Phenom video leaks from Lake Tahoe

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by digitalwanderer, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,456
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    WI, USA
    Hey I'm not saying that AMD hasn't been influential in many ways. I lived through it too. I liked my Athlon 64s, X2s, Athlon XPs and Duron. I do think they have benefited from underdog mind share a bit too much though. Intel has pretty much always had a product that was at least comparable to what AMD was pushing at various times.

    My earlier post was a response to the thought that suddenly optimizations can save AMD's new architecture. I don't think that will happen, and I brought up that I believe AMD designs their chips to function as well as possible on Intel-optimized code. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

    Why should companies specifically optimize for AMD anyway? It seems that, like NVIDIA, Intel pays attention to developers and sponsors them. AMD (and ATI) never seem to bother with such developer relations. AMD has never been able to market anything impressively.... Companies aren't going to develop intensively for them without reason or incentive. This is especially true when there is incentive from a bigger, more influential competitor whose products are in more of their customers' hands.
     
    #101 swaaye, Nov 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2007
  2. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    You mean Prescott, right?

    Intel rather quickly discounted IA-64, and 64-bits in general, for the desktop very early on.
    The big mistake was its plan to keep x86 limited to the low end to allow Itanium room to grow in the server and workstation markets.

    AMD neatly slid in to that gap, and Microsoft in particular was happy that it did.

    There is no overarching reason why anyone should care about SSE5 at present.

    That is not what happened. Intel's official line, once it was clear from internal evaluations that Itanium did not supply enough performance with backwards compatibility, was that 64 bits was not needed for the desktop.
    Even with the bloatware of Vista, it is still mostly correct.

    64-bit Windows had everything to do with Microsoft trying to break into a high-end market 32-bit Windows was shut out of.
    There is no corresponding "OS with FMADD support" market Microsoft is shut out of, so AMD has no further product gaps to exploit.


    ...

    I've just snipped a whole lot about Intel's nefarious deeds that have absolutely nothing to do with Phenom not matching CPUs that have been out over a year.
     
  3. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    So the "logic" is... The reviews are bad... but why would AMD make a bad product... so the reviews must be wrong. Brilliant. I am almost tempted to pull up some of your more juicy R600 posts, just to check on how those "give it time, Kevin" predictions turned out. Almost.

    Just a guess here, but maybe because AMD was not losing over $2 billion a year back then?
     
  4. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    BTW, has anyone pointed out to Walt that many of those horrible evil reviews were configured and orchestrated by AMD?
     
  5. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,380
    Likes Received:
    8,598
    Location:
    Cleveland
    mmmmm, pass the popcorn...

    [​IMG]
     
  6. AlexV

    AlexV Heteroscedasticitate
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    107
    I'm quite certain he's figured out that part already. The thing is, when God gave Moses the 10 commandments atop mount Sinai, he was also a tad bit ellyptical, so Moses didn't get it at first. It took him and his descendants time to figure out what God actually wanted and what He was giving to man. It's the same with Phenom...a couple generations from now, ppl will finally get the greatness of this CPU, and thus finally be able to comprehend what AMD is offering now. Coz AMD is kindof like God...kindof.
     
  7. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,428
    Likes Received:
    425
    Location:
    New York
    Ah, you're talking about the 0-2% gain seen in some of the reviews of the 1333 FSB procs? Sorry Walt, even the first generation Core 2's would kick Phenom's ass thoroughly today. There has been no tangible improvement of the Core2 processor or its supporting platform since the launch last year.
     
  8. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    This is an industry where stuff arrives, has a short life, and then is discarded in the face of a better, newer model. Is anyone here naive enough to buy stuff based on the marketing promise of "it will get better at some point in the future"? Especially so in the face of a competing product that gives you what you want now?

    Why have "jam tomorrow" from AMD, when you can have "jam today" from Intel?

    Phenom needs to get better, faster and cheaper, than it is. RD700 needs to get cheaper and have a properly paired southbridge today, not some time in March. RV670 needs to clock higher (but probably does with overdrive).

    Honestly, it's such a shame that Spider is being pulled down by slow Phenom and a mismatched southbridge.
     
  9. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    Here's the difference between now and when K8 launched:
    K8 was FASTER than the competition FROM DAY ONE.

    Since Phenom is slower than last gen's top bin part, which was already slower than the competition's parts several bins down from the top, they have a virtually insurmountable disadvantage to overcome. Given their financial situation, the lack of OEM support (where are the OEM design wins for Phenom/Spider?) and Intel's huge manufacturing advantage, I think Phenom is DOA.

