The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

[XMAN26]

2- Power Consuption: (@IDLE most important)

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/12

3- Performance:
Games:

Everything:

http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/amd-phenom-2-x4-940.shtml



And AM3 will improve this. May put things AM3=Yorkfield.


AMD 7xx chip7 is award winning series by every websites and their IGP way better then Intel IGP. End of story.



Last time I checked AMD was on top of server market:
The Best Server CPUs Compared, Part 1

Closing Thoughts

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3484&p=1

---
Advise. Next time you want to say something search a litle bit before spread false information because you failed in every single thing you said

1. Try following your own advice.
2. Since when is power consumption@idle most important in the server would being that most servers are being hammered close to almost the whole day.
3. Here is a real review of the PhII under both CPU bound and non-CPU bound results. Funny thing is, as more games come out that are properly coded for multiple thread, it will onlt get uglier. FC2.
CPU bound
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
non-CPU bound
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
4. I wouldn't count on DDR3 being a savior for AMD.
5. Well hell, VIA/S3 could come up with a better intergrated GPU than Intel, so whats the big deal there?
6. Some how I doubt they are selling more server based chips than Intel and I like how you pick and choose what to high light out of the article, ignoring he 3 bullet points in the middle that I would believe to be what most server sold are built around.

 

[v_rr]

1. Try following your own advice.

So you skiped the price part. That´s a good start

2. Since when is power consumption@idle most important in the server would being that most servers are being hammered close to almost the whole day.

In the inicial part he was referering Desktop computers not servers. And yes @Idle in desktop is the most important.
Take more attention to what is said

3. Here is a real review of the PhII under both CPU bound and non-CPU bound results. Funny thing is, as more games come out that are properly coded for multiple thread, it will onlt get uglier. FC2.
CPU bound
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
non-CPU bound
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

You picked 1 game in the worse Review on the web that says the most stupid things. Any other site said things like [H]. Also on that review Phenom II was cripled with 2Gb ram versus 4Gb and 6Gb ram on Intel Systems. They also put slower DDR2 memory on Phenom and super fast DDR3 on yorkfield when yorkfield also accept DDR2. They can use DDR3 on yorkfield when AM3+DDR3 CPU´s come out.
Bit-tech review has yorkfield with DDR2 and DDR3:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1

Hand picking 1 game and cripled reviews is no good my friend.
The chart and all data I gave is a rating of multiple games, and applications.

If I wanted I put here GTA4 numbers that is the most CPU intensive game arround and uses all CPU treads:

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=27

6. Some how I doubt they are selling more server based chips than Intel and I like how you pick and choose what to high light out of the article, ignoring he 3 bullet points in the middle that I would believe to be what most server sold are built around.

The conclusion says it all about server market. I will not say anything more from what is written there. If you don´t want to read it. Ok...

 

[XMAN26]

So you skiped the price part. That´s a good start


In the inicial part he was referering Desktop computers not servers. And yes @Idle in desktop is the most important.
Take more to what is said



You picked 1 game in the worse Review on the web that says the most stupid things. Any other site said things like [H]. Also on that review Phenom II was cripled with 2Gb ram versus 4Gb and 6Gb ram on Intel Systems.

Hand picking 1 game and cripled reviews is no good my friend.
The chart and all data I gave is a rating of multiple games, and applications.

If I wanted I put here GTA4 numbers that is the most CPU intensive game arround and uses all CPU treads:

The conclusion says it all about server market. I will not say anything more from what is written there. If you don´t want to read it. Ok...

1. And you went with a review on gaming based on price, not speeds. A 3Ghz quad should be faster than a 2.66Ghz or 2.4Ghz Quad, where is the news in that?
2. Didn't bother to click the links did ya? First link shows 3 games in CPU bound performance, the second link shows FC2.
3. [H] did his review on a clock for clock, not price based performance. Also, he noted that 4GB in the PhII setup was actually slower than using 2GB in his review and went with 2GB setup as the apps he used never exceeded 2GB of memory. FC2 doesn't even approach 1GB for its benchmark test.
4. GTA4 can be the all time CPU intensive game for all I care, if it isn't properly coded for multiple threads, who the hell cares when performance is flat across any platform? Thanks for the bench, it only proves my point about flat performance and improper coding for multiple threads.
5. Poor reviews IMHO are those that use canned benches and cookie cutter reviews based on advice from AMD, Intel and/or Nvidia. You may find it interesting that before [H] posted their review, Kyle emailed AMD with his results. They had nothing to say in regards to his results And that in the past, they have responded with notes of some kind, so apparently they knew the numbers where right.

