View Full Version : AMD and ATI combining - Please Read PC builders and soon to be builders

06-19-2006, 03:28 AM
Off Topic

I found out that ATI and AMD maybe combining, and if true, AMD will have there own inhouse chipmakers. What does that mean
1. Well Intel won't be so much of a power house.
2. AMD has the Hyper transport support to create better bridges between cpu and core components, and a chipset that means something.
3. AMD and ATI technology is cheap to begin with. And if/when combine, the combination will create a unit that is much cheaper since manufactured inhouse. Remember, amd and ati's technology is cheap but very affective technology.
4. They will finally get rid of them looser third party company chipset makers called VIA.
5. Intel's PhysiX (however you spell it) gpu will not even compare to the new technology of AMD and ATI. Physix gpu does not send it's information back to the cpu for final calculation. So the cpu won't know what to do with the physics math that the gpu processed. And amd knows this. There crossfire technology will get the make-over needed to blow out of the water. So we loose out on the capabilities intel really could have to offer at this moment. But there isn't a game released yet that can handle it anyways.
6. To make AMD on top they must keep NVIDIA in there projects, which will include a mix of one cpu designer, a gpu developer and a chipset system within same company relations.
7. AMD IS CHEAP AND MORE POWERFUL THEN INTEL. There architecture design will improve.

What else does that mean to you. Well I will post word if this offer is completed, and UT2007 will be much more affordable when upgrading. Hopefully it happens before launch.

P.S. I promise to post all my findings to make this legit and not he say she say. But in the mean time, if you have heard about it, then back me up until I post again with website info.T

06-19-2006, 06:00 AM
I wish it was Nvidia and AMD.

I keep hearing that these new Dual cores will put intel a little ahead of AMD for the first time in years,,,,TRUE??????

06-19-2006, 06:29 AM
I don't think so but maybe.[face_alien_2]

06-19-2006, 11:03 AM
I don't wish it was amd and nvidia. NVidia is built for ultimate performance with intel, so amd wouldn't benefit much. Also if they would have teamed up then amd would loose out and NVidia would take over production. Plus amd wallet isn't that big.

Dual Cores will not change the market much. AMD has theres in the works and will be better hands down. I wish you guys would go check out tom's hardware (google it) and see for yourself. Dual Cores only increase the processes within the cpu and not the overall system. For this reason alone intel processors are not worth getting for games. AMD utilizes the system and cpu bus with cHT technology that can process more data (or should i say performs better)between gpu memory and cpu. Also L1 and L2 cache for Intel are not truly internal. They both are connected to a bus that, in turn, is connected to the cpu. That means slower response from DRAM (SRAM for the rich) memory banks and more time retrieving buffer information. Now AMD has their cache located internally within the cpu, so this means smaller access times when retrieving info.

Man if I keep this up you all will be guru's like me.

06-19-2006, 11:30 AM
I wish it was Nvidia and AMD.

I keep hearing that these new Dual cores will put intel a little ahead of AMD for the first time in years,,,,TRUE??????

When it comes to overall performance amd conquers. The dual core is trying to utilize the processing by halving the processes to both cores. In other words, two intel cores equal on amd. Intel's frontside/backside bus combination been around since pic's were invented. (I am not talking about mainframes). AMD grew up.

I wish I can draw a picture of both working when a game is in progress. But i will give an example. Say you have an intel 2.5 ghz process. Same for amd.

Remember that this is only an example but this process is done in a shorter burst meaning it is the same process like switching weapons. Now intel register's (actual brain) are both processing at the same speed as amd. After one play of say, a deathmatch, all calculations will be stored in memory including L1 and L2 (There is an L3 but not used much)RAM then the physical ram then in hard drive virtual pages (this is in the right order). I will not include the video card. That may speak about that later, but this post would be too long if i included it. Anyways, let's reload the map.

The cpu will gather the calculations using the L1's bus. The problem lies there with intel. There L1 cache isn't built within the chip. So that will slow down the process to the speed of throughput for that particular bus. It means no more 2.5 giga hertz. (I will add the number's later if needed.) Now the chip got everything it needs from L1 and needs to go to L2 cache. That L2 cache is further away, so the speed is the same as L1, but has to travel further then L1 cache, which more times then not located twice as far. So twice as long to retrieve information for recalculation. Now l2 info complete. Gonna skip l3 since it is uncommon.

