Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Dual-core Athlon 64 X2 reviewed
ChocolateJesus writes "Weeks after formally announcing its dual-core Athlon X2 desktop processor, reviews are finally trickling out. The Tech Report's coverage tests two flavors of the Athlon 64 X2 against a whopping 17 competitors, including AMD and Intel's fastest single- and dual-core offerings. They've even thrown in a handful of dual-processor systems (and dual-core, dual-processor systems) for good measure. Testing focuses on multi-threaded applications, and the X2s deliver remarkable performance. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that unlike Intel's dual-core Pentiums, AMD's X2s consume no more power than single-core chips." Looks like this story has come out of embargo - if you've find more reviews, post them in comments.
For Intel, your argument definitely holds water. Their whole business plan has been based off of their vast number of production plants and relatively cheap process of putting hordes of chips on the market... hopefully making the chips pervasive enough to strike a profit level in the end (more like early mid-life with their price schemes though). It is only after a processor has been found tried and true that Intel migrates it to server land.
AMD on the other hand has always started out chips on the enthusiast / enterprise market because they simply don't have the fabrication capacity that Intel does. Thus they market first for the high end users and over time the processors find their way into the desktop market when they've been dated by yet another new, improved processor being marketed at the first group. Their whole revenue plan is based off of the 'rich' people niche (which includes many medium to large businesses). Based on their success, I'd say that they've done really well with this business model and continuing to do so would likely continue to work for them.
The common misnomer that is latched onto with many processor reviews nowadays is that both AMD and Intel are prodcing processors for the desktop platform, when in reality their business goals for their processors are on opposite spectrums. Intel starts desktop side, AMD starts server side. It is only after both have matured to some degree (and software caught up to both of them) that the processors can be meaningfully compared for the average joe user that just bought a new computer (or had one built for him).
Most people who go crazy over these new technologies are either wanting it for pure bragging rights, or simply aren't aware of how little it will actually do for them... or both in all liklihood.
You are right that the market for dual core processors for home users is really not there, but it could be. Think of the BeBox/BeOS, It was a system that was designed for dual core processors and all applications compiled for BeOS automatically benefited from it. What is missing in the x86 world for home users is such an OS. I believe that Intel/AMD are well aware of this, and this belief leads me to the conclusion that they are not really pumping out such systems for the average home users, it is more for businesses. Internet/Enterprise servers will definitely benefit more from it.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
My mind is boggled by questions like this. Are there really people out there who still use their computers for just one thing at a time?
The machine I'm typing this on (just a simple diskless workstation) currently has 75 different processes running. The server it's connected to has 145. With a dual core processor in either of them, the number of processes able to run simultaneously would be increased by 100%.
The idea of running just one application on your box went out more than 10 years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.
(If nothing else, all those blasted Flash animations can run without chewing up CPU cycles I would rather use for something else.)
John
You would expect to see less than 100% increase in the case of a dual core CPU due like the shared components which are not replicated:
- The X2 chips still have a single, 128-bit wide memory controller. Since the memory controller charges/discharges external bit lines going to DIMMs, they do burn quite a bit of power. This power consumption is not duplicated in the case of a dual core CPU.
- The X2 chips still have a single HyperTransport bus. The power consumption of this bus is the approximately the same between a dual core and single core CPU.
However, power scaling due to these shared components would probably not explain how a dual core chip can burn only 20% more power. For both of the above cases, you could argue that one should expect to see higher utilization of the memory bus and the HyperTransport bus, so the exact power consumption contribution is not entirely clear.
One thing to note that, AMD Athlon 64 cores tend to burn much less power in idle state compared to Intel chips. This is probably due to choices AMD made both in architecture and process. So the fundemantal reason why AMD X2 chips have such minimal incremental power consumption over single core chips is that one of the cores is typically underutilized most of the time and therefore burns much less power.