AMD Plans Simultaneous Desktop and Mobile Chip Releases

wh173b0y writes "Tom's Hardware reports that AMD is planning to release both it's dual-core desktop and mobile chips at the same time. This news comes after AMD, who have been fairly quiet since the release of the Athlon FX-55, came up shorter than intel on the release dates for it's dual-core processors. Intel on the other hand has been busy planning more than a dozen different chips to release as well as pressing its software designers to embrace its 64-bit architecture."

Comments

It is good we still have competition

[Husgaard]

It drives the market forward, forcing all parties to innovate.

But take a moment to think about the current software patent madness, and what would have happened if this had been the case with semiconductor patents in 1980. In this scenario we would be lucky if Intel announced that the 486 would hit the market next year.

If a company has a monopoly there is no incentive to innovate. Patents are monopolies, but they have to be balanced so the incentive to innovate is not taken away.

Re:It is good we still have competition

[qbwiz]

As far as I am aware, there's a patent minefield around these types of chips. The reason we have chips as advanced as they are is cross-licensing between Intel, Cyrix, and AMD, because all three (or AMD and Intel, at least) have important patents.

Correction

[leathered]

"..as well as pressing its software designers to embrace its 64-bit architecture."

Should read 'embrace AMD's architecture'.

Two questions:

[MacGabhain]

When is the last time Intel met a release schedule?

When is the last time Intel failed to abandon at least a fourth of their in-development product line?

Intel anouncing a dozen different dual-core processors for a range of machines is a joke, and frankly isn't even very good hype. Even if I believed it, I wouldn't be impressed. You don't NEED 12 different lines. Make 5 and make them right: 1) Super low power notebook; 2) performance notebook; 3) main-stream desktop; 4) enthusiast-gamer desktop; 5) Hardcore teraflops. (Oh wait... this is Intel. Better skip that last one. They're not exactly known for putting their effort into general-purpose FPUs.)

Re:Two questions:

[MacGabhain]

Sure. And I can order the 2.6GHz Opteron that tests out about the same there for $850 (It's the 252 in the test system). Best price I can find for an Itanium 2 1.5GHz is $6500. Yes, that's the CPU price.

So, yeh, as long as you don't mind spending 7 times as much, you can get the FPU performance out of Intel.

Re:Catch-22

[Grey Ninja]

I think in this case, it's much like 64-bit. If you build it, they will come. High end performance freaks like to have stuff like that. You can run Winamp and a game at the same time, or who knows what. It's not REALLY useful, but it's useful enough that people want it. As CPU manufacturers start to build them, a market will generate. As that happens, devs will begin to support the new market.

Re:Eff pee?

[Eric Smith]

I'd like to see a product that's a floor was AND a dessert topping. But it's only gonna happen on SNL.

There are much different tradeoffs that have to be made in chip design for low power vs. high performance.

Intel Recovers Fast

[ackthpt]

Intel, which shrugged off the idea of 64 CPU's a couple years ago, as something people didn't need, has made up for this gaffe and is not only getting ready to sell their dual core line, but have already indicated the run of the Pentium IV is soon to be over.

Next thing you'll hear from Santa Clara, 'why, we practically invented it!'

So what kind of Las Vegas act will they enlist to push dual core? Probably twins or something, as Sigfried and Roy are shutdown.

Re:Maybe it's just me...

[Che Guevarra]

The difference is that each brand of detergent is not stamped Proctor and Gamble (atleast not overtly). Most people have no idea that every single detergent on the shelf at the grocery store is made by the same company. Proctor and Gamble uses this very expensive strategy to insulate each brand from negative consumer perceptions AND to eat up shelf space ANONYMOUSLY. Does AMD plan to place their name on both chips? If so, the Detergent analogy does not apply. Sorry to be a punk, I'm taking a marketing class this semester.

Eh... not really a big deal

[doormat]

Since its just AMD's desktop-replacement line of chips, its the same thing as if Intel putting Pentium Ds in DTR laptops. Besides, Tom's Hardware is the Fox News of tech news, heavily intel/nvidia biased.

Coming from a gamer

[cr0y]

A highend mobile chip would be awesome, I would happily toss the extra money for a desktop replacement if it ran the games just as well as my current desktop, (which shouldnt be hard, A64 3000+, 1024,R9800Pro)

I have been waiting for an athlon 64 notebook with a mobile radeon x800 for months...anyone know when this thing is due for release?

Intel Roadmap?

[Anonymous Coward]

While it seems nice that Intel has tried to pass off AMD's 64-bit solution as theirs and tried to pass of the idea of dual-cores as theirs, it seems clear that one of these companies is executing its roadmap and one is trying not to get runover by the competition.

I still see clear technical advantages due to foresight in AMD's architecture (NUMA, Hypertransport) that support their dual-core designs. I see no such a roadmap/foresight from Intel. How do they plan on getting data to these dual-core Xeons fast enought so that their buses are not the bottleneck?

Re:So BRING IT ALREADY!

[kisanth88]

Sig of above:

"Windows XP Uptime: 11months 2days 17hrs 41mins 37secs"

Dude, you are missing like..... a billion patches.

Security > Uptime.

Sheesh

-Kisanth

Re:Not quite Intel is selling more 64bit chips

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Intel has 80% of the market share

Yeah but a few years ago, Intel had over 90% marketshare. AMD has come a long way. People used to give me strange looks when I told them I preferred AMD over Intel (this was in the Super Socket 7 days, when AMD had PC-100 and Intel was still using PC-66).

There's nothing wrong with Intel products (FDIV jokes aside), they make solid chips that perform decently. But the price/performance award goes to AMD hands down, and has for some time.