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."
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
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.
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.
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.
...where can I buy 64 bit processors?
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...
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.
When calculating the percentage of processors, is AMD counting a dual core as one or two processors?
Tat commentwa s one of teh MOST ddiffcult ive EVER read.
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...
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.
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?
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.
Do they count the dual-cores twice? :-D
Why stick up for big business?
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
... there wouldn't be much point to own both I guess... other than geek factor. :-)
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
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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-
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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 : )
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.
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
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.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
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."
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).
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
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!!!
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.
SINCE the athlon? I'd reckon to say since the K6-2.
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).
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.
...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.
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
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.
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!
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.
Nintendo 64!
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.
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.
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.