Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Hardware

AMD Introduces New Opterons 128

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the not-dead-yet dept.
New submitter Lonewolf666 writes "According to SemiAccurate, AMD is introducing new Opterons that are essentially 'Opteron-ized versions of Vishera.' TDPs are lower than in their desktop products, and some of these chips may be interesting for people who want a cool and quiet PC." And on the desktop side, ZDNet reports that AMD will remain committed to the hobbyist market with socketed CPUs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Introduces New Opterons

Comments Filter:
  • Re:AMD SUcks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @01:11PM (#42193171)

    Everyone knows that Intel is better, and competition in the CPU market is not a good thing. I hope AMD goes out of business soon, so that Intel can lower the price of their chips.

    Yea, because usually when a company has no competition they lower prices. Happens all the time.

  • by kwerle (39371) <kurt@CircleW.org> on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @01:16PM (#42193215) Homepage Journal

    Actually, all modern OSs do a fantastic job of taking advantage of multiple cores. It's the apps that fail to do so.

    As for OSs that take advantage of low power CPUs, you only mention MS - who (I suppose) has done a good job of this with Windows RT on the Surface. And maybe even a good job with whatever the hell Windows Phones run. It's just that consumers have not liked the apps. Of course Apple and Google both have solid contenders in the embedded space.

    So, as it always has been: "It's the applications, dummy."

    What are you trying to get at?

  • Re:AMD SUcks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anaerin (905998) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @01:26PM (#42193361)

    ...competition in the CPU market is not a good thing. I hope AMD goes out of business soon, so that Intel can lower the price of their chips.

    What? Competition drives innovation and lowers prices. It happened with AMD's Athlon killing the old Netburst P4s. It happened with x64 killing IA-64. Why would AMD leaving the market "let" Intel lower CPU prices?

    Oh, I'm sorry, you're just a troll, without the possibility of reasonable discourse or fair and reasoned debate. Forgive my oversight.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @01:45PM (#42193609)

    I think he's saying that CPUs bought several years ago are good enough for most people and the need to upgrade hardware every few years is not as pressing as it once was. One way to force this is to bloat software like OS so that you needed new processors.

    This leaves MS in a difficult place as most consumer tend to buy new machines to get new Windows versions instead of upgrading. There are rumors that MS is switching to a yearly release to entice consumers to upgrade. It is nearly the same model that Apple uses.

    A key difference is that while Apple might make some profit on OS upgrades, they make a lot more on hardware. Thus MS is trying to get into the hardware business as well.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @01:58PM (#42193775) Homepage

    Oh I completely dig that idea. If it is of no use to you (ie. you aren't selling it) then you have apparently exhausted its value to you as a business. It is now your responsibility under the contract of copyright, to release it to the public domain. But no. "The value" is maintained by keeping it away from the public in order to ensure that they keep buying the same things over and over and over again. This is a public abuse which could only be enabled by copyright law.

    So copyright went from the right to copy and distribute to the right to take it away from the public and to withhold information, arts and technology.

  • Re:Keep 'em Coming (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corychristison (951993) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @02:50PM (#42194533)

    - Core density
    - Virtualization extension on all Opteron chips (and now most desktop chips, even the A6-4455M in my laptop)

    Not all XEONs have hardware virtualization. Only some of the most expensive chips have it and even then, it can be spotty.

    Bottom line, AMD wins in virtualization/"cloud" market (and supercomputing).

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @09:45PM (#42199333) Journal

    How EXACTLY are they "restricting it artificially" pray tell? If you want an XP license today you can get software assurance, an MSDN, or just buy a retail copy, that is three different ways to get XP right there.

    People simply aren't buying XP because more and more software has skipped Vista and moved straight to Win 7/8 so as XP gets ever longer in the tooth (Good Lord its over a decade old folks, and has patches on top of patches and doesn't even have support for more than 3Gb of RAM) all the remaining XP machines out there are legacy boxes that people for one reason or another have just not decided to upgrade. this is understandable as most people don't want to spend money upgrading some 7 year old PC that requires more expensive parts than a new one, but that isn't any kind of restriction, that's just common sense.

    And if you'll be happy to show us a reliable (IE not a "ZOMFG M$ is gonna kill the servers and burn babies ZOMFG!" blog post) source that has a single quote from MSFT about killing the activation servers? The only quote I've seen from MSFT is a quote saying if they decide to kill the activation servers they will simply point the systems to a page where they can download a simple activation killer, no different than how you can still find the KBs and patches for Win2K at Microsoft, they just don't support it anymore so if you run it you're on your own.

    So I don't see how they can't obtain XP, several ways to buy it and I'd be happy to provide links but I figure most can Google, hell you can even use WSUS Offline and set up your own XP (Or 2K3, or Vista, or 7) Update server and keep installing XP all you want, you just won't be getting support after Apr 2014 which since we are talking about an OS that came out when the average system was a 400Mhz PII with 64Mb of RAM? Really not unreasonable and frankly longer than anybody else out there. Does Apple still support OSX 1? Does Linux still provide patches to Debian 2 or whatever was released in 2001? Nope, so I really don't get why anybody is having a fit over this, hell they gave it twice the lifespan of Win9X and have made 10 years of support standard on ALL of their OSes, not just Pro and Enterprise like before, but even Basic and Home, so I honestly don't see what is up with the teeth gnashing and double standards.

    I mean is anybody REALLY taking that brand new i3 or AMD quad with 4Gb of RAM and slapping XP on it? Because if so they don't need more licenses, they need a cat scan, you are crippling the system with a creaky old OS that was never made to run on the specs we have now and its just nuts. Even the $200 netbooks are several times faster than the workstations were back then, its just pointless to use XP now for anything but legacy apps.

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...