Slashdot Mirror


AMD Hits Milestone in Server Market

DontClickHere writes "According to data from Mercury Research, AMD has finally cracked the 10% mark in x86 instruction set server CPUs. AMD's Chairman had hoped that their server sales would hit 10% at the end of 2004, but they had only reached 5.7%. Some of this gain can be attributed to AMD's introduction of dual core chips in April this year. With Intel only due to ship dual core chips for low end servers later this year, AMD has been handed a golden opportunity to take a larger share in the server market."

215 comments

  1. Who's gonna pay by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Redundant

    AMD hits milestone and cracks the 10% mark: who's gonna pay for the damage, hmm?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  2. Main Reason by dsginter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip. Yes, I understand that it is mainly marketing but the Athlon 64s are hot sellers. They need to crack Dell now.

    --
    More
    1. Re:Main Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They need to crack Dell now.


      Indeed...
    2. Re:Main Reason by yorugua · · Score: 1

      Well, they already have IBM making some AMD64 servers ( http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/C ategoryDisplay?categoryId=2590406&storeId=1&catalo gId=-840&langId=-1 ). I can only hope IBM (don't know about others) had a broader line of AMD 64 based servers, but this is certainly a start.

    3. Re:Main Reason by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not anymore. Intel sells the Pentium D now, which is a dual core Pentium 4. The cheapest model (the Pentium D 820 with 2.8 GHz) is available at Alternate.de for 279 Euros.
      One might suspect Intel of dumping prices here, but it cannot be denied that this is an attractive offer.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    4. Re:Main Reason by Erwos · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip."

      This is just plain wrong. Intel's 6XX series of Pentium4's has the EMT64 (aka, AMD64) instructions as well. Both AMD and Intel are selling 64-bit CPUs now.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    5. Re:Main Reason by Shads · · Score: 1

      ... and that's the main reason the OP said that amd needs to crack dell now. :P

      --
      Shadus
    6. Re:Main Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is talking about the server market not the consumer desktop market. The server market uses Opteron chips. All Xeon chips are 64-bit now but AMD had a head start in the market. I think some people are finally coming around after finally being able to compare apples to apples for 64-bit server cpus.

    7. Re:Main Reason by /ASCII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I seriously doubt that the reason for AMDs sucess in the _server_ market is their 64-bit _consumer_ chips. As to whether the G5 and the 64-bit Pentium 4 are consumer chips or not, that distinction is pretty arbitrary, but since the 64-bit G5 can be found in the $1299 iMacs, I don't think you have a very strong case.

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    8. Re:Main Reason by fshalor · · Score: 4, Informative

      And HP.... hehe

      I'm actually an all AMD shop, except for a few workstations. The only intel machines in the institute are PIII 700's and 900's from before my time there and a set of 6 Dell Precicions 650's (running Debian.). (Which were also the fastest machines in the place 3 years ago when I started.)

      Servers are all AMD MP's with a few AMD opterons rouding out the bunch. Workstations are dual MP's. Desktops are mostly Duron's through XP's .

      Just bought a few 1u tyan machines. (amd opterons) and planning on building up a cluster in a few weeks with about 30 more.

      AMD has won on the campus scene at least.

      Oh, and the desktop machines in my house are all AMD except for a crappy compaq that my bro bought and an iBook g3.

      Kind of funny. Can't believe they only have 10% right now. But it happens I guess. ;)

      Best,

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    9. Re:Main Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      emt64 is based on itanium which is a server only situation due to the extreme heat they output.

      for consumers, AMD is the only option, as it is compatible with x86 too.

    10. Re:Main Reason by magarity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Intel sells the Pentium D now, which is a dual core Pentium 4
       
      But Pentium D doesn't have "Xeon" in the name so it obviously isn't for servers. Intel should know better. AMD was wise enough to come up with a new name for their chip to indicate that it was appropriate for use in servers. That's why they're taking Intel market share.

    11. Re:Main Reason by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      EM64T is based on AMD64, EPIC is based on Itanium. Why do people still get this wrong? EPIC is not a backwards compatible instruction set.
      The difference is, intel's memory addressing on EM64T is weak by comparison (which has nothing to do with on die memory controllers)

    12. Re:Main Reason by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      IIRC, they don't have the fab capacity to take on more of the market (yet).

    13. Re:Main Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip. Yes, I understand that it is mainly marketing but the Athlon 64s are hot sellers.

      Your comment directly contradicts the summary of the article, they are talking about server market share, not consumer. And no, the athlon 64s aren't going in any servers either, so your post is absolutely worthless for this conversation

    14. Re:Main Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The main reason is that they sell the only 64-bit consumer chip.


      You need to rephrase that. It should be:

      The main reason is that they sell the only intel compatible 64-bit consumer chip.

      There are plenty of 64 bit chips on the market:
      Sparc
      Dell
      PPC
      MIPS
      etc...
    15. Re:Main Reason by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      AMD doesn't need fab capacity. They don't own their fabs. If they need more capacity, they'll just rent it out. It's what they do.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:Main Reason by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have any numbers on their production capacity. Hard numbers are
      prefered, but even relative numbers (vs intel's capactity) would be fine.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    17. Re:Main Reason by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I think to be called a consumer chip, someone has to run out and buy it first. :P

      *SJ Zero looks at the ocean of macs before him

      --
      It's been a long time.
    18. Re:Main Reason by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1
      AMD does have their own fabs.
      http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD /0,,51_52_9999,00.html

      From that page on AMD's website...

      AMD maintains world-class manufacturing facilities (known as "fabs") across North America, Europe, and Asia. In every AMD facility, we use advanced decision-making and control technologies to optimize, integrate, and automate material processing at nearly every stage in the manufacturing process.


      Minus the managerese, basically says they run every aspect of manufacturing. Now, I am unaware whether they do any outsourcing for additional fab capacity but they do run their own fabs.
    19. Re:Main Reason by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      no, they were smart enough to come out with dual core opterons first. (which support multiprocessors, ECC memory, and up to 8 gb of ram per processor) They came out with the Athlon 64 X2 a few months later. Intel has only come out with the Pentium D, which has no multiprocessor support and no support for registered or ECC memory.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    20. Re:Main Reason by laffer1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it depends who you ask if AMD has won on the campus scene. I agree they have some great products, but how many large institutions actualy buy AMD? I think most companies and universities buy from large vendors like Dell, IBM, and HP/Compaq who mostly sell Intel based systems. In fact, most computers at my university are Dells. All dells are intel based... the remaining machines are HP/Compaq systems in a few labs or Macs. Thats why they only have 10%. On the server front, most machines are Sun sparc or Dell. There's a few legacy DEC boxes too.

      To me, the best server offering for AMD systems is the Sun machines. I'd like to see more variety and price/feature ratio in the AMD server lineup. I know you can build servers, but i'm not in favor of that. When I think servers, i look at sun, dell, ibm, hp and apple.

    21. Re:Main Reason by lazn · · Score: 1
      So I guess these don't exist then?

      ==>Lazn

    22. Re:Main Reason by oconnorcjo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But Pentium D doesn't have "Xeon" in the name so it obviously isn't for servers. Intel should know better. AMD was wise enough to come up with a new name for their chip to indicate that it was appropriate for use in servers.

      The problem with InTel is that they are in a dilemna. They don't want x86-64 to take off because it was 1. AMD's idea and 2. Intel spent a fortune on the Itanic and were hoping to nudge out the competition (due to the fact that they patented the Itanium's instruction set). Intel knows that they have to sell x86-64 chips or let AMD run away uncontested but on the other hand they are not going to advertise that. Intel is in a terrible quandry. If they ever heavily endorse the x86-64 then that gives AMD a lot of credibilty and credit for being the leader and if x86-64 takes off big (as it seems it will) then Intel had better have a product to sell. This causes Intel to create these chips but intentionally obscuring the product line. They don't want to push this kind of chip. Intel would be estatic if x86-64 turned out to be a bust.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    23. Re:Main Reason by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      AMD doesn't need fab capacity. They don't own their fabs. If they need more capacity, they'll just rent it out. It's what they do.

      AMD has many fabs. You must be thinking of VIA/Cyrix who, as I recall, contract National Semiconductor fabs to produce their x86 compatible CPUs because they don't have a cross licensing agreement with Intel. Much to Intel's displeasure, their cross licensing with National allows National to produce x86 CPUs under contract for third parties.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    24. Re:Main Reason by fshalor · · Score: 1

      Most of the sysadmins on this campus hate dell with a passion.

      I've had to return at least once (sometimes more than 4 times) every single dell laptop I've bought within the first 3 months.

      The precision 650's are fine, but I choose them very carefully.

      And I can get a local place to build up better servers for less money and they get replacement parts to me the same day.

      But you're right. The two things that matter to me have been cost (lowest stable option) and perforance ratios.

      But you're right, also. There's not a really good 1u amd middle road option right now. Which means most of the rackable big guys (web hosting stuff, game servers, etc.) are getting p4's and middle end xeons.

      I can't buy sun if it means taking out the local guy. I am considering buying HP opterons. I'll not buy another dell. (The Precision 650's, although very good, came broken and unusable from dell. :( )

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    25. Re:Main Reason by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Actually I think VIA used TSMC plants. Cyrix was a very old company which held certain patents which might be a thorn if Intel decided to go against them for making a clone CPU with the same ISA.

      Because TSMC had certain manufacturing issues IIRC they switched to IBM for the manufacturing for a time. Not sure where they fab them now.

    26. Re:Main Reason by freidog · · Score: 1

      Which is why Nocona core Xeons are selling with EM64T technology and not AMD64/x86-64... Even though aside from a few very minor changes AMD make to x86-64 after initial publication the two are identical.
      Intel can and will see an x86-64 chip without so much as acknowledging the existance of AMD64, in fact they've been doing it for more than a year.

      Though I don't know what's more embarassing for Intel right now, that AMD with really no share in the server market 3 years ago got to dictate what instruction set is (probably) going to be the standard for x86 servers nor,
      or that Intel is still acting like that's not what's happening.

    27. Re:Main Reason by Mika24 · · Score: 1

      AMD cracks dell they will have 50% of my servers

      --
      http://www.npcgaming.com Dedicated Gaming Servers
    28. Re:Main Reason by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not sure why I thought AMD was fabless. I must have been thinking of one of the graphics chip companies or something.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    29. Re:Main Reason by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      They're on IBM for the C7 (their new CPU) due to (from what I've heard) a superior 90nm process.

