Lost the plot, I don't think so... Been outengineered by rival Intel, no doubt.

Make no mistake about it the AMD64/x86-64 will go down in history as an AMD inspired revolution. The corresponding K8 micro-architecture of cores were an engineering accomplishment worthy of all of the praise and attention AMD garnered.

However, Intel is no fool. With deep pockets and world class engineers, there wasn't a doubt in my mind they would roll over.

The introduction of Core and subsequent Core 2, along with powerful chipsets, Intel demonstrated that they could produce extremely powerful processors that didn't require additional Honda generators and Lockheed wind tunnels to power and cool them.

The Core 2 Quad, only furthers the gap, despite it only being two Core 2 Duo's side by side and not a true quad core design.

AMD's Phenom lineup, the first of their consumer level K10 micro-architecture core redesign, promised a true quad core design and even greater performance.

It delivered, not as much as AMD hoped, but narrowed the gap. Unfortunately, the bigger mistake wasn't realized until later. The current stepping of Phenom (and K10 Opterons [Barcelona Core]) suffer from what is referred to as "TLB Erratum." Without going into details, consider it a very serious hardware bug that occurs under high load.

This issue has killed (in my eyes) much of the great buzz AMD has built around Phenom and Opteron Barcelona.

Even bigger kicker, AMD isn't going to truly fix the issue in hardware until late Q1 2008. The issue is currently being resolved by BIOS fixes which quite literally castrate the processors in order to prevent TLB errata from occurring.

Big booboo, oh yeah.

Moving on.

This will not be the end of AMD. Not even close. They have too much potential. You see, AMD is not just a CPU designer and manufacturer. Yes, most of us know they make flash memory as well... yadayada.

How many know they purchased ATI last year? How many know ATI began making system chipsets in addition to GPU's. How many know AMD is back making chipsets under its own name? (no doubt working with ATI's chipset designers)

AMD has evolved from CPU designer and manufacturer to... wait for it... system integrator. With the ability to design, manufacture, and sell the CPU, GPU, and system chipset, they can now compete directly with Intel in this arena.

Additionally, the AMD ATI marriage invites new interesting ideas. If you haven't heard of AMD Fusion, check it out. CPU & GPU on a single die.

The downfall began with being outengineered by Intel followed by a shot in the foot in the Phenom/Opteron Barcelona launch.

While the next Athlon Thunderbird is something I always look forward to, it is going to be a while.

Down, but not out...

-Weaver

I really can't vote on this, although I will continue to support AMD

I mostly agree with what Weaver said --- but I would note that it's anyone's guess who will win the race to build the first 8-core CPU

In my opinion, whoever wins, it will be two quad cores pasted together and not a true 8-core chip, but while Intel has the superior "pasting" technology, AMD already have the native quad-core technology.

---

Intel's technology is based on the capability to just stick cores together and then resolve issues caused by doing this, opposed to AMD's historic approach of building their multicore CPUs from the ground up.

Whilst AMD ends up with the better basic designs, Intel's current approach is easier, AND it also lets them make more incremental approaches, therefore letting them stay one step ahead, also bearing in mind that they can just pay AMD royalties for the right to use their better designs (such as for the x64 extension of x86).

---

But really, I personally have no idea how this will end in the long term --- especially given the current trend not to focus so much on clock rates, and instead to focus on other design features, such as multi-coring and GPU/CPU integration etc...

It's the old 'leapfrog' analogy, same with GPU's. I can't and won't comment technically but the erratum that Weaver pointed out is a serious bug! AMD can't put out quad cores more than 2.3 GHZ yet. I was going to build a Phenom rig but now I'm not so sure. Look at the news here, AMD is pushing back their release of faster processors, not that I really care too much as they are quads and as such will give me more than I want or ever need. Price will always be the determining factor for me, so I guess it's still AMD, plus the mobos are a lot cheaper too. I don't OC either.

I too am waiting for this bug to be crushed before building my next Phenom rig --- oh, and I'm also waiting for the mid-range mobos to come out

i have never had much faith in AMD, and since they took over ATI i have had less...
however i doubt they have "lost the plot", maybe a race of some sort. and if they would get there heads on straight and learn about cache on a die. however i do like there "true" Quadcore setup, and they have a nice FSB on the chips. but wasn't AMD that said MHz dont matter? so why go for a faster FSB if that really doesn't matter? I understand that whats going to push information through the fastest would be an evenly clocked CPU with a 1/1 ratio on the FSB/Clock speeds. however having the cache to hold all the informatoin before its pumped through is the key. As i see it right now software only works as fast as the hardware lets it, only if the software is programed to use the hardware to its fullest. it goes both ways.

as for the CPU/GPU on one die, how long as AMD been working with GPU's¿
now how long has Intel been working with GPU's¿
from my POV Intel has the uper hand on this one. If they want to get the best out of their chips the maybe they should buy nVidia! i never get issues with my nVidia cars, only ATI. IE last night i tried to play a movie with some custom ATI Drivers and WMP said that the movie would not play because of this. So i went to the nVidia Rig and no problems, even though the drivers on it are custom too...

you know i would not mind buying a Phenom because i would like to give them a shot at redemption, however I dont see any Phenom that has more than 4MB of cache. my current Intel has 12MB cache, thats 8MB more so i will stick with Intel. if AMD put a chip out with even 8MB of cache in the next 6 months then i will consider buying it.

When AMD purchased ATI I pretty much lost faith in them also.