Advertisement (Why?)
STABILITY WAS the attribute which AMD seemed most keen to project at its recent Dresden press conference.
While simultaneously outlining its policy of sticking to the same core, AMD also promised to be only one step behind Intel in offering quad-core technology.
According to the company's latest roadmap for servers and workstations, it will be introducing quad-core technology in 2007. That's actually Q2 2007 as opposed to Intel which is due to offer quad-core in Q1 2007. At Dresden, Armari's technical director, Dan Goldsmith, told journalists: "The AMD Opteron processor roadmap for servers features just one AMD64 core over a six year period, which means we don't have to make costly decisions choosing between different architectures."
View: The full story
News source: The Inq
While simultaneously outlining its policy of sticking to the same core, AMD also promised to be only one step behind Intel in offering quad-core technology.
According to the company's latest roadmap for servers and workstations, it will be introducing quad-core technology in 2007. That's actually Q2 2007 as opposed to Intel which is due to offer quad-core in Q1 2007. At Dresden, Armari's technical director, Dan Goldsmith, told journalists: "The AMD Opteron processor roadmap for servers features just one AMD64 core over a six year period, which means we don't have to make costly decisions choosing between different architectures."
View: The full story News source: The Inq
at this rate.., by the time AMD releases the quad core, intel will be releasing the 8-core processors
Hello!!!! their not out of the game Intel is for about four years when AMD clobbered them , Now they have this crap Chip that in games dosen't do anything unless your running 640x480 and lets not forget the encoders big deal so what I can wait a few extra seconds for my encoder to finish, back in the day when mp3 was in its infancy and using dos command line it took hours to encode a music file so big deal nothing earth shattering from Intel. Wait till AMD comes out with the Buldozer Heh Heh.
Wow... Terrible quote... Crap chip, uh ?
The peopel who feared the move to dual core woudl lead to less developement on actually making faster CPU's and instead lead to just adding more and more cores are starting to seem scarily on the spot.
dual core is good it lets us multi task well and some modern and most future games will be abel to take care of them. Multi core processors over dual core though will not give this kind of increased multi task performance.
Most peopel when they multi task would have several programs open doign small stuff that don't even task one small core, and one main task that may at points fully utilize one core. With quad cores that means 99% of the time, at least 2 cores will be sleeping, effectively turned off.
The only time you even use multi cores is if you're in a game that supports it, and even so games are barely using the CPU's we have today, anythgin between 3500-5000 cpu's won't give much different perfomance in games today, as these are more than powerfull enough to handle what CPU power the games need, outside of the GPU.
so what are the need for quad core then... pure and simple, marketing. Intel release them to make them seem better than AMD, AMD have tomake them toshow they keep up with and have competitive products even though they are essentially useless. Of course some of the peopel who are now switchign to Intel only because Intel offers a barely measurable better performance today will buy these and give some money wasted on this overpriced crap.
But the only people who will even be able to use them effectively are people who either do a lot of video rendering or use 3DSMAX/Maya and such a lot, and even then. most of these only render a small percentage of the time they spend modelling soit's arguable if the investment is worth it, for a very expensive CPU you'll only be utilizing a minor percentage of the time you use the computer.
I agree Quad-core is overload.
quad cores are great for virtualization platforms (VMWare, Xen and MS Virtual Server) where you do make use of all the cpu cycles available
Still thinking AMD has better products and lower prices?
This is such a legacy thinking.
They've lost the price advantage long long time ago.
And recently Intel has regained the chip design lead.
Do you think AMD can make a better and cheaper quard-core?
In terms of chip design, maybe it is still possible but they need to first catch up with Intel's current chips.
In terms of priciing, AMD's situation is even worst.
They don't have the same financial muscle as Intel has to cut down on price; Don't even need to mention they are borrowing money to buy ATI.
And they don't have the same technical muscle as Intel has to make more dies from the silicon of the same size.
Look at their latest 5200+, they can barely afford to have 50% of what Intel has on L2 size and it is more expensive than the comparable Intel chip.
I am not a Intel fanboy either but I just don't see how AMD is going to be able to make a better chip and with a lower price.
Look at their latest 5200+, they can barely afford to have 50% of what Intel has on L2 size and it is more expensive than the comparable Intel chip.
AMD's A64 don't need 4MB of L2 cache to get the same memory performance as the Core or Pentium series of processors because AMD adopted on-die memory controllers along time ago. That was a big factor for the A64 over the P4. Sure, the raw processing power of the Core 2 is now greater, but it is terribly bottlenecked by the memory subsystem and the need for more cache.
If AMD were to put 2MB of cache (per core) on to their AM2 or K8+ chips, the performance increase would be so small you wouldn't notice it (outside workstation/server workloads) and it wouldn't be worth the money.
That is part of the reason the (majority of) current AM2 chips only have 512KB (per core), because the performance increase is mostly unjustified for the much higher production (and retail) cost.
Cal
Maybe we will have quad-core with a special extra core to use when we think we are computing to quickly...
The problem with execution windows in PPC that it is so large that it takes awhile to find commands that can be executed in parallel. This is because when code arrives at the the CPU's execution window, the execution window has to examine the whole code its got stored for such parallelism, and the larger the execution window, the larger the code that can be stored in it, thus the longer it will take to extract the optimized code.
No comment!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.