 

[Kaotik]

4. GTA4 can be the all time CPU intensive game for all I care, if it isn't properly coded for multiple threads, who the hell cares when performance is flat across any platform? Thanks for the bench, it only proves my point about flat performance and improper coding for multiple threads.

LOL? So you're saying a game where Core2Duo needs to be clocked 800-1GHz faster than Core2Quad to match the C2Q performance isn't "properly coded for multiple threads"?

 

[XMAN26]

LOL? So you're saying a game where Core2Duo needs to be clocked 800-1GHz faster than Core2Quad to match the C2Q performance isn't "properly coded for multiple threads"?

Yes when the same game running on an i7 platform get roughly the same performance as it does running on a C2Quad/PhII setup. FC2 is up to 100% faster clock for clock on an i7 against the PhII, 60-75% against a C2Q.

GTA4 is coded for multiple cores/thread, it just isn't properly coded, read inteligently. Becasue if it was, performance would be better the more threads you have running. Maybe they tred to do to much with the engine or they just got sloppy, but compared to FC2, its a joke.

 

[v_rr]

3. [H] did his review on a clock for clock, not price based performance. Also, he noted that 4GB in the PhII setup was actually slower than using 2GB in his review and went with 2GB setup as the apps he used never exceeded 2GB of memory. FC2 doesn't even approach 1GB for its benchmark test.

Look to bit-tech review:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1
They use yorkfield with DDR2 and 3.

[H] review Phenom II was cripled with 2Gb ram versus 4Gb and 6Gb ram on Intel Systems. They also put slower DDR2 memory on Phenom and super fast DDR3 on yorkfield when yorkfield also accept DDR2. They can use DDR3 on yorkfield when AM3+DDR3 CPU´s come out.

[H] review is the most cripled review of all the web. Just a fanboy eat that crap. You even eat memory crap excuse he wrote

I showed links, reviews images from multiple sources. you give a criple review. Godd luck on that

 

[XMAN26]

Look to bit-tech review:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1
They use yorkfield with DDR2 and 3.

[H] review Phenom II was cripled with 2Gb ram versus 4Gb and 6Gb ram on Intel Systems. They also put slower DDR2 memory on Phenom and super fast DDR3 on yorkfield when yorkfield also accept DDR2. They can use DDR3 on yorkfield when AM3+DDR3 CPU´s come out.

[H] review is the most cripled review of all the web. Just a fanboy eat that crap. You even eat memory crap excuse he wrote

I showed links, reviews images from multiple sources. To give a criple review. Godd luck on that

You need to look again my friend. So far you have produce 1 GTA4 bench, and 2 sites with gaming, Only ANAND shows teh PhII with good numbers in Gaming, [H], the second site you linked to both show i7 and 1-5-2yr C2Quads as being faster.

You are still ignoring my point that a 3ghz quad should be faster than a 2.4 or 2.66ghz quad. The fact that clock for clock, it is still slower. And you can say the [H] is crippled, fine by me, I'm not the one drinking the AMD koolaid here. Sure, AMD is competing again, but they are finially competing with 1.5-2yr procs at slower speeds, not clock for clock.

Maybe you should look at your own reviews:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7
and the apps benches aren't much better.

 

[v_rr]

You need to look again my friend. So far you have produce 1 GTA4 bench, and 2 sites with gaming, Only ANAND shows teh PhII with good numbers in Gaming, [H], the second site you linked to both show i7 and 1-5-2yr C2Quads as being faster.

You are still ignoring my point that a 3ghz quad should be faster than a 2.4 or 2.66ghz quad. The fact that clock for clock, it is still slower. And you can say the [H] is crippled, fine by me, I'm not the one drinking the AMD koolaid here. Sure, AMD is competing again, but they are finially competing with 1.5-2yr procs at slower speeds, not clock for clock.

You missed the inicial post. Rating clock for clock in multiple aplications:

I like the Planet3Dnow review. Its very fair and I really like the conclusions:
Deneb@3GHz(940BE) - 100%
Yorkfield@3GHz(Q9650) - 102.7%
Nahalem@3GHz(i7 940) - 125.3%
and the summary: best Price/Performance buy in the class .

Maybe you should look at your own reviews:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7
and the apps benches aren't much better.

Sure:
Far Cry 2
AMD Phenom II X4 940 - # 62.5 fps
Core 2 Quad Q9650 (4x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB, DDR2)- # 62.4fps

Yorkfield + DDR2 is very diferent from Yorkfield + DDR3.