      National Semiconductor used to own Cyrix, after all... IDT used to own Centaur, the group that designed the WinChip, VIA C3, and VIA C7.

    30. Re:Main Reason by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Both ATI and nVidia are fabless, IIRC.

      I think they both use TSMC and UMC... (I KNOW at least ATI uses TSMC...)

  3. Amd more innovative by germanStefan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't boughten an INtel chip for myself for quite a while. Originally I wanted to support the underdog, but now (without my youthful activism) I just think they create more innovative and better products. I just ordered the pieces to build a server for my company and got AMD64 chip, not an Intel.

    1. Re:Amd more innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last Intel I bought was a P5-200, in late 1995 I believe. Oh, I guess a P6-400 Dell laptop. Since then, all AMD.

      What I never liked about AMD is that they really don't innovate. Its hard to find anything excitingly new in their processors because they follow the blazen trail. That's not to say they don't make great chips, but they're just making applying new techniques to proven ideas. The interesting things they have done, such as HyperTransport and the on-chip memory controller, are actually derived from DEC. AMD64 is a good instruction set, but I wouldn't call it anything exciting.

      Intel has screwed up and are recoving. They let x86 rott by putting all their resources into Itanium. The P4 has a lot of unique twists to processor design, even if it has numerous flaws. The P-M has some cool improvements to the P6 micro-architecture, and I'm excited to see what Intel's next generation architecture will be. The good thing about Intel is they always make new and creative designs. Its just been for quite a while, they haven't been the smart buy.

      I'm really hoping AMD's next architecture will be novel. They've finally got the engineering talent to do it.

    2. Re:Amd more innovative by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Crack pipe much? They do not innovate? O...K there buddy. How about Hypertransport instead of an aging front side bus that intel uses
      (DEC is dead, many engineers from them are working with AMD, and Hypertransport is not a DEC technology, there is an HPT consortium from way back when it was called Lightning Data Transport LDT)? How about directly connected CPUs vs intel's that need to communicate over the FSB? How about SOI before intel? How about on die memory controllers? They have been around on other CPUs before, but again, DEC is DEAD and this is a totally different arena. If 64bit extensions to the most popular instruction set in use right now doesn't excite you, perhaps you should rethink your geek status

    3. Re:Amd more innovative by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      It was a inovative decision in terms of market strategy. But in terms of pure technology, there's nothing new about it.
      Actually, we'll never see much inovation in the interconnect of mass market CPUs because it's not limited by what Intel or AMD can think of and put in a chip. It's limited by how much it costs to them and specially to the technologicaly much less capable companies that build chipsets and motherbeads.

    4. Re:Amd more innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My impression from reading news articles was that LDT came from DEC, and was matured at AMD. However I might be wrong, since its hard for me to find anything on LDT anymore. I would agree a NUMA design is far better than a shared bus like Intel uses, which I really wish they'd finally drop. A shared bus makes perfect sense in terms of cost, but those days are over and its even used on Itanium. Just ridiculous.

      I agree that x86-64 is great, I just upgraded and am running a 64-bit OS. However instruction sets are pretty easy to design and they using the same underlying hardware (like SSE) to perform the operations. Nothing new that I could tell.

      What AMD has done wonderfully is to take proven ideas and bring them to users. I believe HyperTransport is freely licensed, so that's helped find its way into non-AMD devices. The other major highlights of AMD's chips weren't first commercially done by AMD, nor had they contributed any significant R&D towards those inventions.

      Many of the Athlon architectural revisions, especially the early ones, seemed to revolve around implementing better branch predictors or other core logic. I can tell you, implementing high-speed arithmetic is a pain and some are really cool designs (such as prefix adders). When the P4 came out we heard about Intel's innovations in its arithmetic unit and trace catch. These were new inventions on tough problems, not just implementations of known algorithms. That's what I mean by AMD lacking innovation.

    5. Re:Amd more innovative by nganju · · Score: 1


      Supporting the underdog is more than just a moral victory. It shows the current monopoly owner that they have to remain competitive with their products and prices, and so in the end it benefits the consumer.

      --
      There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
    6. Re:Amd more innovative by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      IIRC LDT (now known as HyperTransport) came from API (Alpha Processor Incorporated) and was supposed to be shared with AMD. API was a DEC Alpha licensee, not DEC. AFAIK Alpha never used LDT and APIs team was bought by AMD after the Alpha debacle.

      As for the P4s innovation in arithmetic logic (double-speed arithmetic units), it proved to be so good that the P4s successor will not seemingly have that wonderful *ahem* innovation. It probably makes the CPU too hot.

      Trace caches are interesting. But you have to see that the Athlon actually uses a pretty good scheme of its own with pre-decode bits. It is not your dads P6 that is for sure. As for P6, while wonderful in its day, it borrowed extensively from ideas which were shown in Cyrix processors first (i.e. X86 executed on a RISCy backend). Sure it improved upon them, but wholly original it was not.

    7. Re:Amd more innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, thanks for clearing that up about LDT. According to the late Shannon (... knows Compaq) API was a joint venture by Compaq and Samsung. That's probably why I got confused.

      Well, the arithmetic logic would definately be too hot, Intel engineers didn't expect power to be such a limiting factor, but they simply can't get a handle on the current leakage. I'm sure they'll go back to a modified hybrid adder.

      I didn't realize Cyrix did it first, I had always heard people claim AMD had (I think with the K5). I do believe that Cyrix made an out-of-order processor before Intel, although I'm not quite sure.

    8. Re:Amd more innovative by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I always thought NexGen did it first with the Nx586...

      (FWIW, the Nx686 improved on the already good int performance, and had a passable FPU (versus either no FPU or a bad one in the Nx586). However, AMD bought NexGen out before the Nx686 was released. The good news is that AMD took the Nx686, put it in a Socket 7 package, and called it the AMD K6.)

  4. Re:Obligatory. by m3rajk · · Score: 2, Informative

    not suprising, AMD has been making products that have better quality than Intel since th eAthlon was first launched. The fact I work in a place where 75% are ex-DEC hardware engineers and found out that three fourths of the alpha processor people left before Intel got their hands on that, combined witht he fact half odf them went to AMD and the fact I know someintel people and know that the Xenon is the ONLY chip to have ANY alpha technology integrated says a lot. AMD has been making AMAZING strides in graphics ability. Alpha basically handled ALL Intel x86 and apple stuff better than both of those, was the frist TRUE 64 bit chip. even now intel Itanium is a massive change fromtheir standard, and wwas released AFTER the AMD 64 bit. it's only a matter of time until AMD starts seeing their marketshare increase as the general populace starts to realize that Intel HAS ALREADY become the dinosaur that DEC was.

  5. Good guy streak? by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow - AMD gets 10% market penetration for servers.

    With good news like this, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Firefox reaching 75 million downloads were to happen! I hope I see a Slashdot story on that soon.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Good guy streak? by ceeam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wait till a new /. editor takes the shift and you probably will see it!

    2. Re:Good guy streak? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      With good news like this, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Firefox reaching 75 million downloads were to happen! I hope I see a Slashdot story on that soon.

            And you just know they are going to tie all of this in with google somehow...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Good guy streak? by jsight · · Score: 1

      And you just know they are going to tie all of this in with google somehow...


      Well, Google does buy a _lot_ of servers... :)

      (ok, for the pedantic, I know they are probably still all Xeons)
    4. Re:Good guy streak? by ms1234 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. the dupe will soon be posted.

    5. Re:Good guy streak? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      you reminded me of an old joke..

      "I used to hate computers, then a Server went down on me"

      10% market penetrations is good, looks like they're able to fill enough orders with the new dresden fab.

      Still, I think Intel must have finally gotten the hands of the marketing department off the reigns of the chip designers. So they're sure to start making some better chips here soon. The damage has been done though, AMD's got more fabs in planning to be built, and assuming the talent they have keeps working on making better chips, even if intel 'catches up' enough people will be satisfied with AMD to keep buying them, especially since the new version of windows is designed around the amd64 instructions, and while intel supports them now, the amd 64's will run the 'new' 64 bit code better.

    6. Re:Good guy streak? by infinityxi · · Score: 0

      Don't worry if you missed it, you'll catch it on the dupe.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    7. Re:Good guy streak? by Solosoft · · Score: 1

      Actually to bust your bubble google doesn't buy "xeon" or any of those fancy dancy servers. They buy cheap residenal boxes and rely on redundancy. I remember seeing some google video with that. They blow way too many servers a day. But it's simply cheaper to replace the cheap servers then it is to buy a new super power ultra server.

      Wikipedia Article on Google

      Ah ... and some googling lets me find the cool little program telling you more how google works.

      The Video

      Hopefully ive been some help :)

    8. Re:Good guy streak? by anhdres · · Score: 1

      A /. title for that article would be in the lines of "Will Google lauch their own FF browser only to 64 bits processors?" ...of course, this posted as NEWS. :)

  6. Hi my name is Michael Dell.. by speights_pride! · · Score: 1

    ...where can I buy 64 bit processors?

    1. Re:Hi my name is Michael Dell.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about here:

      www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-III/index.xml

      In a world where Microsoft uses PowerPC and Apple x86 anything is possible.

    2. Re:Hi my name is Michael Dell.. by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      India. That's where the rest of your company is.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    3. Re:Hi my name is Michael Dell.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could try Apple - I hear they have them for a limited time these days ...

  7. Laptops? by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I applaud them for their server sales, but I hope that they will soon develop a power efficient chip for laptops. At the moment they have nothing that can compete with Intel's M chips. Do they have plans to compete with Intel for this market or are they happy to stay in the server market?

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Laptops? by RockModeNick · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pentium M's are good because they are primarily based on P3 technology, not P4 - the P4 architechture delivers signifcantly less bang per mhz, and thus far the increased top clocks of the P4's are not keeping ahead in actual performance the way they were expected to.

    2. Re:Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      P4 is not the problem for AMD, the P-M is, and they need to be able to compete on mobile chips with Intel. Not only does AMDs offering need to be good, it needs to be much better than intel's and must be cheaper too or few laptop makers will switch.

      AMD is gaining ground on Desktop and Server CPUs because their products are much better AND cheaper.

      Intel doesn't need to be the best, they just need to be good enough to keep AMD out.

