Slashdot Mirror
Is AMD Dead Yet?
TheProcess writes "Back in February 2003, IBM predicted that AMD would be dead in 5 years (original article here), with IBM and Intel the only remaining players in the chip market. Well, 5 years have passed and AMD is still alive. However, its finances and stock price have taken a serious beating over the last year. AMD was once a darling in this community — the plucky, up-and-coming challenger to the Intel behemoth. Will AMD still be here in 5 years? Can they pose a credible competitive threat to Intel's dominance? Do they still have superior but unappreciated technology? Or are they finally old hat? Can they really recover?"
I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why they purchased ATI. They spent oodles of money to R&D the new quad core architecture to really be a seamless 4 core proc that shared caches etc. Intel just slapped two dual cores together and shipped that. Turns out that in benchmarks for consumer programs, intel's stuff works quite well. AMD's cache sharing and topology of memory access that seems better for true multithreaded applications is irrelevant and occasionally a hinderance when you're running multiple single threaded programs. So they spend oodles on R&D and may not see that much of a return until apps can utilize it better. . .Then they go off and buy ATI? Wouldn't it make sense to hang onto money a bit more than just purchase another company? Could that move end up dragging ATI down too?
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
When AMD came out with low priced CPUs that were highly overclockable and great performance at stock they became *the* CPU for any serious geek. When they changed their mind and decided to price-match Intel causing massive price increases they alienated their primary sales force. Geeks selling to family & friends was a great system and without that AMD has been hurting. It's possible they would have died anyway sticking to the cheap, but they've never made a sufficient argument to their customers of why they can't keep the prices low like in the past without letting it on that they like all big business care more about short term cash than long term relationships.
Warning: Link leads to a malicious website.
For the sake of competition, let's hope so, but it doesn't seem like it. The first Radeon card to support Direct3D 10 took way too long and their processors (both CPU and GPU) are all but impressive these days. Also, their CPUs' cost:performance ratio aren't what they used to be in the glory days which makes them less attractive.
The FX-60 was in my opinion the last exceptional AMD processor to hit the market, both quality and innovation wise. After Core 2 Duo, AMD kind of hit the ground burning.
And they went with trusted computing. That was the last straw for me. I would have continued to buy from them despite the flaws listed in parent post, if they just continued to build computers that I could trust.
Although AMD is not that advertised as Intel is, it continues to remain a solid product company.
For instance the AMD Athlon X2 64-bit dual core chip i use, is quieter, less power hungry and more powerful than its intel-equivalent.
I have always thought of Intel chips as a short, well-built sprinter, whose ting pegs can carry him over a short distance quickly but in the longer haul (marathon), it can keep up only by downing copious amounts of glucose fluids and sweats a lot.
AMD is a picture of a tall (6.5 feet), lean, kenyan man, whose stamina, endurance make him take the 15 mile marathon easily without breaking a sweat.
AMD would be either bought over by IBM or even by Microsoft.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I hope that AMD soon becomes the darling of the community once again, it's because of them that I recently got back into PC gaming. I had totally given up on gaming on the PC, I had bought a gen1 X2 4200 and AM2 motherboard right before the Core 2 Duos came out and I was cursing my bad luck ever since - until I realized that the real holdup in my system wasn't the processor, but my aging 6600GT. In fact, even though I had bought my AM2-based system almost 2 years ago (or longer! I can't remember when the platform launched) I still had a fairly recent system that could actually support even the newest AMD chips. The real kicker came when I bought my Ati Radeon HD3850. This thing, in my oppinion, should be getting just as much press as the 8800GT. For someone like me, spending $180 on a graphics card is a whole lot more reasonable than spending $250+ on an 8800GT just for performance gains in games like Crysis. My housemate dropped over $1000 on a new Intel Quad-core based rig with an 8800GT in it and my system keeps pace with his very well under almost all scenarios. There is a difference, sure, but considering my entire rig probably cost less than $500 (exluding monitor), I'd say I'm doing pretty well. AMD is doing a great job at catering to people like me who were about to be console-only gamers because keeping up to date on the PC side was getting expensive. AMD offers an affordable upgrade path at a lower performance point - but it's good enough to make my Xbox 360 jealous! I'm proud to say that I'm still an AMD fan. Will an X2 5000+ Black Edition beat a comparably clocked Core 2 Duo? No! But look at the price! I'd say the price to performance ratio is way up there!
