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.
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??
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.
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
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 !!!
I never knew that having all the facts could be this simple! Thanks, Slashdot!
--S
-- sigs cause cancer.
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.