AMD Throws in the Towel: No More CPUs (APUs and GPUs Only)
192 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Del91;43093992]An 17? Do you mean an i7?[/QUOTE]
I typed that post in a rage.
oh whoops
[QUOTE=Dead Madman;43064493]They are, and not many disagree with you, but the fucking price of them man jesus[/QUOTE]
Current gen Intel CPU's don't seem that expensive. I mean the top of the line haswell for desktops is what? 320? Few years ago with the original i7's you'd be looking at 1100.
AMD has been the cheaper alternative for a long time but I for the SB, IB, and HW, I never felt like Intel was just insanely expensive. It felt like a bargain for the performance to me.
My processor when it was brand new was $1,000-1,200 :v:
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;43074203]With regards to me understanding that, I'm going to say; sort of.
I can see that's it's different to how Xeons work:
[IMG]http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/xeon-processor-5.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The entry level Xeons are not eight cores. The eight-core processors start at $900 and end at $2200.
[B]AMD Manager of APU/CPU Product Reviews James Prior was quick to negate the slide's legitimacy: "I've never seen that slide before, I don't know where that came from," he told me in our call, and quickly followed-up by stating that "it's not real. FX is not end-of-life." Prior pointed-out that it's rare to ever see more than a year into the future with roadmaps[/B]
[URL="http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol"]http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol[/URL]
[QUOTE=dafour;43110364][B]AMD Manager of APU/CPU Product Reviews James Prior was quick to negate the slide's legitimacy: "I've never seen that slide before, I don't know where that came from," he told me in our call, and quickly followed-up by stating that "it's not real. FX is not end-of-life." Prior pointed-out that it's rare to ever see more than a year into the future with roadmaps[/B]
[URL="http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol"]http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol[/URL][/QUOTE]
Best news I've seen all day. Still sucks there's no steamroller FX chip for 2014, but at least they're not out of the market.
[QUOTE=dafour;43110364][B]AMD Manager of APU/CPU Product Reviews James Prior was quick to negate the slide's legitimacy: "I've never seen that slide before, I don't know where that came from," he told me in our call, and quickly followed-up by stating that "it's not real. FX is not end-of-life." Prior pointed-out that it's rare to ever see more than a year into the future with roadmaps[/B]
[URL="http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol"]http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240-future-of-amd-cpus-fx-not-eol[/URL][/QUOTE]
Finally, some good news this week.
[QUOTE=Nexus435;43101458]The entry level Xeons are not eight cores. The eight-core processors start at $900 and end at $2200.[/QUOTE]Well they are, but the cores are disabled due to poor performance.
arent apu's just a cpu with a gpu?
so what they're really saying is, no more standalone cpus?
what if intel started calling their cpus with a gpu, a mpu (multi processing unit) and only sold those, would they too no longer be selling cpus?
[QUOTE=Tobba;43093078]I vote in favor of IA-64, which is also an Intel thing, but its way simpler to implement[/QUOTE]
You mean the Itanium instruction set? The Itanium took HP [I]11 years[/I] to develop and Intel another year to get it to market. The result was a massive CPU package that required its own proprietary power supply that plugged into the CPU itself. And Itaniums are extremely power hungry, most models pull 130W, with some sucking up to 260W.
The first chips ran at 733/800 MHz and had awful performance due to flawed design. Compounding the terrible performance was virtually no software for the processor, resulting in everything having to be emulated in software for a massive performance hit.
The final nail in the coffin preventing adoption is the cost. All Itanium processors are [I]ridiculously[/I] expensive. The last time I looked at a price sheet, one CPU would set you back several thousand dollars and a single server would set you back about 20 grand.
There's no justification for buying an Itanium, you pay tens of thousands of dollars for a machine that a mainstream Xeon/Opteron can obliterate performance wise for 15x less money.
I actually had a client give me a quad socket Itanium server a number of years ago because of the reasons above, and I can agree with them after using it about a day, it was shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.