AMD Wins "Best CPU Manufacturer Award"

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: Duvie
What did Intel expect??? Prescott is a heater and petered out less then 400mhz from the northwood 130nm chip, they cancelled the Tejas plans, thet came late to the dance with a 64bit chip, and they showed off a dual core chip that is merely a slamming of two precott chips together and then starving it of bandwidth by sharing the bus....Oh yeah I see where they desrved it!!! (sarcasm)

I would give them an ward for their mobile chips of the dothan core but that is about it....

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I agree they (AMD) can design chips, and have great engineers...Unfortunatley they have a bunch of morons driving the train, and when it comes to selling chips (whatever they be) they will be biatch-slapped by Intel repeatedly...

Actually AMD's computing division is having their best sales ever, so they are making some headway there, it is the flash division that is bleeding them dry. Couple good threads in GH on AMD's latest finacial reports. I do agree they aren't likely to gain and hold substantial market share unless they learn to market and spend big on it.

This is what I am saying...It doesn't matter how good the product is, if ppl dont know about it they wont buy it. They know the "blue men"......We here at AT and other forums can only do so much word of mouth advertising for them....

Now that I think about it I dont feel bad I buy their cheap chips and oc them....Heck the way I see it they owe me and many around here a bunch of money anyways for spreading the word to others to buy AMD chips....I wonder if I can sue for my back wages (commisions)?????

Anand is the reason I went AMD... were would you like your check sent?

 

[andy nowotny]

Good, i ilke AMD

 

[sharad]

Originally posted by: dmens
yeah that one-liner was premature. sorry.

prescott had plenty of innovations... some I cannot discuss (prototype for future platform features), but em64t was on prescott from the very start (actually, it was already on other procs before that too). as was the nx disable bit. it also had circuit innovations such as lvs and ultra-dense cache.

so yeah, prescott is behind in a lot of benches, but it can still compete.

I am confused. Prescott is innovative because it has things disabled? The things that were invented by AMD.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
dmens, whats the attitude to AMD like over in the fabs ( I take you work on lithograph or something to do with fabbin of the chip). Do you ever talk about or diss AMD ? Where are you based if you dont mind me asking ?

We sometimes talk about what AMD did right..although I think our engineers would be slightly unhappy if they heard us..but Intel can and will catch up in the area's where A64's are currently doing so well in. 65nm will fix the major problem prescott had(too much heat and wasted power), and the 45nm stuff looks extremely promising, though they don't give us many details.

 

[JBT]

wow pwned.

 

[n7]

Excellent!

 

[AnandThenMan]

Please some of you need to stop speculating about Intel's 65nm process. I seem to recall that the move to 90 nm was going to enable the P4 to easily scale to 5+ ghz and beyond, and we all know how well that turned out.

If the 65nm process was going so well and was going to solve the heat/leakage issues for Intel then why are they steering everything away from clock speed by using model numbers and pushing dual core? 65nm is no cure for a bad design, period.

 

[fbrdphreak]

We sometimes talk about what AMD did right..although I think our engineers would be slightly unhappy if they heard us..but Intel can and will catch up in the area's where A64's are currently doing so well in. 65nm will fix the major problem prescott had(too much heat and wasted power), and the 45nm stuff looks extremely promising, though they don't give us many details.

I think 65nm will definitely help with heat/wasted power............BUT, if A64's are already running a LOT cooler than Prescott's and accordingly use less power, what will 65nm do for AMD?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I agree they (AMD) can design chips, and have great engineers...Unfortunatley they have a bunch of morons driving the train, and when it comes to selling chips (whatever they be) they will be biatch-slapped by Intel repeatedly...

Actually AMD's computing division is having their best sales ever, so they are making some headway there, it is the flash division that is bleeding them dry. Couple good threads in GH on AMD's latest finacial reports. I do agree they aren't likely to gain and hold substantial market share unless they learn to market and spend big on it.

This is what I am saying...It doesn't matter how good the product is, if ppl dont know about it they wont buy it. They know the "blue men"......We here at AT and other forums can only do so much word of mouth advertising for them....

Now that I think about it I dont feel bad I buy their cheap chips and oc them....Heck the way I see it they owe me and many around here a bunch of money anyways for spreading the word to others to buy AMD chips....I wonder if I can sue for my back wages (commisions)?????

Anand is the reason I went AMD... were would you like your check sent?

Just send it to

Duvie Needs More Toys Foundation....

I will see it gets to who needs it!!!

 

[Zap]

dmens <=> felixdekat separated at birth? Film at 11.

Originally posted by: dmens
em64t was on prescott from the very start (actually, it was already on other procs before that too). as was the nx disable bit.

I've also heard that HyperThreading was in previous chips, just not enabled. More rumors/proof that Intel is marketing driven.

I agree they (AMD) can design chips, and have great engineers...Unfortunatley they have a bunch of morons driving the train, and when it comes to selling chips (whatever they be) they will be biatch-slapped by Intel repeatedly...

