NFORCE 5 SLI for Intel

[RichUK]

I am an avid AMD user and i have never had an Intel , but i am thinking when Nvidia finally release their Nforce 5 (SLI for Intel) is this going to change peoples minds into what the best gaming rig or best performing setup is going to be ????

Apparently this chip (NF5) has high overclocking potential (like easly hitting 300FSB obviously the mem controllers are on the Northbridge, and southdridge according to some people for the NF5), what i am thinking is that if you have say some good spec DDR2 (as i use amd i dont know much about DDR2) and a 3.46EE OCed (or the soon to come 3.7EE) and a couple of 6800 ultra/ultra extreme's (if they ever come out). This setup although i hate to say should be able to cane the FX55 sli etc etc...

I know AMD will combat this by bringing out there E stepping strained silicon chips (maybe rated at 3.0Ghz on air - who knows) and also maybe their dual core, but will this be enough to combat the "Nvidia and Intel" partnership ?????

Also i think Intel are going to be releasing their dual cores before AMD (i might be wrong, I know the opterons will be coming out first but you wont be able to use that with s939 mobos/NF4) but this will also be another hit to AMD ... wont it ????

What are your views ???

I am AMD all the way!!!!! And i hope AMD will be able to fight back with something bigger and better once again

 

[ribbon13]

For every Ace up Intel's sleeve, there is a Royal Flush up AMD's.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
For every Ace up Intel's sleeve, there is a Royal Flush up AMD's.

I like your thinking

 

[ironique]

AMD's Athlon 64 still dominates in gaming performance. Intel will need more than just SLI to compete.

 

[RichUK]

Like i said im all for AMD but i just think that Intel will have a very good hold on performance with the new NF5

 

[Acanthus]

Nforce is likely to bring a lot to the intel boat, how much can only be speculated until we see benchmarks.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

1. AMD's CPUs generally trounce Intel's CPUs in CPU bound gaming benchmarks, the obvious choice in CPUs is AMD

2. AMD integrated memmory controller is one less thing 3rd party chipset makers have to worry about, including nVidia. Going to intel they'll have to get back into that again. Granted nVidia proved their potency in this area with the nForce 2, but intel has been known for making some of the best system chipsets, there's a chance nVidia might not be able to step up and deliver. Sure, intel would have a more efficient SLI, but there's a chance the CPU and memory performance might be lagging behind...or perhaps just the opposite, nVidia could actually improve overall system performance.

Seeing as how their CPUs are simply better for gaming, the only way I can see AMD "hurting" would be if nVidia drops AMD support...which brings me to my third point

3. ATI. ATI's new AMD chipset's initial performance is right up there with nVidia. Heck, there is a chance that it might be even better once we start to see more boards come out.

4. ATI needs to break nVidia's SLI monopoly. While I believe its a VERY niche market and highly impractical (all flagship cards are) you have a flagship if only to claim performance crown and thus overall superiority. If nVidia can claim this crown with a 1-2 punch via SLI, then its legit, they're the king of the hill right now and ATI needs to step up with a challenge. Once (if) ATI does this we should see a normalization of things as nVidia would no longer be able to wave SLI around as a trump card. Once (if) that's done then it'd be back to square one - which is what CPU is faster for games? Right now its AMD...

 

[imported_stuck]

I agree. AMD currently has the best CPU's. They outform Intel in most benchmarks. As for the future of CPU's - time will tell. It's hard to speculate who will have the better chip in the future. Out of serveral computers that I have assumbled together, I have only bought AMD processors. Personally, I don't care who has the better chip as long as the competition lowers prices. In a couple of years from now, I will probobly be laughing at the people who bought an Athlon 64 (like I do to my parents who still cling to their PentII machine)

 

[carlosd]

Don't speculate until the benchmarks. And remember that the chipset won't do a miracle for the Pentium peformance.

 

[HannibalTheCannibal]

Intel= teh N3vv0rz

It will have to be a vapochilled 3.7EE lest the chip can handle 75C. Intel has hit a wall with clock speed because of heat. They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

EDIT: Its like teh sooperbole for the 2 companies it sounds like to me.

 

[Zebo]

I think you should read some I925 chipset articles. Easily the best chipset out on market.. and also reaches above 300FSB easily.
Intels problem is not chipset but it's hot arse power sucking processor that does'nt do much work.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Intel= teh N3vv0rz

They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

I hope you're joking. Intel may not have the fastest or best processor, but business wise, you're way off.

 

[TekDemon]

I like all this ranting about intel being doomed, while it's pretty obvious that if they were really that threatened by AMD's short-term performance lead they would have just released their PentiumM for the desktop and jumped the clocks. Let's not forget that the Pentium M can easily reach clockspeeds where it's an A64 Killer, and still be running relatively cool.

Intel's DualCore has been pushed up to Q2 2005 now...THAT is what you should be watching out for, since it should beat AMD to the punch by quite a bit.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: TekDemon
I like all this ranting about intel being doomed, while it's pretty obvious that if they were really that threatened by AMD's short-term performance lead they would have just released their PentiumM for the desktop and jumped the clocks. Let's not forget that the Pentium M can easily reach clockspeeds where it's an A64 Killer, and still be running relatively cool.

I repectfully beg to differ concerning the Pentium M. Anandtech's analysis of the chip's desktop performance showed that the Pentium M's performance is all over the map when compared to desktop P4s and A64s. It dominates in Business Winstone, but even overclocking the P-M to 2.4GHz can't help it in the Multimedia Winstone test or the 3ds MAX performance tests. It is a good processor, but it isn't quite the magic bullet that Intel needs to combat AMD's continuing performance dominance.

 

[KDKPSJ]

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal
They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

AMD's flash sale dropped by a lot last year, due to the competition. And ya, sure, Intel messed up so bad last year, while AMD did really nice job. And still, market share is something like 80% Intel vs. 15% AMD. Yeah, Intel will be done, if they don't get it right in 10 years with NF10 maybe?

 

[HannibalTheCannibal]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Intel= teh N3vv0rz

They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

I hope you're joking. Intel may not have the fastest or best processor, but business wise, you're way off.

I have been following these chip makers for 5+ years financially. I am a shareholder of AMD (www.ameritrade.com), and I read the press release every day as well as EVERY fiscal earnings report that comes out by either one for the last 16 quarters ending 1/05. I am the winner of the 2001 Ameritrade Investor's Cup and won an account stocked with cash. I know it's easy to assume that because I am in a forum for computer fanatics, that I must not know much of anything else. I know how you feel.

Intel= Flash memory = 75% of revenue growth in Q1 05, CPU sales flat because of thermal problems, server solutions.
AMD= CPU sales 83.6% of revenue in Q1 05 (flash memory sales down, Intel has market covered)

Once the flash memory market fails, (inevitable due to flooded market, Japan) INTEL has nothing but overpriced, HOT, chips that suck at graphics editing, gaming. This is not my opinion only, but that of JP Morgan Stanley, Meryl Lynch and other Global Investment firms. Intel was recently upgraded to "Neutral" by a few firms only because their flash memory sales were strong. Do some research before you assume I know not of what I speak.

But, then again, maybe They are way off.......

 

[bluslice]

Although it's a very good marketing scheme for intel to team up with nvidia to grab a bigger share of the gaming market, I think Intel should keep their focus on where they have been making their money: in corporate offices. Intel is known to have better application performance and as such dominates every office. I've been to many companies with server rooms and every server has an intel chip in it. This is why intel is still numero uno. Gaming is a small fry compared to the bigger picture. so plz have some respect for intel.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Intel is GOD to most REAL Job locations for the longest time.. AMD has a chance right now to take the lead in alot of place... they have gain some support alot this year and last. But there is no way in hell Intel is going to be F*cked... No way... they are too big of a company.

BTW i am tring to convert my work from Xeon -> Opteron lol

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Intel= teh N3vv0rz

They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

I hope you're joking. Intel may not have the fastest or best processor, but business wise, you're way off.

I have been following these chip makers for 5+ years financially. I am a shareholder of AMD (www.ameritrade.com), and I read the press release every day as well as EVERY fiscal earnings report that comes out by either one for the last 16 quarters ending 1/05. I am the winner of the 2001 Ameritrade Investor's Cup and won an account stocked with cash. I know it's easy to assume that because I am in a forum for computer fanatics, that I must not know much of anything else. I know how you feel.

Intel= Flash memory = 75% of revenue growth in Q1 05, CPU sales flat because of thermal problems, server solutions.
AMD= CPU sales 83.6% of revenue in Q1 05 (flash memory sales down, Intel has market covered)

Once the flash memory market fails, (inevitable due to flooded market, Japan) INTEL has nothing but overpriced, HOT, chips that suck at graphics editing, gaming. This is not my opinion only, but that of JP Morgan Stanley, Meryl Lynch and other Global Investment firms. Intel was recently upgraded to "Neutral" by a few firms only because their flash memory sales were strong. Do some research before you assume I know not of what I speak.

But, then again, maybe They are way off.......

The 2MB EMT-64 enabled prescotts actually run cooler than their 1MB counterparts.

Intel is making progress, the new chipset is insanely good, the new CPU is looking better, and it looks like they are going to beat AMD to the punch with dual core, not to mention the independant FSB motherboards for multiprocessing.

 

[carlosd]

Intel is not going to beat AMD iwith dual core CPUs. AMD has been working for a long time in their dual core design, intel just changed their mind recently. Besides the A64 desing will lead to a better dualcore desing than intel. Intel will have lots of trouble putting two PIV cores in a single wafer due to thermal losses, and you have to consider that they would have to run at a higher clockspeed than their AMD counterpart to be competitive. The dothan core is not competitive overall with A64 so intel wont be putting dual dothans in a dual core desing.

 

[Avalon]

I don't think it will mean much. Nvidia makes great chipsets, but Intel already has some nice ones as well. You'd still be using an Intel processor, so I don't think much will happen as far as increased gaming performance.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: HannibalTheCannibal

Intel= teh N3vv0rz

They are doing better with their flash memory sales. unless a breakthrough in process technology occurs, intel is fuqt. If they dont get it right with Nvidia with an NF5, I would say they are done.

I hope you're joking. Intel may not have the fastest or best processor, but business wise, you're way off.

I have been following these chip makers for 5+ years financially. I am a shareholder of AMD (www.ameritrade.com), and I read the press release every day as well as EVERY fiscal earnings report that comes out by either one for the last 16 quarters ending 1/05. I am the winner of the 2001 Ameritrade Investor's Cup and won an account stocked with cash. I know it's easy to assume that because I am in a forum for computer fanatics, that I must not know much of anything else. I know how you feel.

Intel= Flash memory = 75% of revenue growth in Q1 05, CPU sales flat because of thermal problems, server solutions.
AMD= CPU sales 83.6% of revenue in Q1 05 (flash memory sales down, Intel has market covered)

Once the flash memory market fails, (inevitable due to flooded market, Japan) INTEL has nothing but overpriced, HOT, chips that suck at graphics editing, gaming. This is not my opinion only, but that of JP Morgan Stanley, Meryl Lynch and other Global Investment firms. Intel was recently upgraded to "Neutral" by a few firms only because their flash memory sales were strong. Do some research before you assume I know not of what I speak.

But, then again, maybe They are way off.......

Q1 '05 numbers have not been released yet, those wont come till april.

According to Q4 of 2004 :

** Intel Architecture microprocessor units set a record with record unit shipments of enterprise and mobile processors. The average selling price was approximately flat.

** Chipset units set a record.

** Motherboard units set a record.

** Flash memory units were higher.

** Wireless connectivity units set a record. Wired connectivity units were higher.


Intel's Microproccesor revenue accounts for 24 billion of their total 34 billion in revenue a YEAR. Flash revenue accounts for around 2 billion total a YEAR. So even if their flash memory sales DISAPEER, they still have 32 billion in revenue a year. Not all of their profits come from Flash memeory. They made 2 billion dollars in the last quarter off of 650 million in flash memory. Which means they are profiting elsewhere.

You may no how to trade, but you obviously don't know how to read financials. Intel is sitting on Billions of cash. And even while you trash intel's cpu and say its not selling, their CPU's account for 75% of their 34 billion and set RECORDS in 2004 Q4.

Flat cpu sales in the slowest quarter of the year (Q1'05) is GOOD. That means they will once again be selling close to a record amount of cpu's.

It's easy to assume things when you're flat out wrong. Intel is setting records in cpu sales when their cpu's are not nearly as fast as AMD's. Until AMD can produce as many chips and intel can, intel will be around. AMD's total revenue a year is 1/8th that of intel.
Intel made 7.5 billion last year, almost 2x the ammount of AMD's REVENUE.

I'll agree with you that intel's cpu's arent up to par in speed, but once again, business wise, you are WAY off. What's funny, is according to your info, AMD has 15% of their sales come from flash memory, while intel has only 6%. So in reality, AMD will get hurt more than intel once the market is flooded.

Don't believe the numbers? Look for yourself http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050111corp.htm

And BTW, ive been following intel and AMD's stock since 1996.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I can certainly see Nvidia doing something interesting here. Since memory performance has been taken out of the hands of chipset designers for AMD, they have an opportunity to once again create a stellar pllatform, and maybe even dominate the enthusiast intel market.

I can't see any major downside to AMD though, the enthusiast market for A64 is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, and Nvidia certainly wouldn't want to lose that.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I can certainly see Nvidia doing something interesting here. Since memory performance has been taken out of the hands of chipset designers for AMD, they have an opportunity to once again create a stellar pllatform, and maybe even dominate the enthusiast intel market.

I can't see any major downside to AMD though, the enthusiast market for A64 is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, and Nvidia certainly wouldn't want to lose that.

I honestly don't think this is going to be a big impact for intel financially. For the enthusiast though this is good. It seems quite clear intel didn't have any SLI type technology coming up anytime soon, so they had to tap nvidia. I don't think you'll see major performance gains over intel's chipset though, maybe 5% or so. I think this comes down to basically, Intel saying " We don't have an SLI motherboard" and the only answer they had was an nvidia chipset.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: carlosd
Intel is not going to beat AMD iwith dual core CPUs. AMD has been working for a long time in their dual core design, intel just changed their mind recently. Besides the A64 desing will lead to a better dualcore desing than intel. Intel will have lots of trouble putting two PIV cores in a single wafer due to thermal losses, and you have to consider that they would have to run at a higher clockspeed than their AMD counterpart to be competitive. The dothan core is not competitive overall with A64 so intel wont be putting dual dothans in a dual core desing.

Not according to roadmaps. Intel has their dual core on tap in Q2 of 2005, while AMD just recently moved up their dual core chips to Q3 2005.

link