Former AMD Executive: "I would never buy AMD"

Intel HT is software-based. AMD's is hardware-based. In theory should be better and faster.

 

I don't think that is true.
Intel HyperT has 2 Cache for 1 Core to "emulate" 2 logical Processors.
Cache is responsible for storing CPU State.

Anyway I don't support Intel on the Desktop front.
1)A Core i7 isn't going to make a difference in daily computing even gaming
2)A Core i7 has insane pricing and given that Intel plays the market I rather give my money to AMD.
I have a gut feeling Intel could price Core i7 lower but refuse to

Example AMD is the "good guys"
1)They made virtualisation enabled in all their non value processor line.
Intel purposely disable VT in their processor so you have to pay more for a feature that could have been there even for higher end processors, that is playing dirty.
2)AMD has lots of BE Chips stuff I like...

 

Exactly my point. The i7 stores the state, and then uses the same core when available. No dedicated hardware. AMD's design doubled everything but the core, so you process two things at the time. If I could refind the article I would post it here.

But here you go:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3683

"Intel's Core architecture uses a unified scheduler fielding all instructions, whether integer or floating point. AMD's architecture uses independent integer and floating point schedulers. While Bulldozer doubles up on the integer schedulers, there's only a single floating point scheduler in the design.

Behind the FP scheduler are two 128-bit wide FMACs. AMD says that each thread dispatched to the core can take one of the 128-bit FMACs or, if one thread is purely integer, the other can use all of the FP execution resources to itself."

The thing is that it basically seems like a better design, and far more complex.

 

The thing about press release is that they are usually used to stir up interest(And manipulate stock prices, Apple use "controlled leaks").
I am not buying the story until I see the real thing in action. And I think everyone else should too.

 

In theory this is, it is due to 2011, so still missing a lot of time...but I am very interested in this and the performance it will give.

 

Can't wait for 2011..But my Acer piece of junk can't wait either.

 

What computer do you have?
IMO any Dual Core Machine should be able to last 2011 for normal usage.
I rather spend some time optimizing my system than spend money buying things I can do without.

 

I remember back when AMD was kicking the pants off of Intel in the race to reach 1GHZ (which AMD won) I think the year was around 2000, Intel could not keep up and when they did come out with a processor running at a much higher MHZ it turned out the slower AMD's outperformed the Fastest Intel chip.

But the general population didnt understand all that computer talk and so the average joe only knew of Intel and that stupid Intel Inside commercial and sticker.

Well yes I do love AMD, they made me a few bucks in the stock market, I have always used AMD but now its time for me to move on, and because of lack of availability and options I will soon be purchasing a new Intel CPU computer and I do look forward to it.

Im sure there are more things to come from AMD.

 

You should DIY an AMD Rig instead, you save more money and BE have overclocking potential.
The performance difference is not significant too and most of all stop supporting Intel.
**Opinion valid for Desktop Machine only.
AMD needs more improvement on their mobile line.

 

Well, the resources to store the state do take up dedicated hardware: it was stated that the old P4 with HT took up 5% more die area than one without.

Certainly the AMD design seems better in terms of running a pair of more intensive threads simultaneously, but the issue with that would be that, without a die shrink, this will also result in a larger core due to the additional hardware required. If anything, AMD and Intel should be swapping positions over this, with Intel using their smaller production process to squeeze more hardware onto the chip...

 

This is the catch-22. AMD needed a major, high quality chipset andf IGP in order to transition from CPU to unified platform and continue to compete (and stop being a laughingstock in the mobile market). However, they didn't have the in-house design expertise for a GPU at all, and their chipsets back when they made them were never anything special.

This means they had to spend a lot of time developing something new in-house...they didn't have the time or money for that. Or they could buy ATI, get their (really good) chipsets and IGPs. Except they couldn't really afford that either. But if they did neither, they go under, and Intel is king, and neither they nor we can afford THAT.

