradeoff.

Other changes include a deeper pipeline and more aggressive prefetching.  Idle cores can be fully turned off for power savings.

Bulldozer CPUs will primarily retail in the desktop sector in 1 to 4 module packages (for a total of 2 to 8 threads/integer cores) on the AM3 socket.  A 16-core G34 socket variant dubbed Interlagos and a C32 socket 8-core model dubbed Valencia will launch for servers.  The CPUs will be produced on a 32 nm process, by Global Foundries.  Intel was the first to hit this node with its Nehalem die-shrink Clarkdale, which launched in January of this year.

Each integer core has a tiny 16 KB cache.  That's disappointingly, low, but AMD says the performance impact will be masked by plentiful L2 cache.

Bulldozer should arrive first in Q2/Q3 2011 in server packages (though no precise 2011 date has been specified yet) and later in the year for desktop packages.  This places it roughly two to three quarters behind Intel's first redesigned 32 nm architecture, Sandy Bridge which is slated for a Q4 2010 launch.  Believe it or not, that means AMD is catching up -- if it can meet its schedule that is.

Last but not least is Llano.  Unlike the redesigned Bulldozer and Bobcat, Llano is a system on a chip featuring a refined K10-based core design -- basically a tweaked Phenom II.  AMD's slides have shown that it will use a new socket called "AM3r2".  The package will pack four of those K10-based cores, a 5000-series-derived GPU, and DD3 memory.

Llano's release date was bumped from Q4 2010 to Jan. 2011, based on yield issues (and "reaction to Ontario’s market opportunities", according to AMD PR-speak).

If AMD can push ahead and keep its launch dates on target it looks to be quite competitive with Intel CPU-wise on a number of fronts in 2011 -- netbooks/tablets (Bobcat), mid-range laptops (Llano), and high-end notebooks/desktops (Bulldozer).  Of course the most telling details will be the actual benchmarks of the chips versus Intel's competitive designs.  AMD currently has these CPUs in its lab and is doing internal testing -- but don't expect third-party benchmarks until close to launch-time.


Comments     Threshold


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

No talk of speed
By retepallen on 8/24/2010 12:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm disappointed that AMD dodged the speed question.

Either they have finally cracked it and are keeping quiet (vs Intels next offering) so as not to oversell themselves or it just isn't that impressive.




RE: No talk of speed
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2010 1:15:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:

I'm disappointed that AMD dodged the speed question.


That's not necessarily true. At this point it's probably to early in the Bulldozer/Bobcat process to accurately estimate the clock speed of the production chips. Overestimating would only land them in trouble and underestimation would do them no good as well.

And what would speculative clock speeds even tell you? The architecture looks to have some pretty serious changes, so the speed doesn't really tell you what you need to know. You need benchmarks to get a feel for performance PER CLOCK CYCLE. Only then can you get a feel for how this CPU stacks up to its competitors.

The only real disappointment here is that Llano's release slipped approximately two months, as announced about a month ago (see link). Hopefully Bulldozer/Bobcat stay on track and don't slip.


RE: No talk of speed
By theArchMichael on 8/24/2010 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
True that, but what would have been nice is to see what they they're expectations are for the power envelope of the bulldozer. That one looks really interesting... I have a HP tx2z (its the touchscreen laptop) that I like a lot but its a little too bulky and slow. However, you get touchscreen AND decent processing and graphics acceleration.
Unfortunately, nice high-end chips that offer decent power with a reduced power envelope seem not be to be "fashion" anymore. The focus seems to be mostly netbooks with Atom processors or monster laptops with altered desktop variants.

I want (and I think others would be interested too) an IPad that can 'do stuff' . Which would mean a moderately powerful processor with upgraded discrete graphics performance and of course... not running iOS4.


RE: No talk of speed
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2010 2:51:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
True that, but what would have been nice is to see what they they're expectations are for the power envelope of the bulldozer. That one looks really interesting... I have a HP tx2z (its the touchscreen laptop) that I like a lot but its a little too bulky and slow. However, you get touchscreen AND decent processing and graphics acceleration.
Unfortunately, nice high-end chips that offer decent power with a reduced power envelope seem not be to be "fashion" anymore. The focus seems to be mostly netbooks with Atom processors or monster laptops with altered desktop variants.


Well you'd probably be interested in the Bobcat more so than Bulldozer. I agree that it should be interesting to get a TDP on the Bulldozer lineup per core, but it's probably going to be a bit too power hungry for your tablet needs. The Bobcat would be a better fit, and spare your battery life. And it has decent graphics, like you were asking for.

quote:
I want (and I think others would be interested too) an IPad that can 'do stuff' . Which would mean a moderately powerful processor with upgraded discrete graphics performance and of course... not running iOS4.


