Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's Dual Core Duel Challenge

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 29, 2005 12:32:02 AM

http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13368_13369,00.html?re...

On Aug 23, 2005 AMD challenged Intel to a Dual-Core Duel for server chips. Intel hasn't responded so click the link above to read more. You can sign a petition to make Intel respond (LOL good luck), but the main reason I bring this up is AMD's Letterman like top ten reasons Intel wont do it (pretty funny).
November 29, 2005 1:55:11 AM

I cant decide whether iI like 7 or 8 the most.
Thanks, that is funny.
November 29, 2005 1:56:57 AM

I like #9 but nobody I know knows what a Front side bus is.
Related resources
November 29, 2005 4:24:22 AM

is it all true? seems too funny to be true
November 29, 2005 4:58:01 AM

It's very true and you can see by the Cnet post where AMD desktop Dual cores blow away Intel. Its too funny to be true yet so true its funny.

EDIT: Anyone thinking AMD or Intel is better sign the petition so we can find out for sure.
November 29, 2005 9:23:37 AM

Quote:
Top 10 Reasons Intel will not Participate in the Dual-Core Duel
10.Tried to follow their own roadmap to get to the duel
9.Decided to take the "front-side bus" to the duel; got stuck in a bottleneck
8.The "Intel Inside" stickers they used to package the cores together keep melting
7.Too busy rearranging the deck chairs on the Itanic
6."Hey, we don't expect anyone to actually buy these things!“
5.Didn't want to compete when they realized that the duel would involve actual "rules" of fair competition
4.They couldn't get a permit from the fire department to emit thatmuch heat
3.No systems available yet --protective clothing used by manufacturers only safe for up to 149 watts
2. Dell told them they weren't allowed to participateAnd the number one reason Intel won't accept the dual-core duel:
1. Moore's Law has been replaced by "Paul's Paradox": the number of canceled products per year at Intel will double every year after the introduction of the AMD Opteron™processor.


LOL! I missed this first time I looked and just saw "The Challenge" "The Champ" and "Multi-Core Advantages"
Very funny indeed, and not a chance I see of Intel accepting. :roll:
November 29, 2005 12:00:20 PM

i think Intel is more concern bout the speed of there processors.

for me AMD is on the right path and they have more stable CPUs..
November 30, 2005 3:55:58 PM

**cough** Yonah **cough**
November 30, 2005 4:06:27 PM

Yonah Pre-Review

Looks pretty impressive. Performance seems nice, still fractionally slower clock for clock than A64, but its early hardware, so there's hope. And very light on power consumption.

Mike.
November 30, 2005 4:13:55 PM

I like this one the best:

Quote:
2. Dell told them they weren't allowed to participate.


Buahahaha... too funny.

-mpjesse
November 30, 2005 4:23:27 PM

Quote:
Yonah Pre-Review

Looks pretty impressive. Performance seems nice, still fractionally slower clock for clock than A64, but its early hardware, so there's hope. And very light on power consumption.
There's a lot of hope now. This is still a mobile part, even if it was run on a desktop mobo. So if the performance is that good from a mobile CPU, imagine when Intel finally gets around to the desktop version. Too bad we have to wait so long for that...
November 30, 2005 5:34:41 PM

Quote:
There's a lot of hope now. This is still a mobile part, even if it was run on a desktop mobo. So if the performance is that good from a mobile CPU, imagine when Intel finally gets around to the desktop version. Too bad we have to wait so long for that...

Agreed. On every point. (just don't want to type 'agreed' 3 times so I'll write this long treatise on how I don't want to type so much... :twisted: :? )

Mike.
November 30, 2005 9:38:40 PM

It seems like AMD has issued yet another Dual Core challenge.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28020

What Intel should do is put forward a 2.33GHz Yonah on one of those desktop 945G Viiv platforms. According to the Anandtech review, the 2GHz Yonah competes rather nicely against the X2 3800+. A 2.33GHz Yonah should be ahead of the 4200+ and fairly competitive against the 4400+. It won't be competitive against the X2 4800+, but it should give AMD some good competition especially since this is a mobile chip competing against a desktop chip at half the power comsumption.

Its interesting to note that the Anandtech review only used DDR2 533MHz RAM. The performance of the 2GHz Yonah would have been higher if they had used some good dual channel DDR2 667MHz memory like Corsair TWIN2X1024A-5400UL. With the added bandwidth and the low 3-3-2-8 latency, the 2GHz Yonah would have been able to win more decisively against the X2 3800+.
November 30, 2005 9:49:44 PM

Just my 2 cents so ignore me, flame me, believe me whatever.

The Yonah is a 65nm part, mobile part and pre production part so we will see how good it is later. Also Anand couldn't release any info about the board so maybe ddr2 533 was the best it could do. Either way its nothing to get excited about, the X2 Amd's still won and there 90nm parts.

