AMD is tanking

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by nichtganz, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. CPC_RedDawn

    CPC_RedDawn Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    GPU:
    6800XT Nitro+ SE
    Nothing a quick BIOS update wont fix :p

    Most older chipsets such as P35 will support ALL core 2's and core 2 quads with a BIOS update.
     
  2. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,214
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    FFS calm down. I meant ABIT.
     
  3. Jem

    Jem Active Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Leadtek6600GT/ATI9800pro
    Yup, I am not sure if ABIT merged with DFI but ABIT developer team did join with DFI. I am still using German's Epox motherboard, but the company went out business some years back. I think Epox's team moved to China with new name, I can't remember what's its call.
     
  4. LedHed

    LedHed Banned

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    BenQ FP241W
    I made the Goodbye Abit thread... I was just asking what you were referring to about Asus. Calm down? Simply asking for some proof...

    Goodbye Abit Thread:
    http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=282110

    Also C2D isn't the only dominating release, have you forgotten about i7 already? The Phenom II is a huge FLOP (in terms of pure performance) and i7 is taking off with the huge lead. The only way AMD can compete is the low end market and maybe a little of the midrange with lower prices than Intel for lower performance chips.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009

  5. MileHighMilitia

    MileHighMilitia Master Guru

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HIS HD4850 + TT DuOrb 700/1135
    Its hard to imagine a world with only one CPU maker, just think of how much that would suck. Personally i think that in the event of AMD's processor division collapsing

    a) ATi would stay in business

    b) Another company (maybe IBM or something) would rise up to fill the gap.

    I really hope they dont go down the drain and can hold out til things turn around.
     
  6. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,995
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    If you want a history lesson...here's one for you. AMD has been in a very similar position before....high failure rates, sub-par performance, low sales figures....then came the K7 Athlon. As for ATI...if AMD were to "tank" as people seem to think they will...Intel could easily buy out ATI and blow nVidia out of the market. nVidia is focusing solely on the high-end market and losing money buy doing it. Mid-range and low-end cards generate the most profit, as they have the largest consumer appeal due to price.

    Also, being that Intel is the only company producing a consumer processor....AMD "tanking" would make Intel a monopoly. As the US Gov't hates monopolies...there's little chance they'll let AMD "tank". If ATI were to "tank" with AMD before Larrabee gets to market....nVidia would be declared a monopoly as S3 doesn't have a high enough stake in the consumer graphics market to be considered direct compe****on. Without ATI, nVidia has no compe****on...thus giving them a monopoly on the consumer graphics market.

    Pentium-D was a complete flop...and architecturally...was nothing but 2 Prescott P4 cores linked together on a single die. Core 2 Quad was nothing revolutionary either...Kentsfield is nothing but 2 Conroe core sets on a single die. Yorkfield, just a set of Wofldale core sets placed on a single die. Core i7...if you compare it to the Phenom...is nearly identical, having the only real exception being the placement of cache on the die. The Agena core was actually revolutionary....as it was designed as a quad core, and not simply a pair of dual-core processors sharing a single die. Also, AMD had a hand in the development of HyperTransport...unlike Intel who bought into QPI after it was developed.

    BTW...AM3 Phenom2 is coming with DDR3 support and if the Phenom2 is any indicator...should compete with Core i7 in non-HT apps just fine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009
  7. solofly

    solofly Banned

    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVGA 580 SC SLI@840@1080P
    We're talking older chipsets than P35...
     
  8. solofly

    solofly Banned

    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVGA 580 SC SLI@840@1080P
    I like this guy...:cheers:
     
  9. LedHed

    LedHed Banned

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    BenQ FP241W
    No one in here was defending Pentium 4 or D, I was simply using those terrible chips as a comparison to what Intel progressed to (up to 400% increase in performance P4 -> PD -> C2D -> i7) while AMD has really only increased it's performance 50-60% in a 3 year period, this is why they are dieing out. The Phenom II is getting smashed by review sites and a lot of people are just hoping for the next thing and overlooking the uninspired Phenom II release (naming the chips after i7....COME ON) DDR3 isn't going to save the unoptimized architecture.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=18

    Funny how the dual cores are still king of some of the benchmarks, these Wolfdales really are a bargain for under $200 (for E8500 and under).
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009
  10. solofly

    solofly Banned

    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVGA 580 SC SLI@840@1080P

  11. LedHed

    LedHed Banned

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    BenQ FP241W
    E8500 still own those Phenom II and they are under $185
     
  12. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,214
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    What does that have to do with my post? The i7 was released in 2008, well after the C2D when Intel already had the upper hand.
    I said with the release of the C2D things changed and that was my point.
    And you weren't "simply asking" you were trying to flame me over a simple error.

    Quit trolling.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009
  13. Jem

    Jem Active Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Leadtek6600GT/ATI9800pro
    Well, I have my eyes on Phenom 1 9950 Black Edition, not II. As for the most expensive AMD motherboards that go with it cost up to around $200. I am usually picky about motherboard over cpus. I probably would get E8500 if the motherboards I like that go with it cost around $150, but most if not all are way over $200, even shocked to see some are at $400 or $500. I don't want micro atx or boards with some weird or unpopular chipsets. Also I have to add up the cost on which DDRs I want plus video cards. If the board I like that goes with E8500 come down to $100, sure $185 on E8500 would be a good bait. I probably going wait until spring or summer before buying anything new just in case AMD comes up with something new or prices for either Intel or AMD become more comfortable.
     