While both Bobcat and the next-gen atoms are both promising, keep your eye out for a Hummingbird-equipped Android tablet from Samsung. Hummingbird is a much faster processor than competitive ARM designs (nearly twice as fast per clock cycle as the Qualcomm Snapdragon) and very lean powerwise. I'm hoping Samsung sees the gold mine they're sitting on and releases an Android tablet to follow their Galaxy S/Galaxy S Pro smart phones.


RE: No talk of speed
By fic2 on 8/24/2010 5:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Did I miss the planned schedule for Bobcat release? I saw the others, but not for Bobcat.


RE: No talk of speed
By Da W on 8/24/2010 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 1
At least AMD is showing a lot more than Intel is with Sandy Bridge.

From what i've read, Bobcat will be a blockbuster, outperforming atom and leading way to Windows 7 tablets to compete with the iPad. Even apple will use it in their apple-tv, and possibly in other things later on. And people (the masses, not the geeks who read and argue on this website) are moving away from the desktop into smaller forms factors, i think Bobcat will make or break AMD.

As for bulldozer, it should at least perform like a Core i7,if not slightly better. But Core i7 will be history, Intel will have their Sandy bridge. Who knows what it will be worth. But even then, AMD will have a decent GPU on chip. Consider that they are running on the same old IGP for 3 years and that it is good enought, that Intel NEW on chip graphics barely beat AMD 3-years old on motherboard graphics, AMD as a lot of room for improvement. And graphics are becoming more important than the CPU.

I want to believe!!!


RE: No talk of speed
By Reclaimer77 on 8/24/2010 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for bulldozer, it should at least perform like a Core i7,if not slightly better.


You're basing this on...what exactly?


RE: No talk of speed
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2010 3:04:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

You're basing this on...what exactly?


Don't know why you got rated down for this.

As much as I would love for AMD to succeed, there's still a lot of unknowns (for example, how's AMD's cache performance going to stack up to Intel's in access speed -- early info looks good, but hard to say conclusively).

And whatever the performance per clock cycle is, speed (determined by chip yields) will ultimately play a big role in determining if his statement is true. Granted speed is largely unhelpful as a metric, without a good feel for performance per clock cycle ... look @ the Qualcomm Snapdragon and Samsung Hummingbird ARM CPUs for example -- same clock, Hummingbird is about twice as fast.

But your question is fair.

That said, if AMD /can't/ beat the Core i7's performance, they're in deep trouble and seriously screwed up on their redesign. That seems unlikely, though possible.


RE: No talk of speed
By tedrodai on 8/24/2010 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't know why you got rated down for this.


Was going to say the same thing. I would love for AMD to produce a chip that matches/beats i7's performance, but if there is any information out that could lead you to that conclusion yet, someone please share it. That is...share the facts, not propoganda.


RE: No talk of speed
By Taft12 on 8/25/2010 10:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, if AMD /can't/ beat the Core i7's performance, they're in deep trouble and seriously screwed up on their redesign. That seems unlikely, though possible.


You and I are of different opinions here. I think there is a very good chance Bulldozer performance will not beat Core i7, but I also think that isn't a big problem.

It matters to readers of this site, but it is easy to forget what a tiny minority we are.

Intel's margins on Core i7 are wonderful, but it is a very tiny piece of the market. Look at the size of the market opportunity for Bobcat and Llano - it is much larger than the traditional PC market and from a business perspective, AMD is entering some very exciting times.


RE: No talk of speed
By Reclaimer77 on 8/25/2010 4:43:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't know why you got rated down for this.


Because I said it lol. If I told you it was sunny outside, someone would argue.

quote:
That said, if AMD /can't/ beat the Core i7's performance, they're in deep trouble and seriously screwed up on their redesign. That seems unlikely, though possible.


I agree with this. But the new Phenom II's barely beat out 5 year old Core2Duo's on most benchmarks. So it looks like AMD's niche right now is competing with Intel's last generation chips, instead of the latest CPU designs.

As always, time will tell.


RE: No talk of speed
By just4U on 8/26/2010 1:10:40 AM , Rating: 4
Your comment is misleading. The I7 isn't leaps and bounds better then the core2 either. All of you who have had the oportunity to use the i7 core2 (quad or any of it's variants) and the PII know this.

Currently were at a wall (my opinion) and performance gains are fairly marginal. So still waiting for AMD or INTEL to step up and blow us away with a new design because no one has since 06.