Well, I am sorry to say it, but AMD is dying at this moment. Their purchase of ATI was disastrous for them and probably the worst move they have ever made. While "good on paper", the reality of it was that AMD was over-sold on the merits of ATI's then just about to be in production GPU from 2 years ago, and its in development (the current generation GPUs that they have now 3870/3850). As we still see today, even this current generation of GPU's from AMD can not outperform Nvidia's last generation 8800 series, even with 1.5 years time to reach that level of performance. This have seriously damaged their ability to be profitable in the video card segment as they have had to price their cards much lower than Nvidia to be even considered from a prospective customer. This is the same battle they are fighting on their CPU side as well ever since Intel released the Core Duo (and the subsequent Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Duo Extreme, Quad Core, and Quad Extreme processors). Basically, on the mid and high end desktop market, AMD has had no real competing product for about 1-2 years, and again, have to settle on pricing against the comparable performance Intel CPU. Intel gets to use the production line chips that fail to meet full speed for slower binned parts which in many cases still outperform AMD's fastest performing part. This is allowing Intel to keep their costs lower, and forcing AMD to slowly bleed to death because they can not afford to price their chips that low. And the high debt AMD incurred on the ATI purchase has been keeping them from doing what they have done in the past when they had a poorer performing chip, i.e. cut costs, bunker down, and increase development dollars on the next gen that was in progress to push up the release date of the new architecture. However, the lack of cash on hand is making that last part impossible to do. And early indications are not looking good even for this current line of quad cores and tri-cores. Basically, these chips still can not get near the performance of the current high end Intel chips.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
They have shown that they can make Intel jump to their tune (64 bit CPUs anyone?), they just bought ATI and are thus in a position to better integrate CPUs and GPUs (for better performance), which is something that I'm sure a few hard core gamers might be interested in. They still have a strong research arm. And if nothing else, they can always go back to building cheaper Intel knock-offs which is (I believe) where they started.
I wank in the shower.
AMD could survive, albeit much diminished, as a foundry - they have a huge fab in Germany, and there are always companies willing to have their designs produced somewhere. Fabs really have no problem getting contracts.
AMD makes a ton of FLASH memory.
And then there's the GPU division (ATI). It's a bit hard to imagine that both CPU, GPU and Flash RAM will all tank at once.
Could it happen? Yeah. Everything is possible. I would not bet my apartement on it, though.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It's a basic business cycle here.
large company make billions of dollars, sits on it's laurels. Young upstart company makes a decent product and begins to eat at the large company's business. In this case, intel was nimble and humble enough to realize how to respond to that (make lower power chips and adopt x86-64 from AMD) So now, AMD is back to being a scrappy company. Just wait until Intel makes another bazillion and sits on it's laurels again. AMD (or someone) will come to push Intel again.
(The major difference now however, is that fabs are freakin' expensive and AMD might not have enough capital to keep upgrading fabs, which will run them out of business.)
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Infineon
Intel Corporation
Lenovo Holdings Limited
Microsoft
Sun Microsystems, Inc That doesn't leave you an awful lot of choice, does it?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Long ago, FUD was the bread and butter of the IBM consultant, what's new?
I'll admit I don't know much about the matter, but they seem to be fairly Free Software friendly, in terms of their releasing of documentation for both their CPUs and the ATI GPUs.
Does anyone have any detailed information on this? Perhaps the Free Software community can support AMD's openness by buying AMD hardware, *and letting them know this is the reason*.
It is interesting to note that this article is dated February 17, 2003. In other words IBM made this prediction literally 2 months before AMD introduced their first 64-bit processors, the Opteron, in April 2003. Little did they know the impact the AMD64 architecture would have on the industry (Intel cloned the architecture) and on AMD itself (it helped them stay afloat for the past 5 years).
Persistently trolling with malicious links: or, how to waste Slashdot's moderation system. One such link uses several -1, Troll and +1, Informative. How many useful comments got missed because of that?
... when I deliberately switched to Mac.
Before I switched to using Macs, I would always build my own PC's from components, and I always chose an AMD processor (starting with the 450 MHz AMD K6-III).
