Several analysts have published statements that Advanced Micro Devices will not be able to release its highly-anticipated quad-core chips on time after supercomputer maker Cray issued a warning that it may not get revenue from its quad-core microprocessor-based Cray XT4 systems in 2007. AMD was quick to deny such a possibility, however, many now expect AMD’s new chips to become massively available only in Q4 2007.
In early May the management of Cray Inc. issued a warning that if the company recognizes no product revenue from BlackWidow and quad-core Cray XT4 systems in 2007, Cray’s total revenue for 2007 would be less than $200 million. Cray’s XT4 systems are comprised of numerous processing elements (PEs), each of which is based on one AMD Opteron processor for uni-processor (UP) applications coupled with its own memory and dedicated communication resource.
Following Cray’s warning in early May, the company confirmed in early June that a “third party vendor” had notified it about a delay of certain volume shipments, which caused analysts and observers to blame AMD for inability to supply quad-core AMD Opteron processors code-named Budapest designed for UP systems.
View: The full story
News source: Xbit Labs
In early May the management of Cray Inc. issued a warning that if the company recognizes no product revenue from BlackWidow and quad-core Cray XT4 systems in 2007, Cray’s total revenue for 2007 would be less than $200 million. Cray’s XT4 systems are comprised of numerous processing elements (PEs), each of which is based on one AMD Opteron processor for uni-processor (UP) applications coupled with its own memory and dedicated communication resource.
Following Cray’s warning in early May, the company confirmed in early June that a “third party vendor” had notified it about a delay of certain volume shipments, which caused analysts and observers to blame AMD for inability to supply quad-core AMD Opteron processors code-named Budapest designed for UP systems.
View: The full story News source: Xbit Labs
also i just wish that each company would stick to one socket design for a while like socket a was aroudn for ages etc etc
also i just wish that each company would stick to one socket design for a while like socket a was aroudn for ages etc etc
You contradict yourself. How can you go from wishing for new technology, then half a second later wish they'd stick with old technology on top of new technology? You can make one socket only go so fast, which is why they make new ones. Support for the seperate sockets last a long time, however, and anybody can upgrade at their own leisure.
also i just wish that each company would stick to one socket design for a while like socket a was aroudn for ages etc etc
You contradict yourself. How can you go from wishing for new technology, then half a second later wish they'd stick with old technology on top of new technology? You can make one socket only go so fast, which is why they make new ones. Support for the seperate sockets last a long time, however, and anybody can upgrade at their own leisure.
he doesn't contradict himself in any way. he says amd is behind the game and infers that they should make new stufff, doesn't say anything about it though
and on the other thing i agree with him whole heartedly. a pc is no longer really upgradeable if when you buy a new type of processor it doen't fit in your socket because they change the socket disign on every new chipset. it does get rather annoying
No, just a battle. This happens every few years between AMD and Intel.
At least they're not price fixing like Nvidia and ATI/AMD are doing with DX10 graphics cards.
In regards to this news arcticle though. I'm wait 8-n-1, Dont count chickens before they hatch
In regards to this news arcticle though. I'm wait 8-n-1, Dont count chickens before they hatch
Um, XP can run just fine with a quad-core.
It's limited to two CPUs, not two cores.
So, nobody's being forced to upgrade to Vista, M'kay?
In regards to this news arcticle though. I'm wait 8-n-1, Dont count chickens before they hatch
Um, XP can run just fine with a quad-core.
It's limited to two CPUs, not two cores.
So, nobody's being forced to upgrade to Vista, M'kay?
LMAO!!!!!! Windows XP DualCore preformance vs Windows Vista DualCore preformance.
XP Spends almost 99% of it's time using Core 1 and only a little using Core 2. Vista actualy uses both cores.
In regards to this news arcticle though. I'm wait 8-n-1, Dont count chickens before they hatch
Um, XP can run just fine with a quad-core.
It's limited to two CPUs, not two cores.
So, nobody's being forced to upgrade to Vista, M'kay?
LMAO
ROFLMAO. youre almost right
XP is actually now limited to 4 Cores or CPU's a 2 core cpu is considered 2 CPU's to windows, look in task manager, which is why microsoft changed their OS to handle 4 cores rather than the old 2, look on the box, i remember seeing it once, i.e so 2 dual core processors will work in a machine.or technically a quad core shoudl work, although i woudln't guarantee it.
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.