What is AMD's Next move?

[manne_29]

Next years Quads are going to all be on 65nm dies and I don't think AMD arrival to the 65nm platform will make up the ground that they need to cover. And towards the end of 07', Intel’s quads on 45nm will be released and then it's back to the assembly line for AMD. There will be a see-saw battle between the two companies but it seems that Intel will just be the first to introduce the 45nm and the 32nm (which is due out early 2009) technologies. AMD is basically playing catch up but that’s not always a bad thing. Intel's 45nm Perlyn core is rumored to have a 12mb cache and 2 shared FSB (2 X 1333FSB). The first EXtreme Edition is to be released at 3.7 GHz, with on board memory controller and 29 degrees at full load..............(WHoooaH). Now that is ALOT for AMD to deal with. But I do hope AMD comes out swinging so I can get a great deal with the competition. All of this is over- kill anyway, but "I just want to make sure that things that are reportedly dead, remain dead!"
What do you think is AMD next processing chess move.

[[GSV]Trig]

On board memory controller,. surely you mean on die, in which case Intel is just copying AMD surely?

[manne_29]

Thank's for the correction. On die.Doesn't this now take away the memory bandwith title away from AMD and puts them both on equal playing fields.But since AMD has had this for some time wouln't you think they have something new for intel in the bandwith race. They have had more time to invest in perfecting the solution. But maybe I'm wrong. Surely AMD is looking at larger cache sizes, they already hold the lead on seperate FSB interfaces that Intel will only have by early January. It going to be a h$%* of a year!

[[GSV]Trig]

AMD have had time yes but they dont have the money to plow into things like Intel do and with AMD doing it first then it gives Intel something to copy again.
Look back down the CPU technology line and time after time Intel change something and rubbish what AMD are doing and then a bit further down the line they do a 360 and do the same as AMD.
Intel will now probably stick with the architecture they have and concentrate on something else same as they have previously, P4's were stretching what they had and Intel stuck with it and ramped clock speeds, cache sizes and a few other small things while they were concentrating on the mobile chipset/cpu sector, not they have a potent desktop cpu architecture so will stick with that and go mess with server chipsets and CPU's or whatever else and then come back to desktops when the Conroe/Mermon or whatever its called runs out fo steam..

IMHO of course.

[Smokey21]

K8L is due out next year. 65nm chips are due out by the end of this year, on AM2 im sure, maybe on 939.

Who knows, with regards to there merger with ATI.

[FInalD]

K8L is due out next year. 65nm chips are due out by the end of this year, on AM2 im sure, maybe on 939.

Who knows, with regards to there merger with ATI.

According to most places AMD are ceasing support (new chips) for 939 and are going ahead with AM2, which is how AMD have always operated.

FinalD

[8bit]

Who knows, with regards to there merger with ATI.

I'd reckon AMD are taking a different approach to Intel based on the merger with ATI. Intel are still concentrating on churning out faster and faster CPUs. If what I've read on the AMD/ATI merger is right (or at least, if I understood it right), AMD are looking to put GPU's in socket format directly onto dual socket motherboards and have the CPU and GPU communicate directly over HyperTransport.

This would fit with AMD's tradition of doing things more efficiently rather than just making current things faster. Until now at least, AMD chips tended to outperform similarly specced Intel models at the same or lower clock rates, which is by way of more efficient architecture. Intel are more of a one-trick pony in this respect, making the CPU go as fast as they can and hoping the rest of the industry keeps up. They're still flogging the dead horse known as FSB for god's sake...

I'm keen to see how AMD's approach pans out. I don't think they've lost the battle with Intel by a long, long way yet. Intel may have the faster CPUs just now but as I said, AMD have a history of reorganising their architecture (and that of the supporting hardware - on-die memory controllers, HyperTransport to name but two examples) and given the law of diminishing returns on throwing more compute power into the CPU, I'd reckon they've got tricks up their sleeve for a long time to come.

[manne_29]

I'd reckon AMD are taking a different approach to Intel based on the merger with ATI. Intel are still concentrating on churning out faster and faster CPUs. If what I've read on the AMD/ATI merger is right (or at least, if I understood it right), AMD are looking to put GPU's in socket format directly onto dual socket motherboards and have the CPU and GPU communicate directly over HyperTransport.

This would fit with AMD's tradition of doing things more efficiently rather than just making current things faster. Until now at least, AMD chips tended to outperform similarly specced Intel models at the same or lower clock rates, which is by way of more efficient architecture. Intel are more of a one-trick pony in this respect, making the CPU go as fast as they can and hoping the rest of the industry keeps up. They're still flogging the dead horse known as FSB for god's sake...

I'm keen to see how AMD's approach pans out. I don't think they've lost the battle with Intel by a long, long way yet. Intel may have the faster CPUs just now but as I said, AMD have a history of reorganising their architecture (and that of the supporting hardware - on-die memory controllers, HyperTransport to name but two examples) and given the law of diminishing returns on throwing more compute power into the CPU, I'd reckon they've got tricks up their sleeve for a long time to come.

That is what we hope for. We woulnd'nt expect anything less. I will have to disagree with you on the FSB and clock frequency aspect of your comment.
Clock frequency is still important although not forefront as once was. A quad core CPU running at 3.75ghz with a smaller die (45nm) is very impressive indeed. But if efficentcy is the name of the game you would have to have more than a breathtaking clock frequency, which is why Intel divided the FSB to be shared by 2 cores at 1333 apiece and moved away from the current 65nm model which is 4 cores sharing (1) 1066FSB. I believe this not to be a small feature upgrade. There is also the small thing of core temperature which is suppose to be 29 degrees which means (think of the overclocking potiential).

[DanceswithUnix]

Next years Quads are going to all be on 65nm dies and I don't think AMD arrival to the 65nm platform will make up the ground that they need to cover. And towards the end of 07', Intel’s quads on 45nm

Forget all the 65nm, 45nm stuff. The days of large speed increases due to a feature shrink are gone, as that characteristic of CMOS is into diminishing returns. Each feature shrink gets you twice as many transistors for the same die area (and hence cost) so it is all down to how clever you are with your transistors.

AMD are sorting out their SSE performance, memory re-ordering and cache bandwidth. That aught to put them back on par with Intel.

I gather Intel Core2 takes a huge hit still when you switch to 64 bit mode compared with AMD. They are bright chaps & chapesses, I am sure they will fix it before too many people start running 64 bit benchmarks.

[gOdman]

Forget all the 65nm, 45nm stuff. The days of large speed increases due to a feature shrink are gone, as that characteristic of CMOS is into diminishing returns. Each feature shrink gets you twice as many transistors for the same die area (and hence cost) so it is all down to how clever you are with your transistors.

AMD are sorting out their SSE performance, memory re-ordering and cache bandwidth. That aught to put them back on par with Intel.

I gather Intel Core2 takes a huge hit still when you switch to 64 bit mode compared with AMD. They are bright chaps & chapesses, I am sure they will fix it before too many people start running 64 bit benchmarks.

by making the transistors smaller its cheaper, or so i believe, though the capital costs are higher when switching over to smaller transistors (capital cost as in taping processors, getting the masks ready etc)

forget the temperature, its what, a guess? To be honest you can only say an unreleased processor may be cooler or hotter but not say that it is around 29c - THEY HAVEnT EVEN STARTED PRODUCTION or DESIGNING THE FINAL THING/revision YET!!!!!
there is no way of telling all you can say is that it might be cooler, but thats only a guess, a ball in the park figure, no one can pridict the temperature of the Perlyn core.

anyway all these are are codenames , thats all we know, they could have deigned the core and got everything ready in a few months time or they might not have done ahything et, we just dont know.

xbit labs say perlyn will be a revision of merom (the core 2 duo for mobile)

Intel was originally expected to launch dual-core Wolfdale (for desktops) and dual-core Penryn (for laptops) processors made using 45nm process technology in 2008, according to earlier information. However, considering the recent progress with 65nm product shipments and ongoing progress with 45nm development, the company seemingly speeds up its roadmap. In addition to 45nm dual-core chips in 2007, there are rumours about single-die quad-core chip made using 45nm process technology in the Q3 2007.( -xbit labs )

and wikipedia says this:

Penryn

The successor to the Conroe, code-named Penryn will most likely debut the 45 nanometer process that will be also used for the Kentsfield sequel, Yorkfield. Announcements about Penryn are expected by mid-2007. (-wikipedia)

and you (manne_29 i mean) say this:

Intel's 45nm Perlyn core is rumored to have a 12mb cache and 2 shared FSB (2 X 1333FSB). The first EXtreme Edition is to be released at 3.7 GHz, with on board memory controller and 29 degrees at full load..............(WHoooaH)

and that doesn't sound like a laptop core to me......


