AMD next gen on its way

[screwballl]

DailyTech - AMD Hints at 32nm Test Shuttles, Claims 45nm Samples Ready in January

SO we are looking at a matter of a few months before next gen AMD hits the shelves... the question is, will it be an Intel killer or another 3 legged horse tripping out the gate?

[tiredoldman]

Hey there screwball.Nice seeing you here.
Do really expect AMD to surpass Intel ?
No, I'm not bashing AMD, 95% of my rigs are AMD.Just really wondering,without all the hype.
Merry Christmas and a better New Year.

[screwballl]

I don't know what to expect, it is still a ways out to know for sure. I hope so but that is personal wishes.
I myself have several of each proc... P4 1.8GHz, E6600, XP3000+, A64 3000+, XP-M 2600+, XP2400+

[tiredoldman]

I agree with you. It really would be nice. Now IF they would quit giving us all these promises and really do something. Let's hope they can.

[Athildja-x64]

The questions really is: If AMD is unable to get 65nm to work how the hell can they switch to 45nm?
they have 65nm CPUs with TDPs higher than Intel's. THAT is saying something considering they are claming thier CPUs are more power friendly.

[Quakindude]

Originally Posted by Athildja-x64

The questions really is: If AMD is unable to get 65nm to work how the hell can they switch to 45nm?
they have 65nm CPUs with TDPs higher than Intel's. THAT is saying something considering they are claming thier CPUs are more power friendly.

Well, hopefully, AMD has made some architectural changes that will correct whats so borked up with their current gen CPU's.

I've been all doom and gloom about AMD ever since they bought ATI, but I sure would like them to pull off a magic trick and get back into the show.

[polobunny]

Originally Posted by Athildja-x64

The questions really is: If AMD is unable to get 65nm to work how the hell can they switch to 45nm?
they have 65nm CPUs with TDPs higher than Intel's. THAT is saying something considering they are claming thier CPUs are more power friendly.

Exactly the same way Intel was able to bring C2D after the failure Pentium D was?
Pentium D was just... yuck. Ok maybe nowhere close to the problems AMD is having with it's current gen CPU, but the comparison still stands. Things move fast in the computer world, thought you knew. :P

[Sumgai]

I'm still pulling for AMD. After building most all my systems with them, it's hard not to have a soft spot, even with all the negative press. I'd like to see them bite back with something worthy of making Intel a little less comfortable up on that podium...
:boxing:

[OcciferFriendly]

Originally Posted by polobunny

Exactly the same way Intel was able to bring C2D after the failure Pentium D was?
Pentium D was just... yuck. Ok maybe nowhere close to the problems AMD is having with it's current gen CPU, but the comparison still stands. Things move fast in the computer world, thought you knew. :P

That compairison doesn't stand, IMO. The PD had problems with performance - 2 NetBurst CPUs under the hood didn't make it any faster than the A64 x2 - which owned it. I am not aware of any fab problems surrounding the PD, and I don't think it was expected to take the performance crown.

Phenom's problems are at the fab first, and then performance. Yields can't be that great (or tri-core wouldn't be talked about) and clock speeds aren't scaling. AMD came out with a new process AND a new architecture (versus the PD, which was more of the same) and both have sucked on toast.

A point that deserves revisiting was made above by Athildja-x64: AMD would be wiser to fix 65nm problems first. I think that what they are doing is talking about their next-gen R&D - I bet Phenom worked just fine in the labs during development too.

[Gig-O-Ram]

I didn't know AMD was having problems with newer gen cpu's. I'm still on the fence about whether I'll go AMD or Intel for my next build (whenever that will be, who knows?), but it seems that Intel is very strong right now with their line, so unless AMD can show me a reason NOT to go Intel, I may switch back.