Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Counterstrike Against Core 2 Duo
DigitalDame2 writes to mention a PC Magazine article about the AMD 4x4 enthusiast platform, which is meant to counter Core 2 Duo. The article observes that AMD is now facing many of the same business practices it used in its war against Intel. From the article: "While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, improvement can often be a slap in the face. Intel's C2D was designed with both low power and performance per watt in mind, two key design metrics that helped AMD cut into Intel's market share with the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2. And, as preliminary numbers have indicated and final performance reviews now show, the C2D has learned its lesson well: its performance now tops AMD's Athlon 64 architecture by a substantial margin."
4X4 sounds more like a marketing ploy to me than like a feasible solution for Joe Average or even Joe Gamer.
a rch+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p
Why?
Consider the cost of Athlon X2 processors:
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/442067-1.htm
The least expensive Athlon X2 costs a cool 300 bucks, while the mid-range Core 2 Duo (Conroe) E6600 costs $315 (projected wholesale price).
Now factor in a more expensive (because of 2 processor sockets) 4X4 motherboard, two Athlon X2 chips at $300, and you wind up with a $350 to $400 surcharge for being an AMD fanboy.
The situation gets worse if you want a high-end system:
Two FX-62 will set you back $1045 + $1045 = $2090
http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/992212-1.htm
and while this combination is expected to outperform a single Core 2 Duo at $1057
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=E6800&btnG=Se
factoring in the more expensive two-socket motherboard expect to pay a cool $1100 more than for the E6800 system.
Personally, I'll probably buy an E6600 ($315) or an E6400 ($240) as soon as they become available.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
but does it perform better than core 2 duo? I fail to see any performance test between them, and it's also AMD having the bigger market share right now, not intel. Seems like a lot of AMD FUD nowadays... AMD is no longer the underdog here.
Not if you ask hard OCP http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE wOCwxLCxobmV3cw==/
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I don't see why we're talking about flattery and being slapped in the face. It seems that AMD and Intel are competing more directly than in the past, which could ultimately be good news for consumers. By reducing power (/. reported on congress' urge to reduce power consumption earlier) these chips save money and run very quickly. Now that both parties are fighting for efficiency and other similar things, they will have to pull out some amazing science to directly compete instead of simply bosting that their paradigm is superior.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Doesn't AMD already label their processors with a relatively meaningless number designed to... say... redefine how consumers think about processor speed?
Was that a highly effective marketing technique? I mean, I guess it did get people to think about speed, and it helped convince many people that GHz isn't the be-all and end-all of processor comparison. But at some point won't people just be annoyed by the mess of pretend numbers AMD is throwing around to "make us think?"
...A cycle I learned my lesson about many, many moons ago.
;-)
At home, I keep a $640 check I wrote back in 1990 for a 486 CPU.
It's framed and visible on top of a bookcase to serve as a reminder.
At the time, I thought it was a great deal; screaming processors were
never going to get much cheaper than that!
These days, last years tech (or even two years ago tech) is usually
MORE than sufficient. Except for games, which always seem to
need NEXT years processor in order to be playable...
... as did Intel with their previous round of patched-up dual-core machines. The reason AMD's multicore is so much better than Intel's is because AMD provided a much better caching architecture. Intel's 64-bit multicores could be compared to a large V-8 engine stuck behind a tiny VW carburetor -- totally starved for data. AMD's multicores effectively shared one anothers' L2 caches (a big win), and achieved lower latency on RAM fetches (another big win).
If the two giants start to compete on core count, you can bet your family farm that there will be fudging going on over cross-communication, latency, and RAM bandwidth.
You noted how you changed (3) Intel servers with (4) GBs of ram for a single AMD server yet you left out a TON of information about the AMD. What and how are the disk connected compared to the Intel boxen. Secondly, how much ram does this 64-bit AMD have? (16GB?)
We had (2) IBM servers (Dual AMD 64-bit Opteron) with 12GB ram each running 32-bit RHEL3 and Oracle 10g. Because it was 32-bit RH it was only using 4GB in each server. We upgraded the RHEL3-64 and Oracle 10g 64-bit (using all 12GB of memory in each box) and we got about 140% improvement on the same hardware.
What was the difference? 8 more GB of ram each. The fact that a single server has 12GB of ram and all queries happen on a single server makes a HUGE difference than have (3) servers with only 4GB of ram as the database can cache more data in memory.
While I don't know your *true* setup, I can say that a single server with a TON of ram will kill many servers with only a little bit of ram on simple select statements. CPU doesn't do a whole lot on select statements compared to what it will do on say stored procs or all kinds of subselects/joins/aggregate functions in your select statements.
Well, having the strongest offering usually does count for something (especially if you ask the marketeers).
The 4x4 initiative basically looks like DP for the desktop, which Intel offers as well (although Xeon only).
imho, the really interesting thing about 4x4 is the possibility of plugging in a coprocessor in the future.
For example, you may settle for a single Athlon64 X2 in a 4x4 board for now, and add a physics/video/dsp/whatever coprocessor in the future.
That's wild speculation, of course, but it does make the 4x4 setup intriguing as a future-proof product.
--
My question is, how would the comparison stackup once AMD finally releases 65nm chips? Everyone knows that Intel has the best fabs, but I'm curious to see what happens when AMD catches up further in that area.
Anyway, ummm, I'm sure it does make sense really...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Okay, I'll give it the Slashdot norm, but nobody gets what this is. It a hypertransport socket for not just another CPU, but ANYTHING you would want to connect directly to memory and CPU. No PCI or other slow bus.
There are already Xilinx cards available because this has been used in Cray supercomputers for a while (the Opteron ones anyways). This means AMD can counter ANYTHING Intel puts out because you can just slap a $20 speciality DSP on the mobo which could easily be 100x faster than that Intel chip at whatever small set of functions it needs. Video cards are already in the works for this along with all kinds of audio and video stuff. I seem to remember one manufacturer has a RAID processor. The possibilities are endless.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
AMD uses silicon on insulator technology in their fabs, Intel doesn't. SOI provides better performance for a given size, hence AMD 65nm is "better" than Intel 65nm, this is also why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all using it in their next gen consoles.