RE: No talk of speed
By nafhan on 8/24/2010 2:35:30 PM , Rating: 1
The GPU on a chip is mostly going to be more of a boon for Bobcat and Llano(at least initially). We know AMD is saying they'll have 50% better "throughput" and 33% more "cores" than current Magny-Cours processors, and that's it. It's a different balance of execution units than anything else out there. So, how it does is probably going to be highly dependent on workload - especially since the "cores" aren't independent processing units like we have today. It sounds like it'll be a beast at integer operations, though.


RE: No talk of speed
By zephyrxero on 8/24/2010 4:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
You bring up a very good point, traditional desktop CPUs are going to continue meaning less and less. Smart phones, laptops and other mobile devices as well as set top boxes are gonna move the majority of computer users towards Arm/Atom/Bobcat type chips. Sure, geeks, artists, developers and businesses will continue having traditional desktop PCs, but for the average joe user, there won't be any point. With that stated, Bobcat will be much more important for AMD's survival than Bulldozer in the long run.

Of course, server class processors will continue to grow too as more and more of what we do moves to the cloud. And I guess Bulldozer will power future Opterons, so they'll matter too, they just won't sell as many.

Finally, with both Id and Epic hinting their next generation of engines will be moving toward ray tracing, and possibly doing away with polygons, AMD's Radeon division will matter much less, as rasterization is less used than features like OpenCL & Cuda which should be easily incorporated into Fusion style chips.

The company really getting screwed in this: Nvidia. They desperately need to buy or get bought by an x86 company.


RE: No talk of speed
By hardware specialists on 8/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: No talk of speed
By inighthawki on 8/24/2010 9:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware clock frequencies means next to nothing if you don't have many other performance characteristics, right? There's a reason why a 2.6GHz i7 can outperform a 4GHz Phenom II, and why that can quite easily outperform a 4GHz Pentium 4.


RE: No talk of speed
By hardware specialists on 8/25/2010 8:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
what world do you live in. its slightly faster ( clock to clock) due to tripple channel ddr3( 1366) and a few other things but 2.6 ghz i7 in no way out performs an amd phenom II @ 4.0 ghz. thats crazy. read up b4 you start saying things that make you sound less then intellegent.


RE: No talk of speed
By hardware specialists on 8/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: No talk of speed
By inighthawki on 8/25/2010 3:14:01 PM , Rating: 4
First and foremost, I am not an Intel fanboy by any means. In fact I highly favor AMDs offerings, but even I am not biased enough to realize that the i7 lineup is superior to the Phenom IIs, Intel won this round.

Secondly, yes I may have gone a little overboard on the frequency. A 4GHz PII, maybe not, but if you take a look at
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=47
you can easily see that an i7 920 @ 2.66GHz outperforms the PII in almost every benchmark, where the PII is at 3.4GHz. And yes, I am comparing the original low-end i7 quad core with the highest end quad core PII. I hope we don't need to bring in the 980X or compare a 4GHz PII with a 4GHz i7, because that will be pretty sad. Undeniable, my friend. And again yes, I love AMD, they just have the inferior product this time around. I'm really hoping they do well with bulldozer, it sounds promising.

Oh and your above comment about triple channel memory... where did you get the idea that it had such a large impact? In fact, it has almost no performance improvement at all:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-...
The difference is fairly minimal.

As for value, i got an i7-930 for $200, is that not a good value? Yeah generally AMD has better value, but that doesn't mean always.

I suggest you do the research you suggested I do before you make it sound as though my claims have no merit whatsoever, when in fact they are quite accurate.


RE: No talk of speed
By just4U on 8/26/2010 1:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
All that being said If you take two towers with similiar specs (one with a PII and the other with a I7) and compare (without benchmarks) your not going to find alot of difference overall. it's there... and in some instances noticable but for the most part? Not so much.


RE: No talk of speed
By Taft12 on 8/25/2010 10:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
This has been AMD's approach for a couple years now since they lost the high-end performance crown (and it appears things are not about to change)

This seems hard for DT'ers to admit, but an AMD system is perfectly fine for 95% of users. This is why they market the "Spider" or "Dragon" platforms rather than CPU, chipset and graphics individually. Play down your weakness and play up your strength. It's the right approach for what AMD has to offer and integrating more and more on the CPU makes this marketing approach even more appropriate.


nice
By Azure Sky on 8/24/2010 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 3
nice, kept having people tell me that dozer would need a new board, my current board will take a dozer :D

not that i think I will bother upgrading anytime soon, my 1055t(x6)@3.55ghz(4.1 turbo on all cores) is plenty fast ;)




RE: nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/24/2010 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
nice, kept having people tell me that dozer would need a new board, my current board will take a dozer :D


AM3r2 - should be dubbed as "AM3+" on release.
I think I can recall AMD having a socket AM2r2 at one stage which also became AM2+, so it's not a stretch of the imagination for AM3 backwards compatibility.