Until Macs start coming with AMD chips, I doubt I'll buy another one any time soon.
Whoa, one thing at a time — let's see off BSD first, OK?
For full disclosure, I should add that last I checked was twenty years ago.
I've built a very good number of machines for people lately with Abit micro-ATX boards, with built-in graphics (d-sub and DVI). Throw in a 2.4 GHz X2 and 4 gigs of memory, a hard drive, and a burner, and the hardware comes to something like $300. Good, fast, and CHEAP.
One of the offices was broken into lately, and the thieves bypassed the "wimpy" micro-ATX cases and stole big, heavy machines... which happened to be older, slower stuff.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Let us all hope they don't die, I'm almost an Intel fanboy but my god if AMD dies! Intel would rape us all. Competition is always healthy. I think AMD has good low priced CPUs though and they sure do the job.
What's better for Intel: to be charged for being a monopolist by the competition authorities or having an ineffective token competitor? Thus: Intel will keep AMD in business.
Can they pose a credible competitive threat to Intel's dominance?
Do they still have superior but unappreciated technology?
Or are they finally old hat? Can they really recover?
You will get the answers to these question and plenty of others in the next episode, released starting from 2013.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
That good high end technology often gives you a good low end too. That is the current case with Intel's Core technology. You take a Core 2, but instead just make a single core version with less cache and clock it way down. You then have a chip with extremely good performance per watt, and good yields (and thus low price) to boot. The Core Solos, as Intel calls them, are extremely competitive on the low end. They've got ones with a TDP as low as 5.5watts.
So it can be hard to try and just compete on the low end of things, since you can't charge as much, and often the people doing the high end things get killer low end products as a side effect.
This is something companies have found out with graphics cards. There have been a number of companies who have tried to compete with nVidia and ATi in the lower end market. Their idea is that while they don't have the R&D to produce a top flight graphics card, that's ok because most people don't buy one of those anyhow. They'll make midrange and lower end cards and sell those.
Great idea, it seems, until you consider that ATi and nVidia get great midrange cards as a side effect of their high end cards. Graphics cards are highly parallel beasts so all they do to make a lower end card is cut some of the units off, put on less memory, maybe clock it down a bit to improve yields and they are good to go. An 8800 GTX and an 8600 GT are the same beast at heart. The 8600 basically just has 25% the number of shader units the 8800 does, and other things like a smaller memory bus. End result is nVidia has and extremely fast $100 card that cost them very little in terms of R&D that wasn't already done for their high end card.
So the companies that have tried have thus far met with little success. Their offerings just haven't been able to compete with the big boys and it is no surprise. You can pour a lot more in to R&D when you are going to sell graphics cards at $500+ and then make use of that very same technology in midrange and low end cards.
Site triggers my AV with this attack: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-013.mspx
Or for processors that can still run x86 instructions, how about VIA?
AMD decided to price match Intel? I thought it was the other way around. Here in the UK at least you can get a quad core 6600 for £164.99. That's the CPU I use and I reckon that it's the total sweet spot for price/performance, plus you can overclock it about 40% using stock cooling. AMD have had to slash prices to compete on price/performance, leading to their current woes.
In fact looking at the AMD page on ebuyer they have great cheap AMD dual core chips. If I were building a nice but cheap system for friends/family I'd probably go with one of those AMD's unless they wanted to play the latest games. Then it'd be Core2 all the way.
I think you've got it exactly the wrong way round. Intel moved in on AMD's market, not the other way around.
If headlines are allowed in slashdot articles with this tone, I fear for the future: Can we expect such gems in the coming months: Torvalds leaves mangled corpse in Linux debate Minor power outage in Guam, world doomed! Copyright violators: You're screwed! Microsoft says, 'Fark off' Lets get a little sense of perspective in here please?
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
Ironic that IBM isn't manufacturing popular CPU's anymore.
FRAUD ALERT? First, for me this story crossed a line. It looks like stock manipulation. Was KDawson paid to post this story? Who at Slashdot or its parent company has recently sold AMD stock short, betting that the price will fall? Are any Intel employees involved?
... through dumbness rather than
malice."
I would like to see a statement added at the end of this Slashdot story that KDawson took no money for this story, and that no one at Slashdot or its parent company took money or will benefit from a drop in price of AMD stock. I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I am just concerned that this story is worded in a way that seems sleazy and possibly fraudulent to me.
Second, in response to the parent comment. ATI is the premier video CPU provider now. nVidia is so lame that there is an entire web site devoted to fixing nVidia driver issues: LaptopVideo2Go. I spent hours trying to get one of my laptops, which has an nVidia chip, to work correctly with an external monitor. It works well now, but I could never have done the work without the help of LaptopVideo2Go.
Third, Intel is suffering from very bad management. For example, see the comment I posted to an earlier Slashdot story, responding to someone saying, "Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible."
Fourth, AMD seems to be the more technologically dedicated company. Intel has a history of dumb mistakes. For example, see this December 2000 article about the Pentium 4, which calls Intel "Chipzilla": Pentium 4 Linux problem all Chipzilla's fault, apparently. Quote: "Intel... failed
I seem to remember that the entire Pentium 4 architecture was abandoned in favor of the Pentium 4 Mobile architecture, which is what Intel is shipping now.
Both AMD and Intel make VERY sophisticated processors. It's amazing that a product that is so tiny it is affected by quantum physics is cheap enough for everyone to own. When one is temporarily ahead, it is simply silly to say that the other is dying.
Stock prices are often affected by hysteria. This is especially true of prices of technical stocks, which are often owned by people who don't really understand the technology of the company they partly own.
In terms of manufacturing technology, Intel and AMD are indeed taking different roads. One of the biggest advantage that AMD has yet to realize with their technology (SOI) is to implement Z-RAM for their processor caches. Z-RAM is a type of memory so dense it requires only 1 transistor per bit instead of 6 transistors for traditional SRAM, potentially allowing AMD to have caches about 6 times the size of Intel's caches on the same die area. Of course nobody knows yet for sure if/when Z-RAM will turn out to be doable. But if it is, Intel would have to way to implement the technology without massively reconverting their fabs to the SOI process.
Well, I tested it in the only benchmark that matters to me, my own applications. The result? For some applications involving video processing, those where I need most CPU, it performed at about 25% of the level of an Intel 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. For my own applications, the "AMD 2200+" is actually an "AMD 800-".
I really don't care about how much better it performs in office applications, or whatever other tests AMD did to "prove" that clock speed doesn't matter. You can only stretch the truth so far, when one is doing number crunching a faster clock will get you more performance than faster context switches.
Anyone thinking that Intel can always be ahead of AMD should read the history of the Pentium 4 on Wikipedia. Two quotes:
"Finally, the thermal problems were so severe, Intel decided to abandon the Prescott architecture altogether, and attempts to roll out a 4 GHz part were abandoned, as a waste of internal resources."
"The original successor to the Pentium 4 was Tejas, which was scheduled for an early-mid-2005 release. However, it was cancelled a few months after the release of Prescott due to extremely high power consumption (a 2.8 GHz Tejas consumed 150 W of power..."
And that's a bad thing?
I click those malicious links out of curiosity, I guess many people do. It's not like increased traffic to one of those sites are doing anyone any good, or is it?
Anyways, I enjoy looking at what 'malicious' javascript games those kids come up with.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Silly me, I thought you were going to drag out AMD being the first to 1GHz and intel's failed attempt to leap frog them with the 1.13 GHz.
Kinda like Linux, AMD's big year has always been just around the corner, but has never arrived.
Yes, it did. And in 2007 they shipped millions of machines. And most of them were laptops or uses laptop CPUs. And in the US laptop market Apple had some 20%! That is a considerable market share. I believe the OP was right in saying that AMD would be hard pressed to supply Apple with that many chips - and still serve the rest of their customers. But that's just my guess.
2005 did arrive. You must have still been in high school then.
AMD's market share must have shrunk a bit from the old days if your purchase has such an effect. Unless you meant to say that you just ordered one million AMD 4800+ processors.
Intel stock is down, too.
See also this January 16, 2008 Bloomberg story: U.S. Stocks Fall on Intel Forecast, Extending Global Tumble.
Quote: "Intel, the world's largest computer-chip maker, tumbled the most in five years in Nasdaq Stock Market trading after saying first-quarter sales will be as much as 6.9 percent below analysts' estimates."