 

[XMAN26]

You missed the inicial post. Rating clock for clock in multiple aplications:

Good one, a site pretty dedicated to AMD. Like they gave an honest, uncookie cutter, pointers froms AMD review.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_940_performance/page7.asp

Here, shows the same thing as [H]. Hell, it even loses to a C2D in there. But I'm sure you'll find some type of crippling in that review.

 

[v_rr]

Good one, a site pretty dedicated to AMD. Like they gave an honest, uncookie cutter, pointers froms AMD review.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_940_performance/page7.asp

Here, shows the same thing as [H]. Hell, it even loses to a C2D in there. But I'm sure you'll find some type of crippling in that review.

You can be here all day giving numbers from here and there and each site shows different thing. As I said:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7
Far Cry 2
AMD Phenom II X4 940 - # 62.5 fps
Core 2 Quad Q9650 (4x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB, DDR2)- # 62.4fps

Yorkfield + DDR2 is very diferent from Yorkfield + DDR3. And many review websites don´t compare yorkfield + DDR2 and 3.
The small diference betwenn Phenom and Yorkfield relies on Memory detail.
In the end both processors are very very equal.

Here is the question:
The DDR3 Intel Penryn CPUs are still faster, but the platform cost for DDR3 is greater - are just a couple of frames per second really worth it?

 

[XMAN26]

You can be here all day giving numbers from here and there and each site shows different thing. As I said:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7
Far Cry 2
AMD Phenom II X4 940 - # 62.5 fps
Core 2 Quad Q9650 (4x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB, DDR2)- # 62.4fps

Yorkfield + DDR2 is very diferent from Yorkfield + DDR3. And many review websites don´t compare yorkfield + DDR2 and 3.
The small diference betwenn Phenom and Yorkfield relies on Memory detail.
In the end both processors are very very equal.

Here is the question:
The DDR3 Intel Penryn CPUs are still faster, but the platform cost for DDR3 is greater - are just a couple of frames per second really worth it?

Its no different now, than it was back when the P4 +RDRAM was faster than P4 +DDR. Why do a review without the fastest for said platform. I want to know how a given proc/video card will perform given the best equipment mated to it as I know going back in any one area will degrade my performance. I sure as hell dont want to a review where they have crippled 1 platform for the benifits of another to try and to improve the light that is shown on one over the other.

And as to your 2GB PhII thing, http://www.legitreviews.com/article/709/3/ it doesn't look like it would have mattered much in the tests [H] used.

 

[homerdog]

Regarding Phenom II not competing clock for clock: why does that even matter? Wouldn't the important metric be perf/$, or for AMD's bottom line, perf/cost to manufacture? Not taking into account power consumption (which appears to be in check with Phenom II).

 

[swaaye]

What a strange argument we have going on here.

Phenom II finally is maybe equal to Kentsfield on a per clock basis. The main reason that it appears so competitive in reviews is because it's being compared to the gimped Yorkfields that have lots less cache and low clocks. Intel probably hasn't seen fit to put out higher clocked, fully-cache-endowed Yorkfields because they don't need to against Phenom. If they did, and made the prices more competitive, Phenom II wouldn't have anything to compete with. Yorkfield is the better chip in every way aside from price and power use at idle, from what I see. Fortunately for AMD, a 12MB 3GHz Yorkfield is anything but cheap.

i7 varies from the i7 920 completely outclassing everything to being on somewhat even terms with the other quads. Phenom II isn't an i7 competitor in most cases, IMO. i5 is going to be serious trouble for AMD. Phenom 2 is barely a boost over Phenom 1, whereas i7 shows dramatic gains over Yorkfield. I'm sure that i5 will be quite a potent beast that may not even be much slower than i7 depending on how much bandwidth matters.

With the Yorkfields dropping in price and the Core i5 coming, Phenom 2 is going to be the Duron of quad cores in half a year or so.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Regarding Phenom II not competing clock for clock: why does that even matter? Wouldn't the important metric be perf/$, or for AMD's bottom line, perf/cost to manufacture? Not taking into account power consumption (which appears to be in check with Phenom II).

It depends on which fan you are basically.

If your CPU isn't ahead in the dollar to dollar comparison then use clock for clock comparison even if the price difference is then significantly greater.

If your CPU isn't ahead in the clock for clock comparison then use the dollar for dollar comparison if your performance is similar at a given price range.

If you'll take a look at posting history. Many people will chose to compare dollar for dollar but then flip flop to clock for clock if they aren't ahead.

Either way the ONLY thing that matters to a consumer is the performance within a given price range.

