Slashdot Mirror
Intel Pushes Back with Xeon 5100
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece on Intel's newest chip, the Xeon 5100, which many consider might be the chip that will llow them to stop losing ground to AMD. From the article: 'During the presentation, Intel ran the now-standard comparison test against AMD's highest performing chip, handily beating the system in a speed test. And in a jab at AMD execs, who handed kill-o-watt meters to analysts at the outfit's recent technology day, Intel execs used the same device to measure the new Xeon 5100 system's performance — gauged to be 7 watts better than that of the AMD-based system.'"
...the keyword is might :)
One of the largest costs in IT is Electricity...
The cost of procurement of a server is a tiny percentage of its TCO.
This sig is the express property of someone.
Now we wait for AMD's next move..
Now I have no preference in the whole AMD vs Intel debate, I just use whatever seems to give me the most value for money / required performance. I am currently using AMD chips in kit 4 years old or younger and Intel chips in some of my older hardware, and haven't yet even looked at AMD64 or IA64 chips). but it is really good to see some serious competition between two industry giants. Long live the competition, its better for the consumer.
This is how capitalism is supposed to work people - multiple businesses compete in the same market and when one lags behind it begins to lose market share (and therefore money) - then it comes up with its own new product or service to compete.
That's how you get good products at low prices - comeptition, plan and simple. The thing that is unfortunate with markets like PC and server processors (or even operating systems) is that there are only two major market share holders, and one of them is much larger than the other making it tough for them to be competitive due to lack of volume.
But as Apple and AMD have proven, you don't have to have the largest market share to innovate, and you can make a serious dent in the Microsofts and Intels of the world - even if all it accomplishes is forcing them to put more effort into their products both of their customers win.
Haiku for you!
Nothing like a little competition! Whatever brings me faster chips...
Does this include the required Intel Northbridge chip (22W), or are we only looking at the CPU itself? And does the NB need a fan?
Or is this the entire system motherboard, in which cases this is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Fair" comparisons (like 65nm vs. 65nm) are interesting to academics, but what matters to customers is what you can buy from Intel now vs. what you can buy from AMD now.
What a thoughtful and insightful post. Clearly IBM does not have production and yield problems, because they are courting three major game console manufacturers with their wonderful, efficient chips.
Oh wait. Of these three, only two of them are actually available. Hrm.
Oh yeah, and I seem to recall something about a shortage of XBox360s. Something about a chip company not making as many chips as they promised. Must've been the wifi card or something.
WAIT, I DO recall a time when a company - think it was IBM - didn't produce enough G5 chips and people were backordering their Power Macs for months! Perhaps there is something to this after all.
What's that? Your XBox360 consumes so much power that the PSU caught fire and burned a hole in your carpet? Guess there is a performance-per-watt issue after all. You know, that really does matter to a lot of people. There are data centers, especially in downtown locations, that can't grow their business any more because the power company won't sell them any more wattage. And if you remove the excess thermal paste, MBPs aren't all that hot.
So yeah. Troll somewhere else.
IBM was indeed bad for Apple's bottom line, but Motorola was disastrous.
But the peripheral requirements -- particularly FB-DIMM -- are interesting, too. And maybe a little scary. Anybody got a clue how these FB-DIMM units are gonna be priced per GB? We haven't seen any details on mobo pricing, either.
I like the idea of lower power consumption and greater throughput. But if I can't afford to build the system, it doesn't do me much good.
This announcement does sorta smell like marketing hype; I guess the implementations will tell the tale. Intel finally recognizes in public that they're getting their asses kicked by AMD, though, which is a good thing, IMO. Now if they'd just focus on price/performance competitiveness, they might even get me back as a customer.
Founding member: He-Man Windoze Hater Club
There are reasons for this growing similarity, density and cost (somewhat related to density). Laptops have always had to pack more into a smaller space, and heat was therefore a big concern. This concern has come to the server world because of racks and blades. Previously, servers were towers, you stacked a bunch in a room, not very dense, fine. Now you pack a rack full of "pizza boxes" and end up with an oven pretty quickly. Cost, I would say, is a secondary factor. Previously you needed computing power, damn the cost, you had to have it. Now you can have almost more than you'll ever need, so now people want it to not run their electric bill through the roof. Cost is also related to heat, because just expensive as the hardware or electricity needed to run the computers can be the cooling system or electricity to run it! In some sense, server have become more like laptops in their requirements. You'd like them to be small (so you can pack them together, not for transport) and you'd like them to by stingy on electricity (for cost, not battery life).