    3. Re:Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acutally, AMD Turion 64 is a CPU for laptops. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInforma tion/0,,30_118_12651,00.html/

      Its power consumption is much lower than previous AMD CPU, but it may not as low as Intel ones.

    4. Re:Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think the OP was arguing that the Pentium 4 was more efficient than Athlon products, but he is still stating a valid point, that with notebook sales now outpacing desktop sales, if AMD wants to compete for the normal users, they need to release a low-energy, high-performance laptop chip. Their current entrance into the market with the Turion 64-bit processor is cheap, but is outperformed in power consumption and computing power by the Pentium M.

    5. Re:Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Turion? As in the HP Special Edition L2000 (go Lance!)

    6. Re:Laptops? by stinerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed.

      I'm nearly an AMD fanboy, but I would have a hard time buying a notebook with their mobile processors in it. I think Via might have a good chance at cracking the notebook market with their new C7-M chip. Its max power output is 20W, while its idle output is only 100mW.

    7. Re:Laptops? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the Mobile Athlon XP-M? If you're looking for better performance, you need a desktop replacement chip anyway.

    8. Re:Laptops? by wild_berry · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think you're up to date. The Athlon 64's have been trimmed down for notebook use, called Turion , and they have two performance envelopes, one at 35 watts and another at 25 watts typical power consumption. The present range is explained here.

    9. Re:Laptops? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think what you are looking for is the AMD Turion?

      My impression is that Turion os a comparable AMD alternative.

    10. Re:Laptops? by creeront · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Pentium M's are good because they are primarily based on P3 technology, not P4..." Pentium M's are based off of Pentium Pro Technology, arguably the best chip Intel has ever produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

    11. Re:Laptops? by Nuffsaid · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see a big marketing debacle by AMD, if even part of a supposedly technical oriented public like the Slashdot crowd never heard about the Turion 64 processor! Its power consumption goes as low as 27W, with performance slightly better than Pentium M on a clock-by-clock basis. You can already buy some laptops, and the reviews are good so far.

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    12. Re:Laptops? by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      The Pentium 3 is based on the Pentium Pro. It would be arguable that the Pentium M more closely resembles the changes made to the P6 core (which the P Pro, P2, 2nd gen celeron, and P3 were based on) from the latest generation rather than a decade old design

    13. Re:Laptops? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      If I recall, pentium pro was adapted to P3 which was adapted to Pentium M...

    14. Re:Laptops? by Ibn+al+Arabi · · Score: 0

      AMD has the memory controller on the CPU as well, while Intel needs to waste a few watts powering their northbridge in addition to the CPU. This puts the Turion 'T' varients (25 watts) in the same ballpark as the high speed Pentium M parts (27 watts plus the northbridge). They are both great CPUs, unlike all that desktop cludge Intel is selling.

    15. Re:Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pentium Pro + MMX = Pentium II
      Pentium II + SSE = Pentium III

      Intel agrees that the PPro line was best, which is why they stuck with it (until the P4).

    16. Re:Laptops? by Solosoft · · Score: 1

      I am not really a big fan of the pentium pro. It is an amazing chip but man it runs hot.

      I have a Dual Pentium Pro sitting beside my desk and this thing puts off more heat then my Athlon64 3000+. I had to take off the stock fans (because they melted) and put on 2 Vantec 5000RPM duron fans. Now the thing is extreamly noisey and hot :( . The Pentium Pro is an awsome chip just it runs too frickin hot. (btw, if you stop the fans with your finger and put a laser sensor on the heatsink, within 5 seconds it will hit 80c. Once it hits a little over 80c the chip crashes. Im not sure if it's a hardware crash (because of the heat) or the chip shuts it's self off. If you know anything more about this chip please tell :).

    17. Re:Laptops? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons many laptop makers use intel is that intel not longer sells you a cpu - it sells you a "platform", ie: audio, graphic chip, wireless, usb, main chipset, etc etc etc in one pack, and for few money.

      for pcs the problem is not so big but laptops are a different world, laptop makers *love* the "platform" concept intel sells. AMD can't compete there. Actually, Intel is trying to take this approach to pcs - it's one of the reasons apple switched to apple too.

    18. Re:Laptops? by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "I hope that they will soon develop a power efficient chip for laptops."

      http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/notebooks/0, 39001748,39242904-2,00.htm

      BAPCo MobileMark2002 battery life (in minutes)
      P-M 2.0GHz: 203
      Turion64 2.0GHz: 197

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    19. Re:Laptops? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Ohh I thought apple had always been an apple...

    20. Re:Laptops? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Good to see the power consumption gap has narrowed so much, now they just need to narrow the price gap, the Turion is about twice the price.

    21. Re:Laptops? by cjsm · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not surprised. Because I've often been surprised about how uninformed some slashdotters seem to be about the computer tech world. Not knowing about the Turion is no worse then some still thinking Athlons run hot (the heat situation was significantly improved with the Athlon XP over the original Athlon, and took a giant improvement with the Athlon 64 and SOI. Also, Athlons don't burn up up if the heatsink falls off. The chips shut down, ever since the Athlon XP (though it took a while for the motherboards to catch up.) I know this works because I put on my heatsink backwards on an Athlon XP, and it gave me a warning beep and shutdown, several times in row, before I realized the problem. But I still see comments complaining about this in various tech forums from time to time, including slashdot.

          Well, I guess not everyone follows x86 news as closely as I do.

      Hey, Athlons don't run hotter then hell anymore, that was fixed years ago.

      --
      This ad space for rent.
    22. Re:Laptops? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I wish AMD would actually stay in the chipset business for more than just the first few months of a processor's production...

    23. Re:Laptops? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Put some AS5 between the HS and CPU. That should help...

      Granted, it is on a 350-nano process, so it shouldn't run INCREDIBLY hot...

      Also, IIRC, chips before the P3 don't thermally trip. I COULD be wrong on that, though...

    24. Re:Laptops? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And, they're now claiming that they're 90% of the speed of a P-M. Not bad for the little Centaur that could if it's true....

  8. Re:Obligatory. by orz · · Score: 4, Informative

    even now intel Itanium is a massive change fromtheir standard, and wwas released AFTER the AMD 64 bit.

    The Intel Itanium was released before the Athlon 64. You're thinking of EM64T-enabled Pentium 4s and Xeons.

    But yeah, AMD got a lot of very good engineers from DEC.

  9. How are dual cores counted? by mev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When calculating the percentage of processors, is AMD counting a dual core as one or two processors?

    1. Re:How are dual cores counted? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Actually they count the pins under the chip...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:How are dual cores counted? by ceeam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't give them ideas! I can imagine an Oracle salesman: "Yes, it's only a $50 per CPU pin".

    3. Re:How are dual cores counted? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      1 because you have core 0 and core 1. therefore you have 1 cpus.

    4. Re:How are dual cores counted? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Damn VB programmers...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:How are dual cores counted? by bhadreshl · · Score: 1

      Technically/physically it *is* only one CPU. It is just that that one CPU happens to contain two cores.

  10. Re:Obligatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Tat commentwa s one of teh MOST ddiffcult ive EVER read.

  11. Breaking the monopoly ... or not by 00_NOP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A few years ago I thought the Wintel monopoly was cracking up ... now despite this (good) news that seems further away than for some time. The constant hostility to Linux from Windows users is just one example - people are frightened of making the change and they cannot understand why something I can give them perfectly legally on a CD/DVD can be as good as or better than something they pay loads for. So too with Intel - Apple's decision may even be good for Microsoft as it will help freeze out alternative combinations of OS with processors...

    1. Re:Breaking the monopoly ... or not by kesuki · · Score: 1

      people are frightened of making the change

      Wrong, Linux works best on 'certain' hardware that had the most complete kernel modules/drivers etc for it. People aren't 'afraid of linux' it simply dosen't work right on their hardware. My motherboard is 3 years old, was a popular motherboard at the time, and linux still does a pretty bad job at utilizing the capabilities of my harware. Sure it runs, it'll perform OK as a basic websurfing/document editing station but the hard drives io is much much lower, and DVD burning is extremely slow.

      Luckily I dual boot to windows, so it's not that big a deal for me, but i still 'need' windows. Linux is great, has lots of strenghths, but unless you buy your system Specifically for running linux, it's not going to give you a 'great' experience. Windows runs on everything out there. I'm sure much of that is because windows is #1, so if you're selling hardware you have to make sure it works with windows. So you see, vendors can make the decision to sell linux systems, that's pretty much what it takes to get people to 'accept' it.

  12. Apple? by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 0

    Now if Apple got on board (or in bed) they would have an even better chance. I dont want to replace my Mini with a noisy, over heated, power consuming Intel chipped Mini. AMD has a lot to offer.

    AMD and FireFox reach 10%? Yay for the little guy...

    1. Re:Apple? by k96822 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking this same thing. I can see the frustration Apple has for their chips. First, they move from Motorola to IBM, probably hoping to get faster chips. IBM couldn't deliver, so they're stuck changing again. They are probably going with Intel because they just don't want to take another chance.

      I'm one of those people who still thinks the PowerPC is better, in spite of the Ghz. difference. I understand why Apple would not want to take another risk, though.

    2. Re:Apple? by tourvil · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now if Apple got on board (or in bed) they would have an even better chance. I dont want to replace my Mini with a noisy, over heated, power consuming Intel chipped Mini. AMD has a lot to offer.

      My guess is that Apple will replace the G4s with the lower power Pentium Ms and the G5s with Pentium 4s.

      The bright side for AMD is that once the switch to x86 has been made, Apple could potentially consider AMD chips in the future with much less risk than the current switch to Intel. In fact it would probably be best for AMD to let Apple and Intel go through this transition period together before courting Apple.

    3. Re:Apple? by cookie_cutter · · Score: 1
      Are you saying you prefer AMD to Intel based on power and heat issues?

      It's been a while since I built a system, but when I was building a linux cluster a couple years back I decided to go with AMD chips in spite of their power and heat issues. At that time, AMD chips were always reputed to run hotter than Intel chips.

      Has the situation reversed?

    4. Re:Apple? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Has the situation reversed?

      Yes, at least on the 90m parts. I just built a dual core Athlon 64 system BECAUSE the power consumption is lower than anything Intel can offer in the same class. The Athlon 64 X2 was more expensive than the Pentium CPUs too, but i figure I will make the price difference back on power savings.