so at the end of the day what can we do, we can speculate, we can believe what others say (whether it be true or not), or WE CAN LISTEN TO INTEL FANBOYS





.....lol..... (manne_29)

[gOdman]

I gather Intel Core2 takes a huge hit still when you switch to 64 bit mode compared with AMD. They are bright chaps & chapesses, I am sure they will fix it before too many people start running 64 bit benchmarks.

they dont take a "huge" hit, a minor one at least:

As we have expected, nothing serious has happened. CPUs with Intel Core microarchitecture and EM64T technology work normally in 64-bit modes. No dramatic performance drop has been detected in most benchmarks.(xbit labs)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-64bit.html

sorry for only using xbit labs article (ive got it on screen thats all), im not a xbit labs fanboy or anything.......

[8bit]

That is what we hope for. We woulnd'nt expect anything less. I will have to disagree with you on the FSB and clock frequency aspect of your comment.
Clock frequency is still important although not forefront as once was. A quad core CPU running at 3.75ghz with a smaller die (45nm) is very impressive indeed. But if efficentcy is the name of the game you would have to have more than a breathtaking clock frequency, which is why Intel divided the FSB to be shared by 2 cores at 1333 apiece and moved away from the current 65nm model which is 4 cores sharing (1) 1066FSB. I believe this not to be a small feature upgrade. There is also the small thing of core temperature which is suppose to be 29 degrees which means (think of the overclocking potiential).

I didn't actually say anything about clock rates, at least not in connection with my point about making the CPU go as fast as possible. Core is an architectural change over NetBurst for a start, which (in end-user experience and compute throughput terms) makes the CPU faster than previous architectures.

As for FSB, well there Intel are still pushing clock rates up. 'Nuff said IMHO.

1x dual or quad core Athlon64/Opteron CPU plus 1x Radeon GPU talking directly over HyperTransport 3.0 with a (semi-)unified memory architecture sounds like a mouth-watering combination to me. Anyone else?

[gOdman]

hmmmm not sure about that...maybe a 80 core processor with 1024gigaflops?

lol (intel fanboy type reply)

i dunno, oh 4x4 uses a new socket i think NOT AM2.... and i believe you need both processors at the same time to make it work.... Why not keep to the same socket?

[8bit]

hmmmm not sure about that...maybe a 80 core processor with 1024gigaflops?

lol (intel fanboy type reply)

i dunno, oh 4x4 uses a new socket i think NOT AM2.... and i believe you need both processors at the same time to make it work.... Why not keep to the same socket?

It's Socket F, isn't it? The 1204-pin package for the new FX series and Opteron chips, IIRC...

[gOdman]

yeah but whats the point in buying it? Marketing? Also i guess fanboys and people who just want bragging rights will buy it but what about the enthusiast who researches all the performance gains from x cpu to cpu y?
its just a server platfrom really slightly optimized for gaming, since you have to buy a new motherboard and processor (you cant use your old one seeing as it wont fit)

and thats after amd said they will keep the am2 socket for a long time they are doing what they did with 754 and 939, though fx series cpus are on am2, fx series cpus weren't on 754 you see.... So now they are putting high performance products on one platform and mid range (excluding the x2 5000+ and fx62) on the am2 socket...

[8bit]

yeah but whats the point in buying it? Marketing? Also i guess fanboys and people who just want bragging rights will buy it but what about the enthusiast who researches all the performance gains from x cpu to cpu y?
its just a server platfrom really slightly optimized for gaming, since you have to buy a new motherboard and processor (you cant use your old one seeing as it wont fit)

I have my doubts about 4x4, I agree it's really a mix of marketing gimmick and product for those with more money than sense. That said, the on-board GPU thing isn't likely to be based on 4x4 from what I gather.

and thats after amd said they will keep the am2 socket for a long time they are doing what they did with 754 and 939, though fx series cpus are on am2, fx series cpus weren't on 754 you see.... So now they are putting high performance products on one platform and mid range (excluding the x2 5000+ and fx62) on the am2 socket...

AMD haven't said they're killing off AM2 with Socket F. Socket F was announced at the same time as AM2 as being for the next-gen Opteron line. The fact that they've now announced the FX series will go in there is pretty much irrelevant since those able to afford the FX chips won't be worried about what board they have to put it on and the rest of us will still have AM2 anyway.

If you think back a few years, the first FX series chips were released in the original Socket 940 package. AMD gave in and packaged later models in the more consumer-friendly s939 format along with some low-end Opterons. I doubt the FX series' absence on AM2 will last that long.