Monday, April 27th 2009

''Real Men Use Real Cores'': AMD

AMD finally stepped out of its shell after Intel's launch of its newest line of Xeon processors based on the Nehalem architecture. In an interview with TechPulse 360, AMD's Pat Patla and John Fruehe took on Intel's recent marketing drive for Nehalem Xeon products. The conversation revolved mainly around the issues of platform costs, and the features the new Xeon processors introduce (or reintroduce) to the server/enterprise computing industry, namely the company's proprietary FSB-replacement, QuickPath Interconnect, and HyperThreading.

The two first took on Intel's marketing, particularly on its material that said that the slowest Nehalem Xeon chip was faster than the fastest Opteron chip, saying that Intel's statements weren't backed by real figures. The two also alleged that Intel's server platform was too expensive and delivered lesser value in an ailing state of the economy. Perhaps the most audacious statement from AMD since the somewhat famous "only real men have fabs" statement by Jerry Sanders III, came from this interview, where AMD responded to a question on HyperThreading saying that "real men use real cores". "We’ve got real cores across our products. HyperThreading is basically designed to act like a core except that it only gives 10 to 15 percent performance bump for real applications workload." they said. Is AMD making a real point, or fighting fire...erm marketing with marketing? Find out in this interview.
Add your own comment

71 Comments on ''Real Men Use Real Cores'': AMD

#1
w00t
Noggrin said:
Yeah, sadly there is no competition whatsoever. :toast:
Ignorance is bliss :toast:
Posted on Reply
#2
MilkyWay
the x2 5000+BE was a good cpu

lets see that AMD have the x3 720be that is £100 and you cant get a comparable cpu for that price on intel

they need to just keep on doing what they are doing, i couldnt see the point of going from an x2 5000+BE to a intel e8200 or something when i could do phenomII

people who havea bit of cash obviously want to go for the higher performers

totaly derailed the thread now its a bash amd thread
Posted on Reply
#3
Imsochobo
Theese statements show that amd really got something up their sleeve, theyve been quiet the past.... 2 years...

have they had anything the past 2 years? no.

What do they have now, a competetive PHII, a very very very very competetive HD4xxx lineup, and is ahead schedual on everything! amd is finally back in the game if the same repeats as before.

Amd was abit cocky before too ;)

And the fact that more people are buying amd now than the last 2 years says only one thing, amd is giving intel compotition, they are taking MARKET SHARE.

They dont even have to match intels performance! the value is what that matters to people!
Posted on Reply
#4
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
Noggrin said:
Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..
LMAO..... I like a man that speaks his mind, even if he has to say F*** a few times to get there!
Posted on Reply
#5
farlex85
btarunr said:
"real men use real cores"
:roll: That's awesome. I hope they make a commercial. It can come on right after the truck commercials, get us feeling super macho......:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Noggrin said:
Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..
intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up
Posted on Reply
#7
TreadR
great... now's AMD's fbz turn!
Posted on Reply
#8
demonkevy666
cdawall said:
intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up
this thread is full of nothing but THREAD CRAPPERS

:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#9
BarbaricSoul
not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600
1st time I heard that myself. Some benchmarks would be nice. It's my understanding the Phenom 9850 and 9950 matched the q6600 and the PII match the q9550 and q9650
Posted on Reply
#10
farlex85
BarbaricSoul said:
1st time I heard that myself. Some benchmarks would be nice. It's my understanding the Phenom 9850 and 9950 matched the q6600 and the PII match the q9550 and q9650
Not really, the PII 940 is a bit ahead of the Q6600, but not by much, more in line w/ the Q9400. It's still a decent bit slower than 12mb L2 Yorkfield. Here's a nice comparison: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3557964&postcount=1

In some apps kentsfield is indeed faster clock for clock than denab. Given the way current kentsfields overclock though I'd give the edge to current denabs, but the difference is negligible.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
btarunr said:
"real men use real cores"
Its a good thing Intel processors have real cores too...idiots.
Posted on Reply
#12
erocker
AMD is posting flame-bait. :rolleyes: Any publicity is good publicity as far as I'm concerned. I wish they would run their mouth off more than this!
Posted on Reply
#13
BarbaricSoul
erocker said:
AMD is posting flame-bait. :rolleyes:
Don't that mean they get a infraction? :D (sorry man, I had to)
Posted on Reply
#15
BarbaricSoul
Tatty_One said:
Take a look at both the performance and overclocking sections here: ........

http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/605368/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition.html
I wasn't really including OC'ing, in that respect, yes, intel wins hands down.

