AMD to Collaborate with Commex

[TheGuruStud]

not to mention AMD get ALL the money, and not a mere percentage of it (retailers get a lot of it too)

^ i vote that as the method for people to support AMD.

I totally agree (I guess it didn't sound like that earlier). But when you're a poor SOB...

 

[btarunr]

But to shrink the die frequently, they have to change their manufacturing equipment at their fabs just as frequently. That's more expensive, isn't it? Which is why AMD is so slow at making fab-shifts compared to Intel. Buy AMD Shares?

 

[Random Murderer]

hmm, read the title and the first thing i could think was "stop! collaborate and listen!"

AMD is back with a brand new invention...

 

[TheGuruStud]

But to shrink the die frequently, they have to change their manufacturing equipment at their fabs just as frequently. That's more expensive, isn't it? Which is why AMD is so slow at making fab-shifts compared to Intel. Buy AMD Shares?

There comes a point (very quickly) when you're limited by the process. At 130u these CPUs would be at least 4 times the size. Good luck making very many per wafer, let alone powering/cooling them and getting high clock rates. Would be impractical if near impossible.

Stocks 101 - Buy low, sell high.

 

[Random Murderer]

Buy low, sell high.

EAT WAFFLES!

 

[TheGuruStud]

EAT WAFFLES!

I don't have a waffle maker and I'm partially Belgian!!! Oh noes!

 

[Mussels]

I spent about $150 for a 6400+ @ stock of 3.2Ghz, I think thats a pretty good bang for the buck...

Yes Intel performs better in most cases then AMD at least at the time of writing this, but I cannot agree with AMD being crap.

(I don't intend to contradict myslef with writing this, but) I own an AMD system and I can tell you that I have no complaints about it none what so ever and with friends of similer setups then I that use an intel system of equal Processing power then me, I some how manage to out performe them...

yes but at the same time, you could buy a far cheaper intel system and OC to those levels.
Its price to performance that sucks in comparison, not AMD outright failing.

 

[btarunr]

^ I've seen this happen each time AMD makes an announcement of this sort or some product launch

What a way to draw investment.

 

[Solaris17]

LOL. Okay, they have to continually shrink the process to literally make money. The dies practically double in size with each new core. Not to mention that you can't increase speed much w/o a smaller process and the thermal envelope would be like preshott. I think you have your views on AMD and intel reversed in regards to the last half of your post.

well you see i know a bigger die generates heat...thats why i made the remark about the coolers these days if your actually serious about tryng to OC or making a decent preforming system then you should be intelligent enough to know you dont skimp on a cooler and it doesnt matter if your a poor SOB because just buy some ASC or AS5 and some 2000grit sandpaper and make a good cooler out of your old one....and ramping up clocks impossible? well why then can old school P4's mad OC? ganted mostly because of the extremely long pipelines but the .18u dies didnt stop them from rteaching like 6GHZ and though you may think that im suggesting AMD up the length of the pipelines im not its just that 1 were already past .18u and 2. Intel was able to make a processor in the core2 line that could oc past 5Ghz with the 65nm process so theirs nothing really stopping AMD from simply sticking with a die size for a year or 2 and come out with a new architecture that can actually compete....and im not dissing AMD look in my specs and ill give you the specs of my last 3 systems.......i love amd kinda a fanboy but theirs blind loyalty and loyalty with knowing the faults i happen to be the latter of the 2.

 

[AphexDreamer]

yes but at the same time, you could buy a far cheaper intel system and OC to those levels.
Its price to performance that sucks in comparison, not AMD outright failing.

That is true, but I can overclock even higher then what it would take for the intel cpu to even reach the stock of it...

I really do hope this collaboration does some good for AMD, I would hate for intel to have a monopoly over Processors...

 

[Random Murderer]

AMD is back with a brand new invention...

If there was a problem, yo they'll solve it
Check out the proc while AMD revolves it

 

[kwchang007]

Ok hold up, first off you can't just say core 2 sucks compared to k10 because it was based off p3 and is pumped with cache. One, core 2 defiantly came from p3. Two, k10 defiantly came from k6. Three, k6 and p3 came from the 8086 (someone said that before) so both of them are better versions of older chips.

