Will AMD Phenom beat CD2???

[Conroe]

If this stepping problem really exists IBM submitted SPEC scores of a bogus chip. I'd think IBM would be angry with AMD. If this is true AMD's days may be numbed.

 

[Cheex]

Will AMD Phenom beat C2D??

Not a chance!!

 

[mrjinkster]

I think everyone here needs to settle down. Phenom hasn't even released and everyone has their panties in a bunch. How 'bout we all wait until phenom releases to get all worked up? I realize Barcelona has given a peek as to the potential performance of Phenom, but why get all worked up over something that doesn't even exist in retail form yet? As an owner of both AMD and Intel based computers, I try to remain unbiased, but I hope Phenom does well. If it doesn't, we're all in for a long life of spending whatever the dominating producer wants us all to spend to have the top of the line system. Remember.....without competition, the producer of what we can buy can also dictate how much we spend to get it......

 

[Keysplayr]

Dear Mr. Jinkster,

Welcome to Anandtech forums.

Discussions, debates, speculation, theory's and opinions are what these forums are all about. As long as the discussion stays on topic, and stays rather civil, which I believe it has, I don't see any problems here at the moment.

Keys

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.

If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.

Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.

If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact.

Apple, isn't big enough to be a threat yet in the x86 world, when they actually become a threat, I doubt it will ever occur, since they cater to the more wealthy of the market. Your situation is only hypothetical, we will deal with that when we come to it.

So because you believe apple is highend use only or high $$$. You believe that they have limited market penatration. OK thats fine. But avoiding the hypothetical based on that is just dancing around the question I asked

Like I said already, with something as large HP/Dell, it is enough to cause significant damage. This is not acceptable to AMD's continued existence. Not so for the moment with Apple.

It is unacceptable to who? AMD! Surely their is NO law saying they have to use AMD products .

Not so when your actions, will cause the destruction of a company that was preventing a monopoly. AMD was first introduced as a second source so that if the super unlikely event Intel died we would have second source for x86 processors, AMD's continued existence, is of paramount importance. If what Intel does endangers that, that is not acceptable.

So you are saying that if Intel came out with a product so good and so cheap that Intel by law couldn't produce it . Come on!

Viditor wrote this.

I personally think that Intel doesn't have a hope in Hell of actually winning the lawsuit (especially after they lost or destroyed the e-mail evidence they were ordered to retain by the courts)...the only 2 scenarios that make sense to me are

I really laughed at this viditor. Who were the E-Mails sent to and who sent these E-Mails? Shouldn't they have these e-mails also? Why say Intel lost destroyed these e-mails if you place a burden on Intel for losing said e-mails shouldn't you place said burden on sender reciever also? They should have copies of these e-mails.

 

[Stoneburner]

Nemesis, destruction of evidence can give rise to an inference under rules of evidence (at least in california) It's not a question of what side has it.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I really laughed at this viditor. Who were the E-Mails sent to and who sent these E-Mails? Shouldn't they have these e-mails also? Why say Intel lost destroyed these e-mails if you place a burden on Intel for losing said e-mails shouldn't you place said burden on sender reciever also? They should have copies of these e-mails.

Ummm...I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. The e-mails were from Intel's top executives and there were over 1000 missing!
The whole point is that you can't get copies from the recipient if you don't know who it was.
And besides, the recipients weren't under court order to preserve them!
Original story

Happy to keep you amused though...:beer:

The rest of us are not amused ...
take it to PMs, start a new thread ... or drop it

Topic: Will AMD Phenom beat CD2???

CPU moderator apoppin

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I really laughed at this viditor. Who were the E-Mails sent to and who sent these E-Mails? Shouldn't they have these e-mails also? Why say Intel lost destroyed these e-mails if you place a burden on Intel for losing said e-mails shouldn't you place said burden on sender reciever also? They should have copies of these e-mails.

Ummm...I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. The e-mails were from Intel's top executives and there were over 1000 missing!
The whole point is that you can't get copies from the recipient if you don't know who it was.
And besides, the recipients weren't under court order to preserve them!
Original story

Happy to keep you amused though...:beer:

I have heard of it . Do you have a link about which e-mails are missing. If their is no record how do we know there missing. Are these e-mails before the court order or after the court order.
If they know theres 1000 missing e-mails than someone has copies of said e-mails or they wouldn't know about them .
We really have to wait on this one to find trueth.