However that backwards compatibility would probably be up to individual board manufacturers providing a BIOS update, and AM2/AM2+ boards will probably not be supported. (As the new chips don't have a DDR2 memory controller.)

I'm with you though, I find my Phenom 2 x6 1090T running at 4.4ghz constant is more than enough for my needs at this stage, I wouldn't argue with an extra 2 cores though...

Also, I am rather excited about AMD's Atom competitor, hopefully we can get some ITX boards at a reasonable price, they even showed that chip running Aliens vs Predator at Computex.
Might be the first upgrade my Ion+Atom 330 rig will get, as the D510 hasn't been worth the upgrade at this stage.


RE: nice
By theArchMichael on 8/24/2010 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that would be BS if it's not because that was supposed to be the whole point when they were selling AM2 + 3... if I remember correctly?

I'm not going to be too upset if that's not the case BUT.. it would be cool to buy one of those dozer chips close to release (which I am sure carry a hefty premium) for $200 - $300 and then get a "nice" new MB in my own time so I can get all the latest stuff that I will most likely never use :-P(usb 3.0, ethernet display port, etc.)


RE: nice
By aegisofrime on 8/24/2010 11:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Techpowerup says otherwise though:

Outside the modules
At the chip-level, there's a large L3 cache, a northbridge that integrates the PCI-Express root complex, and an integrated memory controller. Since the northbridge is completely on the chip, the processor does not need to deal with the rest of the system with a HyperTransport link. It connects to the chipset (which is now relegated to a southbridge, much like Intel's Ibex Peak), using A-Link Express, which like DMI, is essentially a PCI-Express link. It is important to note that all modules and extra-modular components are present on the same piece of silicon die. Because of this design change, Bulldozer processors will come in totally new packages that are not backwards compatible with older AMD sockets such as AM3 or AM2(+).

http://www.techpowerup.com/129392/AMD_Details_Bull...

I have been considering getting an AM3 board for upgradeability to Bulldozer, but what with all the conflicting information now... Jason Mick says it's compatible, but others say it's not. I hoping for a detailed writeup from Anand Lal Shimpi himself. AFAIK, the current article on the front page was written before AMD's actual presentation isn't it?


RE: nice
By Taft12 on 8/25/2010 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post, and indeed the OP can't conclude his board will support Bulldozer because he could be left high and dry by the mobo OEM even if it turns out AM3 motherboards can be Bulldozer-compatible.


Dates and other errata
By nafhan on 8/24/2010 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bulldozer should arrive first in Q2/Q3 2010 in server packages
Pretty sure Bulldozer won't be arriving 2Q/3Q this year, mostly because we're towards the end of 3Q. If you're speaking fiscal year, maybe specify that... From Anandtech:
quote:
Well, 2009 didn’t happen. Nor will 2010. Bobcat is the closest with production in Q4 2010 and system availability in Q1 2011. Bulldozer is strictly 2011.

Also,
quote:
Bobcat notably will never be sold as a stand-alone CPU.
isn't necessarily true. It'd be more correct to say it could be sold as a standalone, they just don't have any plans to do so. The way I saw it stated elsewhere almost made it sound like they would do so if they had a reason.




RE: Dates and other errata
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2010 2:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty sure Bulldozer won't be arriving 2Q/3Q this year, mostly because we're towards the end of 3Q. If you're speaking fiscal year, maybe specify that... From Anandtech:


Yea I had been referencing the last AMD fiscal article I wrote and goofed. Fixed!! Thanks.

quote:
isn't necessarily true. It'd be more correct to say it could be sold as a standalone, they just don't have any plans to do so. The way I saw it stated elsewhere almost made it sound like they would do so if they had a reason.


Good point. I changed the wording slightly. I do think though that it would make no sense for them to sell an individual CPU die variant if they can convince OEMs to uptake the Fusion APU version. After all, then they get the premium for both the CPU and GPU, while likely saving substantially on die costs via packaging them together on one chip. SoC is just a more economical approach, though it becomes a bit too monolothic on the performance notebook/desktop end to be currently feasible.


RE: Dates and other errata
By nafhan on 8/25/2010 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, Jason! After thinking about it for another minute, I came up with a better reason not to build a single core Bobcat: for the most part, you could probably use an Atom anywhere a single core Bobcat would be needed.


Value
By Kosh401 on 8/24/2010 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
While AMD may be behind in the enthusiast chip speed/OC departments, their current CPU's offer much better value to most in the casual/mainstream crowd. I build my own computers and play a lot of games and I use photoshop heavily with work, and the AMD quad's more than handle everything I throw at them with some minor OCing.

The overall savings of getting a high end AMD motherboard and CPU compared to Intel right now just seems to favour AMD as the performance difference is hard if not impossible to notice in real-world games/apps with a high end vid card.

So actually I'm really not all that interested in seeing if AMD can match or surpass Intel in terms of speed and OC ability (though hard to beat the ease of the Black Editions:). As long as they keep providing the best bang for buck they will keep getting my money.




RE: Value
By someguy123 on 8/24/2010 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
It would be good for the consumer if AMD delivered a chip that surpassed intel's current offerings. Right now AMD's budget line is cheaper only because intel is able to maintain bloated pricing due to lack of competition in the enthusiast sector (which gets the most coverage and the highest margins). If amd continues to just compete as a budget offering intel will continue to their tick-tock refreshes and performance will begin to stagnate.


blah blah blah
By OBLAMA2009 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: blah blah blah
By silverblue on 8/25/2010 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 1
Just because the original Phenom had the TLB bug, doesn't mean another AMD CPU will suffer from something similar. I can't remember the last time I heard of an AMD CPU launching with such an issue. Harked back to the days of the original Pentium, and that's a long time ago.


RE: blah blah blah
By just4U on 8/26/2010 2:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
The original Phenom was just a lacklustre product overall. Yeah .. was a step up (in some instances) from the X2 but it didn't even come close to comparing to the 6X line from Intel. Was like night and day. I think some people (who haven't used Amd for awhile seem to think that the Athlon2 and Phemon2 are comparable to that older cpu. Which they most definitely are not.


RE: blah blah blah
By silverblue on 8/26/2010 4:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
What's actually different between a Phenom X4 and an Athlon II X4 except for the manufacturing process, the lack of L3 cache and a DDR2/3 memory controller? A lot of the Athlon II's performance deficit will be masked by the higher clock speeds.


Interesting
By karielash on 8/24/2010 1:08:38 PM , Rating: 2

With the move to a SoC design I think AMD have a chance to catch, or at least balance out the the performance gaps, they have a strong advantage in GPU design over Intel and if that can be utilised to boost processing power the ball game becomes a lot more interesting, I can't wait for the new chips from both to start rolling out.




Heads up - false Newegg emails
By plowak on 8/24/2010 3:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just got 5 emails purportedly from Newegg saying my account had been successfully charged for 5 different order numbers (that I didn't order), called Newegg, they are aware of the email scam. So, check your email, ignore phony invoices.
What's this got to do with current topic? Well, we'll probably be buying those new AMD processors from Newegg. I know some of you will find this info useful.
Caio




I just want
By twhittet on 8/25/2010 12:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
a Phenom running on 32nm. They're decent chips, too bad AMD didn't figure out the 32nm thing 9 months ago. A 4ghz triple core running at 45 watts would be great.




By mykalccook on 9/5/2010 3:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Clifton Park NY, and have for the past 23 years of my life (I'm 25). GlobalFoundries (AMD's sponsor chip fab) has a new factory that is being built in Malta NY, which is 10 miles north of Clifton Park. Where there used to be a bunch of off roading trails and thousands of acres of woods, will soon be the new GF chip fab that will be producing ALL AMD products. Very soon, AMD is going to kick the snot out of Intel. Since they just dropped off the ATI brand name, they totally outcompete Nvidia and Intel in the video department, and they have these new processor architectures coming out, I can find pride in saying this... The best computers in the world are gonna be coming from my back yard. Suck it. =)




I vote with my wallet
By Beenthere on 8/24/2010 5:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care if AMD's products are a step or two behind the technology bleeding edge as I no longer pay-for-pain. <LOL>

I vote with my wallet and only buy AMD products due to Intel's numerous convictions for consumer fraud, manipulation of consumer prices and restriction of PC hardware.

Hell will freeze over long before I'd ever buy another Intel product no matter how good or inexpensive. In fact I wouldn't even USE an Intel product if given to me.




RE: I vote with my wallet
By OBLAMA2009 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
AMD vs Intel
By Zingam on 8/25/10, Rating: 0
"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














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