Anyway my post was about a funny top 10 list, we digress.
November 30, 2005 10:51:40 PM

Quote:
Just my 2 cents so ignore me, flame me, believe me whatever.

The Yonah is a 65nm part, mobile part and pre production part so we will see how good it is later. Also Anand couldn't release any info about the board so maybe ddr2 533 was the best it could do. Either way its nothing to get excited about, the X2 Amd's still won and there 90nm parts.

Anyway my post was about a funny top 10 list, we digress.



Unless Intel is different than AMD, mobile CPU has a lower speed FSB to maintain a low consumtion and minimize heat. While the technology of the Yonah is good, I'll wait to see the retail product before making any judgement. We all remember Intel promises that failed. Like the netburst going to 10GHz and the 90nm tech that was supposed to be cool. And I hope Intel won't rush it to the market like they do with their dual core, only to have something to compete. I don't need rushed product, I need efficient product.
November 30, 2005 11:00:03 PM

That was kinda my point. I will wait till the retail chip to post judgement. I don't see the point of comparing Yonah to X2's. And we all know Amd has the upper hand at the moment so why should they go 65nm.

PS. To aviod flames Intel does own the Laptop market (which Yonah will excel at)
November 30, 2005 11:14:53 PM

But the biggest surprize to me is how bad the 830D perform. I though that for a chip with GHz more, they would run closer in the test.

By the way, there is no flaming matter here. We are discussing the fact that the preview brought. But maybe Porkster will see those comment offensive and praise Intel !!!

Now, after yonah, we'll have to wait AMD next release, the M2 CPU. If the AMD core is improved, and performance is on par for both CPU, then we could expect a price war that would make only one winner.. us!
November 30, 2005 11:19:04 PM

The 830D scored so badly because of reason #8 on the top ten list I linked to LOL.
December 1, 2005 12:06:00 AM

Yonah doesn't appear to be rushed at all since everything appears to be on or ahead of schedule. Yonah was fully validated by motherboard manufacturers who reported no problems earlier in November. As such, Intel is just waiting for the stock levels to come up for its January launch.

I was also surprised how poorly the 830D performed. Part of it might have been memory choice, if they used the same 533MHz RAM that they used with the Yonah. Both Yonah and the 830D could have supported DDR2 667MHz. Regardless, the performance of the 830D will always be disappointing. The Prescott architecture needs high clock speeds to really perform, and Smithfield just can't clock high enough because of the heat.

I don't think the M2 CPUs to be released in Q2 2006 will be that significant. From what I've heard, the initial M2s are just to introduce the socket. As such, they are still produced using the 90nm process and are going to be virtually identical to the current processors. The only major difference performance-wise will be DDR2. This will improve performance somewhat, but the potential is hampered by increased latency. The other differences are feature-wise such as virtualization.

Significant performance improvement won't come until late 2006 or early 2007 when the K8L architecture is introduced to combat Conroe.
December 1, 2005 2:06:13 AM

You seem interested in putting DDR2-666 on these chips. Would that not put the ram out of sync, with the fsb?
I see that as running the ram faster, so you can have it wait longer, am I wrong?
December 1, 2005 2:11:44 AM

Don't look at me. I just wanted people to laugh at the top 10 list.

But hey I'm here now so let me throw out a comment:
Intel is only holding ground by it's huge L2 cache and ddr2 memory.
December 1, 2005 2:42:41 AM

LC data is an Intel fanboy. He seems too bright for that, so we are hoping to turn him into a price/performance fanboy, by getting him to think.
December 1, 2005 2:48:32 AM

I knew LC_Data before I started posting, I read too many of his posts... which is why I say he is long winded. It was his Hyperthreading rants that made me lose interest.
December 1, 2005 3:49:01 AM

Yonah's FSB has been increased from 533MHz in Dothan to 667MHz. At the same time, the motherboards that it uses the 945G or 945GM are designed to use dual channgel DDR2 667. The extra bandwidth allows the dual core to be fed properly. Intel would have increased it further, but being a mobile chip, the heat production would have been too high. Therefore, in order to get maximum performance you should run Yonah synchronously with dual channel DDR2 667. In Anandtech's case, they used only 533MHz which means they were asynchronous and weren't achieving maximum bandwidth. As well, since they were using a desktop board, probably a Viiv platform one, they could have used low latency 3-3-2 Corsair DDR2 667 to maximize performance.

Of course Yonah is primarily a mobile chip so the timings in labtops aren't that low. I'm not sure what the formal standard Intel is implementing with Yonah yet, but for Dothan DDR2 533 had CL4. With CL4 being average on desktop for DDR2 667, and production increasing to reduce cost its quite possible that the mobile DDR2 667 with also be CL4. That would of course mean that the transition from DDR2 533 to DDR2 667 could be done without increasing latency.
December 1, 2005 3:52:23 AM

another long winded post that could fit in 2 sentences.
!