What would an equally performing CPU do for AMD?

Most people who want to go dual or quad core, I would say already have. So an equally performing chip would do nothing to sway people away from intel. They would need to outperform to gain noticable sells. The drop in upgrade though would satisfy those X2, and opty owners.. I don't see them gaining a lot though.
 
An equally performing Barcelona to current Core2 range of processors will only stall AMD's decline in the market. As soon as Intel releases Penryn, and it proves a worthy successor to Conroe as all indications are pointing, AMD will find itself in a similar bind to what it's experiencing now. Unless AMD can ramp up the clocks quicker than forecasters are predicting, Intel will continue to dominate in the performance arena. Financially, only a sustained price war will keep AMD afloat to a degree, but that's a temporary solution at best, suicide at worst.

It's a war of attrition.
 
The drop in upgrade though would satisfy those X2 said:
u don't see people with AMD Dual Core cpus gaming a lot? well thats just not right

yes your core 2 or quad core is faster but that doesn't mean i don't or a thousand other AMD owers don't game that much.

my new CPU/MOBO upgrade is pushing my 8800GTS 100% better then my old P4 did and i can play any game on the market at high quality game settings without a hitch.

AMD has their problems compared to INTEL and they just may go belly up whos to say but that will only hurt the market in the long run, becasue it won't give INTEL any reason to push speeds or keep prices competive with no competion.

if the industy was to lose AMD/ATI we would be stuck in hardware rut becasue the average pc gamer might no be able to afford the INTEL/NVIDIA upgrades

i think its in all our best intrests if AMD is able to bring some performance back to the market and is able to regain a profitable share.

thats my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
 
I believe overall AMD will be slightly slower than Intel. When you look at die size and potential yields (45nm MCM vs. 65 native) the price war is very much in Intel's favor.
 
From what I expect to see, AMD will be slower than Intel for all but the most demanding games. The Core 2 architecture actually excels at integer operations, and is kept well-fed by a very low-latency cache. AMD has stated that there is very little improved in the integer pipeline for the K10, and they are unlikely to deliver a better cache than Intel (just don't have the technology).

While you might discount the power of integer ops and fast cache, do not forget what an amazing gaming chip the Pentium M was, even though it had a subpar FPU compared to the competition. The fact is, most game code is heavier on integer than floating-point (especially now that graphics cards have T&L / vertex engines), so this makes a fast integer unit and low-latency cache king for gaming.

I do believe the future will see more multi-core physics however, and that will most certainly make use of the FPU enhancements I expect to see on K10. Now that physics accelerators are practically dead, the future of game physics is multi-core.
 
u don't see people with AMD Dual Core cpus gaming a lot? well thats just not right

yes your core 2 or quad core is faster but that doesn't mean i don't or a thousand other AMD owers don't game that much.
Click to expand...

lol... I think you misread f1y's post there Mac[X-D]. He said "gain" not "game" :)
 
[H]ocusPocus;1031400103 said:
lol... I think you misread f1y's post there Mac[X-D]. He said "gain" not "game" :)
Click to expand...

OMG i did wft duh.....

my bad

to qoute Jack "don't i feel like the f%&king asshole"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top