While for technophiles, a discussion of clock for clock performance may be more interesting.

Either way, I think most can agree that Intel certainly has the process advantage and a better CPU design at the moment. Although much of Core i7's dominance isn't as much the execution units as the significantly faster on die L2 and L3 cache.

And I think most can agree that Phenom II is actually cost competitive with Intel in the performance-midrange segment of the market. Similar cost, similar performance. ESPECIALLY when you take in the cost of the entire platform (MB, Memory, CPU).

Regards,
SB

 

[XMAN26]

And I think most can agree that Phenom II is actually cost competitive with Intel in the performance-midrange segment of the market. Similar cost, similar performance. ESPECIALLY when you take in the cost of the entire platform (MB, Memory, CPU).

Regards,
SB

I agree with this statement. I am a clock for clock type person. I expect to see a 3Ghz processor beat a 2.66Ghz processor. What I dont expect to see is a 2.66Ghz processor beating a 3Ghz processor. When that happens, I know one side has gotten the upper hand on the other and makes my purchasing choices easier when its time to upgrade and i can afford it.

I was happy with my P4 2.6C at 3.6 as it was what I could afford at the time. Later I went and moved to an X2 as I could afford it and it was the best option for me. After about the same length of time, I've since moved on to a Q6600. Its all about cost, but it is also about performance.

I've gone P2 266 > P2 400 > P3 1ghz > AMD Barton 2500+ > P4C 2.4Ghz > AMD A64 X2 3800+ > Q6600

 

[swaaye]

I think price/performance vs. how much you are willing to pay is all that matters in the end though. AMD definitely has some nice pricing right now (platform-wide), but you do get what you pay for.

 

[homerdog]

Either way the ONLY thing that matters to a consumer is the performance within a given price range.

I was more speaking on what matters to AMD. Sure they can be competitive on a perf/selling price basis, but at what cost?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I was more speaking on what matters to AMD. Sure they can be competitive on a perf/selling price basis, but at what cost?

At this point AMD is still in survive mode. Making a profit would, of course, be the ultimate goal but I think they are realistic enough to know that Intel has them beat at this point.

ATI can only help mitigate things even if ATI is currently on the upswing.

So for the CPU side of things, they have a few things they "can" do at this point.

1. Minimize cash losses.

2. Minimize marketshare losses.

If they minimize cash losses too much (IE - go for higher margins) then they end up with greater on hand inventory (inventory that piles up and doesn't move is extremely costly) as they won't sell as much. Mostly due to looking like an extremely bad proposition when compared to Intel.

If they minimize marketshare losses, they're going to take a hit on margins. But they'll still be able to move product. They'll still be able to remain a factor in consumer and OEM markets. They'll likely end up losing less cash than if they went for a higher price.

And yes as you stated there is definitely a cost associated with this.

And right now they are playing chicken with Intel. Who is going to stop lowering their price first.

AMD can't afford to stop lowering prices. So it basically comes down to how low is Intel willing to go.

Yes it hurts, and it's going to keep hurting for a while. AMD won't really have another chance to match or overtake Intel until sometime around the 2011 (?) time frame with their next architecture.

Meanwhile, they just need their CPU business to try to hold onto marketshare and minimize losses and hope ATI can keep them afloat.

However, I'm not entirely sure if ATI alone can keep them afloat until 2011.

What will be interesting to see is if Intel lets up the pressure slightly in order to keep AMD around. Intel benefits from AMD being around much more than just an anti-monopoly lawsuit buffer. Things like negotiations with Nvidia, etc...

Personally I think Intel wants to push AMD's marketshare down a bit more but doesn't want them to go out of business entirely.

Regards,
SB

 

[dizietsma]

Analysts are suggesting sales of about $1.2-$1.3 and loss per share of about 54c which by my calculation is around $300m loss.

AMD cashpile is currently around $1billion and debts about $5billion.

With reduction is prices forced by Intel again recently I guess the only solution is more cost cutting but you do have to wonder how much fat is still left to be got rid of.

I don't care much for the executives but for the sake of the little guys working for them I hope they pull through.

 

[Brad Grenz]

AMD is lucky that the current economic situation could likely prevent Intel from simply pricing them out of the market. Intel are themselves getting into layoffs and cut backs and can't afford a war of attrition much better than AMD. Hopefully for AMD, and competition's sake, the status quo will remain for a little while. I think Phenom II's launch price point was calculated to allow AMD a swift price cut when Intel responded. But now that those changes have occurred I don't think Intel will continue to drive prices down when they have a strong brand, performance supremacy at the high end and other challenges to worry about.