The Angry Phenom (or: How I Love-Hate AMD!)

[Angry_Games]

i played the hell out of it first 5-8 years and did the band thing in high school and college etc then had a few bad experiences with the band thing (like when you show up and some other dude is tuning his guitar and you are like "who the xxxx is that?" and they are like "oh yeah well he's the new guitarist man, sorry' etc).

 

put it away for about 10 years or so, but feeling the hankering to play a bit more now. Now that I got my Phenom rant out lol.

[RHKCommander959]

:tooth: pwned.

 

i agree ... I always have wondered if amd got lucky with aquisitions/etc or if they were smart...

[21Motorcraft]

Well said............:cool:

I still love my 939....

[Guest SuppA-SnipA]

the first rant i've read from start to finish, nice on A_G, good thing i read this one too, thinking of my next rig what to go for...but thats probably another year away

[gadugger]

Great rant Angry..

 

I can't tell the future but can anyone see amd making a comeback sometime in the future since they own crossfire now and can tell nvidia to shove it ?

I'm thinkin Intel would love to own nvidia but the price is outrageous as well as their licensing fees.

I don't see any new sli boards...Is this the beginning of the death of sli ? unless Intel or nvidia gets off their high horse ?

This is of course all speculation on my part ?

[Angry_Games]

I'm excited for what AMD-ATI might be able to do, but I'm of course worried about how they will go about doing it (hopefully not in the usual screwed-up manner they love to do things in).

 

As for Nvidia, don't even think for a second they aren't still the #1 gpu makers on the planet (though intel integrated graphics might have more penetration, purchased gpu's are Nvidia's bread and butter).

 

Nvidia will figure something out, don't worry. More importantly, there's NO way AMD nor Intel will lock out Nvidia...they (especially AMD) rely on that money from licensing fees but more importantly because if you buy an Nvidia board, you got to buy either an AMD cpu or Intel cpu...so it's a win-win situation for both sides.

[Imsochobo]

the only reason to buy a phenom atm is to get the HT 3.0 and ddr1066 support, I'm Waiting for the 45 NM black edition.!

[Angry_Games]

the only reason to buy a phenom atm is to get the HT 3.0 and ddr1066 support, I'm Waiting for the 45 NM black edition.!

 

HT3.0 doesn't bring anything to the table that makes it worth...well, anything. DDR1066 support brings nothing to the table either (since Intel cpu's can already do it and the Intel cpu is still stronger regardless of memory bandwidth).

 

As for 45nm, don't hold your breath for too long. AMD is having issues just getting cpu's at 65nm, though hopefully the 55nm ATI gpu will lead them to an easier 45nm cpu. But AMD is one crisis after another these days.

[s1ick]

More importantly, there's NO way AMD nor Intel will lock out Nvidia...they (especially AMD) rely on that money from licensing fees but more importantly because if you buy an Nvidia board, you got to buy either an AMD cpu or Intel cpu...so it's a win-win situation for both sides.

 

But Im sure AMD and Intel would rather you purchased their board/chipset and cpu not just cpu?

[Imsochobo]

amd is in route on 45 NM, they dont got issues on that part, their 65 NM is old and have been quite long existing, they having issues getting the performance.

 

But, well, any1 knows about the clocking capabilities of a now existing 65 NM ?.

 

btw, amd gotta do stuff the hard way, do true quadcore. intel does it the easy way, but intel gonna have a hard time next year with the implentated memory controller.

well, amd need cache... cache... cache!.

 

what else, hmm.. push out a 3 ghz phenom... yeah. or a 3ghz tricore fast.

 

but wanna know how the phenoms clock with fsb, wanna see how much headroom i'd can expect from the black editions, since its always best to max the fsb, for the system, aswell have a high multiplier. to gain good mem speed and such. hope my mushkins do alright when the time comes.

[s1ick]

:shake: serious fanboy alert.

[Angry_Games]

But Im sure AMD and Intel would rather you purchased their board/chipset and cpu not just cpu?

 

of course they would, but think about it carefully...Nvdia alone sells enough of their own chipsets that REQUIRE either Intel or AMD cpu's. Do they want to lose this 20%-50% in sales that Nvidia generates for them by the fact that if you choose an Nvidia Intel board you still have to buy an Intel cpu to run it?

 

Heck no!

