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
Wile E
Power User
Noggrin said:
actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940

deal with it..



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..
You know, your post could've done without those 2 little comments, and it still would've made your point. That was completely unnecessary. :shadedshu

EDIT: Sorry erocker. Cross posted.
Posted on Reply
#2
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
BarbaricSoul said:
BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock
And Clock for Clock, the PII is weaker than the Q6600. Stock speeds has nothing to do with that statement. As Tatty already pointed out in his link, at stock speeds the PII 940 outperforms a Q6600, but when both are overclocked to the same speeds(3.6GHz in Tatty's article) the Q6600 takes the lead. The issue is that the Q6600 comes at a much lower stock clock compared to the 940(2.4GHz vs. 3.6GHz).
Posted on Reply
#3
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
TreadR said:
great... now's AMD's fbz turn!
well if that dont scream intel fanboy? ask freaksavior and several other member i run both right now i have AMD but i have run C2D, C2Q , P4 list goes on

DrPepper said:
top 10 list of performance or popularity ?

I can only find this http://img.techpowerup.org/090427/Capture034.jpg

and neither are on it :(
performance phenom II holds some very high spots

Noggrin said:
actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940

deal with it..



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..

fuck off..
i never said that i siad you have 2 different systems with 2 different OS's if you want to compare systems go for i name a benchmark and i will post scores with my system.

how about sciencemark2? thats with cheap ram and a 320GB seagate 7200.10


Posted on Reply
#4
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
cdawall said:
performance phenom II holds some very high spots
I know it held the world record on 06 but I can't find that little chart. It seems to me that 3dmark is a little bit corrupted it says the most popular cpu is core i7 when it really isn't especially compared to some of those on the list.
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
The Q6600 vs. Phenom II debate must end. Also, keep tabs on what you're typing.
Posted on Reply
#6
TreadR
cdawall said:
well if that dont scream intel fanboy?
:roll::roll::roll:
I've never owned an Intel before... now how makes me that a fanboy? :wtf:

It was a sarcastic remark at fbz... overall... just enjoying the grlz fight! :cool:
Posted on Reply
#7
suraswami
btarunr said:
The Q6600 vs. Phenom II debate must end. Also, keep tabs on what you're typing.
:toast:


What to do, its always like that:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#8
ShadowFold
Nothing like coming home and seeing some grade A hate :laugh: Chill people. AMD's just trying to get their existing server customers to stay with them.. They have valid points in that interview, he just so happened to mention that real men use real cores. This is the server market, not the desktop. Of course the desktop market Intel has the highest performing stuff.
Posted on Reply
#9
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
BarbaricSoul said:
BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock
I didnt post the link to prove any point, I didnt know the answer, some people wanted facts, i found this so posted it, I was not taking sides i spose is my point :)
Posted on Reply
#10
WhiteLotus
Bold statement there AMD, about time they grew some balls... too long (i feel) they have been cowering in the corner repeating

"no not the core2duo, dont make me use the core2duo, why a core2 why, precious phenom i loves the precious"
Posted on Reply
#11
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Wile E said:
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.
erocker said:
Actually AMD really dropped after Phenom came out and failed. It started with the 65nm brisbanes, but Phenom just sunk it.
ATI killed AMD as much as the Core 2 and 65m process. It was a 1, 2, 3 punch which left them scrambling for financing; hence, this:

erocker said:
Pre-Phenom AMD = 11.70/share
Post-Phenom AMD = 2.00 (ish) a share
Realize that Phenom isn't a bad architecture, it was just delievered on a horrible process making an otherwise good processor, bad. Little changed from Phenom to Phenom II except the move to 45nm and finally got themselves off the cursed 65nm process.



Wile E said:
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.
Correct, I remembered the wrong figures. Anyway, 7-8 GB/s is still excellent (gotta love the write performance).
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/124295
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
You might notice the odd edit, the odd post removed. A certain person couldn't choose his words well, and others didn't read moderators' posts well. Please proceed with the topic. If you feel there is nothing you can contribute to this discussion, do not post in this thread any more.
Posted on Reply
#13
oli_ramsay
yea, I wondered why there was 66 replies then I refreshed and there was like 61 lol, I guess some people get too worked up about pointless stuff, AMD is far from dead just because it can outperform i7. It's a good choice for a budget system, end of.
Posted on Reply
#14
Nick89
I actually didnt see any moderator posts and didnt read any moderator posts. What he said was...well maddining.

I'm sorry for adding a post in a time of extreme hate. And sorry to erocker.
Posted on Reply
#15
$ReaPeR$
like mentioned above AMD is very nice for some budget systems and if they try a bit harder they will be on top again (hopefully) and the market will be a better place for everyone (hopefully) if it werent for AMD we would still be using Pentium I.
Posted on Reply
#16
DaMulta
My stars went supernova


I like!!!
Posted on Reply
#17
Hayder_Master
''Real Men Use Real Cores'' , this is sparta , "xeon with HyperThreading " let put them on the test
Posted on Reply
#19
mR Yellow
DrPepper said:
HTC is quite the AMD fan with that athlon x2 E8400

Anyway I find that AMD's current PII is hardly any better than my q6600. Not enough for me to give her up. I'd only jump to nehalem or if dual amd board which is unlikely at best.
Actually, it's a lot better. I went from the Q6600 to the Phenom II 940 and it rocks. It's a lot faster in gaming and apps to :P
Posted on Reply
#20
Hayder_Master
HeadlessChicken said:
I see some people feel amd is dead and all....
dead , no they was sleep after athlon 6000x2 , the worst product was phenom x3 and x4 , but now they rise up again with phenom II
AMD still doing well with servers cpu's , no fail at all but you know my friend there is something called performance and numbers are talking , maybe intel have better performance but still amd sell cpu in cheap price and that's what is make AMD cpu as good option for many people me as first one
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
If memory serves, AMDs tend to have better FPU performance in addition to being cheaper so if you're going to buy 60,000 processors, they tend to be favored.

Once you mix in the economic troubles, AMDs lower prices tend to move a lot of product.

Intel may be faster but the circumstances currently don't weigh in their favor.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment