Processor Series Release Intervals

I see AMD focusing on the X2 for awhile. Intel, well I just hope they re-work their Pentium D's to not give off heat comprable to a hydrogen bomb.



EDIT: Note that I am in the same position as you, so take anthing I say with a grain of salt.



EDIT2: Google for "AMD future plans" and you'll come up with a bunch of information about AMD's plans for future processors.

Some of AMD's plans
And a part of Intel's roadmap

Intel appear to have fumbled their dual core server processor development which will leave AMD ahead in the technology stakes for a few more years.

link.


davej

The second page of that article shows how gay Dell (and most of those other PC manufacturers) are. They know that AMD's have better performance but they rather support Intel. I'm glad that it's possible to build your own system with a decent level of reliability. I built my PC and it's rock stable, and AMD powered (although that's more for the price/performance ratio).

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle The second page of that article shows how gay Dell (and most of those other PC manufacturers) are. They know that AMD's have better performance but they rather support Intel. I'm glad that it's possible to build your own system with a decent level of reliability. I built my PC and it's rock stable, and AMD powered (although that's more for the price/performance ratio).

Dell wants to sell computers, not have powerfull computers. Many people know Intel, but they don't know AMD, therefore they are more likely to choose a computer with an Intel CPU. Also what looks the best if you don't have much knowledge about computers?

AMD Athlon64 ~2 GHz(3200+)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz

The average user will see one is 2 GHz, the other is 2,8 and assume the 2.8 GHz CPU is better. I have seen people choose 128MB+64MB SD PC133 RAM over 128MB PC4200 DDR RAM because it would give 50 % more MBs.

But I agree, if you want a good CPU today, buy an AMD CPU.

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle The second page of that article shows how gay Dell (and most of those other PC manufacturers) are. They know that AMD's have better performance but they rather support Intel. I'm glad that it's possible to build your own system with a decent level of reliability. I built my PC and it's rock stable, and AMD powered (although that's more for the price/performance ratio).

Same!

I built my own little powerhouse for less than £950 and it's the most stable/sexy thing i've ever seen..:

AMD Athalon 64 3500+
2 GB DDR400 SDRAM (Kingston)
200GB SATA HDD (Maxtor)
525Watt Tri-fan PSU (Aspire)
Asus A8N-SLi Deluxe Mobo
BFG 7800 GTX 256MB
All sitting in a sexy little Soprano ThermalTake case..

It's quiet (suprisingly considering there are 6 fans in there, two being around the size of my face..) and the CPU temp runs at around 25 deg C when normally and no higher than 45 when heavily busy (rendering complex scenes w/ 3DS MAX 7)..

GPU's a little hotter at 40 normal and no higher than 65 when running Black & White 2 or Doom 3..

The Pentium 4 has been through 2 very different execution cores that were advertised as basically the same chip. So they have been through more generations than the general public realizes. AthlonXP, on the other hand, pretty much maintained the same execution core throughout, but then switched over to Athlon64.

Athlon64 X2 started after AMD switched over to the 90nm manufacturing process (this would be shortly after the appearance of the Winchester core), which shrunk things enough to comfortably get two chips on one die. The Athlon64 is really nothing more than a cut down Opteron, and Opterons were designed to operate in up to 32 chip configurations from the very beginning. The multicore was also part of the original design specs; the manufacturing simply wasn't ready for it originally.

The Pentium D was a response to Athlon64 X2, as was the addition of AMD64 (rebranded as EM64T) into the P4. Intel never expected people to care about 64 bit, especially after the failure of Itanium, and the dual core turned out to be so much fantastically better than their HT hack that they had to do it. Their dual core method isn't particularly fast, as evidenced by benchmarks, but it is very cheap.

So, as for what's coming next. AMD has not indicated any huge changes at this point in time, as they are rather enjoying the ownage Athlon64 is laying out. The only real notable is hardware virtualization (more on that later). Mainly they're preparing for their move to 65nm manufacturing and the introduction of Socket M2 and DDR2 memory. Intel, on the other hand, has been busy busy busy. They have a lot of catching up to do. The rumors are that we'll see hardware virtualization by end of Q1 next year, maybe even earlier. Basically, the CPU itself (along with the mobo chipset) will be capable of running two OSes side by side, almost like it was a virtual machine, but there is no emulation going on; it's all native. Dual core Pentium M chips should be ready by the beginning of next year, as should new P4 Prescott chips on 65nm. The most interesting stuff is a little later on, probably about a year from now, when Intel reveals their new Conroe core, which represents a complete move away from the P4 architecture that has gone quite so badly for them. There's no official branding on those new cores, though Pentium 5 would not be hugely surprising. The GHz wars are already over; Intel's new chips are being labeled with simple model numbers, and not being advertised by their speed.

So, we might see new processors around the time Vista comes, but it will have absolutely nothing to do with Vista's release; it's simply when the next round of engineering happens to be ready to hit market. As for DX10 GPUs, they will not be around for at least another year. So don't plan on seeing them soon.

