The future of AMD?
I don't know if any of you have been reading the hardware headlines lately, but a couple things have happened that have me wondering about the future of AMD. I have always been a fan of AMD because they've almost always offered a solid reliable alternative to a much more expensive Intel counterpart. Not that I have anything against Intel, but when there's healthy competition the consumer benefits greatly.
First thing I read about is how Intel has dropped the pricing on it's P4 and Xeon line of processors, with the speculation that there is new technology planned. Or could it be that they are just becoming more aggressive with AMD? Hard for me to say, so I wonder if anyone on this board knows. So far, AMD hasn't really responded with a plan of action, or if there even is one.
The second news-worthy tidbit is that they've recently purchased ATI. Why not just partner with ATI, why buy ATI? It'll be interesting to see what unfolds with all of this, but in the meantime, if anyone has any speculation, please feel free to share your wisdom.
First thing I read about is how Intel has dropped the pricing on it's P4 and Xeon line of processors, with the speculation that there is new technology planned. Or could it be that they are just becoming more aggressive with AMD? Hard for me to say, so I wonder if anyone on this board knows. So far, AMD hasn't really responded with a plan of action, or if there even is one.
The second news-worthy tidbit is that they've recently purchased ATI. Why not just partner with ATI, why buy ATI? It'll be interesting to see what unfolds with all of this, but in the meantime, if anyone has any speculation, please feel free to share your wisdom.
0
Comments
I can see now graphics cards that have both a cpu and a gpu on them. Think of the potential there. Screw the physics processor that is now old news. Compared to what this could do. Have the main cpu just doing file system calls and general OS apps. Have the graphics card cpu handling Floating point calcs for graphics, physics processing and full and propper multi-screen support. Have the controls for whatever screen is currently not in the for front passed to the cpu on the video card and have it run that still at full speed. No need to divide up the cycles like you would with a single processor.
That said, GPUs are now more powerful than ever. The cell processor also has a lot of potential to shake things up.
If future processors are to have major changes then AMD will be in a better position to stay competative.
Intel also have the biggest share in desktop graphics. Maybe AMD want a slice of that too.
I can't, think of the bandwidth requirements...
With that said, they'll be making money from the GPU's as well, and it may become a more interesting market for gaming if AMD starts incorporating the technology.
ATI currently have the best looking conroe chipset too so maybe things will work out ok...
AMD
This is a good move, even if AMD can't release an Athlon to compete with Conroe they still have their product in the latest and greatest machines.
Having 2 products by the same company makes everything faster/more compatible right .
Ever since 1998, I've been standing beside AMD, because their processors were of superior construction. I stand by ATI, because it is better performance for the games I play. I will stand by them both, because they are where gaming and high end developing are. The top. Intel advertises higher frequencies. AMD provides more thoughtput and bandwidth. That is what current technology needs. The ability to move data quickly, and to handle it in short order. 3.8ghz means jack shit if you only have one pipe. AMD performs more with less. It's no secret on how they do it. Just like in cars. A twelve cylender engine puts out more torque with less energy than a four cylender with more. More threads just means more direct addresses. Nothing more. Intel has two threads in one line. AMD uses instructional lines in groups of four up to eighteen. Intel has 2x1. Amd has 1x**. Intel doesn't have a memory controller on the processor, which means the northbridge has to handle the addressing. AMD's memory controller is built into the processor. 1:1 access time.
Bottom line. AMD just pulled up to Intel's curb, and said "Get on the bus, it's time to go to school."
Footnote-- I remember something called Quantispeed for the XP line. AMD maximized the thoughtput per frame, and by this boost, lower speeds were used, meaning that even though they operated at lower frequencies, their output meet or beat Intel's. And, I also remember hearing about people Overclocking their P3's and getting higher performance than the P4's at the time. (The 406 pin socket, and the early 478's.) I'm getting old, and I suffer from a slew of manias. So just take this as the ravings of an insane man.