Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Article: Intel looks to bury AMD's 'elegant' Barcelona chip

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Chip
  • Intel
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 5, 2007 1:14:15 PM

More about : article intel bury amd elegant barcelona chip

a b à CPUs
April 5, 2007 1:39:07 PM

Blah, Blah, Blah. That article says a whole lotta nothing.

More pointless pro-Intel drivel from an obvious fanboi. You're slowly becoming the Intel version of 9-Inch.

Whatever.
April 5, 2007 1:44:07 PM

Yeah, another meaningless opinion by some dimwitted author who thinks he's writing something technical, but there's nothing useful there. Although it's somewhat refreshing to read a BS article from an Intel fanboi instead of AMD; variety is the spice of life, after all.
April 5, 2007 1:55:17 PM

Nothing technical at all.

Did they mention the performance of Yorkfield / Nehalem and Barcelona? No.
Did they mention the 4P+ server spaces? No.
April 5, 2007 2:00:05 PM

Well, at least Intel admits Barcelona is more elegant approach :wink: But I agree with one aspect - time to market is important, for the sake of concurency I hope Barce. will deliver whats promised.
April 5, 2007 2:18:02 PM

Quote:
You're slowly becoming the Intel version of 9-Inch.



If correcting the FUD you and your ilk smear on these forums results in me being labelled Intel's 9inch by the likes of you ( :lol:  ) ... I'll hapilly wear the badge 8)
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2007 2:10:30 AM

Quote:
If correcting the FUD you and your ilk smear on these forums results in me being labelled Intel's 9inch by the likes of you ( :lol:  ) ... I'll hapilly wear the badge 8)


It's good that you've got a purpose in life, but you make a very poor martyr. Your time would be better spent using a shoehorn to pry your head out of your a$s.
April 6, 2007 2:16:20 AM

The baron has predicted a quad core will not reach 3.2ghz with out 45nm die, when gateway and others sell 3.2-3.4ghz over clocked systems - and some none sense about 150watts - like he works at intel R&D

now all intel had to due is pull a amd and sell chips right at the max clock - like they do now!


AMD true quad core is called 4X4 right? man they are fling off the shelves

"Billed as a "true" quad-core chip, Barcelona has four processor cores on a single piece of silicon, or die, compared to Clovertown, which straps together twin dual-core dies inside a single package, yielding a quad-core processor. "


i take my quad core in my had today over a imaginary "true" quad core someday in the future -
April 6, 2007 2:21:46 AM

I can just feel the headache coming on...
April 6, 2007 2:22:37 AM

You amti-ites are so rude when your second rate company has its under belly exposed - I don't get why you get so defensive you think it's your own spawn or something!
April 6, 2007 2:25:30 AM

Quote:
You amti-ites are so rude when your second rate company has its under belly exposed - I don't get why you get so defensive you think it's your own spawn or something!

And the headache hits full force.
April 6, 2007 2:40:30 AM

I think I remember reading somewhere that people that worry about elegance in war never get to far. Might have been a Dune novel or so, but the principle does kinda apply. Hack and chop jobs never get you anywhere, but being sticklers for only "elegant" designs gets you left behind.
April 6, 2007 2:46:42 AM

Quote:
I think I remember reading somewhere that people that worry about elegance in war never get to far. Might have been a Dune novel or so, but the principle does kinda apply. Hack and chop jobs never get you anywhere, but being sticklers for only "elegant" designs gets you left behind.


Like when the Germans engineered themsleves to death in WWII... but anyway...

Is that guy still 1 starring you? Find out who it is? Anything the mods can do? :?
April 6, 2007 2:59:14 AM

Quote:
I think I remember reading somewhere that people that worry about elegance in war never get to far. Might have been a Dune novel or so, but the principle does kinda apply. Hack and chop jobs never get you anywhere, but being sticklers for only "elegant" designs gets you left behind.


This is a nice post. I actually slipped up and voted on it (5) without thinking, and ruined the perfert 1 star rating it had! lol....often the ratings are inversely porportional to the quality after all. oh well :) 
April 6, 2007 3:00:42 AM

Quote:
I can just feel the headache coming on...


anything related to amd and intel gives you headache, wondering why you still coming here and POSTING ....
April 6, 2007 3:01:22 AM

Quote:
I think I remember reading somewhere that people that worry about elegance in war never get to far. Might have been a Dune novel or so, but the principle does kinda apply. Hack and chop jobs never get you anywhere, but being sticklers for only "elegant" designs gets you left behind.


