Is AMD's 65nm plans a roadmap to a slow death for AMD?

[_33]

This AMD 65nm roadmap sure looks as if AMD is currently ignoring INTEL's dominance in performance as AMD's new lineup of 65nm processors seem to indicate. We could always look at this roadmap to help us figure other ideas from AMD, but nothing yet to rejoice.

What are the next INTEL threats: Bearlake!

This is possibly the best platform upgrade one could make in the near future (Q2 2007).

 

[Homeless]

It doesn't look good for amd, but you have to remember that amd held the title for 3 or so years straight, so they might just need some time to get back on their feet. Even if they can't take the performance crown back anytime soon (assuming they will eventually), they still have that deal with dell so I don't expect them to go out of business anytime soon

 

[pt]

if it's more power/efficient than intel, ui will be happy with that
i'm also looking for a x2 4000 65nm (35w ), i wonder how much will this babies clock

 

[ktr]

please be advised that life aint all about performance...

i would say about 70-80% of computer users are just your average web/email users...so they dont need the performance.

 

[Zedicus]

tru, and then some of us are diehard AMD bois. but AMD wasnt always #1 and i didnt figure they would hold the crown forever. this is by no means a 'end of AMD' thing. just a bonce on a much longer game of leap frog.

 

[PuMA]

amd's are allways been based on good memory space and allocation, and overclocking features. while INTEL chips evolves by just raising clock frequencies and adding more cache. So amd's will always seem like the weaker 1, cuz all they really show us in those news are clock speeds.

 

[largon]

(...) INTEL chips evolves by just raising clock frequencies and adding more cache.

lol, In addition to those architecture redesigns every once and a while.
btw, what else has AMD been doing for the last 3 years with Hammer arch other than those very modest / non existant speed bumps via a single process shrink to date?

Let's see:

Rev-D -> 90nm *with no speed bumps*, lower core vCC
Rev-E -> SSE3 *woohoo* DC (props for that)
Rev-F -> DDR2 *with no performance gain*
...
Rev-G -> 65nm
Rev-H -> Quad, OoO, L3, multiplied prefetch width, ???
?


Sure, Intel had been fumbling with Netburst P4 for ages, but now that they've abandoned the whole accursed marchitecture and that they'r going (trying) to release a whole new arch every 2 years... And a shrink almost every year...

I actually hated Intel's desktop CPUs before Core 2 Duo came along. But I'm afraid a great deal of AMD's success' with Hammer has been possible due to Intel's bad decisions.
Doesn't bode well if Intel can avoid such mistakes in the future...

 

[_33]

The problem also with AMD is that as soon as AMD will have the more powerful 65nm processors, INTEL will have 45nm processors, and that is in 2007.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

AMD = In trouble, they are going to have to have like X8s or something.