joel.monteiro Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 i dont think that the 980x is actually worth for its price ,i think amd gonna win this one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
_TheAlexO Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 No not thinking that at all, I am sure if Intel would have wanted a 6 core 45nm they could have easy done that but there moving forward not backwards. how is putting a 6core 45nm moving backwards? your right its not moving forward but still. your implying AMD is going backwards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdy284 Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 how is putting a 6core 45nm moving backwards? your right its not moving forward but still. your implying AMD is going backwards meaning they already had a 32nm process, so why go to 45nm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire_storm Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 meaning they already had a 32nm process, so why go to 45nm They worked with what they had and because AMD isn't ready to produce 32nm chips it made them the next best thing 45nm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 No not thinking that at all, I am sure if Intel would have wanted a 6 core 45nm they could have easy done that but there moving forward not backwards. Dunnington was three duct tapped Core 2's at 45 nm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunan Posted March 20, 2010 Posted March 20, 2010 meaning they already had a 32nm process, so why go to 45nm a few months back, i've read some rumors on the net saying that amd is skipping 32nm, they will straight away go to 28nm... unfortunately i dont remember which site stated so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 20, 2010 Posted March 20, 2010 a few months back, i've read some rumors on the net saying that amd is skipping 32nm, they will straight away go to 28nm... unfortunately i dont remember which site stated so. That sounds like a good idea, they may catch up with Intel that way... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted March 20, 2010 Posted March 20, 2010 a few months back, i've read some rumors on the net saying that amd is skipping 32nm, they will straight away go to 28nm... unfortunately i dont remember which site stated so. Roadmaps say 32nm, but it's possible they could skip to 28nm I guess Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris.y2k.r1 Posted April 27, 2010 Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) Doh - some of you folks are ... interesting... First of all, you are assuming AMD has the desire to compete head to head with Intel for the fastest CPU. They don't, not right now. Doing that damn near burried them. They are completing their restructuring and since have decided to compete on a price playing field and let Intel spend all the R&D money for now. AMD does not care if their best CPU isn't as fast as or faster than Intel's best offering. AMD only cares that their CPUs are as good as or better than; all while being cheaper than the Intel equivalent. They have all but come out and said this. So for now, forget head to head competition on the high(est) end. Intel has that crown but AMD has the best value in the market. AMD CPUs that are quite capable of any task and better in some specific areas for less money to boot. That philosophy has brought them back from the dead - and then some. Perhaps in time they will again consider being king on the top end. However, for right now, the few Intel CPUs that are out of reach of AMD's best offerings demand a premium for their extra performance. I'm curious how many Intel desktop processors can out perform the 1090T stock for stock, clock to clock. I bet it's not many. And as for the current fabrication processes - yes, AMD has scrapped 32nm (Really TSMC has scrapped 32nm). Therefore 28nm is the next step for just about everybody (AMD,ATI, NVidia) VIA TSMC: http://vr-zone.com/articles/-rumour-tsmc-t...-22nm/8849.html After canceling the 32nm process, TSMC is now rumoured to skip 22nm and move straight to 20nm in H2 2012. Despite the poor 40nm process, TSMC is over-burdened with orders, including Nvidia and ATI GPUs. Initially, TSMC was expected to move to 32nm some time in 2010, thus enabling refresh/next-generation GPUs in late 201-. However, TSMC's move to cancel 32nm has meant the next advancement will be the 28nm, which is now rumoured to have slipped to H1 2011. This has caused rescheduling of product releases for AMD especially, and perhaps Nvidia. It is clear that neither AMD nor Nvidia are satisfied with the troubled 40nm process. AMD especially are unlikely to be content with the 32nm cancellation as the next-generation Northern Islands GPUs were set for release on 32nm in H2 2010. The current rumours suggest that AMD will have to do a half-generation Southern Islands in 40nm, before it can move to 28nm in 2011 for the "proper next-gen" N. Islands. For Nvidia, this is bad news as well, as the GF100 is desperately screaming for a die shrink - one which it cannot get before 2011. So, Nvidia may be forced to do a base layer respin at 40nm instead. Now, it seems TSMC is canceling a process yet again, perhaps further disturbing release schedules. 22nm, which was last scheduled for late 2011, will not see the light of the day, as TSMC will move straight to 20nm. With 20nm due in late 2012, this would once again mean a massive gap between process transitions with no half-node. Effectively, this could kill the popular policy of die shrink refreshes we have seen in the past. 40nm was first introduced in 2009. 28nm comes next some time in 2011, and 20nm late 2012. Clearly, the gap is beyond one year - maybe even larger than a generational gap. So, GPU makers might have to change their approach to revisions on the same process rather than die shrink refreshes - as AMD are doing with Southern Islands. One could argue AMD started this approach with the HD 4000 series, where only one product (4770) got the die-shrink treatment. Of course, with Globalfoundries starting bulk production of 28nm in 2011, it is likely that at least AMD will never get to order any significant quantity of 20nm TSMC wafers. If TSMC fails to deliver with 28nm it is likely Nvidia would also be considering jumping ship to Globalfoundries. Edited April 27, 2010 by chris.y2k.r1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dihartnell Posted April 27, 2010 Posted April 27, 2010 the same way all amd's stand up against intel's, probably not too well. It might not be as quick as a 980x, but its half the price. That makes it a winner for me. When they start charging the same proce as the 980x then its fair to compare the two. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drdeath Posted April 27, 2010 Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) Pre benchmarks have shown the i series pwns the 6 cores but a step in the right direction for AMD??? We will see. It might not be as quick as a 980x, but its half the price. That makes it a winner for me. When they start charging the same proce as the 980x then its fair to compare the two. The i7 920/930 are less expensive and outperform the new AMD 6 cores. Edited April 27, 2010 by Drdeath Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
insan3 Posted April 27, 2010 Posted April 27, 2010 we just need to wait for the whole line up to come out to judge the x6. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts