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."
AMD exec says AMD is better than its competitor. Earth shattering news!
I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?
I know that the new MacBook is running on the Core Duo line, and I understand that's a whopper of a mobile CPU, but I thought that AMD had a strong competitor to the Pentium-M?
Another perspective here:
1 3.html
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/102631
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have to give Intel credit for ruling the mobile CPU market. AMD doesn't even come close in this area. And with everything becoming lighter, smaller, more portable, and dependant on lower power consumption... you can't count Intel out at all. Perhaps we're starting to see two companies that used to compete directly with the same kinds of chips begin to specialize at what they do best: performance for AMD and mobility for Intel.
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...
You don't say in what way, so I will. IIRC, The Pentium M is ever-so slightly better in integer ops, but it gets creamed in floating point. Yes, this is fixable.
No
You are giving a very incomplete answer. AMD has a line of very low voltage K8 chips called Turion (yes, the name's questionable, but that's nothing new when it comes to brands in the processor world). The most efficient run at about 25W, but unlike with the P-M, this figure includes AMD's on-die memory controller, while Intel defers that extra power cost onto the board logic. Also, one of them (I can't remember which) reports wattage at peak value, and the other at typical value.
The only way you are at all correct is that Turion adoption was slow, because IIRC laptop manufacturers, for whatever reason, do their redesigns at the beginning of the year, and they missed this opportunity last year (or the year before, whichever) because they couldn't introduce the Turion in time.
Roughly, Turion laptops get 3:30 to a comparable Pentium M laptop's 4:00.
-William Brendel
Intel has beat on AMD by: 1 Dumping memory prices to hurt AMD's bottom line. AMD's working on corporate restructuring to fix this. 2 Having a proprietary lead in tech. AMD has a better 64bit option, so Intel lost this battle. 3 Advertising/Corporate mindshare. AMD's making significant inroads with the blue suits AND gamers. 4 Better Manufacturing/Better product delivery. Intel still beats out AMD. Even now, AMD is NOT producing enough Athlon64's in the 3000-3500+ speeds to keep up with demand. Intel retains a significant operational lead, but not design and tech. Having an operational lead does NOT justify higher prices and margins on the free market.
Considering Intel is dropping the "Intel Inside" logo as part of their rebranding, those PHB's better figure it out soon...
Last time I tried putting a cat in a bag, I ended up getting my face clawed.
I'm trying make this into an analogy. I can't. But cats and bags just dredges up bad memories.
Carry on.
Life is not for the lazy.
Uh, Sun have a 8-core cpu for sale right now. See their t1000/t2000 servers.
Depends on how much AMD will gain from going to 65nm.
The Conroe is indeed quite promising. Assuming it will have the same performance per clock speed as the Core Duo and be clocked a bit higher, it will match the best AMD dual cores existing now in performance. And it might be cheaper due to the smaller die size.
But AMD also made a nice step ahead when they went from 130 nm to 90 nm. If they can repeat this with their upcoming 65nm process, they might be able to stay ahead.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Face it fanboys, a laptop with an AMD chip is a piece of stinking shit.
Except when it comes to FLOPS, cache size, i/o speed....?
That said, anyone who buys a laptop and doesn't play games on it is better off sticking with Intel. There's no better chip when it comes to running the usual suspect win32 apps. But your 3D games will suffer.
May the Maths Be with you!
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 !!!
The Turion 64 ML-40 is 1/2 the price of the Pentium 780, around 350-400 dollars more (via froogle and pricewatch) The core-due also has 2 megs cache per core of cache.
Also where is benchmarks and battery life when each cpu is clocked at its lowest power saving? If you are going to do a benchmark for batterylife, how about actually doing the most important tests..
And, AMD laptops are opendesign to OEM vendors, so they can use any hardware and save money. Intel wants to control this to more of a degree for the centrino name, thus higher costs.
Now, I'm not bashing Intel, I cant wait for the 900 chips with dual core and virtualization. But that article could use some more info and less "Intels new chip is awesome compared to Old hardware on different platforms, blah chipset etc.."
