this is different in a server market. In desktop your point is valid and has merit.
Last edited:
this is different in a server market. In desktop your point is valid and has merit.Also, I don't know why this socket-compatibility is a big deal. I care that Intel maximizes performance, and I'm sure the new sockets let them do that. Also, who *really* wants to do a drop-in upgrade on an old platform? By the time any given high end CPU is obsolete and needs replacing, so is its platform.
P4/PD 775 was not compatible with C2D in general.
Also, I don't know why this socket-compatibility is a big deal. I care that Intel maximizes performance, and I'm sure the new sockets let them do that. Also, who *really* wants to do a drop-in upgrade on an old platform? By the time any given high end CPU is obsolete and needs replacing, so is its platform.
P4/PD 775 was not compatible with C2D in general.
Also, I don't know why this socket-compatibility is a big deal. I care that Intel maximizes performance, and I'm sure the new sockets let them do that. Also, who *really* wants to do a drop-in upgrade on an old platform? By the time any given high end CPU is obsolete and needs replacing, so is its platform.
If yields were below 20% then Seifert wouldn't have said that yields "meet our expectations". This is AMD not Nvidia.
I don't see why it's difficult to believe that Llano is getting the wafers. AMD probably told OEM's to be ready by Q1 but were forced to hold it off and pull in Brazos instead. With back to school coming next up Llano is by far and away the most sensible product to be shipping in preference.
You guys claiming/thinking this is somehow a capacity tradeoff are fooling yourselves. If AMD intends to launch in 60-90 days that means the fab's wafer starts today have got to be bulldozer-rich in order for them to have the chips coming out of the fab in 60-90 days. Unless they intend to paper-launch in 60-90 days, then they don't need to plan to produce much of anything.
Please stop. Here is a slide from an AMD presentation to investors. http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/...md-bulldozer-processor-debut-q2-2011-desktops Bulldozer was planned to be ready now for desktops. It wasn't. It isn't some grand scheme to lull Intel into a false sense of security. It is pure and simply a failure to perform. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...y_of_FX_Series_Bulldozer_Microprocessors.html
I'm sure there are some motherboard manufacturers not happy about sitting on new boards that have no real sales potential right now. I wouldn't buy an AM3+ board until I knew for sure there was a chip worth putting into it.
Anyway i could be wrong, after all i just speculate from what we know.
The problem is that the desktop variant, originally, due in late June or early July, was delayed the two months we said it was. The server variant however is pulled in to about where the desktop was.
I always find this argument amusing. AMD's every bit as guilty as Intel of platform updates and incompatibility, they've just been minimizing mechanical incompatibility of late. Here's a nice comparison of sockets targeted towards consumers/enthusiasts since the two companies diverged at socket 7.
Code:Intel - AMD Socket 8 - - 1995 Slot 1 - - 1997 - Super Socket 7 - 1998 Socket 370 - Slot A - 1999 Socket 423 - Socket A - 2000 Socket 478 - - 2000 - Socket 754 - 2003 - Socket 940 - 2003 LGA 775 - Socket 939 - 2004 - Socket AM2 - 2006 - Socket F - 2006 - Socket AM2+ - 2007 LGA 1366 - - 2008 LGA 1156 - Socket AM3 - 2009 LGA 1155 - ? - 2011
Note that I have zero expectations of ivy bridge actually working in my P67 motherboard, but I wouldn't be surprised if P67 motherboards released/revisioned later this year and hence still well before ivy bridge will support it.
I don't think it takes 90 days for GF to get wafers out either, maybe 6-8 weeks maximum.
P4/PD 775 was not compatible with C2D in general.
Also, I don't know why this socket-compatibility is a big deal. I care that Intel maximizes performance, and I'm sure the new sockets let them do that. Also, who *really* wants to do a drop-in upgrade on an old platform? By the time any given high end CPU is obsolete and needs replacing, so is its platform.
Personally, I'm glad I moved from my P5K Deluxe to my P7P55 WS SuperComputer when I went from C2Q to i7 -- the new board had a lot of new features (2 way SLI, 3 way SLI, CrossFire, DDR3 support, etc.) that I'd have wanted anyway.
So do we believe it or is it more smoke and mirrors?
Server and desktop switched, any problem on the desktop is probably very minor and easily fixed?
And right on cue!
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/02/bulldozer-delayed-and-not-delayed/
Charlie should give me a job!
If yields were below 20% then Seifert wouldn't have said that yields "meet our expectations". This is AMD not Nvidia.
I don't see why it's difficult to believe that Llano is getting the wafers. AMD probably told OEM's to be ready by Q1 but were forced to hold it off and pull in Brazos instead. With back to school coming next up Llano is by far and away the most sensible product to be shipping in preference.
server never has been off track. desktop was or is a clock problem. server is a different animal.
I don't know whats true here. But if llano is getting yeilds That meet AMDs expectations than the news that AMD is getting and paying for only good dies than GF is going to have problems with other customers unless they get the same deal . GF is a stock company and investors would take them to court. As this would be fraud.GF stock holders and the other fab Amd uses would scream rape. GF is not an AMD company.
Would you stop already please? You've posted the exact same thing three times in the last 5 minutes.
I don't know whats true here. But if llano is getting yeilds That meet AMDs expectations than the news that AMD is getting and paying for only good dies than GF is going to have problems with other customers unless they get the same deal . GF is a stock company and investors would take them to court. As this would be fraud.GF stock holders and the other fab Amd uses would scream rape. GF is not an AMD company.
For me, the move to P67 from X58 actually cost me some features (16x SLI vs. 8x SLI). On the other hand, I picked up Sata 3/USB 3. Additionally, if IB launches in 2012, that's only a year after I purchased my SB setup (January 2011). So my board isn't exactly outdated.
Don't get me wrong, I know your point has some validity...it's just that Intel has gone a little overboard with the constant, constant changing of the sockets. If IB launches and it's a different socket with the same PCI-E lane limitations and no other features, I'm not particularly interested in getting a new board as well.