Well, if this was the Manly Things Forum dedicated to beer, monster trucks, and movies prominently featuring drill sergeants, I would've gone with the other thing.
sic transit gloria mundi
People are selling AMD stock short, betting it will go down. To make money, they need the price of AMD stock to drop.
Often a company's stock price reflects market manipulation rather than any sensible estimate of the true value of the company. This Slashdot story is very likely to drive the price down, as short sellers want. Check the price after the market opens.
When AMD integrates ATI video with AMD CPUs, the resulting combination is likely to be very competitive. AMDs technical prospects seem good to me, although I have not done a thorough analysis. Remember that we are no longer in a CPU speed race; CPUs are fast enough now for the average user.
I'm glad AMD is in the market if only because they force Intel to do deep price cuts to their Core2Duo line. Plus, AMD's quad cores are terrific for digital audio workstations. For the price, they are still very fine processors.
You are welcome on my lawn.
1) People do not choose their BIOS(yet, anyway); so you're going to have an awful lot of people caught when they start having 'Trusted' Bios not allowing them the kind of control over their computer that we now have.
2) You're assuming that your ISP is going to allow you to connect without 'trusted' software running.
TCPA is designed to "secure" whole networks of computers for the trusted computing group, not just your own device(as if *anything* you own is going to actually be your own). Unless you are solidly sure that you'll always be able to connect to a 'non-trusted' network, this is fine. But for the rest of us, this stuff is *not* our friend.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Yeah I'm always watching the front page of slashdot waiting for it to tell me what to buy and what to sell. Actually that might work...stock market is group think, slashdot is group think.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
The simple fact that one of the biggest differences is made by having a multi-core processor when running modern Operating systems rather than raw processor speed should yield one obvious comment:
The cheapest Dual-Core processors I can quickly find :
The performance is within a hairs breadth of each other... and yes, when coupled with a modest graphics card they both do just fine in all but the latest bleeding-edge 3D games.
In other words, for normal home or business computing with light to moderate gaming - there is an obvious choice. Even with more demanding gaming, thats £30 more to throw at your graphics card which will make far more difference - or £30 more memory (2 GB !!!).
With this sort of thing going for them, and the higher-end really matching Intel in the price/performance stakes I suspect theres life there yet... quite a bit of it.
As far as graphics goes, everyone is happy to compare ATI with nVidia - but the only choice when it comes to on-chip graphics is not "ATI v nVidia" but "ATI v Intel"... you have looked at Intel graphics lately right ?
Dell is finally selling PC's with AMD processors right along the Intel offerings.
They finally, now, have the platform.
Not just that - the difference between Intel is hubris vs economics. As nerds, WE have the responsibility to show people where they're wasting their money. If you're shelling out $6000 to get something bleeding-fucking-tomorrow-edge, yes, you want Intel. If you want something you can use for the next 3 years, but not top of the line (which most people don't need), then an AMD chip will cost you less than half as much as an equivalent-powered Intel.
My hope is that AMD continues to grow and gets their chips into lines from a few other commodity manufacturers. The best thing for the consumer would be two companies competing on approximately equal footing.
http://www.microway.com/8wayopteron.html
http://hpcsystems.com/AMDQuadOpteron_A5808-32.htm
where you at Intel (IA64 doesn't count)?
Actually, he did. Those new nForce mainboards really are the best if you need 2000000 to 4000000 cores.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
have you done any fundamental looks at AMD's balance sheet, income statement, or CF statements? have you seen how the stock has performed over the last 2.5 years?it's stock has been in a precipitous downward spiral. If you were long AMD for the last 2 years, you have basically been crushed.
now, why is it down? well, look at their earnings. they have done pitiful. turns out in a slugout pricewar, intel can stay profitable while AMD is on the ropes. last year they lost money and continue to show no signs of recovering from their tech deficit they have again built against Intel. Now adays, the fastest AMD chip not on the market yet is slower than what intel already has at full production.
FYI: they last 166 million dollars last year. I'm not sure why this looks like manipulation as compared to just poor performance by the company without much of an end in sight.
oh, and my disclaimer: following my advice will hurt my long position in AMD.
Intel's failings on Itanium and Netburst were common corporate faults.
When the competitive marketplace isn't driving you, you have to drive yourself. Once that starts to happen, the directions can become bizarre, with Itanium and Netburst being to very good examples.