I do remember, Intel lists only 75% of the TDP while AMD tells the truth and lists the peak value.
Quote taken from: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/a
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 !!!
Real world experience with marketing demonstrates that there are much more important things than 'price' in selecting a product. Wally World puts their cheapest "microwave" in the main trafficways. Mesmerized Customer says, "hey, good idea, I could use a new 'microwave', and damn, this thing's dirt cheap. But it's probably a POS, so I wonder what else they have..." Then they go into the isle and pick out a more expensive microwave, which has a significantly higher profit margin for WW, which is probably cheaper elsewhere (source: Frontline documentary on WalMart).
If price is all you push, your company will end up like General Motors ("We just lowered the sticker price on EVERYTHING!"), mismanaged into the ground, and have to give away your product at a loss...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I never knew that having all the facts could be this simple! Thanks, Slashdot!
--S
-- sigs cause cancer.
Food for thought when your laptops integrated graphics chip is just starving for more frames to render.
well, except for a couple things:
1. AMD sells less of every product than intel. but this is expected - they are worth 11% of intel
2. sony is a bunch of assholes, and AMD really isn't. also, AMD actually makes superior products, which sony doesn't (anymore).
I would actually express it the other way around.
Intel is like Sony (in gaming) because they use marketing tactics to gain mindshare, and pack in gimmicks that win over consumers (such as dvd playback in the PS2).
AMD is like Nintendo because they are focusing on what really matters most to people (even if they don't even know it), which is the performance of what their product does. Nintendo relentlessly talks about improving game quality and innovation, and AMD does the same thing by saying "you know what, marketing gimmicks don't work as well as better performance/watt and overall performance in the desktop and server market"
on another note, I think the fact that AMD is really killing intel in the desktop and especially server market right now, if AMD were to continue and totally win over those markets, I think by saying that Intel has the all important laptop market is total crap if (in the hypothetical situation) AMD were to take a huge share of both the desktop and server market.
and turions are pretty nice. I'd rather have a 64 bit mobile chip and sacrafice a little battery life. and when Vista comes out, you know which chip will run faster. Any battery life > 3 hours is perfectly acceptable. Whenever you go for a battery life higher than that, you either get a huge battery (and slow recharge times), or you simply end up sacraficing performance.
Conroe will have an on-die memory controller, more bandwidth, and a larger register file than Yonah, which will buy it 10% at least in performance on Yonah.
Where did you get that part of information? The latest news I could find,
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28602,
still claims Conroe will lack an integrated memory controller.
Also, AMD 65 nm chips are expected for this year, not next year.
C - the footgun of programming languages
A serious flaw with your logic is that corporate customers control a significant majority of the buying dollars in the processor market.
And that $100 extra doesn't mean sh*t to a company. Corporations want reliability above all else.
I stopped buying AMDs for my company several years ago after having about 10 Athlons melt on us, usually because of clogged fans. No termperature failsafe logic on those old Athlons. Sony money we saved on AMD on the front end was quickly overwhelmed by suppoort costs and user downtime on the back end. Yes, I know AMD solved this particular problem a few years back. But, after being burned on the K7, I was seriously cautious about buying from AMD again.
We have only recently started buying Opterons for the server room. The performance/watt is wonderful compared with our Xeon boxes; reliability has been great. But we still chose Intel for our laptop standard this year; perhaps AMD might win for our desktop standard. But you know what? Laptops represent about 60% of our hardware budget... and Intel is getting all that money.
1. Put bag on floor with opening to the side.
2. Wait until curious cat goes into bag to investigate.
3. Profit.
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.
AMD reports peak values, Intel reports average values. Take an Athlon64 4400+ rated at 110W, and put it next to a P4 rated at 130W. Compare the total system power draw. There is no *way* the P4 uses only 20 more watts. 130W-rated P4s have been tested as drawing 170W+ during peak loads.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
It's an old analogy, coined when men were men, cats were cats, and bags were bags. In those days, a man would stuff fifty or even a hundred cats into bags before breakfast without even breaking a sweat, go and do a full day's hard manual work, and then stuff another load of cats into bags before supper.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.