Member Panel

tall_jono · 03:08 PM

Yeah, especially when itel are rolling out new 45nm c2ds and AMD had to skip a die size to keep up(by this i mean they did make 65nm, but they didnt change anything from the 90nm), i dont think they will make it, intel already has working 45nm cpu's, not to mention quad-cores, but AMD hasnt released any new benchies like intel has

EDIT: spelling

Gandalf

Originally Posted by Thingamajig

I have a gut feeling it'll stay this way too, We all secretly know AMD have lost the war, why else would they purchase ATI instead of doing the obvious - allocate all thier resources to new shiney processors to beat intels Core 2's?

Why do you think AMD is trying to flood the 3rd world countries with their chip.
It's the only real market left to them.

GaRHaR

Guys...AMD is slowly picking up speed again....so very slowly

Unfortunately we don't know the internal workings of the company when they bought ATI...

And when Intel pushed the C2D...they actually lost money...big time. They're slowing down now to make up some money, which will give AMD a chance to catch up.

I've heard that the new drivers for the 2900 series ATI actually bring the card up to the fore runner (except for the Ultra's)...now i've only heard this from a friend..and haven't been able to find any credible information...but he's a performance hog, not an ATI fanboy...so when i see him next i'll ask him where he got his information from...

That being said...Intel are ontop and noone can dispute that fact

Gandalf

I did a walk through of Intel's Folsom, California operation once. While they may be pushing the C2Ds now, you can bet they have something more on the drawing board.

Unlike M$ (who makes a product, then spends 10 years patching it), Intel can't send out a patch if they find a problem with their chip. So, they have to be correct right out of the box. That's R&D and it costs money. So, they have to give the public time to buy their chip so they can recoup their investment as well provide a profit. Intel also makes more than just the CPU chip, but I would love to see what's on that drawing board.

GaRHaR

Definately

And the other areas is where they lost the money...not from the chip itself

But at least MS do patch, unlike alot of other companies.
We "support" this software package at work that still can't be run on Windows XP...it NEEDS 2000...it won't run on anything but 2000...and the software guys just keep saying "we're working on it" and go get stoned.

daayglow.com

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Well Intel is coming out with their 2nd generation Quad Core CPU this fall, this is a part of their Tic-Toc strategy also AMD is launching their First Quad core with 128bit floating point technology in the fall..both of these new chips are for HPC (high end computers) and the benchmarks should be interesting. I predict that both AMD & Intel will be ready for longhorn server and processors that will handle (for the desktop) 70 to 150 processes by summer of 08'. If the competition gets really rough we might see 128bit and 6 clock cycles by 2009, but AMD has to step up their reaction time. It took them almost 8 months to react to the core 2 4000 series by the time they did the 6000 series was on the market and quad core. Right now we are in the price wars for market share, Looks like processed diamonds on the drawing board?![/font]

GaRHaR

Since this is the latest AMD vs Intel thread on the forum...have a read of this article here...
This is in regards to their server range (Opteron vs Xeon respectively).

Sustainable IT | InfoWorld | Update: Study: AMD more power-efficient than Intel | July 20, 2007 12:16 PM | By Ted Samson

Member Panel

Sponsors and Ads

Noticeboard