Slashdot Mirror
Intel's New Architecture Too Late?
rts008 writes to tell us that TG Daily has an interesting interview with Randy Allen, AMD's vice president of the server products division, about (among other things) AMD's recent stellar fourth quarter numbers. From the article: "Responsible for that shrinking lead is especially AMD's server products group. Intel's CEO Paul Otellini recently acknowledged that Intel had to give up market shares to AMD and will likely be forced to hand over more shares until the next generation of server chips arrives. [...] AMD's Randy Allen explains in this conversation with TG Daily why he believes that Intel will need much more than a new processor to be able to slow AMD's growth."
Allen: Absolutely
Don't you just love it when a corporation thinks our legal system is just another subsidiary of their marketing department.
Both Intel and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. released dual-core desktop processors in 2005, but consumers are just now beginning to upgrade into the realm of increased hypertasking efficiency. The transition hasn't been entirely smooth--particularly for Intel, whose Pentium D series of dual-core processors was the target of frequent snipes from technocritics disappointed by the limitations inherent in processors' architecture.
From: http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArt
Basically it boils down to this: servers like 64-bit processors, and AMD simply beat Intel when it came to affordable 64-bit computing. At the same time, AMD enjoys more support within the Linux/Unix community. Windows64 took ages to arrive and anyone who wanted a 64-bit server in the meantime simply bought AMD and installed linux. In the dual core deathmatch, once again AMD fragged Intel multiple times over.
And next gen is just a politically correct way of saying, "we are simply making all this faster than ever". The CPU equivalent of next-gen should be more like Nintendo's Revolution than like XBox 360. Alpha64/AMD64 were next-gen, dual cores were next-gen. But now, there seems very little "real" next gen CPUs in line. Intel's house is built of cards.
but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge
:)
Well, almost always. But thanks for the response; I thought that the person was smoking some fine ganja, just wanted to confirm.
The Pentium M has a superior performance/power profile than the Turion. Merom will improve this considerably, while AMD's offerings in the mobile market won't change much. AMD has nothing in its roadmap that is really competitive with the post-Yonah Core line in terms of efficiency in either the mobile or desktop markets. Yonah is already almost clock-for-clock equal in performance with the X2, and it doesn't even have an on-die memory controller. Conroe and Merom will almost assuredly turn the tables on AMD for the immediate future in performance.
In all the flamewars that will ensue, i think the one thing to note is that the CPU industry is very much a cyclical one, especially for the big players. While a design mistake by a small company might potentially be fatal (or get taken over by a bigger competitor), big companies can afford some minor slip-ups and still come back strong. The only problem is, the cycle is usually big (at least in internet terms, which is more like dog-years), and it easily takes a large corporation a few years to do this. All said and done, both these companies have their traditional strengths and selling points that are fairly distinct (process technology vs architecture, features and stability vs performance and value for money) etc. Given these unique USPs and perceptions that these companies have developed and nurtured over the years, it will always be a see-saw battle, IMHO. Of course, these perceptions also change over time, but again, it takes time and even this is cyclical as well.
One more thing: Can we please have a genuinely unbiased discussion/argument, for a change, please??
I believe the mobile market is about to explode, if it hasn't done it yet, and Pentium M's laptops are an overhelming majority over the AMD's powered (Turion?). And now here are the Yonah... AMD has a long road to be the king of the hill.
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
The Opteron strategy was a masterstroke and they have the edge in the technology battle for the fastest processor. But the company has a long way to go before it beats Intel.
I particular getting dual core onto the desktop first isn't going to be as big a coup as AMD thinks. Business generally doesn't seem to want dual core desktops yet and is certainly unwilling to pay a price premium for it.
So while Craig Barratt sidelined everyone with the Itanium processor AMD got the edge, but they may not keep it...
As usual, the truth is more complex than a mere 'Yes' or 'No'. Yes, Intel has the performance edge with their dual-core M chips. Yes, AMD has a great laptop chip in the Turion, with performance ratings in the 3000-4000 range, while keeping power consumption low.
Friends of mine have Centrion-based laptops and complain about excessive fan noise. I'm the happy owner of an Acer Turion-based laptop, which only activates the fan when I'm stressing the CPU.
