AMD demonstrates 45nm quad-core processors at CeBIT

In a woefully unstimulating press release, AMD has meekly trumpeted the fact that it's demonstrating its "first 45nm quad-core chips running multiple operating systems and a range of processing intensive applications" at CeBIT. Unfortunately, little is known beyond that -- aside from the fact that the processors showcased ("Shanghai" for servers, "Deneb" for desktops) were produced in Germany at the firm's Fab 36 300mm manufacturing facility, that is. Still, AMD managed to reiterate that "this milestone" would be "the first of many" as it moves toward the release of 45-nanometer products later this year. Huzzah?

[Organic_Shadow @ Mar 4th 2008 11:34AM]

C'mon AMD! You ain't dead yet! Shake that ass and show them what you are working with, etc. etc., so on and so forth.

[carguy84 @ Mar 4th 2008 12:56PM]

I'm guessing Intel advertisers on Engadget based on the wording of this blog.

[Corey @ Mar 4th 2008 11:43AM]

"In a woefully unstimulating press release"

What a way to start an unbiased story.

[Jerry @ Mar 4th 2008 12:13PM]

Unbiased? Engadget?!!

... are you sure you're in the right place?

[mufdvr3669 @ Mar 4th 2008 12:18PM]

Did he actually expect a stimulating press release? He should leave unnecessary words out of the articles. Makes him look like a douche.

[Yubastard @ Mar 4th 2008 1:29PM]

lol douche...

[Justin B @ Mar 4th 2008 11:47AM]

AMD seems more like HD-DVD every day.

[ReggieXuk @ Mar 4th 2008 12:05PM]

its true, AMD has always been the alternative

[Dave @ Mar 4th 2008 12:06PM]

You mean they produce a superior technology for a fraction of the cost but are doomed to failure because they're not trojan-horsed into game machines?

[Fatima @ Mar 4th 2008 12:21PM]

oh get over yourself dave

[DJZeratul @ Mar 4th 2008 2:11PM]

The fanboy-ism is strong in this thread. Anyone still jaded enough to call AMD64 a superior platform to Core 2 must not have received the memo that Core 2 performs more ops/cycle and is therefore a stronger and faster architecture. Several in depth studies can be found with a quick search on Google. Fanboys, I suggest you update your codex of knowledge to include the Core architecture, stop living in the Netburst days and come out from whatever AMD cave you've been hiding in.

I love AMD as a company. But I am not low enough to stoop to fanboy-ism over technological fat. The fact is, itel is a superior architecture. One day, maybe AMD will reclaim that throne (although with all the troubles they've had going to 65nm, and subsequently 45nm, I am not sure when this will happen). I am non-denominational. I just use whats best ;)

[tekdroid @ Mar 4th 2008 7:11PM]

DJZeratul
@ Mar 4th 2008 2:11PM sez:
The fanboy-ism is strong in this thread. Anyone still jaded enough to call AMD64 a superior platform to Core 2 must not have received the memo that Core 2 performs more ops/cycle and is therefore a stronger and faster architecture.
-------
That may well be true, but I've always seen the real benchmark as being bang-for-buck, aka performance per dollar.

If you consider price, AMD does have competitive offerings (particularly in entry-level to mainstream), but everyone is too busy trumpeting "better architecture" without putting things into the context of price.

ie.
This model versus that model at x dollars.

This is more than we can say about Intel's price during its P4 Netburst days (they just weren't competitive with AMD but had the huge marketing budget (as usual), relatively high prices and manufacturers still using their kit).

Fast-forward to today and it's easy to be better when you pay disproportionately more for your performance. The overwhelming majority of the market - enthusiasts and benchmarkers included - can do almost everything they want at great speed with budget processors selling for next to nothing these days. That is the benefit of competition. And depending on how you use your computer (which apps or games you run), you may well benefit from AMD over Intel in some (mostly useless) benchmarks, whether real-world or synthetic.

The differences aren't huge to begin with, and when you consider price, the two companies pretty much reach parity at their respective pricepoints. AMD *is* competing. It wins some battles. Intel some others. Again, I stress when you consider what your dollar buys you on the market. It all depends on how you use your machine and how much it matters to you.

True cost may well be power consumption variables included, tho. So that's another thing to consider where Intel might shine as AMD did in the past. It all depends which processors we are comparing and at what price we obtain them.

Intel isn't the automatic choice is what I'm trying to say. AMD is competing, and pricing accordingly. Perhaps not at the high-end uber elite section, but still satisfying the majority of the market's needs? Absolutely.

