if they can get this out b4 intel does they might start to get a good marget share again!!and atm each core they make doesnt compete with intel, so i like the idea of just making more,shame they can do it in 2008 because im sure 8cores would beat intels 4!!

8 cores :twitch: lol that would pack some serious grunt :cool:

if they do bring it out before intel then this happens to intel :p

:nutkick:

socket f for shangai, and socket g3 for montreal :(
has anyone tryed 2xquad cores on a dual socket f mobo?

i dont remember anyone saying they have one pt, :(

I'm not so excited about this news. It's not a new design, just a "refresh". It's like saying, our 4 cyclinder engines have poor performance compared to our rivals, so rather than fix our engines, we'll put a 8 cylinder in there.

Unless AMD is going to improve its PER CORE PERFORMANCE, either power efficiency, or computational power, or both, its just throwing more bad tools at the problem.

It will be another smack-down for Intel if they release an 8-core, or if you stick 2x Xeon Quads on a board, unless AMD makes some SERIOUS changes.

:laugh:AMD can't get their quad core to work yet they are talking about their 8 core already.

hahahahaha

I'll start to care when i see the benchmark results

If this is like their "true quad core" flop then I'm not interested, lololol

I agree with ya lemonade. If AMD can't increase the per-core performance, what's the point in all this? With their skeptical power usage and poor performance, they really just need to start from scratch.

the point is to gain a niche market before intel does

or they could keep trying to make everything hunky dorey buy making everything under gods blue sky 'energy efficient' or more energy efficient then hitting the mass server market by storm. but meh the threat of intel will still be there as bright as the devils bollocks dipped in strawberry jam & garnished with a decent healthy dose of flash bang pospherous grenades.....

if they deceided to go in that directioni wouldnt be suprised. for instance look at Matrox graphics cards. their 'industry only' & thats the way theyve always been & they still alive & strong today maybe just not in the enthusiast market.

its gonna be a hard fight for the server market but if they got what it takes to go toe to toe then go for it

blah blah blah...Lets hope AMD doesn't close their shop

Oh, its for Servers. Well its something.

Oh and for the moron who said their quad cores dont work, that is totally untrue. They do work and perform quite well. As has been stated in the past, they werent meant to take the performance crown, they were meant to be an upgrade for current AM2 users and give something else of choice as opposed to Intel.

I do agree with what Newtekie1 said in a previous thread, AMD rested on its laurels instead of continuing to drive innovation. For that they paid and are paying dearly still.

Wait a minute, is it 8 core as in 8 cores on one chip or two quad core chips in DSDC?

Either ways, I'm not taking this seriously. I've been backstabbed by AMD long enough, like betting with my brother that the Barcelona would thrash Kentsfied and if it didn't, I'd buy him an OEM part of Barcelona and vice-versa.

I got pwned.


"Terrorists win"

FreedomEclipseif they deceided to go in that directioni wouldnt be suprised. for instance look at Matrox graphics cards. their 'industry only' & thats the way theyve always been & they still alive & strong today maybe just not in the enthusiast market.

Maybe you're not old enough to remember when Matrox had "the card" to have? :)

Big enthusiast system way back in the day had a Matrox (2D/3D), Voodoo(3D), and a second 3D-only card for the few games that supported it's proprietary API, the name escapes me at the moment. Virge? Rendition? Time to find the box with my old boot mags.

But yeah, for the last ~9 years Matrox's bread and butter has been video cards geared for medical and business use, thin clients, video walls, and video editing solutions.

2009.... AMD, you're always a year behind. hurry the F up! (Not you ATI, you're cool)

WarEagleAUOh, its for Servers. Well its something.

Oh and for the moron who said their quad cores dont work, that is totally untrue. They do work and perform quite well. As has been stated in the past, they werent meant to take the performance crown, they were meant to be an upgrade for current AM2 users and give something else of choice as opposed to Intel.

I do agree with what Newtekie1 said in a previous thread, AMD rested on its laurels instead of continuing to drive innovation. For that they paid and are paying dearly still.

Oh yes the processor bug in the 9500 and 9600 has only driven the 9800 production back till 2008, months behind. And of coarse its meant as an upgrade to the x2 amd users that will only need to change their mother boards (7xx)to run the chips at its best performance which acorrding to Tomshardware.com is only 8% slower than a 6400 x2 and 13% slower than intel's slowest quad core at around the same price as both of those chips. www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html

I suppose us morons should not post our foolish thoughts :laugh:

But i am glad they are working on the x8 processor

WarEagleAUOh, its for Servers. Well its something.

...As has been stated in the past, they werent meant to take the performance crown, they were meant to be an upgrade for current AM2 users and give something else of choice as opposed to Intel...

"weren't meant to take the performance crown?"... well ur right, haha right they decided that before the release date, when it was blatantly obvious that they weren't going to...:laugh: but before that they had the "hypothetical" benchmarks that showed them "40% faster than a core 2 xeon in floating point." Who are you kidding? They F'd up TWICE, in two different industries.

This is hype... good ol'-fashioned, boilerplate, "please don't dump any more of our stock as we are at 8 dollars per share" hype. I mean, looking back at Barcelona and the R600 announcements, there is a pattern emerging here.