Now it needs to go to ram, this is were it slows down significantly. Ram is within the backside bus, and the bus has to access the system bus which is clocked at the system clock speed. That means that the crystal clock time is the speed that is set for the system bus, and that is always smaller. So no more 2.5, and it will take triple, even quad, time to get that info. That is why video cards were made. To reduce all of this time it takes to process and access information. But intels frontside/backside setup places the video cards on the frontside bus, again, which is the system bus which has a much smaller throughput then the cpu and up to L2 cache.

In conclusion amd has cHT technology. This means l1 cache is internal. All buses run the same throughput keeping within range of 2.5. And video cards are utilizing same bus as cpu creating greater throughput. Updates to follow.

06-20-2006, 02:27 AM
I like Nvidia grfx cards and AMD processors. But if AMD make ATI better then I'm all for this merger.

06-21-2006, 08:36 AM
Yeah I was fully aware of that (pretty much).

I just heard some dooche say that intels new chip will put them back to there former glory and crap, I was just running that one by you to see what you thought.

06-21-2006, 10:56 AM
To honestly speak, yes the dual cores are better. But amd will, if not now, have something on the market that will battle dual core. Actually i may have to do some research, but i do think amd does have a dual core chip. And if not mistaken, their's have better throughput. I am going to read up on it now.

06-21-2006, 11:52 AM
I assumed the newwer AMD-64's were Duals, but who knows.

I just dont uderstand why 64-bit CPU's were coming out without a fully 64-bit OS..???WIERD

If I remeber correctly, the Xbox 360 actually uses an AMD dual core.

06-21-2006, 04:58 PM
Yeah the 64's are dual core's. Also I have the test results. AMD won because of performance per watts. The test went 18 days long (longer then any test ever). But you can find some good info here. Intel wasn't far behind though, and they won in some category's. Well here it is:

So UT fans get ready to make your decision for upgrades now.
note: This article is very long. I would not advice you to read one or two pages. READ IT ALL.

06-21-2006, 09:01 PM
page not found....you'd be a good teacher of A+ dude...LOL

06-22-2006, 02:27 AM
Hey, thanks. A lot of people don't really know what I am capable of, and who I know as well. Some think the stuff I say is bogus. I am not the one to "look into a crystal ball". For those that are one this site, I am not a lil kid. When I was at Fever age I was taking apart pc's. When I turned 14 i was putting them back together. Then went into telecommunications in the military. Now I am creating software. My knowledge shot up from there. Anyways, tom hardware had to "fix" some things about there article. But nevertheless it is here:


06-22-2006, 06:23 AM
Due I can vouche for your knowledge, Ijust took A+ class, and you know ur **** dude.

06-22-2006, 06:19 PM
This stuff is all way-above my head, but I try and soak in as much knowledge as I'm able to. So, what exactly is running inside the 360's again?

06-22-2006, 06:20 PM
I belive an AMD Dual core at like 2.? GHZ.....

06-24-2006, 04:52 AM
Ahh, cool. It's too difficult to keep track of all this tech jargon.

06-24-2006, 07:13 AM

I must admit, Venom knows some sheot dude, he's a bastard...LOL

HE kinda got me there a little too dude.

06-24-2006, 05:16 PM

I must admit, Venom knows some sheot dude, he's a bastard...LOL

HE kinda got me there a little too dude.

Taken as a compliment. I was also reading over some of my posts and I caught some errors. Maybe at this time it isn't worth mentioning, but I will just so I don't stand corrected. LOL. Anyways RAM for Intel is on the frontside bus, and video cards weren't only invented to decrease time accessing information from on place to another. It was also invented to take some load off the cpu.

Anyways I appreciate your acknowledgement shred. I am going to find out all the specs in a 360. I would do the same for nintendo and playstation 3, but maybe none want to hear it. But p3 is having its own version of ut2007 so i may post.

06-24-2006, 06:08 PM
Well they got theat Cell processor, which is a freakin multi-core I think...