Basically, AMD didn't have a choice...they had to eat it, and accept that they wouldn't have money to spend for a while, because long term they'd be dead otherwise. Downside is right now they're somewhat behind Intel. We scratch our heads because they WERE ahead, but this may have been smart: the time to take a breather is when you're ahead, not when you're behind. If you're behind, you fall too far behind. If you're ahead, however, you fall back some, but it's easier to get back in the game.

Which they're now doing. And yes, it did take long enough, but with Congo and Tigris, they're getting competitive again (heck, Congo is winning as far as I'm concerned). Danube and Nile should be nice enough refreshes, but I absolutely can't wait for Fusion: an ATI-based GPU-on-CPU should be much better than Intel's and probably be a major general performance increase as well if GPGPU is implemented properly.

 

Nahh...if Tigris came out last year THEN I will consider them competitive for Intel this is the year of the Core iX.

 

When in a budget, I would not even consider the iX when Tigris performs as well as C2D, and that suffices my needs.

Congo on the other hand is quite promising, and the die-shrink is very welcomed...I might go with that for an ultra-portable if there is a die shrink and prices are good.

 

But I find it very disappointing that Tigris is only marginally better than Griffin CPUS.
Being a K10L Star Core performance should be significantly better than a aged K8L .
Anyway I hope someone with the Tigris CPU can drop it into S1G2 socket and put me out of the compatibility misery.

 

Well Tigris was a little disappointing, but I still think that AMD has a good thing going on there. The CPU+IGP and the ability of switchable graphics should be their main selling points.

For example the DM3z using 3200HD switchable to 4330HD when choosing it. And for cheaper than Intel.

 

I thought dm3z was Congo?

Personally I'm impressed by Tigris...it's significantly better than Griffin, though perhaps not game-changer better like the difference between C2D and Arrandale.

I think part of Griffin's problem was that the only major manufacturer building laptops with them was HP. And the dv series didn't really have the best cooling system. This wasn't as bad as it could be on Intel procs since they dissipated less heat, but AMDs, running a bit hotter, had more issues, and that harmed AMD's reputation significantly.

 

It is .

 

When is Nile supposed to be out?

 

Sometime during the first half of this year. So before July.

 

Performance-wise, I'm sure AMD CPUs are more than adequate for most people.

However, performance isn't the whole picture. For people like me who are very concerned about battery life and heat/noise, AMD's CPUs have - even the latest generation - failed to meet my expectations. They consistently do worse than Core 2 Duos (and in the lower price segment, Pentium-branded Intel processors) in these areas, which is a dealbreaker for me.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't hate AMD. In fact, my last computer was an AMD Turion 64-equipped Averatec. I remember choosing it because AMD offered 64-bit capable processors while Intel's more expensive Core Duos and Solos were limited to 32-bit.

But until AMD can offer advantages over Intel's offerings outside of pricing (which is less effective with reduced Core 2 Duo and Pentium Dual Core prices), I don't see much success for them in the mobile computing sector.

 

Do you think Apple uses MS-Windows desktops in its operations??

(they do, actually....).

I agree with the AMD exec totally. The big OEM's didn't want to deal with companies like VIA and Nvidia, to implement an AMD platform. The worst thing AMD did in the early 2000s was not devote efforts towards building a complete lineup of up-to-date chipsets.

 

thats not true just look at apple

 

AMD offers VT on it's entire lineup. Intel doesn't (though they probably will have to at some point). It's only available on Core2Duos and up, and SOME Pentium dual-cores, but none of the mobile versions.

Not the greatest or even most visible advantage in the world, but if you're a business user, Virtual XP Mode may be important for compatibility reasons. I, for instance, will not purchase a laptop for my company unless it has VT support. Period. That's still primarily Intels, but having HP-powered AMDs as a viable lower price-point option helps quite a bit.

 

correction core 2 duo P8xxx and up iirc