Intel vs. AMD

Ok that sounds good and lets me pat your back so you do not break your arm!lol But what happens if you buy a cpu with a gpu and the gpu or the cpu gets outdated. how do you upgrade.. flash the cpu? Doesen't sound like a good thing to me. Please explain to me the benifit...being serious.

 

intel have been on about the same thing but with a physics proc.

they dont know what to to do with a four core processor.

 

A physics processor is seperate from the cpu. and so far has proven unhelpful as the tech has not been unified.
Marcy, please explain your statment about the intel's inabilaty to do what with the 4 core cpu. please show supporting info.

 

baltekmi,
Well for one thing it could be made to interact with high end graphics cards that would be cheaper because video control would be right on the CPU/GPU for starters. Sort of like a supercharger for graphics. Video could be keyed right to the CPU instead of the PCIe x16 bus which should allow faster graphics. The point is whatever they do with it should be worth while. I don't think that the intended use is for on-board graphics. Just think of the possibilities of a graphics controller running at CPU speed and the benefits you would get from something like that. DMA for graphics with the shortest pipelines imaginable. The future will tell all!

One thing is for sure, AMD wouldn't do it if it wasn't worth while! They are not about to shoot themselves in the foot and dump graphics cards to put the video all on the CPU/GPU.

Happy Computering,
theone

 

if you had read some news, you might of seen somthing to come out of the idf back in sept when the intel boss typed "i hate amd" onto a giant screen. during the same speech he also said that he belived that the kentfields would benifit the gamers the most as they could have a game running on 1 or 2 cores use another to process physics and leave 1 or 2 to do the mundane things like defragg or virus check.


now i didnt say i was a dedicated physics proc, but like how a gpu is only a gpu til its programmed to do something else, eg folding@home, the same can be said for cpu's.


now like i said it was a news story and the site on which i read it only keeps the full article untill the end of the month. now if you want to trawl through all the posts from around the end of sept/ start of oct i am sure you will find a full extract from this speach as i posted it then.


but please if you can think of an app that truely needs to be ran on 4 cores please tell me and i can then let intel and amd know. last time i asked around most still get confused by 2 cores, god only knows what they will do if they see 4.


as for amd/ati, ati get use all amds old fab plants 90 and soon the 65nm ones for their gpus and amd get a company who can design them the chipsets to get the best out of thier future chips at the same time they are designing them(k10 or will they go kx?) and will help in the design of their own platform in the battle against intels viiv and all conquoring centrino. win win(and maybe a new mobo design with a on cpu graphics controller).

 

marsey99,

I can see the Kentsfield quad core being mainly for servers. I just don't see it in the average home computer, at least not in the near future. I just don't see the game designers running right out and revamping all thier games for quad cores when the Conroe platform will do just fine. Heat is going to be a major issue as well. 4 even relatively low power cores are going to make a fair amount of heat in a small amount of space.

What I can see is the AMD CPU/GPU concept working out to AMD's advantage as there's a lot that can be accomplished that way. Build it in such a way as to let the on chip GPU control the whole video process and you could have some very stunning and fast graphics. I don't see AMD/ATi doing it for on-board graphics. It's just not worth it as it would be cheaper to put the graphics on the motherboard like they do now. Who in thier right mind would want to have to replace a CPU to upgrade thier graphics as it would be too expensive. Like I said in my post to Baltekmi, I can see it as a supercharger for the graphics card! That would make more sense. I could even see video cards designed with that very idea in mind!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

I'm thinking a cpu/gpu combo + memory slot/slots.

IE: Buy a 3ghz cpu with built in gpu:model abc,for $100.
Buy a 3ghz cpu with built in gpu:model xyz, for $200.
So have the same cpu with different gpu options.
Have dedicated Memory slots for the gpu,totally separate from system memory.
So you could have 2gb system memory,and say 2gb gpu memory for example.

 

Now that WOULD be cool. I can envisage upgrading your CPU in order to get a new GPU and CPU at the same time! One wonders how this'll affect the price of processors. Right now the extreme CPUs top out at £700 ish and GPUs at £400 ish. Will this make for £1100 processors? I hope not!

 

For the enthusiasts:
Imagine the extreme version chip.
The mainboard would have to support cpu/gpu overclocking.
Modified bioses to suit cpu/gpu/memory configurations??!!

And system memory dividers and gpu memory timings!!

Takes overclocking to a whole new level!!

 

Thankyou. I got the answer from you that I had expected. More power to the brain scotty!

 

now crowey i give you props. That makes a lot of sence.