Itanium: The problem Itanium was designed to handle was cloning. First and foremost, they sewed up the I.P. so that it was not subject to any existing cross-licensing agreements. Second, the architecture was sufficiently different that they were outside of the realm of existing art ahd cross-licensing, so their I.P. was "strong." Notice that I haven't said a word yet about performance, cost, or any of that normal stuff. When mere technical and marketplace concerns are that low in the priority schemes, guess what happens.
Netburst: It seemed like someone in marketing got overly focused on clockspeed as the Ultimate Metric. The rest falls from there.
The reality is that ANY corporate product, will turn to junk without a competitive marketplace to keep it focused on delivering value to customers. Once competition is gone from a specific marketplace, the company will either focus its development budget in other areas where it needs to respond to competition, or it's development will be driven by motivations internal to the company, that are likely irrelevant or even negative to customers
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
and why won't you share you stingy bastard?
Hmm. Phenom 9700, $200. E6420, $200.
Phenom kicks the crap out of E6420.
I go with the AMD.
> You can only stretch the truth so far, when one is doing number crunching a faster clock will get you more performance than faster context switches.
You don't specify which applications you were using, or what you were doing, or in fact any useful detail at all, which makes your story essentially unverifiable. Moreover, your reported results appear to be somewhat at variance with the general experience, and your claim here is just overly simplistic (ALU throughput, and having enough registers to effectively manage latency, are just as important) - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Given the variance between the two architectures, on lots of levels, I'm sure there are specific runs of code in which the P4 would trounce the Athlon (and vice versa), and it's possibly that you happened upon them in the specific applications you were using (or writing - you don't specify that either... although of course if you had access to the source code, you could have produced profiler runs and seen exactly where the time was going). On the other hand, you might have missed something simple yet vital in your comparisons, or your comparison might be completely unrepeatable.
I am NOT saying you didn't observe what you have reported, not at all. But without useful detail, the rest of us can only disregard outlying data points.
Most of the time, when someone refers to x86_64 bit processor technology - they call it AMD64.
AMD is going no where
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Yeah, SourceForge, Inc.
The only way you could have gotten a performance difference that large is if the Pentium 4 was using an SIMD extension which the AMD CPU wasn't using. In other words, if the test was specifically optimized in favor of the Pentium 4 and not optimized in the same way for AMD.
Yes, clock does matter, but there are tradeoffs, and Intel chose to maximize clock frequency at the expense of all else. AMD had to either explain that to customers, or switch to using an actual benchmark to measure performance. Argue all you like about which benchmark they chose, but it was the right decision.
I really don't care about how much better it performs in office applications, or whatever other tests AMD did to "prove" that clock speed doesn't matter. You can only stretch the truth so far, when one is doing number crunching a faster clock will get you more performance than faster context switches.
I'm not going to question your personal experience as the others did. It's certainly believable that there's an application where the AMD processor performs 1/4th the speed of an Intel one (and vice versa).
I just want to point out that if the AMD processor actually was 2200 MHz, then you still could have found that the application that interests you performed at 1/4th the speed on that processor than the equivalent Intel one. Meaning that without the performance modeling numbers, you still would have found the equivalent "numbers" to result in an invalid comparison.
Clock frequency is not an automatic benefit for number crunching. If you don't change the architecture, then obviously yes a faster clock helps. But you don't go from a 1600 MHz chip to a 2200 MHz chip in the same time period without changing architectures. Performance is Clock Frequency * Insructions per Cycle, and a wide machine (many execution units) with low memory latency is going to tend to have higher IPC. However, the IPC value varies wildly by benchmark, and a benchmark that reveals certain deficiencies or strengths of the architecture may fall well outside normal, as was your case.
AMDs "modelhertz" or "markethertz" numbers became strained when the new generation of Intel products came out, but for most of the life of the Pentium 4 they were extremely generous to Intel's architecture. It's not just office applications -- go check benchmarks on Tom's, HardOCP, Ace's Hardware, and you'll see the AMD processor outperforming in a wide variety of benchmarks from games to high-performance scientific computing (the true number-crunching benchmarks), even including some media encoding benchmarks though Intel was very strong there and generally dominated.