Yup, guess that aquisition of NexGen back in the day paid off with them engineers. Now they just need to aquire a marketing firm and a few more semiconductor fabs.

Overclocked Athlon 64 2800+ "AX" running cool and fast at 2.5+GHz $120
Overclocked Prescott 3.8GHz constantly throttling down $360
AMD winning award at Intel event $PRICELESS

 

[sandorski]

hehe, go AMD

 

[Zebo]

Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Originally posted by: ZeboIntel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches

I hope you're joking.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

Prescott is hot (socket 478). I have one. 3.0E. But Loud? It's only moderate fan noise. And slow? An AMD K-5/6 is slow. A Pentium II 233 is slow. Make no mistake, a prescott CPU is anything but slow. They are "slower" than some Athlon 64's and FX's in most games and varying apps, but this does not make them slow processors. So I only get 85fps and a A64/FX user gets 100. 85fps is slow? /sorry for rant.

 

[Sexy D]

AMD make such high quality CPU's and they definately deserved the award

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

Prescott is hot (socket 478). I have one. 3.0E. But Loud? It's only moderate fan noise. And slow? An AMD K-5/6 is slow. A Pentium II 233 is slow. Make no mistake, a prescott CPU is anything but slow. They are "slower" than some Athlon 64's and FX's in most games and varying apps, but this does not make them slow processors. So I only get 85fps and a A64/FX user gets 100. 85fps is slow? /sorry for rant.

Think Zebo really ment was that Prescott was slower in some apps then northwood which never looks good. But then again you have to look at prescott as a pawn in Intels game of higher frequency, it wasnt ment to be a high IPC design, it was ment to scale to 5 Ghz.

Failing to be faster then northwood is one thing.

Failing to scale and producing more heat really kills any reason to have a prescott over northwood.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

Prescott is hot (socket 478). I have one. 3.0E. But Loud? It's only moderate fan noise. And slow? An AMD K-5/6 is slow. A Pentium II 233 is slow. Make no mistake, a prescott CPU is anything but slow. They are "slower" than some Athlon 64's and FX's in most games and varying apps, but this does not make them slow processors. So I only get 85fps and a A64/FX user gets 100. 85fps is slow? /sorry for rant.

Think Zebo really ment was that Prescott was slower in some apps then northwood which never looks good. But then again you have to look at prescott as a pawn in Intels game of higher frequency, it wasnt ment to be a high IPC design, it was ment to scale to 5 Ghz.

Failing to be faster then northwood is one thing.

Failing to scale and producing more heat really kills any reason to have a prescott over northwood.

Who says it couldn't scale to 5Ghz? It was Intel's decision that putting the effort to scale it to 5Ghz wasn't the right direction to go.

 

[clarkey01]

Critics would have forgiven Prescott for its slightly slower performance in some apps with northwood only if it could scale much , much higher ( Intension was 5000 Mhz).

It didn?t. Not only had Intel released a CPU that performed the same and slightly slower in some apps, which also pumped out more heat, but now also failed to redeem itself by hitting anything remotely far away from the nortwhood top out speed of 3.4 Ghz.

This looked very bad in the enthusiasts view, the average Joe had no idea.

Intel slated AMD for a high IPC design , here?s one example :

?But in the age old ?speed demon? vs. braniac? CPU architecture debate, going the speed demon route has often been found to be the right way to deliver performance to end users. But you need to supplement MHz increases with other improvements, such as wider bandwidth in the chipset, larger caches, instruction innovation, etc. As far as die sizes, our roadmap clearly has us going to 90 nanometer this year, then 65 nanometer and beyond. We don?t see the end yet, even as we delve into the atomic level.

Our competition says MHz doesn?t matter. Do you think they really feel that way? ?

- Intel's George Alfs

If prescott doesnt have a speed advantage, pumps out more heat, then whats the point to it. Doesnt matter, it ships buy the million every week.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

Prescott is hot (socket 478). I have one. 3.0E. But Loud? It's only moderate fan noise. And slow? An AMD K-5/6 is slow. A Pentium II 233 is slow. Make no mistake, a prescott CPU is anything but slow. They are "slower" than some Athlon 64's and FX's in most games and varying apps, but this does not make them slow processors. So I only get 85fps and a A64/FX user gets 100. 85fps is slow? /sorry for rant.

Think Zebo really ment was that Prescott was slower in some apps then northwood which never looks good. But then again you have to look at prescott as a pawn in Intels game of higher frequency, it wasnt ment to be a high IPC design, it was ment to scale to 5 Ghz.

Failing to be faster then northwood is one thing.

Failing to scale and producing more heat really kills any reason to have a prescott over northwood.

Who says it couldn't scale to 5Ghz? It was Intel's decision that putting the effort to scale it to 5Ghz wasn't the right direction to go.

Well it never did. And if it did, what would the thermals on that thing be ? By intels own Admission they said it was time to take another direction. If you think Mhz is everything then thats your opinion.