  14. Iarwain

    Iarwain Banned

    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    4890 990//1120
    *facepalm* 8500 is a dual core chip, man...
     
  15. Jem

    Jem Active Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Leadtek6600GT/ATI9800pro
    Indeed your right. I overlooked about that in first place. It makes $154 Phenom 1 9950 with quad cores looks sweeter, including the boards I like that go with it.
     

  16. Norvekh

    Norvekh Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 2080 Ti
    Phenoms are excellent chips for most people that need a quad, but don't wish to shell out a bunch of cash. No, they won't be the fastest but they get decent performance on a very good platform with lots of capability. They work rather well in conjunction with the 4000 series cards to make a powerful, but budget-minded, computer.

    Honestly? I wouldn't mind taking a trek back to the A Team. But, my budget is rather limited at the moment so I'm looking at most at a Q9650 depending on how low the price goes in the next few months. By next year though? Who knows. All I know is that after using these 4870s I will likely not buy the tip top card on introduction like I did with my 8800GTX again. The fact I was paying $250 a card for performance on par to Nvidia's $400 GTX260 was just incredible and made me extremely glad for waiting.

    My point? In times of constrained budgets AMD definitely has the upper hand at the moment. As mentioned, you can get a Phenom quad for the cost of one of Intel's dual-cores. Great for multimedia and everyday usage which is just what most people need.
     
  17. LedHed

    LedHed Banned

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    BenQ FP241W
    Trolling what? I'm in here having a technical debate, showing benches and talking about hardware, you are the one getting your feelings hurt (for some unknown reason). You made a mistake of names and no one has been hard on you about it except yourself. Talk about hardware or just move along.

    Ummm, the GTX 260 was never a $400 video card, the most it ever went for was around $300 and these were the Core 216 cards with massive overclocks on them (FTW evga version). The normal GTX 260's went for $250-$300(US), so I'm not sure what you mean, maybe you aren't talking dollars.

    Well no sh*t sherlock, however we are talking about performance here. The E8500/8400 beat out the Phenom II in almost every single benchmark, especially when the Wolfdales are around 4-5ghz. This isn't the time to get into a quad vs dual debate, but in the current state of the software industry, dual cores are still the most logical chips to buy. That is unless you do a lot of video/audio editing or you are working on a server. Gamers on the other hand would benefit from getting the fastest dual core available, though some (very few) have started to use 4 cores (Crysis/GTA IV/Quake 4/UT3) however a lot of games are still only using one/two cores.

    When 4 cores finally does become the norm then yes Quad cores will be the way to go, however this isn't going to happen overnight. We were having this same discussion 3 years ago when everyone wanted to pick the Fastest A64 over the X2's since Software wasn't using dual cores yet. We can see how long this progression takes by considering source games are still using single core (except L4D). We still haven't got true dual core support from most games/apps yet and I figure by the time quad becomes the norm i7 will be the standard instead of C2Q.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2009
  18. wud03

    wud03 Master Guru

    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI 4850 512MB @ 690/1188
    Here's how I look at it: the only real "computing" I do with my computer is gaming, which as any gamer will tell you, the most important thing is fps. Benchmarks wise, there's little difference between AMD and Intel's offerings, maybe 10-20 fps at the very most. And when we are talking about +50 fps, it's a moot point as the eye can't tell the difference. The reason I went with AMD for my rig even though Intel technically had superior chips was compe****on. If 2 products are comparable, I'll always go for the underdog. No company is going to lower prices and put money in R&D just out of love for its customers.

    But at the same time, I wouldn't be supporting AMD if they don't seem to care or seem content to slowly die. That doesn't seem to be the case. You can't argue that P2's at least put AMD back in the same ballpark as Intel and the 48xx actually put AMD/ATI back on top for a while. I don't seem any reason not to sacrifice a couple of fps's not to do my part to ensure healthy compe****on for the foreseeable future.
     
  19. dipanzan

    dipanzan Master Guru

    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX460 OC 1GB
    yup...thats right cuz the C2Qs r not native quad cores whereas the i7 is a true native one
    & by the time we get full (inlcuding all the games not jst GTA4 & all the normal softwares) quad core support...then the i7 u'd be the best way to go

    & talking about speed in Mhz...it does count cuz the quad cores like the Q6600 r most likely be OCed to a value like 3.6 whereas the wolfdales like the E8400 is gonna hit 4Ghz and above which u'd really hlp in multi GPU setups but then again is quite bottlenecked like I m talking about (tri GTX280 SLI or 4870X2 CF X)
     
  20. dipanzan

    dipanzan Master Guru

    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX460 OC 1GB
    well the fact that it makes it sweeter is quite true but AMD had to do it since they cuz Intel had far better processors like the E8400/Q6600 & also the Q9xxx

    if AMD had the upper hand then the intel Q6600 u'd have been $150 lol & the Q9450 u'd have been $169 lol again
     

Share This Page