    I would love nothing more than for AMD to be competitive in all market segments, and even win back the performance crown, but let's not try to sugar-coat a turd here.
     
  10. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Well, what a brilliant stroke it was for AMD to "control" these reviews to the extent that all of the reviewers were supplied with handy engineering samples of pre-production 45nm Core 2 cpus. Your contention is, then, that it was AMD's idea to contrast the 65nm cpus they were launching today with the 45nm cpus from Intel which have yet to ship? Your position is that this was all AMD's doing?....;)


    So your contention is that when AMD is ready to ship them that nobody will ship them? I mean, if they'd "kill" to ship the motherboards this week, I see no reason that attitude might dramatically change next week, do you?

    Opteron was by some accounts a year late. By others it was two years late. And after launch, Opteron ramped up in MHz and yields--just like Core 2 did after it shipped at ~1.9GHz. Regardless of the lateness of Opteron, which could be debated from here to eternity, the delay did not prevent the chip from being a smash success when it shipped, did it? Some might say that Core 2 was 3-4 years "late"--which hasn't detracted from its commercial success in the slightest. When new cpus ship--and this is true for everybody including AMD--what is represented at that point in time is the beginning of the cpu's lifespan, as opposed to the end, right?

    Well, then--what about 45nm Core 2 in terms of "status"--in terms of product people pay real money for? (I didn't know you could buy products with play money, but that's beside the point...;)) Regardless of that status, that didn't prevent users from using the results garnered from essentially the cherry-picked 45nm Core 2 samples Intel sent out to people expressly for the purpose of diluting Phenom's launch, did it?

    About the K7's initial chipset/motherboard problems--don't forget that Intel was directly behind many of those problems, as we've known for quite some time.

    Questions posed without answers are merely speculation--gossip, if you will. As far as your remarks about clockspeed are concerned, you are aware I'm sure that Phenom does not share the architecture of earlier AMD cpus, and therefore direct comparison with the clockspeeds of earlier architectures is likely to tell us absolutely nothing...?

    Which seems to dramatically illustrate the point that Phenom is indeed a new architecture. Should we expect that utilities written for the P4, even if written by Intel, should always work with Core 2? I would never make such an assumption.

    I guess that here your supposition must be that nobody ever optimized for AMD cpus, and that AMD did nothing to push its optimized compilers/optimizations out to anybody? If so, I'd have to disagree. It's well known that Intel optimized for the P4 in all these respects--and of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It seems only logical, however, since the P4 and the A64 were and are entirely different x86 architectures, to expect that like the P4 benefited the A64 would benefit from AMD optimizations of various kinds. I think that is beyond argument. In some cases that I can clearly recall, P4 compilers placed flags designed to clearly disadvantage non-P4 x86 cpus like the A64; in other code, for instance some benchmark code, the degree of P4 optimization was so heavy and pronounced that A64 was automatically disadvantaged when running it.

    While I might say that sometimes the A64 ran rings around the P4 when running certain types of generic x86 code, not even counting 64-bit code, I would never say that that the A64 could run highly optimized P4 code better than a P4, for obvious reasons. IE, there's a big difference between "x86 code" and "Intel code," as one need not necessarily be the same as the other at all.

    Interesting observation, because I also noticed that in a few of these benchmarks the Phenom tested ran all over the Q66/6800's...;) So I guess what the Phenom is either slower than or faster than is highly dependent on the software being fed to Phenom, isn't it? Sandra, as I said, is mostly Intel-centric, and always has been. Efforts to better represent the differences between the P4 and the A64 inside Sandra always came long after the fact--with the OOB Sandra experience being very sympathetic to Intel architectures. Accordingly, Sandra is a program that I have installed, and then uninstalled, at least four times over the years--always being unhappy with how the software had difficulty in even correctly identifying the hardware I was running at any given time.

    For a successful product, the degree of lateness would seem not to matter--as I pointed out above with respect to both the A64 and Core 2. If Phenom proves itself unsuccessful in comparison with Core 2, it will not be because Phenom was late, it will be because Phenom was so inferior that no amount of price disparity could serve to make it attractive in volume. If Phenom otoh proves itself a successful competitor to Core 2, then the fact that Phenom was late out of the gate will simply not matter, because it will succeed on its merits as opposed to its calendar release date.

    Which is part and parcel of all overclocking, isn't it? You can take a Core 2 cpu and if you overclock it enough you can "freeze" the system, too...;) This was especially true when Core 2's first shipped at ~1.9Ghz, but really, it is true of all cpus. Some of them can be overclocked to a great degree, and some of then cannot be, but the fact is that *none of them* has been validated by the manufacturer to successfully run in all situations at clocks higher than those at which they are sold.


