Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 29 Jan 2007.
damage limitation thats going to perhaps push people away? If it was 65nm then I could see a point to it but 90nm just seems.....im searching a verb here.....well it seems random to be honest. The K8L must be a seriously good piece of kit if they have just done this to fill a gap.
Hmm, quite high price if it competes with the E6600.
And 90nm =
Doesn't this mean that the fastest (clock-speed wise) CPU for the desktop isn't either an FX or Extreme edition? Havn't seen that for a while.
If this had been on 65nm, it might have made sense, but with you beith able to pick up an e6300, 650i Mobo and some half-decent RAM for under $600, AMD have just shot them selfes in the foot.
I think they should have done more work on K8L when they were pwning Intel about 1-2 years ago, or they shouldn't have released AM2 (lets face it, its pretty half-baked) and spent that time preparing K8L to wow us all away in the same way Intel has done.
I typically am an AMD fan(boi ) but right now that dream specification in my head is core 2 (quad).
Since core AMD has been on the back foot. K8L (and more importantly Hypertransport 2.0 as it's a cores/die race now(I think they're updating)) had better do to processors what xb360 & ps3 did to games consoles for AMD's sake.
I don't think AMD where really pwning Intel at any point, granted AMD had the upperhand in terms of processing power, but it was only a slight advantage and only enthusiasts really knew this (and only a few enthusiasts where utilising the 64bit capabilities). Had AMD actually pwned Intel the media would've reported "a major reversal in processing power", joe average would've been grunting ATH-LON instead of PEN-TI-UM and we'd see a lot more 64bit applications.
crab.... me thinks this will not sell much...still waiting for K8L.
Yah, it's kindof strange with AMD not getting too much credit in the media Average Joe sees....
I remember (I'm going to say 5 years ago...but maybe more or less) when, say, an AMD 2000+ didn't quite keep up with an Intel chip at 2GHz. Then some time later, AMD got to work, and an AMD processor actually did beat the Intel processor that it's name competed with. But most non-tech folks still saw AMD as more of the "bargain" chips, and Intel as the ones you really want for performance.
Now, with the Core2, it's all about Intel "again," and Average Joe never really saw AMD as much more than a cheaper, lower-performing alternative.
Separate names with a comma.