Why aren't you and others upset about the already settled case were amd reverse engineered intel cpu's and basicly stoled x-86 . I know IBM connection here . Doesn't change the fact amd stole intels tech and used it as its own

This Topic is: "Will AMD Phenom beat CD2???"
--take this OT 'fluff' to PMs, start a new thread ... or drop it

CPU moderator apoppin

 

[dantonic]

So much love going around in the Barcelona threads!

 

[Keysplayr]

Thread topic: "Will AMD Phenom Beat C2D???"
Not: "Where did the emails from Intel go."

Nemisis and Viditor, you guys should take your discussion to PM's, or start a new thread in the appropriate forum. OT maybe? Dunno.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well anyway back on topic. K10 isn't bad at all it didn't meet many peoples expectations . But thats kinda understandable considering the way AMD said it was 40% faster the c2d.
It feel it turned out pretty good 15-20% better than K8. The power usage looks real good at the low clocks. If it scales as well as its hyped to it should be = to penryn at same clock . which would be great for amd. Next week were going to find out more about Nehalem . At that time till it is available I have know doubts it to will be over hyped.

 

[lyssword]

My prediction: won't beat qx6850 or whatnot, but finally we'll be able to get a quad core for $200 and low heat/ power consumption.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
amd has definitely made up some ground with (finally!) their release of barcelona, but they are going to lose some of it back before phenom is more than a couple of months old when penryn comes out. I think that the best amd can hope for is great scaling and a 3 ghz chip by Q2 08. Both very optimistic but certainly at least possible. Let's just say that the chips scale so well that we see an overal 15 % clock for clock advantage for phenom over penryn, that means that intel would need a 3.45 ghz penryn to match phenom. Penryn is going to release at 3.33, so it's reasonable to assume that they could easily ramp up to 3.5 or 3.66 in a hurry if necessary by Q2 08, but even if they couldn't, nehalem is going to paste both penryn AND phenom in 2H 08. The best that we consumers can hope for is for amd to be so competitive that intel pushes out nehalem as fast as possible. I personally think that penryn will be so dominant that nehalem will get delayed until 09.

Considering that AMD has already demonstrated a 3 GHz Phenom, I think your estimate of Q2 may be a bit pessimistic...
Remember that Shanghai is due in Q2/Q3 2008 (45nm Barcelona), which says to me that AMD will be binning the Agena at higher than they normally would for launch to make way for another product change by then.

1chip that is hand selected is alot different than getting thousands of them out in the market.

True, but you're making the assumption that yields are poor. If you go through Hector's more recent interviews where he admits the problems of Barcelona's tardiness, he is quite adamant about the fact that it was a design issue with rev B0, and not a yield or binning issue. If that is indeed the case, then there's no reason to assume that 3 GHz won't be available in production quantities on the newer rev.
It's true that there's no evidence either way, but most everyone with "inside connections" has been indicating that Phenom will be clocked VERY high (at least quite near the 3 GHz mark) on release...take it for what you will.

if they can get it at 3.0 ghz upon release then things will be very intersting...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.

If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.

Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.

If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact.

Apple, isn't big enough to be a threat yet in the x86 world, when they actually become a threat, I doubt it will ever occur, since they cater to the more wealthy of the market. Your situation is only hypothetical, we will deal with that when we come to it.

So because you believe apple is highend use only or high $$$. You believe that they have limited market penatration. OK thats fine. But avoiding the hypothetical based on that is just dancing around the question I asked

Like I said already, with something as large HP/Dell, it is enough to cause significant damage. This is not acceptable to AMD's continued existence. Not so for the moment with Apple.

It is unacceptable to who? AMD! Surely their is NO law saying they have to use AMD products .

Not so when your actions, will cause the destruction of a company that was preventing a monopoly. AMD was first introduced as a second source so that if the super unlikely event Intel died we would have second source for x86 processors, AMD's continued existence, is of paramount importance. If what Intel does endangers that, that is not acceptable.

So you are saying that if Intel came out with a product so good and so cheap that Intel by law couldn't produce it . Come on!

I don't "believe" Apple is high end, they are a high end vendor, Apple's cheapest IMAC is 1199 USD/1299 CND and 1099USD/1249 CND for MacBooks. I don't answer questions that have no relevance to what is current occurring, they are a waste of my time. As long as Apples continues with the style they have shown so far, they aren't going to continue to sustain their growth, as the upper mainstream to enthusiast just doesn't command that much marketshare.

If the decision is made without outside competitor influence then it is fine, if however the larger company is using it's influence due to sheer size, then no it's is not permissible.