    5. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, apple takes a pretty small percentage of the desktop/laptop market compared to HP and Dell. It would help a significant amount though.

      Off topic here but...
      I'm wondering, when will they start throwing out Apple commercials with that little Intel inside jingle at the end? That would just weird me out, though its quite possible.

    6. Re:Apple? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I never saw any article that actually provided any evidence that Apple was going to use the x86 architecture. Also, I hope you do know that intel does not only manufactor things only for the x86 architecture. I see them creating PPC proccessors in the future for some reason.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:Apple? by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is that like Motorola IBM is not focused on Desktop chips. IBM is focusing heavily on server and console chips while Motorola was working on embedded (I believe).

      Apple know that with Intel there will be a long term focus on desktop/laptop chips weather they were there or not. This saves Apple from requesting their supplier to look at their needs (like gettin laptop G5s, which are applerently comin from IBM but after a lon time).

      AMD would have met this requirement too, but Intel probably ave Apple sweetheart deal. Also AMD is still behind in the laptop area and may very well be forever now that Intel is shaping up.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I never saw any article that actually provided any evidence that Apple was going to use the x86 architecture.

      Er, how 'bout the SHIPPING development machines, which are 3.6 GHz. P4s? Apple also announced they're using the Intel x86 compiler suite. The new Macs will DEFINITELY be x86 (though probably Pentium M derived architecture instead of P4).

      Also, I hope you do know that intel does not only manufactor things only for the x86 architecture. I see them creating PPC proccessors in the future for some reason.

      I think this is wildly unlikely, and is irrelevant to Apple regardless.

    9. Re:Apple? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your information is out of date. Northwood was already getting to be hotter than AMD, but when Prescott was released (almost 2 years ago now), it blew the doors off everything else in the x86 market in terms of power consumption and heat disipation. Disipation's well over 100W and operating temperatures in the 70-80C range. AMD64 chips, in comparison, generally put out in the range of 35-50W and operate between 30-50C. Personally, I've never seen my A64 3200+ get any higher than around 37C under full load with the stock fan.

      In addition to this, AMD64 chips feature something called "Cool n Quiet." CnQ is basically a fancy name for intelligent dynamic clock scaling. Again, using my 3200+ as an example, when under full load, it runs at 2GHz @ 1.375V. However, when the computer's idling or under light loads (ie: most web browsing, word processing), the CPU drops down to 1GHz@1.0V. When the load's somewhere inbetween, the CPU scales up in 200MHz increments on the fly. It's actually kind of cool to watch happen in a clock speed/voltage monitor.

      So the short answer - AMD's been ahead of Intel in this regard (on the desktop) for quite some time. Prescott took it from AMD being a bit cooler to there being no comparison whatsoever. Hope that helps.

    10. Re:Apple? by BFaucet · · Score: 1

      Apple's next generation of its Mini line will probably be based on the Pentium M processor which runs cooler and more efficiently than any comparable processor.

      Keep in mind G5s run really, really hot... I work with a dual G5 daily and the room get nice and toasty if I leave the door closed. That's why there's no G5 Mini or powerbooks. Strange as it may sound, Intel has a better low power chip than IBM or AMD... despite the P4 being a burning heap of inefficient madness.

      --
      -Derick
  13. Wait for the laptop by Arthur+B. · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hum I think AMD64 was also a pretty good reason for home buyers. The next killer would be a good equivalent of pentium M, AMD is still far behind intel on the laptop ground.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  14. Dell is the decider by soma_0806 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone knows that AMD's share would seriously change if Dell could be persuaded away from their holdout status.

    The two main reasons generally cited for Dell's allegiance to Intel is the millions in advertising and marketting (hard for AMD to compete when they're sitting on a little over a billion and Intel is sitting on something like 11 billion) and early notification of new developments.

    The second one I just don't get. I mean, Intel annouced the Itanium in 1994 which consumers didn't see until 2001, two years later than projected and seven after the announcement. Really, how much notice does Dell need? Wouldn't they rather a company that actually gets things out in reasonable time frames?

    1. Re:Dell is the decider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is it's more a question of religion (and racism) than anything else. Intel and Dell are both controlled by jewish persons.

    2. Re:Dell is the decider by snero3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know how much of this is just dell hype but when i spoke to my dell account rep last about the possibility of a AMD x86_64 chip he stated two reasons why it wouldn't happen

      1. AMD couldn't provide the necessary volume. Dell unlike apple take great pride in providing any order(from san to switches) within 4 weeks
      2. Intel now have their own x86_64 cpu in the form of EM64 so why bother changing.
      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
    3. Re:Dell is the decider by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't they rather a company that actually gets things out in reasonable time frames?

      The obvious answer is "Sure, but who would that be?" AMD was a couple years late with K8 as well.

      Schedule slips are the name of the game. Granted, Intel's slip with Merced (both on the time scale and on the promised performance) was pretty severe. But since Dell makes most of their bank on the IA32 line with all the Intel marketing dollars, they could easily be persuaded to just let the Itanium fiasco slide.

      Though I'd bet you a pint that Dell is the reason why Intel officially launched their iAMD64 parts. "You want us to remain exclusive? Give us a way to counter Opteron, now." is roughly how I think it went. Good thing Intel had Yamhill in their back pocket for a couple years.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Dell is the decider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We dumped Dell for Monarch to get our latest workstations. Athlon 64 machines are just plain better than Intel at this point, and by a large enough margin that it's worth finding a different OEM.

          Michael

    5. Re:Dell is the decider by evilviper · · Score: 1

      1. AMD will be getting a new fab online soon, and they have a contract with another company to produce cores if AMD's plants can't meet the demand.

      2. EM64 sucks. They're so screwed-up you might as well just stick with a P4. They can't access 4GB+ of RAM with DMA, IIRC, so there's no point in being 64-bit. They don't have the built-in memory controller, so the performance even below 4GBs is poor compared to AMD64. They are just as power-hungry and hot as other P4s. They don't have speed-step (P-M) or Cool-n-Quiet (AMD64) so they run MUCH hotter all-around.

      Plus, you need to switch motherboards anyhow, so instead of making an EM64 motherboard, make an AMD64 motherboard. The cost of switching will be about the same as just upgrading with Intel. And they automatically get the option of going to dual-core AMD64 chips, whereas Intel doesn't really have any dual-core chips that can compete with AMD (here, Intel has the real "supply problems").

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. motherboards by jpc · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The main reason for buying Xeons was the range of motherboards available. This is finally beginning to change and there is a lot more AMD stuff, from 1 way to 8 way. And with things like SCSI and SATA RAID cards turning up in PCI express things are looking even better as workstation and server chipsets become interchangeable.

  16. cheaters! by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

    Do they count the dual-cores twice? :-D

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
    1. Re:cheaters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When calculating the percentage of processors, is AMD counting a dual core as one or two processors?


      Do they count the dual-cores twice? :-D


      Imagine that, mary_will_grow but she won't_read_the_other_posts...
    2. Re:cheaters! by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      I hold myself to the same standard as the Slashdot moderators. So bring on the dupes!!!

      zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
  17. Re:a thought... by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, just overclocked an AMD3500+ (about 25% overclocked), and on some programs running 100% CPU (especially RC5-72), it outperforms the intel 3Ghz Xeon by a factor of 2! That way that Mack truck is pretty zippy too!

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  18. Re:a thought... by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What?

    The K8 processors are way more power efficient then the K7s were. Keep in mind the K7 design came out as a competitor for the P3 processor not the P4.

    The K8 is basically one-generation ahead of the P4. I'm sure Intel will catch up though as their Pentium-M is a good design in terms of efficiency.

    A dual-core 64-bit Pentium-M would definitely give the AMD a run for some money I'd think...

    But anything in the P4 camp and you're basically not making a rational comparison.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  19. Re:a thought... by FullCircle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the power consumption numbers again and it looks more like Intel is a zippy Fiat that sucks fuel like a Mack truck.

    It's not the 90's anymore.

    --
    If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  20. 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they didn't count my AMD K6-233 powered web server.

  21. AMD should subsidize a switch by ChrisF79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I lease an Intel based server right now because back when I first signed up for it, that's all that was offered. Now the datacenter offers AMD based machines and I would love to switch. However, the company will charge me the setup fee on the AMD server and I will have to move everything over myself. It's not a steap fee, but it is enough for me to just stick with what I have. Switching isn't necessary by any means, just something I'd like to do. At any rate, I'd bet there are a lot of other people out there like me. If AMD would subsidize the costs for the datacenters to switch (pay them $20 per user that switches from the Intel machine to AMD) or whatever amount is fair, they could claim a bigger portion of the market.

    Maybe it isn't feasible... just my $0.02.

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    1. Re:AMD should subsidize a switch by tabrisnet · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, most datacentres, if they provide AMD boxes for lease, use the cheapest POS motherboards. SiS chipsets, usually. Then when the ethernet falls over b/c of a DoS, they blame it on AMD. No, it's the cheap motherboards they pair with the processors. Stick a real eepro NIC in an SiS motherboard, and it will sit pretty and take all the abuse. Then again, the SiS sucks anyway, and I recommend VIA chips to be paired with AMD processors.

      And yes, this is personal experience with multiple datacentres. One was kind enough to replace the NIC with an EEPRO for free, and nary a problem since. Others would just blame it on AMD when we said our box was falling over for no good reason.

      So, these Intel fanatics see AMD, see it fail, and spread their (technically truthful, given their experiences) FUD. Say it's cheap, you get what you pay for. This is true... but it's not about AMD.

    2. Re:AMD should subsidize a switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem there would be doing the kind of thing that they are accusing Intel of.

      (Pardon the poor gramar)

  22. Re:a thought... by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

    Man, would I ever love to see a 64-bit dual-core Pentium M. Supposedly those chips are to be introduced in Q3 or Q4 2006, roughly when Longhorn, er, Windows Vista comes out. That's when I'll hold off buying a new laptop until. But I intend to run Linux on it, so that last point is moot.

    --
    Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  23. Re:a thought... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    I'd buy one just to have another platform to test against. If it came in laptop form all the better ;-) provided they can keep the power rating. Right now they sit around 22W and the AMD offerings are 30-35W or so. If they can make a dual [with actual performance not just clocked down] and still be less than 30W that would rock.

