http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/ Engadget Comments for AMD demonstrates 45nm quad-core processors at CeBIT http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 11:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
What a way to start an unbiased story.]]>Mar 4th 2008 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
... are you sure you're in the right place?]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 1:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 11:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
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 ;)]]>Mar 4th 2008 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/@ 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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 7:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 11:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
The marketplace needs the competition, AMD, get your head out of your ass and show the market what you can do!]]>Mar 4th 2008 11:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 1:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 11:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
I normally don't own both competitors (usually I hold one while shorting the other), but I believe AMD will recover.]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
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.

]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
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!}]]>Mar 4th 2008 12:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 12:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Additional/44701A_Wafer_2.jpg]]>Mar 4th 2008 1:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 5:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/Mar 4th 2008 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/04/amd-demonstrates-45nm-quad-core-processors-at-cebit/]]>Mar 5th 2008 3:42PM