Also, core 2 has way more improvements over p3, they lengthened the pipeline by something like 2 or 3 stages so they could get better clocks. They've widened the pipline. And yes they've stuck more cache on. Now hold on, if Intel was smart and moved to a serial based interface (like HTT) they wouldn't need so much cahce. Second, sometimes more cache can hurt you, like Barcelona...idk if it does but the l3 cache could hurt it, just like some of the ee versions of p4...because it has worse latency. Also, AMD has HTT which beats Intel's fsb in every memory benchmark which is why they don't need as much cache. So AMD can make more money by having smaller caches thanks to HTT.

Oh and btw, Intel's mobile chips were pretty much the best clock for clock...except for maybe the ones right after the p3 mobile. Not including p4 mobile btw.

 

[Cold Storm]

If there was a problem, yo they'll solve it
Check out the proc while AMD revolves it

too much time on your hands man... I'm wishing they can hold on to this.. I'd like to think of my next venture to be AMD again!

 

[eidairaman1]

All the Cache does is allows the CPU to not have to read from the Bus Constantly, thats all.

Ok hold up, first off you can't just say core 2 sucks compared to k10 because it was based off p3 and is pumped with cache. One, core 2 defiantly came from p3. Two, k10 defiantly came from k6. Three, k6 and p3 came from the 8086 (someone said that before) so both of them are better versions of older chips.

Also, core 2 has way more improvements over p3, they lengthened the pipeline by something like 2 or 3 stages so they could get better clocks. They've widened the pipline. And yes they've stuck more cache on. Now hold on, if Intel was smart and moved to a serial based interface (like HTT) they wouldn't need so much cahce. Second, sometimes more cache can hurt you, like Barcelona...idk if it does but the l3 cache could hurt it, just like some of the ee versions of p4...because it has worse latency. Also, AMD has HTT which beats Intel's fsb in every memory benchmark which is why they don't need as much cache. So AMD can make more money by having smaller caches thanks to HTT.

Oh and btw, Intel's mobile chips were pretty much the best clock for clock...except for maybe the ones right after the p3 mobile. Not including p4 mobile btw.

 

[kwchang007]

All the Cache does is allows the CPU to not have to read from the Bus Constantly, thats all.

Yeah which is why I don't see why everyone's comparing cache levels on intels to cache levels on amds, amd can read from its memory much faster due to its better bus. Intel compensates with cache...that's really the difference.

 

[xfire]

yes but at the same time, you could buy a far cheaper intel system and OC to those levels.
Its price to performance that sucks in comparison, not AMD outright failing.

Which means one has to learn to OC then venture out to OC it. Also how many people really OC their processors. Also OC'ing voids warranty. I know every one says that due to lack of competition from AMD intel have underclocked their cpu's but it could also be that Intel are Underclocking them cause their life is really short when OCed.

 

[Mussels]

Which means one has to learn to OC then venture out to OC it. Also how many people really OC their processors. Also OC'ing voids warranty. I know every one says that due to lack of competition from AMD intel have underclocked their cpu's but it could also be that Intel are Underclocking them cause their life is really short when OCed.

A good theory, but not true.

My original E4300 and E6600 are still going strong today, OC'd from 2.0GHz and 2.4Ghz to 3.2GHz each, and they've lasted over a year with no issues at all.

The reason intel works better for OCing is that AMD use the same FSB for all chips (200) and raises the multi.

Intel have different FSB's between their systems, so if you buy a mobo that can run an E6850 (1333 FSB, 333MHz real) and a CPU from the lower set (E2160 i think, 800/200 FSB, 1.8Ghz) then you can easily, even on a non overclocking board, set the system to use a 266/333 FSB, and without overclocking anything (motherboard, ram, etc) you end up with the easiest overclock ever.

Even a beginner can raise an FSB from 200 to 266 (stock volts), for quite a performance boost.

 

[btarunr]

Which means one has to learn to OC then venture out to OC it. Also how many people really OC their processors. Also OC'ing voids warranty. I know every one says that due to lack of competition from AMD intel have underclocked their cpu's but it could also be that Intel are Underclocking them cause their life is really short when OCed.

LOL. Intel doesn't "underclock" its processors. OC'ing doesn't void warranty with all products, Core 2 Extreme and Athlon64 Black. Even if it does, you can still get away with it and get a replacement if you're good at cover-up. Muzz is talking value-for-money. Those who know how to OC will buy a cheaper processor and do it, and will be smart-enough to make sure the processor doesn't damage by providing good inexpensive cooling. Cooling a processor properly doesn't come at a premium these days. As for those who don't know how to OC, learn how to do it. If you disregard OC'ing completely, pay for your ignorance by buying an expensive higher stock-clocked processor.

 

[Mussels]

^ and as i said in the post above btarunr's, you can OC intel easily on stock cooling these days.

Ever last Q6600 ive used, paired with a 1333 FSB capable motherboard has yielded a 3GHz quad core, at stock volts on stock cooling - nothing to change apart from the FSB from 266 to 333.

 

[xfire]

Has anyone read the manual you got with your processor. I read my amd's manual and it says that even changing the cpu cooler voids warranty.btarunr ask some of your non gaming friends if they oc and they'll say no. Most vendors suggest Intel motherboard which means no OC.
@mussels even my system lets me change the FSB also doesnt the black edition of AMD come with unlocked multiplier. I did try changing the fsb and reduce the multiplier to keep the stock speed i.e orginal settings 200x10.5 changed to 210x10 the system started the bios showed as 210x100=2100MHz and what I found was the system was slightly faster. After some gaming I opened up cpuz to find it was 210 into 10.5. So I set back the defaults and left it like that./myocing experience.

 

[btarunr]

The AMD Athlon64 X2 Black Edition comes with no cooler whatsoever. You can use any cooling you want, you still get the warranty. Anyway who's coming home to check your cooler when you apply for a warranty replacement? Choice of motherboard is yours, if your vendor has only Intel boards, it's your bad luck nobody else's.

Regarding my non-gamer friends, let me re-type what I did in my previous post, read carefully:

As for those who don't know how to OC, learn how to do it. If you disregard OC'ing completely, pay for your ignorance by buying an expensive higher stock-clocked processor.

 

[xfire]

Ignorance is bliss. I am talking about other models. In India the senario is diffrent. Most people go with prebuilt systems from HCL,Acer etc, which donot allow oc'ing. Like I said the vendors suggsest Intel motherboard. Even when I got my P-4 system around June of 2006 I was a bit ignorant and should have got the athlon then.One vendor told me that AMD's heat up more so the price difference is lost in taking a better cabby. In the end I was ignorant enough to get an Intel motherboard with no oc'ing and not to mention this one heats up very easily. At that time I didnot know much about computers. Also check the news papers for ads on prebuilt computers. Most of them are Pentium D's or PDP(pentium dual processors) with 512-1Gb ram and 160Gb hdd's costing 20k. For that price its better to get an x2.

 

[btarunr]

Nyaah...ignorance is crime, you end up paying for it, quite evident from your example.

Back to the topic...as Muzz suggested, Core 2 series run reasonably within thermal limits when OC'ing on stock-coolers. They have a 65W TDP and are provided with the same rifle-bearing coolers that used to ship with the ovens (Prescott) and the furnaces (Smithfield). So the stock cooler can keep a Core 2 at its place comfortably unless you're doing a 4-odd GHz thing.

 

[xfire]

In the end we are both repeating the same thing.
Agreed that the c2d's oc very well but the thing all Intel patriots must agree upon is that if it wasn't for amd's athlons we would all not have the c2d' and c2q's all of would have been stuck with pentium 4's and d's.
edit:- and oh! If it wasn't for c2d's and c2q's AMD's cost would have been on the higher side.

 

[suraswami]

In the end we are both repeating the same thing.
Agreed that the c2d's oc very well but the thing all Intel patriots must agree upon is that if it wasn't for amd's athlons we would all not have the c2d' and c2q's all of would have been stuck with pentium 4's and d's.
edit:- and oh! If it wasn't for c2d's and c2q's AMD's cost would have been on the higher side.

Well Said. All Intel patriots know this. AMD was far ahead in the heat competition. AMD Athlon/X2 runs far far cooler than those sucker P4/PD. Most of those pre-built big company computers are with P4 with the thermal monitoring disabled (users cannot read it, if they see it, would have instant heart attck).

My friend who bought a Extreme Edition P4 for $600 bugs 2 years ago and spent another big chunk for cooling that beast. Even in California that one heated up and throttle down or shut down. He always envy my Athlon 64 which runs cool.

I am just hoping AMD comes out of this dark situation this new year. Good wishes.