    Some of my friends say it's a bit overkill to have the X2 and the P4 running but as a professional developer it certainly helps. Though since a 64-bit PentiumM would be ISA compatible with the X2 ... there wouldn't be much point to own both I guess... other than geek factor. :-)

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  24. How can I compare.... by GoMMiX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Cheap car manufacturers, like Hyundai, came into my sights years ago.

    I remember when I first saw a Hyundai commercial. It seemed as though every vehicle they made was under $10,000.00.

    The cars were so cheap, and so poorly built, the company had an instant reputation for making a very cheap low quality vehicle.

    Today, although I know some Hyundai's cost upwards of $30,000.00 -- and carry a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty - I still think of Hyundai of a cheap, poorly made vehicle.

    I will probably always think of Hyndai this way, or atleast until they do something truly innovative -- like create some fantastic new vehicle that everyone ELSE tries to immitate - rather than the other way around.

    My opinion of AMD was formed much this same way.

    AMD made very cheap, inferior processors for years.

    Even if AMD is making better CPUs now, comprable in quality and speed to Intel, even -- they still have yet to do something truly innovative to force me to rethink my opinion of them and their product.

    Marketing people called in branding. Well, AMD, you're branded. That's the problem from where I sit.

    And what's worse, is it seems the moment AMD gets close to intel in quality - they jack their price up to meet or exceed Intel's pricing.

    That type of marketing is hardly going to encourage ME to switch from a time honored and trusted manufacturer.

    That's just my opinion.

    1. Re:How can I compare.... by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't think of ANY japanese car company that started out with making "junk" that ran strange, and looked cheap, and rotted away on the salty winter roads, and then suddenly became synonymous with quality and dependability. Anyways time to hop in my camry and get to work!

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
    2. Re:How can I compare.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, I can't think of ANY japanese car company that started out with making "junk" that ran strange, and looked cheap, and rotted away on the salty winter roads, and then suddenly became synonymous with quality and dependability. Anyways time to hop in my camry and get to work!


      Talk about goofy looking.. try Subarus.. they still look goofy. Now off to work in my Warthog errrr Baja.
    3. Re:How can I compare.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "atleast until they do something truly innovative"

      Have you not been paying attention to the 64-bit chip market? AMD spanks Intel like the little brat they are. Intel's first 64-bit offerings have been pure garbage.

      You seriously sound like someone with an MBA (no that is not a compliment). "The commercial says they [Intel] are a market leader, so it must be so!"

    4. Re:How can I compare.... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      That's your own fault due to personal prejudice, and you sound exactly like my mother-in-law. She refuses to buy a "Datsun" (Nissan) because some salesman was cold to her 25 years ago when she was car shopping, and has a negative perception about non-American cars because of that and other hype throughout the years. That's her loss.

      A wise shopper is not stuck on brands, especially in an investment as large as a car. Pick up any car issue of Consumer Reports and you'll find that especially in the area of passenger cars, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and even Hyundai are KILLING GM and Chrysler (and usually Ford too) in quality. Plus, Toyota's usually a little cheaper and Hyundai is usually a LOT cheaper, even today. Honda and Nissan are more but you are getting a much nicer car than the comparable Detroit model almost without exception.

      I can't speak for AMD pre-K6 days, but since then they have made a very good and cost-efficient processor. In fact, there have been few times since the introduction of the Athlon that I haven't preferred AMD's offerings to Intel.

      I would recommend that instead of remaining prejudiced based on perceptions you had on information that is years out-of-date, take an objective view at the information available currently. Read about both sides of the coin. You might be surprised at what you find, if you REMAIN OBJECTIVE.

    5. Re:How can I compare.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a brand outlasts the entire engineering team whose work it described, it becomes meaningless and better ignored. I look for bang/buck, sometimes overridden when the leading vendor is a bunch of seriously competition-obstructing assholes.

    6. Re:How can I compare.... by krgallagher · · Score: 2, Informative
      "AMD made very cheap, inferior processors for years."

      AMD made the first 100 MHZ 486 DX4 chips. This was at a time when the Pentium 75 was just entering the market and the 486 DX4 100 was both faster and cheaper. Throughout their history, AMD has always been able to deliver superior performance at slower clock speeds than Intel. They have also been cheaper to purchase. Whle I have always considered AMD CPU's to be economical, I also consider them to be superior chips to anything Intel produces.

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    7. Re:How can I compare.... by jkreuzig · · Score: 1
      I can't think of ANY japanese car company that DID'NT start out making junk. The first japanese cars sold in this coutry were CRAP. It was only after 20+ years of persitant re-engineering and a commitment to changing their business practices did they start to produce high quality automobiles.

      Ever wonder how the Japanese turned their business fortunes around after WW2? W. Edwards Deming (and american no less) had such a profound infulence on Japanese business that The Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) named an award after him (The Deming Prize).

      Don't kid yourself, the japanese didn't just "magically" start making quality. They learned it.

    8. Re:How can I compare.... by bradleyland · · Score: 1

      I currently run AMD in everything I own, but they went through a real lull in the K6-2 generation. It's not been all roses.

    9. Re:How can I compare.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh,

      the sound of the above sarcasm flying smoothly over your head.

    10. Re:How can I compare.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record Hyundai is a Korean company but American Hyundais are made by Americans in Alabama. Just for the (off-topic) record.

    11. Re:How can I compare.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I currently run AMD in everything I own, but they went through a real lull in the K6-2 generation. It's not been all roses.

      Not to mention the K5's weren't really that great, and few motherboards really supported them well. The K6-2 wasn't really a bad chip, it's just that Intel had the famous Celeron 300A that easily overclocked to 450Mhz and totally dominated the bang for the buck catagory for quite a while.

    12. Re:How can I compare.... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The k6s were golden because you didn't have to change any infastructure if you had a reasonably flexible motherboard. Take a 200, change the CPU voltage and set a 2.0x multiplier(cvx core k6-2s would see this as 6.0x), and you had a 400 Mhz machine without replacing all the parts. This was significant since at the time because the jump from a P1 to P2 meant basically building a new machine from the chassis up.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  25. mod parent up by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up.

    The QC issues they used to (or maybe still do? I wouldn't know, I can't get myself to buy one of their chips) have coupled with their lack of response to it has branded them among people in the know. I think this more than anything is preventing their market penetration.

    -everphilski-

    1. Re:mod parent up by UtucXul · · Score: 1
      has branded them among people in the know
      So you and people "in the know" form an opinion once and never change it regardless of new information? Doesn't really sound like most of the people who are into technology I knew. Also sounds a bit scary. I guess I don't need to read any reviews of IE 7 or Windows vista since I remember using Windows 3.11 (is that the right number?) and didn't like it.
    2. Re:mod parent up by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The QC issues they used to (or maybe still do? I wouldn't know, I can't get myself to buy one of their chips) have coupled with their lack of response to it has branded them among people in the know. I think this more than anything is preventing their market penetration.

      What quality control issues? I have never had any problems with a single AMD chip. Most of the issues I have had with AMD based systems have to do with flakey motherboards with crappy chipsets. Even AMD's own chipsets were lousy. Quite simply, none of the Athlon systems I have dealt with have been as stable or solid as Intel P3/P4 systems with Intel chipsets. Though the systems I have installed a nForce2 based replacement motherboards in so far have worked great. And I also have some K6-2/K6-3 systems that simply refuse to die (with VIA chipsets, no less).

      I haven't dealt with an AMD64 system yet, but they look to be a lot better. I sure hope so, because I do like AMD's chips.

  26. Tier-1 supply sabotage? by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This week I had to spec out a replacement server when one of ours disappeared thanks to a delivery company, and I really wanted to get a HP DL145, HP's entry level Opteron server. As it turned out CDW's site said there was a two+ week delay in shipping the servers, whereas I needed one pronto. Given that other OEMs have no problem with supply, I can only guess this may be part of AMD's case against Intel putting undue influence on the OEMs.

    Damien

  27. My hyundai has been the best investment ever by cybrthng · · Score: 4, Insightful

    7 year and 150k miles later it still runs and the only things i have had to do is put new tires on, change the oil, breaks and about to put some new shocks & struts on.

    Tiberon has been the best car i've ever had. Out of Jeep Wranglers, Jeep grand cherokees, mazda 626's, suburus and others.

    THe problem is you look at brand as stature and you use that to ignore the good qualities about everything else out there. You have probably never owned a Hyundai so you assume they're cheaply made. (granted they have had some bummers but so has intel..)

    You have probably never owned an AMD for the same reason, you believe the hype. You also probably still pay full price for Nike shoes, still wear Girbaud jeans and are afraid to shop at target.

    Can't find value in something that doesn't sound cool?

    pretty retarded if you ask me

    1. Re:My hyundai has been the best investment ever by Otter · · Score: 1
      I owned one of the early Excels, and its quality was precisely as he describes. (I got mine used, and it was a cost-effective purchase given the minimal price, but it was a piece of junk.)

      The Tiburon came out after Hyundai got through their initial hurdles in the US and the quality was a lot higher. Hyundai makes good cars *now* but their reputation from the Excel still hangs over them, which is his point.

      There are still Girbaud jeans? And yet Zubaz has gone under? Now there's your indictment of capitalism...

    2. Re:My hyundai has been the best investment ever by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

      "pretty retarded if you ask me"

      Well, technically I did not ask you.

      But, since you blessed me with your thoughts -- I will try to show you what my point was. Apparently you did not get it from my first post, which I'm sure is my fault for being so wordy.

      Hyundai made a bad first impression. Plain, simple, to the point. That's it, the end. First impressions last, it's called branding.

      Well, AMD gave a really bad first impression to me. That was my point.

      What I was saying had nothing to do with some faboo foreign car you bought in 199x, or you personally at all.

      So, as you can now see this plainly was not a personal attack, perhaps you can keep your snide, 'retarded' comments to yourself - or maybe word them a little better, aye?

      "THe problem is you look at brand as stature and you use that to ignore the good qualities about everything else out there. You have probably never owned a Hyundai so you assume they're cheaply made. (granted they have had some bummers but so has intel..)"

      I have owned both a Hyundai and an AMD. The Hyundai was a very cheaply made vehicle. It felt cheap, it looked cheap, it was cheap to drive, and it was overall just a cheap car. I never said it wasn't worth what I paid for it - but it was a cheap car. My point was that the company branded themselves for making cheap cars, which is what they did. Again, not personal attacks so I don't understand why you are getting all emotional.

