Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:46 UTC, submitted by Luis
AMD AnandTech takes a look at AMD's new Phenom. "If you were looking for a changing of the guard today it's just not going to happen. Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market."
Thread beginning with comment 285660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: low yields
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: low yields"
Member since:

Quotes like this makes me wish there was a Heisman-like trophy for Armchair Quarterbacks...

How so? they designed something that was needlessly more complex than their competition, delivered it late and it is barely competitive with the Intel offering. Explain to me how that engineering decision of making something more complex than required, was a good idea given the lateness and lack of competitiveness with Intel's offerings.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: low yields
by javiercero1 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 12:58 in reply to "RE[3]: low yields"
javiercero1 Member since:

Most of the issues for AMD's current predicament are not due to microarchitectural decisions, but rather process/fab issues.

The reasons for the stumbling that the 65nm AMD process is experiencing (process shared by IBM and Hitachi) are far deeper and more complex than most people in this thread know or have a remote familiarity with.

So I find it amusing to see people with passing knowledge to make statements that are so off the mark as to be laughable. For some reason, anyone who can assemble a PeeCee nowadays thinks he/she is an "expert" in the field and can figure out what a company is doing right/wrong.

Being inside the belly of the beast it is amusing to see some of the comments. Naive doesn't even begin to capture the nature of a lot of these posts. Provides a nice comedic relief though...

Edited 2007-11-21 13:01

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: low yields
by h3rman on Wed 21st Nov 2007 14:31 in reply to "RE[4]: low yields"
h3rman Member since:

I need more modpoints to mod you up!
I liked the armchair-quarterback-prize idea too.
Come on people, what the f*** do any of us really know what's going on at Intel and AMD??

Now back to subject.. Sure, AMD has troubles.
The funny thing is that whatever *we* think about that doesn't mean sh*t. AMD chips will sell and they will make or not make some money for AMD. But AMD will survive or it will be bought by some of the other semiconductor giants (anyone been in Korea lately?). No need to worry about whether we'll still have any choice.

By the way, Intel's way of doing business is still immoral, they still bribe stores here in Holland and Germany so that they do not sell a *single* AMD-powered device.

Come over and have a look if you wish: huge store in Rotterdam, dozens and dozens of laptops and pc's on display, not a single one of them having an AMD chip. This while dozens of models by HP, Asus, etc. etc. do ship with AMD.

This makes me, yeah I know the Core 2 are the faster chips, not feel very great when I think of buying Intel, which is (Centrino) sort of the only laptop option if you want, like I do, blob-free Linux.

I therefore hope AMD is equally wicked. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: low yields
by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 21st Nov 2007 22:57 in reply to "RE[4]: low yields"
Nicholas Blachford Member since:

>The reasons for the stumbling that the 65nm AMD process
>is experiencing (process shared by IBM and Hitachi) are far deeper
>and more complex than most people in this thread know or have
>a remote familiarity with.

You mean the process a number of companies (including AMD) are having some success with?

Barcelona is a new processor so some problems are to be expected, AMD probably expected problems so deliberately didn't produce many chips. IBM didn't appear to have any problems with POWER6 or Cell, both being produced on 65nm so I doubt it's anything to do with the process.

Reply Parent Score: 1