 

If a company makes $10 on their own chipset and $10 on their own cpu as profit, that's great.

 

If a company makes $10 on a cpu that goes on another chipset, that's great too.

 

What if a company no longer makes that single $10 profit from selling a cpu to a 3rd party chipset?

 

That's bad.

 

If Nintendo only allowed games made by Nintendo themselves, they'd still make a profit. But wouldn't they rather make all that EXTRA money from 3rd party developers that make games for their system? Would Nintendo really want to not allow a 3rd party to develop games when some of those games SELL systems for them? Heck no, if a game is so great (as some think Nvidia's chipsets are great), and it requires a Nintendo to play, then Nintendo wins either way. They make more money off their own 1st party software, but they STILL make money second-hand from 3rd party software for the fact of licensing agreements to allow the game to run on Nintendo hardware + the sales of the Nintendo hardware to play the game.

 

 

 

 

amd is in route on 45 NM, they dont got issues on that part, their 65 NM is old and have been quite long existing, they having issues getting the performance.

 

But, well, any1 knows about the clocking capabilities of a now existing 65 NM ?.

 

btw, amd gotta do stuff the hard way, do true quadcore. intel does it the easy way, but intel gonna have a hard time next year with the implentated memory controller.

well, amd need cache... cache... cache!.

 

what else, hmm.. push out a 3 ghz phenom... yeah. or a 3ghz tricore fast.

 

but wanna know how the phenoms clock with fsb, wanna see how much headroom i'd can expect from the black editions, since its always best to max the fsb, for the system, aswell have a high multiplier. to gain good mem speed and such. hope my mushkins do alright when the time comes.

 

AMD is on route to 45nm. But they don't have the R&D nor the fab facilities nor the experience that Intel has, which is why Intel is first to 45nm, and will be working to release 32nm cpu's by the time AMD hits 45nm with proper yields.

 

AMD DOES have issues with 45nm. If you believe otherwise, YOU have been smoking too many Sani-Flush crystals and should quit smoking them as they are making your brain malfunction. They'll eventually hit 45nm in stride, just like they did 90nm and 65nm, but they'll be behind Intel as usual.

 

And your thinking strategy about the difference between AMD's 4-core and Intel's 4-core is down the wrong path.

 

Who gives a . if Barcelona/Phenom is a true 4 separate cores on a die vs Intel's 2x2-core die?

 

No one because Intel's 2x2-core cpu's still beat AMD's "true" 4-core cpu's. AMD has a superior technology with the on-die memory controller vs Intel's need to still have separate NB memory controller...but here again, Intel cpu's still kick the crap out of AMD cpu's and all that memory bandwidth advantage on an A64 style cpu means absolutely ZERO at the moment, and probably won't for a long time, if ever.

 

Intel won't have a hard time with integrated memory controller. You can go believing they will, but they won't in the long run.

 

And cache? Cache? Have you done the same testing we have done and found that cpu cache is almost meaningless in everyday applications/games? 512k vs 1MB on the A64 = maybe 1fps in games, maybe 1 extra minute in cpu-intensive things like video encoding. My E6400 Core2 only lags behind my E6600 Core2 by about 1% at worst in everything, yet my E6600 has double the cache. My 3200+ Venice 512k A64 lags behind my Opteron equivalent with 1MB cache by less than 1% in just about everything.

 

AMD doesn't need cache cache cache. They need to get their heads out of their asses like Intel did a couple of years ago (and like AMD did about 8-ish years ago when they introduced the original Slot A Athlon) and make a better, more efficient cpu. Cache won't really play a role in it. Execution pipelines, branch prediction, etc will be the factors, not cache. Cache is important, but takes a back seat to those other things.

 

Once again, forget memory speed. As we've seen, and shown others with our own tests, the differences are neglible at best to run 800Mhz vs 1000Mhz on the memory when the cpu is doing all the work anyway. My E6600 @ 1000Mhz memory vs 800Mhz memory vs 667Mhz memory is roughly about 2% on each level, maybe as much as 5%.

 

But we have moved away from that whole "overclock until your wife's bra catches on fire" thing. Gone are the days of needing every last fps, every last Mhz to have an e-penis bigger than someone else's. It's not realistic, it causes hardware to die faster, and it isn't what the overwhelming majority are into. That's for places like XS, not here, where we take a much more realistic look at this stuff.