 

[LithographWoker]

Our competition says MHz doesn?t matter. Do you think they really feel that way? ?

- Intel's George Alfs

Ahem

 

[nserra]

You are all crazy.

Who says Mhz doesn't matter is a moron. It does matter!!!
What you can?t do is to compare two different Processors at the same Mhz level. It?s not right. AMD64 vs AMD XP vs PentiumM vs Pentium4 at 2.0Ghz is it right?
And now Pentium4 3.2Ghz vs Pentium4 3.8, the 3.2 is faster at what? The only possibility of a slower Ghz be faster than the higher one is at the board level (Single channel, dual channel, ?)

It clocked 10% higher over previous generation, is bad?
And AMD .13 to .09 how much %.

Like Northwood, Prescott is slower so what, 1%, what?s that? The only problem I see is the number of useless transistors. Northwood made on .09 would be the cheapest processor ever from intel. And that guy dmens making me believe that emt64 was on previous processors past Prescott, I don?t see it on any Northwood or pentiumM or Intel now makes ghost transistors? Yes it is on prescott but why isn?t enabled? It doesn?t work, it works on xeon thanks to chipset work around.
So intel likes to manufacture processors with disabled circuitry, do I pay that disabled circuitry (transistors)?

Too bad is AMD marketing team, Intel right now was putting logos on all socket 939 boards saying DUAL CORE READY (OVERDRIVE READY).
INTEL marketing Juice for morons:
Intel Pentium® 4 650 Processor Prescott 3.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, Socket 775, 2MB
AMD Athlon64 3400+ Processor Winchester 2.4Ghz, HT800Mhz FSB, Socket 754, 512KB

What would you buy looking at that? Even the socket has more (useless) pins over AMD.

 

[LithographWoker]

As far as I know Northwood on .13 process cost around $25 to make. I cant tell what it costs for or rather what it did cost to make a sledgehammer on .13 micron process, but back in the old days, when Intel was puming out the old slot one PII there would cost about $60 per CPU. So cost is down..

Yamhill (Intels version and codename for X86-64) had been talked about for years in the industry, but I doubt it lays dormant in northwood. Prescott has some secrets which wont see the light of day untill later generations, it?s been talked about, and a few people have an idea.

Prescott was a vehicle meant to carry on the Ghz wagon to the regions of 5 Ghz. More emphasis was on its ability to scale. I will leave this to the people who have worked on it.

 

[fbrdphreak]

nserra, welcome to AT, but PLEASE for god's sake try to make your sentences a little clearer. It hurt my head reading that

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe AMD won by bombardment. You release like 75 different A64 chips people are going to notice. Talk about confusing though. Four or five different cores. Three different sockets, 940 was here on the desktop for about six months and about three usealbe boards, they had the 754, everyone knew was going to disappear with no upgrade path which I'm sure slowed sales and mobo development. Finally we get 939, only to be greeted with crap arse boards and AGP, until basically NF4 came. Meh. AMD does lead performance but intel has better chipsets (im not talking stable wise but features) Intel has better PR. Intel did'nt shaft people with confusion and short sighted product launches. Too bad thier prescott sucks, hot, loud and slow. Really I'm getting down on AMD and I'd like to see a chipset with highQ audio decent integrated video, more high end mobos accross the socket line, which AMD does'nt have. Dothan should have won it this year. A64 last year.

Prescott is hot (socket 478). I have one. 3.0E. But Loud? It's only moderate fan noise. And slow? An AMD K-5/6 is slow. A Pentium II 233 is slow. Make no mistake, a prescott CPU is anything but slow. They are "slower" than some Athlon 64's and FX's in most games and varying apps, but this does not make them slow processors. So I only get 85fps and a A64/FX user gets 100. 85fps is slow? /sorry for rant.

Think Zebo really ment was that Prescott was slower in some apps then northwood which never looks good. But then again you have to look at prescott as a pawn in Intels game of higher frequency, it wasnt ment to be a high IPC design, it was ment to scale to 5 Ghz.

Failing to be faster then northwood is one thing.

Failing to scale and producing more heat really kills any reason to have a prescott over northwood.

Who says it couldn't scale to 5Ghz? It was Intel's decision that putting the effort to scale it to 5Ghz wasn't the right direction to go.

What you are failing to realize is yes it may be able to be done, but Intel has to balance thermal, power, and audible concerns....Concerns because the current 90nm process with the Prescott is and was experiencing transistor leakage which will only be amplified the higher frequency you go...Thus current will have to raised and more and more heat will be expelled...Intel cant make a CTX factor with water cooling systems.....Then finally the concerns of size of fans and subsequent noise from high rpm cfm fans needed to cool them....

Name me very many AMD chips in the 3000+ to 3500+ range that is overheating at stock speeds let alone still be fine with 400-800mhz overclocks....fact is the prescott in the 3.2 to 3.4ghz chips experience this with much more frequency....