(07-13-2012, 09:25 AM)mAMV Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2012, 06:34 AM)werewolfyman Wrote: [ -> ]They were selling 960Ts not too long ago.
You know, the 6-cores with 2 disabled?
For $130.
And now they're selling FX-6100's for the same price at some stores.
Genuine 6-cores.
Sounds like a desperate move to me.
The 960T's are a great value for only $130. Damn. Well I do believe AMD should give up on the desktop market and focus more on the HTPC and netbook market. Intel is at least 2 generations ahead of AMD.
Two CPU companies is a good thing, competition and not allowing one company to have a monopoly on PC hardware. Intel would be able to charge whatever they wanted for their CPU's if AMD didn't exist. We don't want that.
(07-13-2012, 09:29 AM)Starscream Wrote: [ -> ]Two CPU companies is a good thing, competition and not allowing one company to have a monopoly on PC hardware. Intel would be able to charge whatever they wanted for their CPU's if AMD didn't exist. We don't want that.
They're already doing that ¬¬, look at the Sandy Bridge-E's AMD can
not compete. Anything above core i5, again AMD can not compete. Intel has already won the battle in ''performance/enthousiast'' grade as well as current
value desktop chips.
Just as a comparison, AMD FX-8150, Highest-end AMD model get's a
severe beating by a Core i3 2120 in most
synthethic benchmarks.
This is as of now though, I also do hope they come up with something beefy for a sweet price just to compete with Intel and make them lower the price, however Intel is not that expensive for the performance you get I believe.
I didn't say Intel wasn't better, I said if AMD didn't exist there would be no alternative and Intel would be able to charge more for their processors. As long as there is another CPU choice, Intel has to stay competitive with their prices. Not everyone needs a 4GHz Ivy Bridge to do normal PC tasks, but here at the Dolphin forums, we do.
Quote:The 960T's are a great value for only $130. Damn. Well I do believe AMD should give up on the desktop market and focus more on the HTPC and netbook market. Intel is at least 2 generations ahead of AMD.
The problem is they're 1-2 generations behind in EVERY market, not just desktops (I'm not saying you implied otherwise I'm just pointing that out).
Servers:
Opteron 6200 series are equivalent to nehalem based xeons in most server apps (1 generation behind)
Desktops:
AMD FX series are equivalent to core 2 processors in single/dual/triple/quad threaded applications (2 generations behind) and nehalem chips in most 5/6/7/8 thread applications (1 generation behind). In some multithreaded applications they can keep up with sandy bridge cpus but only a limited number.
Laptops:
Llano based A series cpus are equivalent to core 2 mobile processors (2 generations behind) in cpu tests. They have the advantage of having a faster IGP than intel thanks to the merger with ATI but that's it. And intel, having noticed this, has said they're going to be focusing on IGP improvements with haswell trying to achieve 2-3 times the performance of ivy bridge IGPs so that they can come up with some competition for llano in the low end gaming/HTPC market.
Netbooks/Nettops:
The E series and C series APUs have managed to achieve slightly higher cpu performance than atom and drastically higher gpu performance than intels X4500 IGP. GPU performance is moderately higher than nvidias ion platform. However the chips being used for atom/ion are mostly two years old at this point. And there are hardly any devices on the market with AMDs low end APUs due to supply shortages. Intel has since shifted the focus of atom towards tablets and smartphones due to the imminent release of windows 8 and it looks like AMD is going to do the same thing since they cancelled the enhanced bobcat architectures development. Intel has said that they will be splitting atom into two separate lineups in the future, one for tablets/smartphones, the other for netbooks/nettops. Starting in 2013 they're going to resume releasing new atom cpus for netbooks/nettops. Eventually it's going to be split even further into three lineups according to their current roadmap. Both intel and amd have said that they will be slowly shifting focus away from this market in the future since it's still not generating significant enough revenue for either company.
Tablets:
Both intel and amd have only just starting making chips for this market. I only know of one tablet so far that even uses an AMD cpu so we'll have to wait for this market to develop.
HPC:
They don't even have a chip in this market yet. Intels knights corner currently stands unopposed and is quickly swallowing the market.
What I'm saying is that AMD doesn't really have an advantage over intel in ANY market at the moment. None of their cpu products are doing particularly well at the moment, the few decent cpus that they have are having issues with supply shortages due to problems with manufacturing. It's not as if their high power microarchitectures are bad and their low power microarchitectures are good. All of their microarchitectures are way behind intels and there are no signs of that changing anytime soon. Their shift in focus towards low power devices is nothing more than a desperate attempt to reduce their development costs and lay off more workers so that they can survive on lower revenues. Of course "shifting our focus" sounds better because it implies that their low end cpus are going to get much better in comparison to the competition. However AMD doesn't have any good microarchitectures to build incremental improvements off of right now, they're temporarily stuck with K10 stars, bobcat, and bulldozer/piledriver. And designing a whole new microarchitecture from scratch is too expensive and too risky for them to do right now. I really don't know how they're going to get out of this one, their shareholders are really scared right now and rightfully so. It also doesn't help when your company is constantly changing CEOs.
(07-13-2012, 09:56 AM)Starscream Wrote: [ -> ]Not everyone needs a 4GHz Ivy Bridge to do normal PC tasks, but here at the Dolphin forums, we do.
Correction - we do need if we want to play some games, like 5-10.
with LLE.
And things can change. Like F-Zero GX which crashed with dual core every 30 seconds and was slow like drunken snail with single core. Now it runs with 145-270fps (yeah, too fast to be playable without frame limit) with hashless build and accurate vbeam on, and i played it for a few hours with dual core on and no crash.
For AMD - i wish they roll something out that will outperform intel cpus in most tests and apps, so intel will be forced to lower prices and make something even better.
Last thing we need is monopoly, be it Intel or AMD, desktop hardware market shrinks with every second, HDDs - Seagate (bARGHacuda 7200.11 anyone?) and WD (you have to fill PCB connector contacts with solder after a year or two, because they forgot to do it for you. Or you'll hear click-click and lose your data), Toshiba (only quite expensive server drives).
Intel have never needed competition to produce competitive products.
and even when they have competition, their prices weren't much better
Quote:Intel have never needed competition to produce competitive products.
But how can you say that considering that have always had competition.
Plus by definition you can't produce "competitive products" if you don't have any competition because then what are you competing with?
Quote:and even when they have competition, their prices weren't much better
Once again, they've always had some varying degree of competition.
The problem is they own most of the patents for x86 extensions and won't license it to anybody but AMD or VIA. Which means if AMD and VIA go away they have a monopoly over x86 and people will have to buy their products for the time being no matter what.
Of course with windows coming to arm this may change in the future, but that's going to be a slow change, if it even succeeds.