      The AMD chip I owned was far from the quality the Hyundai car was. The AMD, well, was junk. And lasted about 8 months before it just croaked. AMD continued to make CPUs that got poor reviews for years to follow.

      These companies create the brand image of their own products. That's another point I think you fail to get. I didn't just pull my opinion these two brands out of a random hat.

      Brand as stature... It's funny you refer to it that way. Why is it, do you think, that some brands have so much respect it gives them 'stature' in todays society? Do you think that these companies create these brands with stature by making cheap products far inferior to their competition for years on end? (Yes, I'm asking you, answer away.)

      And when making your reply, do me a favor, try not to make assumptions.

      Kthxbye.

    3. Re:My hyundai has been the best investment ever by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      Time for me to go hug my 02 Elantra and my Athlon 64 3400+.

  28. idiot by RelliK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD has long since surpassed Intel in quality and innovation. AMD chips now are:

    1. faster
    2. 64-bit
    3. use less power & generate less heat

    Intel is now catching up and immitating. Intel kept blathering about how 64-bit is useless on the desktop, then did an aboutface and grudgingly implemented AMD64 instruction set. Intel is also switching back to an updated pentium 3 core (which has now been rebranded as pentium M) proving once again that AMD was right all along: increasing the "megahurtz" while lowering IPC count was a boneheaded idea. And with the new CPU model numbers they are trying to downplay the importance of clock speed -- after years of brainwashing the consumers that this "megahurtz" thing is all that matters.

    In short, you are either an Intel shill or you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:idiot by carlislematthew · · Score: 1
      The problem with your response is that while every Slashdot reader may know what you say to be true (faster, 64bit, less heat), the rest of the world has no fucking clue. And they're the ones that actually buy most of the computers. Yes yes, they're "stupid" and they should just "RTFM" and learn all about technical shit that us geeks just love, but they won't because they don't care.

      If AMD actually did some really good marketing, then perhaps "normal" people could be made aware of the glorious advantages of the AMD chips. Only when Dell gets hundreds of emails a day saying, "I want an AMD chip - they're way better - won't buy your shit", will Dell think about changing. Right now, they don't have to...

    2. Re:idiot by GoMMiX · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, another shiningly intelligent post from a slashdot troll.

      I had no idea there were so many AMD fanboi's here.

      While I will grant AMD has had great reviews for the past 2-3 years, prior to this AMD was always considered the inferior product. Period. And while AMD may be doing something great with 64-bit processors - it means jack-all right now as no one else wants to support it. So, while your AMD CPUs may have been doing great for the last few years - you totally missed that my point was that AMD branded itself poorly many MANY years ago (Yes, probably before you were born judging by your overly intelligent response.). They did this by selling extremely cheap lower quality CPUs compared to Intel and IBM. My point was that this stigma has followed them, IMHO. And obviously in the opinion of many others. I've seen AMD do very little marketing to try and reverse this stigma, either. So why SHOULD people change their opinion of AMD, when AMD hasn't sought strongly to change that opinion?

      And as I mentioned, AMD hammered their pricing up there right next to Intels and has done little or nothing to change consumers view of their brand.

      So, while you and many others may know that AMD chips, particularly the 64-bit market, are far superior to the products currently made by intel (Which, by the way - I always thought the Pentium 4's were inferior to the P3 chips, something I've preached for years) - the general public does not see it this way as Intel continues an agressive marketing campaign - I have yet - in my ENTIRE LIFE - to see an AMD commercial. Granted, I have seen commercials for computers with AMD chips in them, I have yet to see a commercial strictlty for the purpose of strengthening the AMD brand.

      Granted, I watch TV maybe 3 hours a week - I still see an Intel commercial atleast once a week.

      Now, you tell me - why do you think AMD's brand is stuck so strongly in the mud?

      Personally, I don't care much for Intel or AMD - but I'll say right now Intel does a lot more to create a better brand image then AMD does. AMD has no room to cry about their current marketshare, they have made no effort to change their image aside from product improvement. Which, hey, I'm with you - would be fantastic if that was enough. But, guess what - it's not. AMD doesn't get the free press a startup gets, so their brand image remains the same.

      And again, like I told the other troll - keep your personal attacks to yourself, talking like a 5 year old earns you the respect of a 5 year old.

      Well, I take that back, my 5 year old son doesn't go around calling people names. Certainly not for their opinions on branding. So I guess that would put you below that. I think around 2 or 3 is where the nasty namecalling starts and ends. Sounds fitting.

    3. Re:idiot by mattACK · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bad news friend: you look like the troll.

      Your points are amazingly uninformed. I assume it is sincere, so let me offer this: Read up on post 90's chip developements for a few days and THEN review your posts.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    4. Re:idiot by GoMMiX · · Score: 0, Troll

      *laughs*

      Did you read my post? I'm guessing not since I state NO FACTS regarding Intel CPU performance.

      Please, show me where I make an uninformed point? Please. I clearly state I'm making reference to the first days of AMD's chip development.

      RTFPP

    5. Re:idiot by jiushao · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sure AMD is ahead in a lot of ways at the moment, the difference is far from dramatic however. People make a huge deal about 10%-20% differences in some benchmark (and the Pentium 4 still holds the crown in some areas, typically SIMD-friendly stuff).

      Nothing against AMD (quite the opposite, haven't owned anything else the last decade), but their superiority was much more obvious to me with the K7 then the K8. The K7 and P4 were fairly equal in performance, the K7 won a few and the P4 won a few. The big difference was that the K7 was incredibly cheap, easily half or down to a fourth of the price of a comparative P4. The K8 does not really offer the same deal, we get slightly better performance overall but the prices are no longer the bargain-bin that AMD used to offer. It makes sense for AMD of course, but as a consumer I do feel a bit worse off than during the K7 days.

      Intel on the other hand is working hard to get around their misstep with the P4 (and it is a real testament to Intels strengths that even what most people consider a failed architecture has stayed decently competitive over so many years), they have lowered their prices and are listening to market demand (making a very cheap dual core CPU and adding the 64 bit instruction set). I don't really think that Intel should be considered terribly evil, they listen to consumer demands where they could have harmed AMD greatly by making a sufficiently different 64 bit instruction set. Also; make no mistake, the P4 was not a marketing chip, it was just an attempt at a very innovative take on chip design. It did not pan out, but it deserves a lot of respect both for Intels guts to make it and the engineering that went into it. If they had wanted to make it a marketing chip they could easily have doubled the clockrate in marketing, the P4 ALU's actually run at double the advertised clockrate.

      Overall things are looking good on the x86, decent competition between two companies who both really push the envelope in technology. Intels deals with OEMs should be looked into, but really, there are much much worse companies than Intel. I for one look forward to what Intel cooks up for the next generation.

      I don't like coming to Intels defense over and over, but I feel that Slashdot is giving them less credit than they deserve. The P4 was an really interesting move (compared to the K7 for example which was just a solid take on very tried designs), and as a technological community I can't help but feel that Slashdot should appreciate Intel's attempt to try a somewhat different path.

    6. Re:idiot by mattACK · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, you said AMD wasn't innovating. I read the whole post.

      And I wasn't being rude. Then.

      Now, let me just say that you MUST be in management to be as stupid and confident as you are. I look forward to ignoring your drivel.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    7. Re:idiot by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

      "Even if AMD is making better CPUs now, comprable in quality and speed to Intel, even -- they still have yet to do something truly innovative to force me to rethink my opinion of them and their product."

      That's what I said. Sure, AMD is making better CPUs now. No doubt about that. But no, AMD hasn't done anything truly innovative that is widely adopted. 64-bit CPUs they've nailed, I'll give them that - but 64-bit computing isn't widely adopted enough by developers for it to become the defacto-standard.

      Slightly improving current technology is NOT what I consider innovative. And if that is what you consider innovation - by all means, enjoy. I don't.

      From my perspective, the ignorance is coming from the people who fail to read what I type, thinking my references here are to a shortterm history.

      And morons who think slightly improving current technology is innovation. Intel was innovative 20 years ago - and they've slightly improved on the technology they developed then. AMD has done nothing more then mimmic Intel all along the way, save perhaps the last couple of years.

      I have to say, though, I enjoy the management crack -- that just tells me your some whiney little peon whos angry he gets bossed around for underperforming on the job.

    8. Re:idiot by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      While I will grant AMD has had great reviews for the past 2-3 years, prior to this AMD was always considered the inferior product. Period. ...or not. Though AMDs attempt with the K5 and K6 were less than stellar than the Pentium class systems available at the same time owing mostly to the lack of a superscalar FPU unit which cripled every non-intel of the era, anything prior to that was more or less just a cleaning up and shrinking of Intels design, since IBM chose AMD as a second source for x86 processors at the beginning of the IBM PC. To many people, AMDs were superior to Intel chips. After that, Intel managed to stop being forced to give AMD their designs, so they alone were allowed to make Pentiums, which resulted in AMD making some strategic purchases to get the technology to build first the K5, then the K6 line of processors. Though the K5 simply didn't come out in time to compete earnestly with the early Pentiums, the K6 had a decent amount of Integer processing power, and could compete with a similarly clocked Pentium doing tasks which didn't try to utilize the non-superscalar FPU. The K6-2 added 3dNow! to minimize this issue, and to be frank, for the time, a Voodoo 2 with a K6-2 processor using the 3dNow patch was simply the fastest way you could play Quake 2. It too was stuck with a non superscalar FPU, however, which cripled it in standard FPU benchmarks. Ever since the release of the Athlon, six years ago, AMD has had a competitive chip -- at times it was hobbled by horrible chipsets, but that's remedied itself as well, over time.

      They did this by selling extremely cheap lower quality CPUs compared to Intel and IBM.

      As someone who has used AMD 8088s, 286s, 386s, and 486s, K5s, K6s, K6-2s, and Athlons, I'm going to have to disagree. AMD has always put out a fairly good product. There have been problems at times with chipsets, especially from other companies, but the processors themselves, worked as well or better when used as a drop-in replacement for an Intel Equivilant(except for the k5 and k6, again thanks to the lack of a superscalar FPU which crippled every non-intel chip on the market at the time).

      Anyway, that's what I had to say.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    9. Re:idiot by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative response. :)

    10. Re:idiot by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      proving once again that AMD was right all along: increasing the "megahurtz" while lowering IPC count was a boneheaded idea

      Intel used to be run by engineers; now it's run by marketers. AMD is still run by engineers, and very good ones like Dirk Meyer, from the DEC Alpha team.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    11. Re:idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first troll. And wasted on a buffoon. What a pity.

    12. Re:idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say, though, I enjoy the management crack

      That explains it! And it shows, good sir. It shows.

    13. Re:idiot by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Reasonable people such as ourselves know that facts trump rhetoric. :)

      --
      It's been a long time.
  29. Redundancy and humorless mods by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Somebody explains to me how a second post, with the first post being just "first post", can be redundant...

    It's because the concept of humor is wa-a-a-a-y beyond the grasp of most Slashdot mods. You can check just about any thread and you'll find statements that are at the very least humourous enough to put a smile on your face, not necessarily an all-out laugh, and some humorless mod gave it an overrated, redundant, or off-topic when it should have been given a +1 Funny or at worst left alone unmodded.

    Besides, "redundant" doesn't just mean "repetition". It can also mean "unwanted" or "excessive". Apparently, too many Slashdot mods feel that humor is unwanted and excessive in this world. I guess that's an indication of what kind of people they are. They're apparently not very happy people. Life is too short to be like that as far as I'm concerned.

    Oh, well. That's enough philosophy on a Friday morning. I'll just sit back now and wait for the "overrated", "offtopic", "troll", and "flamebait" modifications to come rolling in, thus proving my point.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  30. Re:a thought... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

    diesels are usually good on a mileage per gallon rating. That fiat is more like a mustang. It has 8cyl and loves the gas pump, but it is still no match for a specialized hotrod. I would also compare the AMD64 stuff to a large turbo superduty pickup. It may not have a spoiler, but it can haul ass and take names.

  31. Turion by charnov · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's called the Turion. 35W and much lower. Check out the MSI S270 (not on sale in the US yet, but very soon). I believe HP is already using it in their line.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
    1. Re:Turion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, it's called the Turion. 35W and much lower. Check out the MSI S270 (not on sale in the US yet, but very soon). I believe HP is already using it in their line.

            I like AMD as much as anybody, but the Turion still has heat dissipation issues. I have bought an HP L2000 Turion based notebook. It runs pretty hot. It also has fairly disappointing battery life, even with the 12 cell battery as opposed to the standard 6 cell one. It's not really a bad chip, but it's not yet AMDs saviour. The reason that Pentium M and Centrino work at low wattages is that the solution is integrated into a set of Intel support logic, whereas AMD depends on other companies to provide the "glue" logic. On this particular notebook, there are options for Turion ML-28, ML-30, ML-34 and ML-37. The ML Turion line consumes 35 watts and the MT line consumes 25 watts. Of course, these are 64 bit capable chips so that may have an impact on some applications.

            Keeping this in perspective, though, there was once a DEC Alpha based portable with a magnesium case and legend has it that the Alpha chip got hot enough to burn right through the case under heavy CPU load....
    2. Re:Turion by bluGill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget that the AMD chips have the memory controller built in, while the Intel chips require a separate chip sucking power (normally part of the North Bridge) to do this task.

      Sadly I know of nobody who has measured who much the separate memory controller costs in power. Could range from insignificant to nearly as much as the CPU.

    3. Re:Turion by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I think most people think of laptop power consumption in terms of how long their battery lasts, not how many watts their silicone uses, and the pentium M's are doing somewhat better there for the same performance, as I understand it.

    4. Re:Turion by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      I think it takes more than a good processor to win over the portable market. Intel sells a mobile platform. Centrino is a winner; video, PCI express, audio, SATA, wireless... The vendors are buying far more than a processor. It requires a lot less effort (read; money) to erect a laptop design around Intel's mobile platform.

      Got to give Intel some credit; they hit the sweet spot in mobile computing. That's crucial now that laptops outsell desktops, and provide better margins to the vendors.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    5. Re:Turion by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Sadly I know of nobody who has measured who much the separate memory controller costs in power. Could range from insignificant to nearly as much as the CPU.

      In most notebooks, you can expect it to be reasonably insignificant. They don't accept the latest and greatest high-speed DDR400 RAM, so they are much lower-power than desktop counterparts. Still, you'd get a few watts benefit if you could eliminate the memory controller (I'd estimate it to be 5-10watts).

      In desktops though, Northbridges are up to approx 40watts, and still climbing. That ammount of power isn't very noticable with a 130W P4, but it's pretty significant when you're trying to build a low-power AMD Socket-A system, and decent motherboards are all designed for gamers these days.

      Both SIS and VIA are pretty consistent and evenly matched here. I haven't tested any Nforce chipsets, but I hear mostly good things about them.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Turion by bluGill · · Score: 1

      True, but if you want something better than the Intel extreme graphics (which is adequate at best) you won't be using the Intel chipset anyway.

    7. Re:Turion by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      i855PM and i915PM chipsets are Centrino-qualified, and they don't have integrated graphics...

      You simply have to have either an i855 or mobile i915 (or for Yonah, a mobile i945 when it comes out), an Intel WiFi card, and a Pentium M to be a Centrino. One can have a Centrino with a GF Go 6800 Ultra - in fact, the Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 is one (not that one should own one...)

  32. Production shortages by charnov · · Score: 1

    I always figured Apple went with Intel over AMD strictly because of AMD not having the capacity to meet their demand. You have to remember that Apples chip demands are pretty tiny. I believe that it was only 3% of IBMs production capacity. The scary thing is that Inetl just announced last week they are having capacity issues. They do have 4 fabs that are being converted to 65nm, though. The Merom chip will be the one to watch Apple for. Dual core, low power.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
    1. Re:Production shortages by carlislematthew · · Score: 1

      So AMD don't have the capacity to meet Apple's demand, but Apple's demands are "tiny"? And Intel are the ones having capacity issues right now... I don't think I'm the only one that's confused. AMD and Intel both make consumer chips anyway - I don't think it would be a big deal to siphon off a few hundred chips here and there, wrap it in a white, shiny box and sell it to a starving artist.

  33. I love AMD by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
    I bought stock in AMD when they announced the K7 (only high school money, not a whole lot, but it's still fun), way back. Right now it's even (so you can say I've taken a loss after inflation), but an AMD investment is looking better and better.

    All Intel has right now is mud-slinging and politics as far as the chip war is going. AMD is slowly breaking it, but it's TOUGH to break the Intel-rules mentality. Years of work are slowly coming along.

    --
    Berto
    1. Re:I love AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm You're mistaken, AMD is doing the mud slinging, idiot.

  34. Why don't people know this? by popo · · Score: 1


    Why is AMD so bad at communicating to consumers the most basic of messages: WE MAKE FASTER CPU'S!

    Guaranteed -- most consumers have no idea that AMD chips are faster.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Why don't people know this? by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Guaranteed -- most consumers have no idea that AMD chips are faster.

      Most consumers have never heard of AMD, in fact. Most consumers still think "CPU" is the computer case with "some stuff like memories" inside.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    2. Re:Why don't people know this? by Eugene · · Score: 1

      the truth, simple and painful is, AMD's marketing department SUCKS.

    3. Re:Why don't people know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have the production capacity to cope with that level of demand, better to build up slowly rather than deal with shortages in the supply chain.

    4. Re:Why don't people know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD has made some GREAT engineering decisions - now for the business ones..

  35. I sell computers at Circuit City... by optikshell · · Score: 2, Informative

    and I always push AMD processors first. Once I present the benefits of an AMD processor (be it the 64, Sempron, or Turion), the consumer usually goes with the AMD. Occasionally I get the brainwashed retard - "My cousin has a Dell with a Pentium 4, I want a Pentium 4" and can't convince them otherwise. Explaining the benefits of an AMD processor, and letting the customer know that I've been using AMD processors for quite some time usually sways them. AMD... FOR THE NEW REPUBLIC!

    --
    [optikshell.com] My weblog / gathering of neat (read geek) stuff.
    1. Re:I sell computers at Circuit City... by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 1
      Occasionally I get the brainwashed retard - "My cousin has a Dell with a Pentium 4, I want a Pentium 4" and can't convince them otherwise.

      Presumably, he's seen his cousin's Dell and it works fine, and his cousin likes it, so perhaps he gives that data point more weight than the word of some pushy salesman trying to get him to go for a product he's never heard of. That doesn't necessarily make him a "brainwashed retard." Perhaps he's been burned before by some store clerk telling him "this one's actually better" just to get rid of junk he can't move. I know I have.

      Most people here would probably tell you not to believe ads, and even "reviews" from "neutral" sources aren't always trustworthy. That leaves word-of-mouth as a major source of information about products.

    2. Re:I sell computers at Circuit City... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I don't know how to say this, but computer salesman are right up their with door-to-door vacuum salesman in the "consumer trust" category. I don't doubt that you as an individual are competent, honest, and helpful, but I can definitely say that most of your peers aren't.

      Remember, you're fighting against the reputation of people who try to sell gold-plated USB cables because they make the data go faster. Don't take it personally when people refuse to hear a word of what you're saying; computers have been commonplace long enough that the majority of the population have probably been burnt by a supposedly knowledgeable salesman at least once in the past.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:I sell computers at Circuit City... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I love the joke of gold plated cable ends: Most people don't realize that by using two different metals, you can cause corrosion which can cause the cables to flake out faster. :)

      --
      It's been a long time.
  36. Re:a thought... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AMD chips are like a big ole Mack truck. they suck up a lot of juice, but they can hold their own hauling a big load.

    It would seem you're operating with outdated information. For the record, current maximum current draw for all Opteron, Athlon64, and Athlon64 X2 chips is 95W. Note that that is the maximum for all chips at all speeds, current and planned, for the Socket 939/940 designs. Independent testing has shown that even the top-end dual-core Opterons consume roughly 89W.

    Contrast this to Intel's flagship Pentium 4 EE or the fastest Prescott-based Pentium 4. Independent testing shows a power consumption of at least 119W, in some cases as much as 130W under maximum load. AnandTech and Tom's Hardware have confirmed this.

    So, to revise your erroneous statements, AMD chips are like a turbocharged Acura NSX, zippy and frugal with the "gas," but as affordable and reliable as your average Honda. Intel chips are like fuel-guzzling V8's but without the horsepower and torque you'd expect from such gluttony behavior. And they cost more. That's why the P4 has been, for all intents and purposes, completely killed off in favor of Pentium-M derivations, all of which are essentially based on the old Pentium Pro design from the early 90's.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  37. Sun sells Opteron based servers by dwkunkel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Much to my surprise, Sun has become the preferred source for servers in our data center. The reason is the availablity of AMD Opteron servers from Sun. These are replacing Intel Zeon based servers from HP and IBM. They're running Linux, of course.

  38. So 90% of buyer are idiots? by nagora · · Score: 1
    What were they thinking? There hasn't been a reason to buy Intel for higher-end machines for a long time now. Why the hell is AMD only at 10% of sales?!

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:So 90% of buyer are idiots? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What were they thinking? There hasn't been a reason to buy Intel for higher-end machines for a long time now. Why the hell is AMD only at 10% of sales?!

      Boss: "why is the server so slow?"
      IT Flunky: "The servers are five years old"
      Boss: "So call up Dell, our corporate computer vendor, and order some new ones. This is driving me crazy."
      IT Flunky: "OK"

      Probably no more complicated an explaination than that, for the most part.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  39. What AMD *CPU* QC issues?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By AMD's QC issues, you are maybe referring to the lousy *chipsets* from VIA and others. This is what ruined the K7 Athlon's reputation (for reliability, not for raw performance) for a long time. This of course changed for good when Nvidia whipped out the outstanding Nforce 2 chipset, and nowadays it's a hard job to find lemons from any of the various Athlon chipset makers (VIA, SIS, ALI, Nvidia, ATI).

    I can't recall such QC problems with AMD's *CPUs*. I distinctly remember they made some outstanding 486 chips, and the K5 and K6 were fine. (But correct me if I happen to be wrong.)

    Perhaps AMD's bad rep -- regarding CPUs -- comes from the simple fact that their pre-Athlon processors had to compete in and for the budget end of the market. They never had anything of the status of the expensive (and well-advertised) Intel chips, even when performance was pretty much on par. Marketing schmarketing...

    While AMD Turion's aren't quite as good as Pentium M's for laptops, today for desktop I would easily recommend AMD over Intel. Similar reliability (that is, flawless CPU quality and reliable full-featured chipsets), better bang for buck (in most uses).

  40. Re:ONLY 64bit Consumer Chip? by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 1

    Let's not even talk about games consoles

    Uh, why, which one's 64-bit?

    And I mean the CPU registers. When consoles marketeers claim they're 64-bit or 128-bit they mean ALU registers or vector unit, which is like saying the Pentium 3 was a 128-bit processor because it has MMX.

    The Gamecube is 32-bit PPC. The Xbox is 32-bit P3. The PS2 is 32-bit MIPS.

  41. Bimodal Gaussian Marketing by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it just me, or do you get the impression that, on the bell curve of computer knowledge, AMD is slurping up customers from both the low end (where only price matters) and from the high end (where price/performance ratio matters).

    Meanwhile, the huge middle part of the market segment continues to buy Intel from Dell, where comfortable historical precedent matters.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Bimodal Gaussian Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the part of the curve you are referring to is called the "bah ah ah ah" part.

      that fat meaty part in the middle...is full of sheep.

      waiting for the slaughter

  42. Re:Obligatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True. AMD won a jackpot by luring those Digital guys. Has been Athlons under my computer's hood since the Classic 750@1000... (And the Nforce2 even made Athlon systems as reliable as all-Intel rigs!)

    However, Intel is not quite yet the dead dino. While Itanium was a colossal mistake (and P4 a significant mistake) and the AMD64-copying EM64T a huge embarrasment, the Pentium-M is something AMD can't match today. Turions still eat too much power for the same performance, and 64-bitness doesn't mean squat in laptops. (When it will, expect to see dual-core 64-bit P-Ms in laptops -- they are expected to hit the desktop market next year, and for once there are no serious technology obstacles for it.)

    Pentium-M is Intel's saviour. I guess that team in Haifa, Israel got some nice bonuses...

    Amazing how the good old Pentium Pro architecture lives on... But if it ain't broken, don't fix it, evolve it.

  43. Long way to go. by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I still can't seem to find opteron _tower_ servers from IBM, HP or Sun (not even talking about Dell). And I don't think it's AMD's fault...

    You can get 1U rack servers from those 3. And a 3U model from Sun. But if you want a "lowish end" cheap tower server you can't get it from any of the big names. Talking about something like one of Dell's PE 1800 servers.

    The "bang for buck" sort of stuff. Say what you like, but you do pay a fair bit more for rack stuff and you can't stick 4 normal-sized SCSI drives in a 1U, or stick a fair number of NICs or other stuff in them. Tower servers generally make better "swiss army knife" servers.

    Sure, one can get stuff from the "whitebox" manufacturers, but often there aren't enough PCI-X slots, or the frigging cooling/power isn't good enough[1], or you can't get 3 year next business day support with parts and labour (around the world would be good too)...

    Sure us geeks can build servers. But most of us aren't paid to build servers for our companies - we have better things to do than to build, test, repair, and retest servers. At most we order a bunch, test them when they arrive, and tell the vendor - "This one is broken. Not paying. Swap it for something that works, and do by tomorrow".

    [1] At my workplace we got three 1U servers from a noname manufacturer - and the CPUs _regularly_ throttle down due to heat (they use P4 class CPUs - nope I wasn't the one who ordered them).

    --
  44. Frustrating by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

    I find the lack of AMD Opteron options with low-end servers very frustrating. I'd like the big-name support and options with Opteron performance, but it looks like I'll be building my own if I want something I can trust. When a good chunk of your services depend heavily on memory throughput, AMD is the obvious choice with multi-processor machines.

    Sometimes I wish AMD would spin off a sub-division that sells and supports low- and mid-end server hardware.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
    1. Re:Frustrating by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Just switched to Sun from Dell for some low end rack mount x86 servers. Check these and see if they work out for you. Did for me...

    2. Re:Frustrating by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Thanks! :o)

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
  45. What ever happened to WinXP 64?!?! by Kong99 · · Score: 1

    Seriously... how much proof do you need that Microsoft and Intel are a duopoly. I am very thankful for the likes of AMD, Linux, Mozilla... and yes Apple is purposefully left off, some of you forget how much of a megalomaniac Jobs is!!!

    1. Re:What ever happened to WinXP 64?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  46. Re:Obligatory. by jinzumkei · · Score: 1

    SINCE the athlon? I'd reckon to say since the K6-2.

  47. underdog by golden+robot · · Score: 1

    this is i a terrific underdog climbing up from the bottom, maybe one day when AMD is on top they'll make a movie about. It'll be like the geek version of Hoosiers or any other sports movie(they seriously all have the same plot).

  48. AMD's NUMA support. by Martin+Marvinski · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget that AMD's x86-64 bit processors support NUMA (non-uniform memory architecture), where as the Intel EMT64 does not. So if you use an operating system, like Linux which has NUMA support built into the kernel, and Opteron chips and a quality motherboard that has seperate memory for each processor, each processor can have its own dedicated memory! If anyone has the link, there was a benchmark out there that really rocked, with NUMA enabled dual Proc Opteron Server kicking intel's offerings.

    1. Re:AMD's NUMA support. by larstr · · Score: 3, Informative
      IBM has written a paper on this comparing two of their 1U 2 cpu servers, the e326 (AMD) and x336 (Xeon MP). The paper is named "Performance of Two-Way Opteron and Xeon Processor-Based Servers" from April 2005.

      A search on ibm.com does not give me a link to the document and neither does google. I did however find an IBM provided AMD vs XEON linpack-comparison benchmark ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/wp_L inpack_072905.pdf, but first benchmark (that I can't locate) was better.

      It clearly shows the advantages of the AMDs NUMA architecture and also other factors.

      NUMA is also available on some enterprise level IBM XEON servers like the x440, x445 and x460 (or the equivelent systems from Fujitsu Siemens or NEC). One thing that is important on these servers is that you should balance each CEC with the same amount of memory or it will greatly affect performance. AMD's NUMA technology is not affected as much as XEON on this (as the mentioned paper shows).

  49. Not true, Intel has been shipping 64-bit consumer by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    ...chips for a while. There's a ton of them listed here . Look for the ones called EM64T.

    And Dell has been selling these 64-bit chips for long time too.

  50. the numbers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Athlon 64 FX-57: (2.8GHz!) 104W TDP
    Pentium 4 571: (the 3.8GHz demon) 115W TDP

    So there you have it, the maximum power consumption on non-pathological "power virus" code, for AMD's and Intel's highest-clocked CPUs. If you find a Mack truck that runs on 11% more fuel than a Fiat, let me know, I think that would be kinda cool to drive around in ;)

    FWIW, there are certainly some situations where the P4 will jump ahead of the A64FX on performance more than 11%, e.g. mp3 encoding (LAME): 13%, kribibench software renderer (17%), and so on.

    And that's all Pentium 4. Don't laugh, but if you can live without absolute leading performance, the Pentium M simply trounces most everything else out there in terms of power consumption:

    Opteron 275 @ 43W per core

    Pentium M @ 21W (single core)

    Basically, power consumption depends on what you buy. Both AMD and Intel offer processors spanning a huge range of power consumption levels, but over the last couple of years Intel has had the upper hand in terms of performance at the low end, because while AMD are selling essentially the one core (K8) in many different guises, Intel have been selling two completely different cores (P7/Netburst' and P6++/'Centrino') for two quite different markets.

  51. Opteron 280 release date? by 5pp000 · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a guess when the Opteron 280 is likely to be out? That would be the dual-core 2.4GHz part. They have a dual-core Athlon 64 at that speed (the "4800+"), so I'm hoping the Opteron won't be much longer... anyone know?

    --
    Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
  52. Re:ONLY 64bit Consumer Chip? by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1

    Nintendo 64!

  53. Re:ONLY 64bit Consumer Chip? by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 1

    Nintendo 64!

    Oh, OK. Yep, I didn't know about that - I knew the Gamecube was really only 32-bit so I assumed the N64 wasn't actually 64-bits since it's a generation back. But wikipedia says it is.

  54. Little Guy by nickienickie · · Score: 1

    I am glad the AMD is moving up in thh computer world but they will never ever beat intels chips. Its always fun to root for the little guy but get real intel will always run the show when it comes to cpus.When ever I buy a puter new or old it must have a intel chip set probalby because of the little blue men commercials back in the day or maybe cuz I know there better chips.