DigiTimes reports AMD plans to phase out about 30 AM3-based Phenom II and Athlon II processors in Q3 2011 the full list can be read over here. AMD plans to phase out about 30 AM3-based Phenom II and... More...
looks like AMD looking forward to step into 2012 with fresh, 32nm air. No more old 45nm for AMD in 2012 =) must feel refreshing for them.
Lol Phenom 2 doesn't even make up 5% of their total processor volume. Shows you where the real market is.
Finally..performance wise those processors beat core 2 quads at best..i miss the good old athlon thunderbird days and remember how those 1.8ghz athlon 64s used to compete and beat a pentium 4 at 3ghz..and the amazing FX series
I used to rub that in my friend's face. "My processor is better than yours, it's at 3GHz while yours is a measly 1.8." He learned the hard way.
Ya I miss the good old amd days. My friend did the same with his skt 478 p4 3ghz vs my skt 754 Athlon 64 2ghz. Blah blah yours is slower cause its 2ghz crap. Mine beat his even before I had it oced to 2.6. Intel finally learned that brute speed no longer was gonna matter. It was core arcitechure. Sadly amd didnt continue to attack after they released am2 after the 939.
Actually it did. The Athlon 64 3200 at 2ghz outperformed the Pent 4 at 3ghz in almost every benchmark back in the day.
Netburst was a joke and I still facepalm about it whenever someone brings it up or I boot up my old P4 for experiments. deltatux
Not so much a joke as a "technical adventure" so to speak that didn't end up well. It's not that Netburst was poorly designed, it's just that it didn't work as intended. But of course since Intel is Intel and they're marketing geniuses, it still sold boatloads of units. AMD neglected to really push their advantage by attacking the OEM market, and it's one of the main reasons they're behind today. The ATI acquisition is another reason, although at least that's started to pay off for them.
I still think it's quite a technological blunder considering how much Intel invested in something they know can't work. They were so hard up on the frequency battle they basically threw out great CPU design methodologies just to get that clockspeed. AMD, however stuck with designing a better architecture and got technologically ahead of Intel. Intel wakes up in 2006 and beats the crap out of AMD to this day. AMD was just too small to compete with Intel on the OEM and business market and they still are. That's been AMD's largest problem for decades. The bulk of the revenue is actually from corporate spending and Intel has basically cornered that market well. Hell, I don't really know many large organization not use an Intel rig. My college uses Intel exclusively now that all the PowerPC Macs have been replaced by Intel ones. deltatux
It wasn't really a frequency battle that Intel was trying to play. I read up on the architecture once (And although I forget a lot of the details), it really wasn't that bad on paper. It only ended up being bad in real life due the fact that they had to rack up the pipeline stages to make it work in the end. And it actually was a better architecture in some tasks. Also, at the time they didn't know it wouldn't work.
Intel knew they hit a wall with Prescott, instead of going directly to Core microarchitecture, they kept pedaling Netburst to the point it was really a wtf? They just kept tacking on longer pipeline stages (which is bad if the a single pipe had bad instructions, the whole pipeline regardless of which stage it is in would be wiped and have to be refilled). This was done in order to hit higher frequencies in order to keep up with AMD since Intel needed a lot more clocks in order to remain competitive to AMD which had much lower speeds. The fact that they needed to have their ALU run at twice the speed of the core frequency is already another sign that Intel's just desperate to do anything to keep the architecture afloat. A 3 GHz CPU had its ALU running at 6 GHz which is insane, and that's why Pentium 4 ate electricity like mad and was running very hot. deltatux