Quote:

Original post by CTar Quote: Original post by T1Oracle The second page of that article shows how gay Dell (and most of those other PC manufacturers) are. They know that AMD's have better performance but they rather support Intel. I'm glad that it's possible to build your own system with a decent level of reliability. I built my PC and it's rock stable, and AMD powered (although that's more for the price/performance ratio). Dell wants to sell computers, not have powerfull computers. Many people know Intel, but they don't know AMD, therefore they are more likely to choose a computer with an Intel CPU. Also what looks the best if you don't have much knowledge about computers? AMD Athlon64 ~2 GHz(3200+) Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz

AMD doesn't shwo the ~2GHz, they show AMD Athlon64 3200. Futhermore, computer illiterate people generally don't buy server's in the first place. Dell is simply expressing its personal bias or Intel is bullying them under the table. There is no reason why they can't sell a few entry level AMD machines. For one thing, people on a budget are hardly discerning about the features on their system. They just want e-mail and word processing which even an 800Mhz AMD Thunderbird can handle (my sister's pc runs fine). Using AMD chips would drop the cost of such systems. I seriously doubt that marketting has anything to do with this. AMD has marketting as well, most of the people who want high end systems already know the AMD name and they know that means performance wise.

If Windoze, MS Office, and IE hadn't became such bloatware you could still be productive in email and document writing with an old first generation Pentium. Too bad most of the programs out now are so bloated though....

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle AMD doesn't shwo the ~2GHz, they show AMD Athlon64 3200. Futhermore, computer illiterate people generally don't buy server's in the first place. Dell is simply expressing its personal bias or Intel is bullying them under the table. There is no reason why they can't sell a few entry level AMD machines. For one thing, people on a budget are hardly discerning about the features on their system. They just want e-mail and word processing which even an 800Mhz AMD Thunderbird can handle (my sister's pc runs fine). Using AMD chips would drop the cost of such systems. I seriously doubt that marketting has anything to do with this. AMD has marketting as well, most of the people who want high end systems already know the AMD name and they know that means performance wise.

Sorry, I didn't realize the article was talking about servers (didn't read it), thought it was normal computers. The only reason I could see for Dell to use Intel's CPUs then would be because they get their products cheaper if they only use Intel CPUs, or something like that.

Dell gets massive discounts with Intel, so their margin is greater. And if AMD's allegations are true, Intel chips would cost them more if they ever started buying AMD.

IIRC wasn't AMD the first to bring out a GHz processor. I remember seeing an advert for it back when I had 233Mhz Pentium 2. Of course, I thought the only processors were Pentiums and immediately concluded the advert was a fake or a joke.

Wow, its surprising how many people it seems have just *recently* heard of AMD.
AMD has been around since the stone age (about 1970 or so). They've been battling it out with Intel since then and have been to court several times with Intel squabbling over architecture, instructions sets, etc.

Okay, so we got AMD goin strong with all their Athlon 64 stuff, but Intel's got a new thing comin' that differs extremely from the P4. Okay, makes sense since every single Athlon 64 gets 5 starts at Newegg whie very few Intel chips get that. But, is anything going to happen like an Athlon 64 X2 5000+(which is much more appealing of a name than 4800+) or an FX 60 or something? Will they create "Extreme Edition" processors of those like Intel did?

About Dell... I've thought about that too. To a general consumer, the term "Intel Inside" just sounds so cool. And their logos prolly sell. For me... the Athlon 64 logo is ugly, just 4 colors with no visual effects, while all the Intel logos look sweet. They're shiny and smooth, not rigid, and the Pentium Extreme Edition one just makes me think, "That there must be the best processor I can buy." Plus, yeah, Intel prolly pays em to do it too.

For AMD, if we get DDR2 into AMD mobos, then there's no reason not to get an Athlon 64 over a P4. Less expensive, less hot, better performance...

And last of all, here's my system (first build, upgraded from an eMachine with a 2.6 non-HT P4 and onboard video)

EPoX 9HEAI Via mobo
Amd Athlon 64 3700+
EVGA 7800 GT
1.5gb of value ram
80gb STATA150 HD 7200rpm


P.S. Will upcoming processors be the same sockets or not? Can my 939 socket board last for the years?

You socket should last a while, but will eventually become obsolete due to the addition of chip features and the signal/power connections associated with the enhanced functionality. The most dramatic changes usually are associated with data/address bus size changes and on-chip power requirements.

The 939 socket will soon be replaced by the M2 socket, so no. AMD will soon move to DDR2 but I hope the on-die memory controller will allow DDR2 733/800 otherwise this move is useless.

Quote:

Original post by Promit Dell gets massive discounts with Intel, so their margin is greater. And if AMD's allegations are true, Intel chips would cost them more if they ever started buying AMD.

Interesting, that's most likely the answer its almost always something underhanded and contrived.

Quote:

Original post by YamianWill they create "Extreme Edition" processors of those like Intel did?

The "Extreem Edition" was the response to AMD's FX, there is no equivalent for Dual Core CPU's AFAIK (probably wouldn't make sense to do that yet). Also, those chips appeal mostly to modders who would know about performance. Also AMD has the new "AMD me" slogan and they had the support of Neil Armstrong's racing team. I also think AMD 64 sounds catchy too. Anyway, I would hate to think that marketting is going to keep yet another good source products from taking the market as it should :\ Of course there is that Intel arm twisting going on as well. Not that I'm against Intel, but they are being beat in performance and I think their market share should reflect that.

With the M2 Socket, will we see a new line of processors, are the same line but with different cores?

M2 socket will have 940 pins, however the pin layout won't compatible with socket 939. Looks like the main changes are higher current, an on-die DDR2 controller and an Intel VT like technology.