It's all relative. AMD has the lead on price/performance and does well in power management. Intel has the lead on raw performance, and (in some designs) in power management - but at the expense of performance. I find that the Turion offers a balanced compromise between the parameters, at a fine price point.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Better interview with Henri Richard from AMD here instead:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=295
The TGP interview is OK, but that guy is just a mouthpiece.
HJ
While I am a strong AMD (and generally "underdog") fan and I have predicted 2005 as a good year for AMD , I am afraid that 2006 can still bring surprises ... some good but many potentially bad ...
My analysis:
1. AMD will probably remain the leader on desktop machines at performance/$ and maybe (but not so certain) on performance/watt and overall performance;
2. however AMD is still far behind Intel in the notebook market, and totally out of the picture in the "thin and light" segment - that should become an important target for AMD!!!
3. more important AMD seems far behind Intel in the 65 nm transition - and without that 2006 can be a bad year for AMD;
4. the problem is not so much the speed gain on 65 nm but more on the L2 cache (which remains far behind Intel) and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL on the PRICE - AMD is slowly giving up the most important weapon they had against Intel and without some cuts on price for the X2 line AMD might seriously loose market share to Intel in 2006 !!!
For one, Intel just won a major contract: Apple.
Is this the same Apple who puts all their money in the aging x86 architecture? How anybody can move to 32bit x86 as the premier architecture in 2006 is beyond me. In three years they will have to move to x86-64 and do yet another architecture switch. But Apple has architecture switches locked down by now so it maybe isn't a big problem.
Food for thought when your laptops integrated graphics chip is just starving for more frames to render.
I know that every time I read any article that mentions AMD v Intel that there will be people from the AMD side that come on and say there is not a single compeling Intel product and no reason to have a non-AMD processor in anything. I saw similar zealotry in the comments to anandtech.com's review of the processor - and they are a pretty unbiased and trustworthy source. Here is what they had to say...
... We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller." And it accomlishes this with power consumption that is along the same lines at the previous generation high-end Pentium M chips.
"Our initial analysis still holds true, that for a notebook processor, the Core Duo will be nothing short of amazing for professionals. Looking at the performance improvements offered everywhere from media encoding to 3D rendering, you're going to be able to do a lot more on your notebook than you originally thought possible (without resorting to a 12-pound desktop replacement). In the past, power users on the go had to sacrifice mobility for CPU power, but with the Core Duo, that is no longer the case
I would think that as technology enthusiasts that we would be able to give credit where credit is due and recognize that, at the moment, Intel has a better processor lineup for laptops and AMD has a better line for desktops and servers - that it is possible for each to have strenghts and weaknesses as their produts evolve and change in different ways. Keeping an open mind and an up-to-date understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each helps us to choose the right tool for the job and the budget.
I just can't believe how many are unwilling to concede even one success for Intel in their belief AMD is always better... The competition is helping all of us in spurring on better products and prices and the variety of options allows us to choose the right tool for the job.
I have an AMD laptop; I'd get a Pentium M next time. I'm not looking for absolute speed in a laptop, any modern processor can handle what I want to do. (I like small & light laptops, not desktop replacements.) The mobile Athlon I have runs super hot & needs a fan most of the time, which is just annoying, and the battery life isn't so great. The Pentium Ms I've played with are cooler and quieter, so I'd say for a laptop they are "better" even if they aren't as fast.
AMD is fully planning on transitioning to 65nm in 06. Also, many fanboys are speculating (hoping?) that prices will decrease with the new socket (M2) and the opening of Fab 36 in the next few months.
Well, for some reason, everyone on Slashdot has a hard-on for AMD no matter what they do. Intel's new laptop chip is keeping up with a desktop Athlon64 3800+ X2, and Intel's 64-bit desktop chip Conroe with 4MB cache is ahead of schedule and due this summer. It's cool AMD took some market from Intel last year, but Yonah is kicking butt, and the coming redesigned Merom/Conroe chip means this year is a big one for Intel. Meanwhile, AMD still has yet to get 65nm going. So, I don't get the constant AMD obsession, but that's just me.
"Sufferin' succotash."