What's AMD going to do?

[GreatArtist]

What will they do to take back the lead from Intel? I read a while back
that they planned 4 core and then 16 core cpus down the line. Maybe
they should skip the 4 core and go directly to 16 core. Why not? Seems
to me the only reason they would do 4 core first is to sell more cpus.
I think manufacturers of all kinds of things like to get you to upgrade
frequently one small step at a time instead of doing a giant leap.
Seems to me that 2 cores and 4 cores is puny and pathetic compared to
16 cores. Why not just go to the 16 cores or more now and skip all the
crappy little baby steps? I think with 16 cores you could start to see
the real power of multi-core cpus and it would greatly encourage
software developers to code for them more and sooner.

 

[Ed]

What will they do to take back the lead from Intel? I read a while back
that they planned 4 core and then 16 core cpus down the line. Maybe
they should skip the 4 core and go directly to 16 core. Why not? Seems
to me the only reason they would do 4 core first is to sell more cpus.
I think manufacturers of all kinds of things like to get you to upgrade
frequently one small step at a time instead of doing a giant leap.
Seems to me that 2 cores and 4 cores is puny and pathetic compared to
16 cores. Why not just go to the 16 cores or more now and skip all the
crappy little baby steps? I think with 16 cores you could start to see
the real power of multi-core cpus and it would greatly encourage
software developers to code for them more and sooner.

It's cheaper for AMD and Intel to do 4 cores then jump right into 16
cores, for one the die size would be huge!

Running multiple cores is nothing new, servers have been running 2 and 4
cpus for years, though in todays servers AMD's scale much better in
4-way and larger setups compared to Intels latest offerings.

Most home users won't see any benefit beyond a dual core for some time,
and software developers are in the same boat as AMD/Intel, it comes down
to time to market vs costs.

Ed

 

[Llew Weaver]

It's cheaper for AMD and Intel to do 4 cores then jump right into 16
cores, for one the die size would be huge!

Running multiple cores is nothing new, servers have been running 2 and 4
cpus for years, though in todays servers AMD's scale much better in
4-way and larger setups compared to Intels latest offerings.

Most home users won't see any benefit beyond a dual core for some time,
and software developers are in the same boat as AMD/Intel, it comes down
to time to market vs costs.

Ed

I started using AMD processors about 6 years ago and I am so happy with
their performance that I forgot Intel existed until I read this post.
Any how, speaking of 16 cores let me afford a dual core first!

--
My Creation, money dictated:
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-K8N51GMF
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
Memory: 1024 MB Corsair VS1GB400C3
Storage: Maxtor 6L100M0 Raid 0
CDROM: SAMSUNG CD-R/RW SW-248F
DVD: SONY DVD RW DW-D26A
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 6100
TV Card: Bt848 Video Capture
Lan: Linksys WMP300N Wireless-N PCI Broadcom 43xx
OS: openSUSE 10.2
Kernel version: 2.6.18
Desktop: Beryl Release 0.1.4
Very happy with openSUSE - Priceless!

 

[Ed]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:34:34 GMT, Llew Weaver

I started using AMD processors about 6 years ago and I am so happy with
their performance that I forgot Intel existed until I read this post.
Any how, speaking of 16 cores let me afford a dual core first!

10 years here. I've always had 2-3 PCs at a time, and the Intel's just
never lived up to their expectations, the Stability, Price/Performance
and upgrade paths were all big let downs! AMD K8L will probably be my
next platform.

Dual core is nice if you have use for it, I've been runing a 4200+ X2
for over a year and it's been flawless, well my last 3 AMDs were too so
no surprise there I guess.