But at stock speeds, my statement was about right. The 9850 and the 9950 phenoms
weren't as close to the q6600 as I was thinking, but the PII are between the q6600 and q9550 levels. Maybe I was giving AMD alittle too much credit, but I wasn't far off.
Posted on Reply
#16
BarbaricSoul
BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock
Posted on Reply
#17
erocker
FordGT90Concept said:


Oh, and AMD fell way behind not because Phenom sucked--just AMD's/IBM's 65nm process was absolutely hideous. People kept buying 90nm Windsor processors because 65nm Brisbanes (remember the introduction of .5 multipliers?) were coughing and choking to keep up with the Windsors, let alone a Core 2. I'm glad they put that bad chapter behind them. That was depressing.
Actually AMD really dropped after Phenom came out and failed. It started with the 65nm brisbanes, but Phenom just sunk it.

Pre-Phenom AMD = 11.70/share
Post-Phenom AMD = 2.00 (ish) a share
Posted on Reply
#18
lemonadesoda
^ please dont forget a few stock splits along the road! You cant just compare prices like that.
Posted on Reply
#19
Noggrin
cdawall said:
intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up
3dmark06

Q6600 @ 3.59GHz - 5574 CPU SCORE



Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 4921 CPU SCORE

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/14

WinRAR

Q6600 @ 3.71GHz - 2226 kb/s



Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 1775 kb/s

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/15

SuperPI - 1M

Q6600 @ 3.73GHz - 13.734s



Phenom 2 @ 3.7GHz - 19.407s

http://news.ati-forum.de/index.php/testberichte/45-mainboards/212-test-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition?start=7

That's just for start.. you want more?
Posted on Reply
#20
erocker
lemonadesoda said:
^ please dont forget a few stock splits along the road! You cant just compare prices like that.
Their stock never split. ;)
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
FordGT90Concept said:
Bandwidth? FB-DIMM can achieve some 12,000+ MB/s bandwidth using DDR2-553. AMD only has the advantage in terms of memory latency which will be mostly erased as more Nehalem-based processors hit the market.
FB-DIMMs have a theoretical bandwidth in that range. They have never achieved that throughput tho. FB-DIMMS are a rather large bottleneck in highly memory intensive apps.

FordGT90Concept said:


Oh, and AMD fell way behind not because Phenom sucked--just AMD's/IBM's 65nm process was absolutely hideous. People kept buying 90nm Windsor processors because 65nm Brisbanes (remember the introduction of .5 multipliers?) were coughing and choking to keep up with the Windsors, let alone a Core 2. I'm glad they put that bad chapter behind them. That was depressing.
I have to agree with this, although Phenom 1 did, in fact, suck. I tried my hand at the Brisbane chips, only to go back to the Windsors, as the F3 Windsors actually clocked better, and performed better clock for clock, especially the 2x1MB Windsors.
Posted on Reply
#22
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Noggrin said:
3dmark06

Q6600 @ 3.59GHz - 5574 CPU SCORE

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9940/3dm0615k.th.jpg

Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 4921 CPU SCORE

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/14

WinRAR

Q6600 @ 3.71GHz - 2226 kb/s

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5666/rarq66003710.th.jpg

Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 1775 kb/s

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/15

SuperPI - 1M

Q6600 @ 3.73GHz - 13.734s

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2996/76775007.th.jpg

Phenom 2 @ 3.7GHz - 19.407s

http://news.ati-forum.de/index.php/testberichte/45-mainboards/212-test-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition?start=7

That's just for start.. you want more?
actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.

no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change

go run a couple benches and i will happily post mine
Posted on Reply
#23
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
cdawall said:
actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.

no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change
top 10 list of performance or popularity ?

I can only find this

and neither are on it :(
Posted on Reply
#24
Noggrin
cdawall said:
actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.
actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940

deal with it..

cdawall said:
no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change
yeah yeah.. 3d06 is intel thing too, winrar too, from now on if in a test the 2 years old intel coal-burning stove beats amd's super overpriced pii 940 ass then we'll just know that that test is "intel thing".. everything is "intel thing" nowdays..
Posted on Reply
#25
erocker
Make your point and leave the thread alone. I nor any other moderator are going to tolerate insults towards other members. Grow up or get out. :slap:


VV NP Wile E. It's good that members don't tolerate this type of garbage either.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment