AMD's "Puma" Mauls Intel

[Redline]

well I pulled that from the same place you posted your knowledge from, the ever reliable wikipedia. Gotta love a place where you can type whatever you want and it will be accepted as fact.

You can compare certain performance criteria for a server cpu, and AMD still does well with floating point, and virtualization. And if they can produce a product that performs 85% as good at 70% of the power, then they could be considered a good investment to me. They wont be the fastest but it would sure be a lot cheaper too. So they will try to compete on price and performance per watt.

45nm feature size, large caches, and HT3.0 set Shanghai well apart from Barcelona.

Maybe when AMD wins their court case with Intel in like 4 years, then AMD can compete on the same manufacturing technology level and become the performance leader, but thats too far to think about.

Whoa, you really think that anything on K10 architecture (Barcelona, Phenom, Shanghai, etc) will perform 85% as well as NEHALEM? Wow, my friend, thats...not really close to happening, methinks. Phenom doesn't perform 85% as well as Penryn right now, and Nehalem's a whole 'nother ball game - AnandTech conservatively estimates between 20-50% performance increase for Nehalem over Penryn. Can a 45nm shrink of Phenom/K10 really perform all THAT MUCH better than the 65nm? Better, for sure, but it won't net you at least a 30% jump instantly.

Hehe for some reason it says you posted the previous comment.

Wow, thats weird. I fixed it now

[highlandsun]

AnandTech conservatively estimates between 20-50% performance increase for Nehalem over Penryn. Can a 45nm shrink of Phenom/K10 really perform all THAT MUCH better than the 65nm? Better, for sure, but it won't net you at least a 30% jump instantly.

AnandTech's first estimates were totally wrong, based on invalid Penryn numbers, and Anand came back later to correct them. Nehalem is only 5-15% faster than Penryn. Shanghai may be 10-20% faster than Barcelona. I suspect Nehalem will still be fastest overall on desktop, but the gap will be very narrow.

[basskiddanny]

I used to always have AMD Processors in my desktop PC's (don't have a desktop at the minute) but the AMD procs used to perform better than their intel competition of the same price.

Now i'm not really up to date on processors at the moment but the general feeling I have gotten from people from both the laptop and desktop world is that these days you will get a C2D that is a lot faster than the eqivilliently priced AMD..

So have AMD lost their appeal of costing less and being as fast or faster?
What would be say the AMD equivillent performance wise to say an Intel C2D Quad Q6600 (I know this isn't top of the range and thats the point). Most people won't pay more just to support a company these days. They will go with whoever can offer them the best performance for their money (Say about £120 for a Q6600 for your average user spend on a cpu??)

[fabarati]

I used to always have AMD Processors in my desktop PC's (don't have a desktop at the minute) but the AMD procs used to perform better than their intel competition of the same price.

Now i'm not really up to date on processors at the moment but the general feeling I have gotten from people from both the laptop and desktop world is that these days you will get a C2D that is a lot faster than the eqivilliently priced AMD..

So have AMD lost their appeal of costing less and being as fast or faster?
What would be say the AMD equivillent performance wise to say an Intel C2D Quad Q6600 (I know this isn't top of the range and thats the point). Most people won't pay more just to support a company these days. They will go with whoever can offer them the best performance for their money (Say about £120 for a Q6600 for your average user spend on a cpu??)

The AMD equivalent of the Q6600 is Phenom X4 9850 or 9950. Somewhere around there.

[basskiddanny]

The very last desktop I built for myself I switched to Intel and got a 3.2 Ghz P4, it was the worst processor in terms of problems I had ever had.

I heard Core 2 Duo is the one to go for now though? Are they noticeably better at a similar price?

[TommyB0y]

depends what you do if any cpu choice will have a noticeable difference. I personally think that 80% of consumers would never even utilize any dual or quad core cpu to its 100% utilization.

Yes the C2D has the performance lead, but i just got a 45watt 2.5Ghz Athlon X2 for my 780G chipset desktop, integrated HD3200 motherboard, and you can get that setup for like $150, and I am VERY happy with it. You can get faster X2s for cheaper even, and their only 65 watts.

[Redline]

AnandTech's first estimates were totally wrong, based on invalid Penryn numbers, and Anand came back later to correct them. Nehalem is only 5-15% faster than Penryn. Shanghai may be 10-20% faster than Barcelona. I suspect Nehalem will still be fastest overall on desktop, but the gap will be very narrow.

How about some evidence to back up your claims? Especially the later AT correction on the Nehalem numbers.

Also, AT tested a very, very early version of Nehalem silicon. Expect performance of the release silicon to be much faster than what they have tested.

@TommyB0y - we know that AMD can only compete on price, and not performance. I've been saying it all through this thread. Its just that all of their price cuts are going to come back and really hurt them (they already have) since they have less margins than Intel on the products they sell also.

[TommyB0y]

And as I already said before no one ever said an AMD cpu was faster than an Intel cpu, but it doesnt mean AMD doesnt offer a good value and good performance. I think everyone exagerates how much better Intel is, seeing as even those people probably dont need another 10% of performance, but maybe a few times a year to save them less than an hour of their life.

You might think that AMD cutting prices can hurt them, but think about how much a few dollars cut would hurt Intel. If Intel sells a billion products and only makes profit of $5B per year, then cutting a few dollars off of their products gets rid of all their profit too, they need the near monopoly marketshare to justify giving you reasonable prices. Thier margins aint so hot either, and they dont like giving you things at reasonable prices, so whats to happen if AMD stops competing and Intel continues doing things to prevent AMD from competing like offering exclusive pricing?

[highlandsun]

How about some evidence to back up your claims? Especially the later AT correction on the Nehalem numbers.

See Anand's comment at the top of this page, and the bottom two comments on the previous page.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...&cp=8#comments

Anand mis-reported the Penryn numbers, making it appear that Nehalem was a much bigger improvement than it really is.

[TommyB0y]

I just saw the review for the x200, and I find it funny that someone comopared the battery life of it to the DV5z.

X200 is a 12.1" 1280x800 200 nit screen said to not be bright enough to use outside notebook with 9 cell battery and x4500 graphics that would get 7 hours of battery life when actually using it. And you compared battery life to a 15.4" with an awesome 1680x1050 screen and 6 cell battery with graphics twice as good.

Not to mention that it probably costs 3 times as much when it comes out.