Well, I think you make a good point here....

Technically, engineering wise --- a monolithic die is more elegant this is true, and to squeeze the best performance from a multicore single socket device, has all the intuitive advantages you may wish for....

The gist of the article is time to market.... and while a MCM (or as I refer to it MCP) is not as elegant, it has certain advantages as well -- though a dip in performance is expected relative to a monolithic approach, if you get it out 9 months ahead of anything that can be designed there is still massive performance gains in situations that take advantage of the executing cores.

The data is clear, for > 2 threads, Kentsfield and Clovertown pony up jaw dropping performance as you would expect.... would it be 5-10% faster if it were monolithic, sure.... but why not get it going now, then the next revision of monolithc design gives 4 cores and a MCP gives 8... and the cycle continues.

This is one of the very few advantages the symmetric FSB approach gives to Intel... the draw back --- they push the BW envelope with each iteration. On DT this is inconsequential, in server they will struggle.... which is why Opty's are still performance competitive.

At release, Woodcrest pulled ahead wildy in some benches but the gap was much closer in others, and in FP Opty's are still strong and can lead in targetted cases. Not so true on desktop, but in server the sum of the pieces are much more critical -- and AMD's approach, elegant as it is, scales hellaciously well to the point they still own 4 way and higher.

Jack

nice summary, Jack. I like those.
April 6, 2007 3:02:54 AM

Quote:
I can just feel the headache coming on...


anything related to amd and intel gives you headache, wondering why you still coming here and POSTING ....
To be frank, AMD vs Intel makes me laugh. Morons give me headaches.
a c 102 à CPUs
April 6, 2007 3:49:03 AM

AMD's designs have pretty much always been elegant to Intel's brute-force designs ever since the K7 Athlon shipped in 1999. I'll give you the skinny:

The original K7 Athlon brought an entirely new microarchitecture, the double-pumped DEC EV6 bus, and a big increase in FPU performance. This battled the PIII Coppermine, which was pretty much a non-MCM version of the Pentium Pro and with SSE. The Athlon was well-thought-out and hit 1 GHz easily while Intel released an overclocked and unstable Coppermine at 1.13 GHz and promptly drew raspberries from this site. The Athlon scaled up nicely and beat the Tualatin PIII as well.

AMD's first Athlon MPs in 2001 had a dual independent FSB design 5 years ahead of Intel's. And these Athlon MPs beat dual PIII and Xeon (P4 Willy) Fosters pretty decently.

The Pentium 4 line was a brute-force effort if there ever was one. It burned watts like a teenage girl burns cell phone minutes. It was horribly inefficient per clock but it brute-forced its way to performance using a lot of clock speed. The Athlon XP ran at much slower clock speeds but beat the Williamettes and the Northwood As. The Northwood Bs saw the tables shift in Intel's favor and the Northwood Cs, particularly the 3.2C and 3.4C kept up that trend, but it took Intel a clock speed difference of about a third to beat AMD.


The Athlon 64s didn't run at faster clock speeds than the AXPs did but managed to beat the P4s handily even though the P4 Prescott had much more cache even higher clock speeds than the Northwoods did. Again, Intel took a brute-force approach versus AMD's elegant approach.

The Opteron is about the most elegant play in AMD's book and it thoroughly beat the P4-based Xeons, even those running >1 GHz faster. And they scaled much better than the shared-FSB Xeons did, especially at higher socket counts.

Intel's first two dual-core chips were simply two P4s that were slapped under an IHS and called a dual-core chip. The PD Smithfield is simply two Pentium 4 5x1 dies that were adjoining on a wafer and weren't even cut apart. Even Intel admitted that was a crude design as it didn't offer the advantages of independent dies (yields) nor of a monolithic chip (communication.) AMD released a carefully-thought-out monolithic die Athlon 64 X2. The Pentium D Smithfield was probably the best example of brute-force thinking by Intel as it was not even a good quick-and-dirty approach. The Presler was the CPU that Intel should have released instead of the Smithfield as it had independent dies and much better thermal characteristics. But Intel had to beat AMD to the dual-core party by a week or two, so they did it by all means possible even if it sucked. That in itself is brute-force.