Nope that is not what I am saying at all. The thing is Intel won't do that, as they know having AMD around on critical life support, is a better situation, compared to the alternative which is no AMD at all.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
..AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple.

AMD's ability of supplying enough chips only matters when Intel is involved in the equation. Without a threat from Intel, an OEM could sell both AMD/Intel CPU equipped systems per market needs (for example, Pentium M for laptops and A64 X2 for desktops). What OEMs feared was that Intel would completely cut off the chip supply on every front. Only in that situation AMD's capacity (and their inferior mobile chips) would become an issue, because then an OEM will have to rely on AMD for its complete line-ups.

I had (and have) no intention to join the argument in this thread but I wanted to comment on this common misunderstanding. 'AMD didn't have enough capacity to supply chips' can make sense only when considering a certain effect that Intel could have on an OEM.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
..AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple.

AMD's ability of supplying enough chips only matters when Intel is involved in the equation. Without a threat from Intel, an OEM could sell both AMD/Intel CPU equipped systems per market needs (for example, Pentium M for laptops and A64 X2 for desktops). What OEMs feared was that Intel would completely cut off the chip supply on every front. Only in that situation AMD's capacity (and their inferior mobile chips) would become an issue, because then an OEM will have to rely on AMD for its complete line-ups.

I had (and have) no intention to join the argument in this thread but I wanted to comment on this common misunderstanding. 'AMD didn't have enough capacity to supply chips' can make sense only when considering a certain effect that Intel could have on an OEM.

If AMD's ability to supply an adequate number of chips for an OEM's needs is based on Intel's sales policies, then I don't see how Nemesis 1's original comment is wrong.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
..AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple.

AMD's ability of supplying enough chips only matters when Intel is involved in the equation. Without a threat from Intel, an OEM could sell both AMD/Intel CPU equipped systems per market needs (for example, Pentium M for laptops and A64 X2 for desktops). What OEMs feared was that Intel would completely cut off the chip supply on every front. Only in that situation AMD's capacity (and their inferior mobile chips) would become an issue, because then an OEM will have to rely on AMD for its complete line-ups.

I had (and have) no intention to join the argument in this thread but I wanted to comment on this common misunderstanding. 'AMD didn't have enough capacity to supply chips' can make sense only when considering a certain effect that Intel could have on an OEM.

If AMD's ability to supply an adequate number of chips for an OEM's needs is based on Intel's sales policies, then I don't see how Nemesis 1's original comment is wrong.

I will try to explain what I think lopri is getting at, AMD's ability to supply only comes into effect only if the OEM becomes AMD exclusive which can't occur due to AMD's small size.

The problem is that it becomes a situation of choose Intel only and do business well, or choose to have both and Intel withdraws because it doesn't like you carrying the competitor's product. This latter choice can't be made by the OEM, because it would basically send them to oblivion, if they were completely reliant on AMD. So basically OEM's have to choose to Intel, there isn't a choice.

This is obviously a bad thing for AMD, as it doesn't matter how great it's product is, if it can't sell to that vendor, because of the competition.

This wouldn't be a problem in a Pepsi vs Coke environment where both companies are of comparable marketshare, as either one has enough capacity that a vendor can choose one and not go bankrupt because of it. Not so in the AMD/Intel competition.

 

[bryanW1995]

also, as lopri mentioned, amd was/is inferior in mobile chipsets, so even the most die-hard A64 junkie company would want to be able to use intel for those. Intel's forcing other companies to not do business with amd was an abuse of monopoly-like power.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
also, as lopri mentioned, amd was/is inferior in mobile chipsets, so even the most die-hard A64 junkie company would want to be able to use intel for those. Intel's forcing other companies to not do business with amd was an abuse of monopoly-like power.

I don't know then, but from what you and coldpower27 say, then Intel is not allowed to choose who they sell to or to give priority to larger or more loyal customers or else they are accused of abusing monopoly power.

 

[bryanW1995]

we don't make the laws in the US, congress does. ask them why it is illegal to abuse monopoly powers.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
we don't make the laws in the US, congress does. ask them why it is illegal to abuse monopoly powers.

Are you sure that's the correct definition of abuse of monopoly power, or just what AMD wants it to be? It still seems ridiculous to me that once you reach a certain market share, you lose the ability to decide who you do business with (as long as the the reason is legitimate and legal).

 

[Viditor]

Notice...

I have opened a new thread for the Anti-trust topic to
this thread.
I have also copied all of the comments to this point over (so no need to reference this thread on the subject).

Please refer to that thread on the anti-trust topic...

Cheers!