[Javaflash @ Mar 4th 2008 11:49AM]

AMD ain't dead? Inventories piled up, pipelines delayed, talents fled, customers switched, money gone... what else is left that worths a damn?

[Organic_Shadow @ Mar 4th 2008 12:45PM]

Still a better performance-for-the-dollar factor compared to intel- whom still seems to be laughing all the way to the bank with their slight revisions and accompanying disproportionate price increases.

My friend just got an AMD system, can play Bioshock on full everything, paid a whole lot less than for an intel machine, so im assuming they still have a market. As soon as I have my upgrade money im doing the same.

[Adam Zey @ Mar 4th 2008 11:51AM]

That's nice, AMD, but I think consumers are more interested in actual *SHIPPING* processors that can outperform the Core 2 at the same pricepoint.

The marketplace needs the competition, AMD, get your head out of your ass and show the market what you can do!

[andy @ Mar 4th 2008 1:05PM]

At any given price point, the AMD piece does outperform the Intel piece. It's just that they don't have the top performer to go up against Intel's top piece.

[Longhorn @ Mar 4th 2008 11:57AM]

AMD needs to perform... the last thing I want to see is an Intel monopoly. And consequently an NVidia monopoly. I just hate to see it. (typing it on my InVidia laptop, as opposed to my AMD/ATI desktop)

[Cornelius @ Mar 4th 2008 12:20PM]

I'll tell you what's screwed up... I picked up some AMD stock this morning for $6.44/share, while ~20% of my total portfolio is NVDA (invested in 1999, it's split 4 times since).

I normally don't own both competitors (usually I hold one while shorting the other), but I believe AMD will recover.

[Iain @ Mar 4th 2008 12:00PM]

No-one's against having more options than just Intel but given how well AMD's attempts to produce quads have been going so far, it's a little hard to get excited about something they might manage to get done a year after Intel.

As Adam Zey has said in a comment further down the page, announcing a product is one thing but we'll be a whole lot more interested if/when it's actually available.

[RoboDan @ Mar 4th 2008 12:20PM]

Me likey competition in the integrated microcircuit market.

Go AMD! Your 4200+ AM2 processor rules. It's only $60 and your boards are cheap too! Don't ever get Intel-ized (ie expensive)

P.S. I use Intel in Laptops preferentially, but AMD in desktops because they're cheap and very replaceable.

[kal326 @ Mar 4th 2008 12:23PM]

Great, now maybe Intel will get around to shipping the none $1000+ consumer 45nm quad core. There is actually a glimmer of plausible competition in the desktop sector on the horizon.

[Badger Funk @ Mar 4th 2008 12:27PM]

It's a shame that no one seem to care what AMD are doing these days. Even though the Intel Core lineup is a great product, we need companies like AMD to create competition and this helps consumers by driving prices down in a competitive market.

[CosterMonger @ Mar 4th 2008 12:44PM]

on the cheap AMD rules, that sweet sugar coated 780G chipset is PERFECT for home entertainment / media center pcs.

but sorry AMD, if I built a computer today {and had more then pocket change} it would probably have the E8400 {and a 9600GT}
so hopefully 45nm fairs better than 65nm did, 3.2 GHz or death! {victory or death!}

[Sojourn @ Mar 4th 2008 12:50PM]

That is a beautiful photo heading this post.

[granny down east @ Mar 4th 2008 12:54PM]

I thought so, too. A perfect match of Tech and Nature (well, refraction is a natural phenomenon, isn't it?).

[Wisam @ Mar 4th 2008 1:27PM]

I concur. The picture is so cool. I agree with the previous comments that AMD is good for competition and they produce good products along the line. Just recently things didn't go out right. I hope the 45nm will be able to catch up with Core 2

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 4th 2008 1:34PM]

makes a good wallpaper if nothing else...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Additional/44701A_Wafer_2.jpg

[Clank @ Mar 4th 2008 5:28PM]

Thanks, Im gonna use it. :D

[bigdoggie @ Mar 4th 2008 2:34PM]

Yeah, show intel who's boss!

[Geoff @ Mar 5th 2008 3:42PM]

I do still love AMD (and I can't wait to get a 780G+4850e for a great little low power desktop), but when I can buy a Q6600 for $199 (see MicroCenter), why would I buy a Phenom for $189? Competition is great!!! so I hope AMD can recover, but for now Intel beats it price/performance at the top end (even in the middle - $80 for an e2180 is also tough).