 

Now if I read the benches correctly, the Kentsfield quad(conroex2) has no real advantages in gaming and most applacation vs the core 2.
For gaming because there is not any games writing to take advantage of the superior Conro or kentsfield. But there is a hugh difference in encoding(folding also). I am sure the price of the kentsfield at first will negate any surge to purchase one to encode, considering the amd price and performance outweighs the cost of what the kentsfield will be. We shall see.

 

Baltekmi,

I would imagine the Kentsfield for home use would put Intel into a bit of a war with themselves, price wise. If the Conroe was to move down the ladder with the arrival of the Kentsfield for home computers, what will that do to the pricing of the Conroe? If it was to suddenly drop in stature down to second best, the price would have to be considerably lower. That's the biggest reason I don't think you will see it available for anything but servers for a good while as they are going to have to wring some profits out of it before they can get it down to a price where the home PC market would be attractive! How well Intel does with the server market is everything to Intel's future. I personally don't think Intel is going to recover as much of the server market that they lost to AMD as they think!

You said it yourself, "the AMD price and performance outweighs the cost of what the kentsfield will be"! I think that's going to be Intel's biggest problem. I also think they have priced themselves into a bit of a corner with the Conroe and will have to raise the prices on them just to break even! This plays right into AMD's hands as they have a number of price/performance oriented CPUs that may not be as fast as the Conroe, but will still do a heck of a job for less money. Sometimes being fastest isn't everything! Just ask Steve Wozniac of Apple fame about his Nextgen Processor. It was superior to the Intel at the time, in every way and it barely made it out of the box, then died a quick death!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

intels pockets are deep enough to take the hit.

 

Marsey99,

You are missing the point! Intel is taking the hit right now! The low to mid performance Conroes are at almost give-away prices. They've yet to make a dime off of the Kentsfield and it will be some time before they do.

Intel considers the server market to be the most important key to thier future and have concentrated thier efforts there first. That's why there were no Conroes to be had at the time of it's introduction. In the meantime AMD has spruced up thier 64x2 line and even added a few new processors (5000+ and 5200+) where they now offer the the best bang for the buck. They are the price/performance leader. Thier R&D costs have already been paid for! Regardless of whether AMD comes out with something new right away to compete with the Conroe or not doesn't matter. Thier 64x2 line is competetive. Intel doesn't have that luxury as their D series 64x2s can,t compete with AMD's offerings in performance and would have to be completely re-designed in order to do so.

When AMD got into the server market in 2000, it was a new venue for them. Today, 6 years later they have captured almost 30% of that market. Up-grading AMD servers will be much cheaper with Dual Socket F Opterons than it will be to upgrade to the Quad-Core Kentsfield, plus it's easier to cool 2 seperate dual-core CPUs than it will be to cool 1 Quad-Core Kentsfield. All the Kentsfields heat is confined to one small area while the Opteron's heat will be spread out over the 2 seperate sockets, 2 CPU coolers. Etc!

Add to that, AMD's purchase of ATi and the profits it's making from it, and they are making money. Intel is not! Intel can't do that forever, I don't care how deep thier pockets are!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

your right they are taking the hit right now, but the only way you can compare the 2 companys is with the stock markets reaction. since amd posted result last month showing a 5% drop in profits their stock has nose dived somewhat, at the same time intels 10% drop in profit has had no effect on its stocks continued rise.

a quick trip to google finance will show this is the case.

as for the 2cores on 2 dies being easier to cool than 4 on 1, i dont know. i woud assume it is easier to do quietly but in the server market thats not an issue, but what effect does the extra northbridge have on the overall temp? i dont know.

 

Marsey99,

That was to be expected with the introduction of the Conroe. I think a better guage is how much dividends thier shareholders were paid. Last quarter Intel's stockholders got peanuts while AMD's stockholders did very well. Profits can be a very misleading way to judge because they can easily be manipulated to suit the need. As far as AMd's nose dive, go back and look at any Semiconducter company and thier ups and downs look like a roller coaster from hell! I posted all of this on DVD Hounds a few months ago! Intel overall has more money, they are just not making as much as AMD at this time. I can't complain as we are all benefiting from Intel's problems via lower prices from both them and AMD!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

9-11/2006:
AMD announces 1st generation cpu/gpu combo,codenamed:"Neutron/fx4"

AMD/ATI announced today the first working prototype of their next generation platform,comprising a cpu/gpu hybrid "Neutron/fx4"
"This is going to be bigger than Conroe",was the comment from AMD/ATI CEO Hector Ruiz."What we have done is combine two integral components of a computer using the most efficient means possible"."The end result is a Personal computer the likes of which has never been seen".Intel were available for comment at the time of writing and had this to say'"No comment"

News just in...:Here is the CPU/GPU cooling setup that looks likely to be shipped with the new Neutron/fx4:

 

what the hell? Why has a part of that image been copied and pasted over itself?