The Core 2 Duo is a pretty elegant, well-thought-out design from Intel and I have to give them credit for that. But even with an elegant design such as Conroe on the table, they still aren't beyond brute-force approaches. The server chips don't scale nearly as well as the Opterons due to bandwidth issues, so what does Intel do? Make a 1.3-billion-transistor Xeon 7100M CPU with 16 MB L3 onboard to try to help ameliorate the issue. Four Opteron 8200 CPUs don't have 1.3 billion CPUs between all of them, let alone on one of them, but still they still beat the Xeon MPs.

Intel is much bigger and can afford to do brute-force tactics whereas AMD generally has to be elegant to keep up. But what I don't get is why Intel doesn't try to find as many elegant solutions as AMD does. It should be much easier for Intel to find them as they spend more in R&D per year than AMD gets in revenue. But I suppose that they think that because they can use brute-force, that they must.
April 6, 2007 4:04:57 AM

MU Engineer, that was a very good post and I agree with you (a lot of sites say so as well--Intel with brute force and high tech, AMD with more efficient designs).

Quote:
The Core 2 Duo is a pretty elegant, well-thought-out design from Intel and I have to give them credit for that. But even with an elegant design such as Conroe on the table, they still aren't beyond brute-force approaches. The server chips don't scale nearly as well as the Opterons due to bandwidth issues, so what does Intel do? Make a 1.3-billion-transistor Xeon 7100M CPU with 16 MB L3 onboard to try to help ameliorate the issue. Four Opteron 8200 CPUs don't have 1.3 billion CPUs between all of them, let alone on one of them, but still they still beat the Xeon MPs.

Intel is much bigger and can afford to do brute-force tactics whereas AMD generally has to be elegant to keep up. But what I don't get is why Intel doesn't try to find as many elegant solutions as AMD does. It should be much easier for Intel to find them as they spend more in R&D per year than AMD gets in revenue. But I suppose that they think that because they can use brute-force, that they must.


I think we can all draw up on the conclusion that the Front Side Bus is indeed the bottleneck to such designs.

Which is why I'm so eager to see Nehalem in the 2P and MP server environments. Brand new interconnects, memory controller, 45/32nm high-k process, SMT and up to 8 cores (with 16 threads)! :) 
April 6, 2007 4:18:11 AM

Quote:
I can just feel the headache coming on...


anything related to amd and intel gives you headache, wondering why you still coming here and POSTING ....Hmmm.... this may be a clue as to who's been one-starring Ninja, childishly. :roll:
April 6, 2007 4:25:34 AM

Everyone keeps on calling the AMD designs "elegant engineering". The point everyone is missing here is that there are other types of engineering besides design engineering. The most relevant here being process engineering. It costs tens of millions to design a processor. It costs billions to build and ramp up a fab. Intel's secret is that they know the true value of good process engineering. A two die dual core may be ugly in the eyes of a design engineer but it is sheer efficiency-beauty to a process engineer, even moreso to an accountant. This is why holding AMD stock long term was much more risky than holding INTC.
April 6, 2007 4:38:44 AM

Quote:
Morons give me headaches.
Everyone knows DragonSprayer is a moron :lol:  :wink:
April 6, 2007 9:05:01 AM

Quote:
Everyone keeps on calling the AMD designs "elegant engineering". The point everyone is missing here is that there are other types of engineering besides design engineering. The most relevant here being process engineering. It costs tens of millions to design a processor. It costs billions to build and ramp up a fab. Intel's secret is that they know the true value of good process engineering. A two die dual core may be ugly in the eyes of a design engineer but it is sheer efficiency-beauty to a process engineer, even moreso to an accountant. This is why holding AMD stock long term was much more risky than holding INTC.


maybe ... if intel insteat of dressing their "enginers" with colored bunnysuits to show their processors.. maybe they should get a suit and a tie, or maybe a full deluxe smoking, so they will end more elegant and formal ;) 
!