    Heh...;) Yup, right along with the "one" 45nm Core 2 Intel manages to build next quarter...;) That's a bit of a ridiculous comment, don't you think?


    Again, how does this statement square with the fact that AMD's latest and greatest easily walks all over a Q66/6800 when the two cpus are fed the appropriate benchmark software--and even when the Intel Q's are clocked half a GHz higher than the Phenom? The fact that Phenom is inconsistent in that regard seems to me entirely consistent with the fact that Phenom is a new architecture which has not yet been properly optimized for or supported by much of the benchmark software that pretends to be able to measure its performance potential. I think these inconsistencies will sort themselves out in time as the Phenom architecture becomes better known and supported.


    Again, you are ignoring the benchmarks in which the Phenom easily bests the Q66/6800's as well as older Athlons. Sparse though such examples may be at present, they do indicate dramatically that the situation is nowhere near as consistent as you represent it.

    I've seen prices quoted for the top-end Core 2 cpus in excess of $1,000. It was to those that I was referring, the price of the motherboards at that point being moot.

    I fail to see why they'd declare it "over" since Intel isn't yet shipping 45nm Core 2's at any level that could be considered comparable to the volume of 65nm Core 2's it is shipping, if Intel is shipping 45nm Core 2's in any volume at all...;) As is evident in this industry, a company's production plans for a product do not equal actual production of the product itself, as often even the best-laid plans of mice and men go awry...;) IE, it isn't wise for any company to do too much of counting its chickens before they hatch. I'm sure you know that Intel has wound up with egg on its face many times in the past for doing just that.

    The basic thrust of what you seem to be saying here is that you regard Intel as a perfect corporation always manufacturing perfect products, perfectly on time according to its pre-announced schedules. Of course, I would energetically disagree with any such characterization of any hardware company, AMD and Intel included. OTOH, you don't seem to be able find anything approaching perfection when it comes to your assessment of AMD.
     
  11. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    Walt, I'm not sure which alternate universe you live in where Core 2 only shipped @ 1.9GHz at launch, but in this one they shipped the X6800 @ 2.93GHz the same day as the rest of the original 6xxx family members.
     
  12. Skrying

    Skrying S K R Y I N G
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    61
    WaltC is known for... lets call it... very positive outlook on AMD/ATi parts. Not surprising that he's trying desperately to make it look "good" instead of the steaming pile of bad that it is. In fact, I think he's at a point where he even buys into his bullshit.
     
  13. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    And I'm not? ;)

    I'd love to believe that compiler optimizations & software recompilations will bring about measurable performance increases for Phenom yet somehow won't also raise the performance of C2Q processors, but I don't live in a fantasy world so I can't believe that. I don't really buy anything he's selling, and wish AMD would wake up and smell the coffee. When one of their most hardcore fans abandons them altogether, they need to take a hard look at their failure to execute.
     
  14. INKster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Io, lava pit number 12
    I know it's probably embarrassing for AMD to admit it, but they really need this out now, badly:

    [​IMG]

    If they have any hopes of riding the wave and sell CPU's at higher profit (maybe even GPU's -why not ?-, on the cheaper 750a models), the motherboard chipset also needs to entice prospective buyers with any new feature they can muster.
    So what it's from another vendor ? It's not like it hurt them during the K7/K8 glory days, isn't it ?
     
  15. Skrying

    Skrying S K R Y I N G
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    61
    You're a Nvidia worshiper compared to WaltC.
     
  16. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    Anyway, back in the real world.

    After a year of hype, AMD fastest newly launched CPU that is slower than competitor's SLOWEST comparable model which has been on the market for 10 months, while consuming more power that the aforementioned. To someone who was really looking forward to what K10 can do, this f-ing sucks.

    [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][/FONT]
     
  17. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    I take it you never read any of my 17k+ posts @ Rage3d :lol:
     
  18. Kanyamagufa

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    11
    Fuckin' SB600...it's all your fault.
     
  19. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    464
    Oh, the memories...

    The last minute and a half = pure gold.. If there is ever an investor lawsuit against AMD, it might crack Top 10 on the plaintiff's evidence list.
     
    #119 Geeforcer, Nov 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2007
  20. stevem

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    3
    Intel does have a tremendous process node/fabrication advantage. Without much better IPC, AMD's PTP advantage won't outperform C2Q on the desktop.

    To not primetime SB700 with the RD790 chipset was unfortunate...

    Yeah, I remember that one. Certainly cringeworthy in retrospect.
     
    #120 stevem, Nov 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...