AMD's CES 2008 booth tour
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted January 9th 2008 9:01AM
posted January 9th 2008 9:01AM
posted January 9th 2008 9:01AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
what is this?? ppl playing games at CES?
for chists sake you can do that at home
Aholez
I really like AMD. Not for any really good reason. I guess because they're the underdog of sorts in the chip world. I hope they can pull out some new innovations soonto compete better with Intel.
Im a fan of AMD because of their high L caches. Thats about the only area they can truly beat Intel right now.
Of course, if you do the math, the Phenom can deliver a tiny bit more processing power quicker because of the cache. So it really is the better choice for quad core.
Either way, I have the 9600, and I love it. Its a great chip that has alot of power behind it.
I'm not 100% sure 'the better choice for quad core" is correct. I was with AMD for years (k62 through athlon64, my first multi core was back to intel) until Intel cracked their premium prices and started really competing. Right now I have a quad core 6600 air oced to 3.4ghz and I have to say, I don't think a Phenom can come even mildly close to what I'm getting right now....I mean, based on various benchmarks I've seen all over the net', I'm pretty sure it can't. Some people say I don't wanna OC, fine - getting the quad 6600 isn't even 'real' oc as you don't have to change a thing. Even at that, you're pretty much kicking a 9600 to the curb.
So consider that you've purchased a Phenom 9600 for 220-240 when an intel quad core EASILY oc'able to at the very least 3.0ghz is only 10-20 more. I'm not saying the Phenom sucks or anything, but I just have to argue that in my opinion the Intel Q6600 is the best value for your quad-core seeking buck right now.
I still root for AMD. I wouldn't build a system for myself with it, but I'd def. build systems for other people who aren't seeking the same quality and detail that I am. Not to say it's a bad chip, but it's more of the budget and not even so much right now. If there was no AMD though, Intel would charge an arm and a leg for their products so in a way, I think I'll always support AMD in some way.
Im a fan of AMD because of their high L caches. Thats about the only area they can truly beat Intel right now.
Of course, if you do the math, the Phenom can deliver a tiny bit more processing power quicker because of the cache. So it really is the better choice for quad core.
Either way, I have the 9600, and I love it. Its a great chip that has alot of power behind it.
I always liked AMD because the price/performance ratio was great. The chips were always 30 - 50% less than a comparable Intel offering. Then the on board memory controller would kick Intel's butt. Then of course there were the nVidia chipsets and the SLI that was only later ported to Intel.
They were stupid to buy ATi. They should have bought nVidia or at least merged or signed some mutual exclusive agreement. Kick Intel completely out of the SLI game. Then pump out real kick-butt processors. To be brutally honest, in my opinion, phenom failed. The designs are obviously better but they just don't have the leadership or the capital to bring real products to fruition.
"As sleepy has Microsoft and Intel's booths were this year"
Sorry to be a royal pain and point out mistakes and all (thats if it is), but shouldn't that read:
"As sleepy as Microsoft and Intel's booths were this year"
?
The stench of death is on this one it is, as they are using the lowest end Dell monitors. The reason Intel did not buy nVidia, I think, was that they saw a AMD/ATI pickup in the next few years.
"As sleepy has Microsoft and Intel's booths were this year, they paled in comparison to AMD's showing."
First, has should have been as. Then, by stating "they paled in comparison" you're saying that Microsoft and Intel's showing was worse than AMD's and that doesn't sound like what you were conveying. I'm understanding it to be that AMD had the worst showing.
Maybe you writers should consider proofreading each others work's.
Ha, if we are going to start nitpicking there should not be an apostrophe on the "work's".
Also there should be a double space in between periods.
See, you guys just proved my point. :)
Had I been able to submit my writing to you before hand then this could have been avoided. Honestly, my main beef was how he used the phrase "paled in comparison," not the accidental use of has. After rereading it, I guess he was trying to say that their(Microsoft and Intel)lameness paled in comparison to AMD lameness, but that isn't how the phrase is used. Normally, whatever subject precedes the phrase is understood to be the lesser of what is being compared, not the better as he had it.
Perhaps a better wording would have been "As sleepy as Microsoft and Intel's booths were this year, their crappiness paled in comparison to AMD's. References to excrement always make a better read.
You can't have double spaces on the Web unless you use a non-breaking space. Most (if not all) browsers I know will cut extra spaces down to one.
I always thought that AMD and nvidia went hand in hand, i think that's the way it should be. The purchase of ATi was foolish.
Same here, I would have never seen AMD buying ATI; nVIDIA would have been a much smarter choice, considering all the suck ATI has been throwing around since the Radeon 9700Pro glory days.
You guys are more and more sounding like a bitch tabloid magazine.
AMD- Look guys! New products! Quad cores! Spider!
Intel- Look here. 3 year old technology! We still beat AMD!
You get the message I'm trying to convey. They don't NEED a good showing. They will be kicking AMDs ass anyway. AMD needs to get their act together soon. We need competition!
Or maybe they could be buried next to Packard-Bell and Netscape at the Washed Up Cemetary for Has-Beens.