My point is that if what you're looking for is a singular number by which to compare performance, then there is no "truth" to be stretched. MHz is an actual measurable number, true, but to equate that number with performance is "stretching the truth" to a greater extent than taking an aggregate of a wide variety of benchmark scores and relating that to performance. Marketroids can and do manipulate which benchmarks are chosen, but at least the resulting number means something regarding the performance of those benchmarks. MHz, by itself, means essentially nothing for a cross-architecture comparison.
So next time if you want to get the truth about performance, then the truth is that you have to measure the performance of the application you personally care about on the two processors in question. You can get an idea from reading reviews with benchmarks and looking at the results of similar applications (i.e. media encoding, or games, or what have you), but even that won't get you the real picture.
The enemies of Democracy are
If you look at the companies from a 5-year window (such as this article does), AMD looks better:
Intel is UP 17.4%
AMD is UP almost 28.4%
But if we extend that window to 8 years, they are BOTH in trouble, each DOWN about 63%.
Lastly, with careful manipulation of the dates to just a little bit over 2 years (where I chose the high point in the stock after the AMD/ATI hysteria and AMD's stock price skyrocketed before coming back to the Realm of Reality), it looks like AMD is on the brink, being down over 80%.
This is why we shouldn't use stock prices over time to judge these things. They are just too easily manipulated.
However, I'm NOT saying AMD isn't having troubles right now. There's a LOT on AMD's sheets right now that look very unhappy with a negative P/E and EPS along with massive cash losses. I'm just saying we shouldn't look at stock price alone, especially over arbitrary time lengths.
The
Make sure you have "Plain Old Text" selected in the dropdown box.
Then you will see line breaks when you hit return.
If using "HTML Formatted", you have to put in br's for line breaks.
I call bullshit.
The original Pentium 4 models were widely and famously known for the fact that their clockrate was vastly out of proportion to its real-world performance. I believe that clock-for-clock, a Pentium III performed 1.5 to 2x as fast as a Pentium 4. It is quite possibly, the least efficient CPU in terms of clock per performance ever to be manufactured.
The early Pentium 4s were almost universally slower than the Pentium IIIs that they replaced.
Likewise, only very specific types of "number crunching" actually took advantage of the Pentium 4. Certain types of video encoding worked quite well, whilst "general purpose" calculations were pathetically slow. Intel was also widely known for running highly-optimized benchmarks on their processors, and then running unoptimized i386 compiles on AMD's machines to make them look poor by comparison.
AMD's chips, at the time, however, had clock speeds that were more closely pared to Pentium IIIs.
Intel wound up getting a taste of its own poison after the architecture proved to be unsustainable in meaningful yields past 4Ghz, and its low-power Pentium 4 M chips began outperforming their power-hungry desktop equivalents that were priced twice as high. This architecture eventually evolved into the Core series of chips. In the interim, Intel had a *very* tough time marketing its chips, and for a time, Mhz ratings dropped out of Intel's marketing entirely.
AMD's speed rating was pegged to the Pentium 4, and from what I can remember, it was a fairly faithful benchmark. Although the "fake" speed ratings aren't as necessary today, it's still nice to be able to vaguely compare processors across generations.
If it weren't for the Core series of chips (which weren't even developed by Intel's main development group!), AMD would almost certainly be on top of Intel right now, provided they could keep up with the demand.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
For most people, is the performance difference really that important? Maybe for uber-power users and gamers, but not the majority of people, even geeks.
Meanwhile, the motherboards that support AMD Phenom's are superior to and cheaper than motherboards for Intel Quad-cores. Gigabit motherboards offer up to 16GB of RAM; it also offers 2 x16 PCI-e slots and 3 x1 PCI-e slots, as well as 2 PCI slots; the Gigabit GA-790FX-DQ6 is around $200 for that. This motherboard has around a 4- to 5-star rating from numerous reviewers.
Some of the MSI motherboards offer 8GB and 4 x16 or x8 PCI-e slots, along with 1 x1 PCI-e slot, and 2 older PCI slots: that's 7 total. This one's for around $160. This board has a 5-star rating from numerous reviewers (on NegEgg). It also has an award for best motherboard in terms of quality.
Meanwhile, the only Intel motherboards for their non-server Quad-cores that go up to 16GB are by A-bit, a poor brand, and those motherboards have comparably poor reviews from NewEgg.com.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen