Funny you coming here throwing EE chips, you could just compare against Xeon for the sake of the absurdity.
But why didn't you talk about mainstream prices? Was AMD the best bang for the buck with K8?
Fine, name one AMD chip that actually had a higher official retail price than the Intel Extreme Edition it competed against back in the day.
The GDDR5 controller was removed when AMD moved to DDR3 / DDR4 hybrid controlled in Carrizo.
GDDR5 functionality never left the labs. The biggest issue at the time was the fact that GDDR5 was only available in 4Gb modules. In clamshell configuration you could only have 4GB (8x 4Gb) of memory in total for the whole system. Now days 8Gb ICs are available, but you would still be limited to 8GB (8x 8Gb). That would be enough for most of the APU users, but it would raise the price of the platform to the skies.
Might be useful for Mini-ITX motherboards, they don't usually have too many more ports than an AM4 SoC could drive without an external chipset.
It would have to be a NUC type (With SATA). Else its crippled to death.
It does have PCIe 3.0 x 8 for graphics so why couldn't it be Mini-ITX?
I find the Kaveri GDDR5-functionality interesting.
My memory is fine. AMD always has undercut them by a minimum of $100 and usually by at least $300. Even when they were the performance leaders.
Uhh, no. Highest-end K8 X2 chips were the most expensive CPUs on the market, when they were also the fastest. Intel's Pentium D was the bargain leader.
Yeah, looks like AMD wasn't so budget-oriented during the X2 days. I suppose, the vast majority was still buying cheaper single core solutions back in the day. Personally, I had a single core Athlon 64 S939 and it seemed like it was enough.
Is it a big deal, whether it was or wasn't ? Personally, I've never been a customer in that price range anyway. But if I wanted to get the best, I would be ready to pay for it. It would not really matter to me if it cost $1000 or $1500... That is how I see it.But their flagship was still $100 - $300 less than Intel's flagship chip, even when AMD also had the performance crown.
Agreed, back then AMD did indeed charge quite a bit. I never disputed that. But their flagship was still $100 - $300 less than Intel's flagship chip, even when AMD also had the performance crown.
You cant use those PCIe x8. Unless you run without network or network via USB only
Uhh, no. Highest-end K8 X2 chips were the most expensive CPUs on the market, when they were also the fastest. Intel's Pentium D was the bargain leader.
Again, let me summon up for you:
EE 999$
X2 4800 1001$
If I am not mistaken Bristol Ridge (basically) = Carrizo with DDR4 enabled rather than DDR3.
And we have seen Carrizo desktops with dGPU (with both Ethernet and Wireless card). Example:
http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-3...c=ddccz303hw10&model_id=inspiron-3656-desktop
Really, that is your idea of "more"? You realize motherboard cost variance makes a $2 difference insignificant. It would be one thing if you were claiming the products were priced essentially the same, but it's a gross exaggeration to call AMD's solution more expensive because the CPU was $2 higher list, while AMD motherboards were traditionally much cheaper than the Intel equivalent.
IIRC, while the pentium d might have been a little cheaper, they required overpriced rambus ram for full performance, which pushed the bargain leader position back to AMD. There was eventually a DDR option for the P4 based CPU, but it's performance was worse than the rambus option.
We still have to see what IMC tech is behind Zen. The XV train has sailed and a 2400mhz tops for that IMC wont be as crippling as the growing tendency to ship prebuilts just like mobile devices with just 1 RAM stick.
Uhh, no. Highest-end K8 X2 chips were the most expensive CPUs on the market, when they were also the fastest. Intel's Pentium D was the bargain leader.
With AMD launching Zen in 2016 and new CPUs with new memory, have you been working with them on the motherboard side yet?
Not yet, we think it might be later in 2016 so we will start discussing motherboards in early 2016. It is actually up to AMD, but I think at this moment they are not complete with final details for the motherboards yet.
It seems so, but let's investigate this a little. That EE chip was introduced on the 18th of April 18, 2005, about two months ahead of the FX57 chip and one month and a half ahead of that X2 4800. The previous AMD FX chip released on the 19th of October 2004, FX-55 had a merely $827 USD price tag. The previous EE 3.4 Ghz chip from Intel released on the 4th of February 2004, also had exactly the same price tag, of $999 USD. The competing FX-53 chip was also 200 bucks cheaper. So it seems, at least from the information I have so far gathered, it was Intel who started these price wars and AMD just followed suit and rightly so. Their product was just much more attractive to the market.Utter BS. AMD costed more than even the EE edition back then.
Again, let me summon up for you:
EE 999$
X2 4800 1001$
FX57 1031$.
You are trying to portrait a false illusion of your beloved AMD.
You seem to have problems with the memory as well. They used DDR/DDR2. RAMBUS chipsets was the 1999-2002 era. And none of them supported any EE CPU for that matter.
So they didn't have a higher performance option, making them even more outclassed by the Athlon CPU of the time. I think you missed the part where CPU that actually compete with each other should be compared.
The DDR based P4 systems were universally dogs, only the Northwood P4 with RAMBUS was competitive in certain specific benchmarks such as Q3A and linux kernel compilation.
People have always valued performance and power consumption, regardless of brand. AMD used to have it all back in the day. Having said that, I don't remember many people complaining about their Intel rigs consuming more watts for worse performance, compared with AMD. Double standards? You bet. But it does seem like a bigger trend now. Some people would even replace a light bulb in their butt just to save some power, if they could. World has become different, that's for sure.