Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel faces performance struggle for 2 hard years

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Data Recovery
  • Performance
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2004 3:05:52 PM

From the inquirer, an entertaining read...

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19105" target="_new">First part</A>: The Roadmap to Recovery I
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19110" target="_new">Second Part</A>: The Roadmap to Recovery II

More about : intel faces performance struggle hard years

October 15, 2004 7:06:56 PM

A good, if not long, read.


Summary:

AMD: Good
Intel: Bad

_______________________
Whos round is it? Down that beer quick, smash my glass down, fall over the table - all rowdy and pissed
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 1:44:55 AM

Can you explain? Is AMD good? Do they care about me?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 16, 2004 2:07:46 AM

AMD loves us all.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 16, 2004 2:19:08 AM

I suspect that Amd has someone read every word you write on the net. Is that carring enough?
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2004 3:21:16 AM

They do? Well then, they really ARE good! PTL!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 16, 2004 3:34:10 AM

Must be a bunch of dumb bells working at Intel. Must be to many engineers sitting on the fat butts doing nothing. AMD knows what it's doing but Intel does not.
October 16, 2004 4:04:20 AM

The articles dont blame the engineers. They are saying that marketing has screwed the engineers. Personnally I think the legal department should take a few bows as well.
October 16, 2004 4:20:15 AM

Poor management and corporate pecking order- they let politics get in the way of sound business practice. But this is going to be cool, if they (hopefully) do a full redesign and come up with that efficient 12-stage type chip, or maybe something even better. Now that they aren't going to be slaves to the decision to push that netburst/HT thing, they might actually approach it with some innovation.

I read a story about the Israeli group that designed the Pentium M. That wasn't their first assignment from Intel. The first chip they designed was supposedly something really great, but they didn't follow the Big Boss's edict that everything was about HT and clockspeed. So Intel buried their project, causing them some heartache I imagine. So then Intel has the cojones to come back to them and ask them to make a mobile chip, the result being Pentium M. If Intel gets smart, what they'll do is let the engineers have a free hand. Brainstorm and cooperate with people like that Israeli group, and let the best idea win. I'll bet they get back on track before the 2 years that the article projects. 2 years is a long time in the computer biz!
October 16, 2004 4:31:41 AM

I don't understand how it's possible that Intel could struggle. Weren't they talking about 10Ghz samples a year ago?

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
October 16, 2004 4:36:28 AM

Keep the faith bro!

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 16, 2004 5:03:33 AM

Reading this article makes Intel an UnderDog and makes AMD the TopDog. Now, I don't like AMD because they are on top (not). Now, I have to cheer for Intel because they are the little guys trying climb their way to the top.

*cheer* GO GO Intel, Kick you self in the arse so you could jump higher than AMD.
October 16, 2004 5:05:46 AM

Quote:
Weren't they talking about 10Ghz samples a year ago?

Yes they were, funny how things change. I wonder what Raystonn would have to say ..

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
October 16, 2004 5:40:41 AM

Raystonn. He needs to drop by and explain this.

I'm kinda stunned.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
October 16, 2004 9:35:05 AM

The article talks about Processor and not market share. AMD has better proformance on their chip, while Intel is chimping around like a monkey. Intel rather eat chip than produce one.
I don't know what you been smoking, but AMD has the better processor and AMD is smoking Intel in that department. I'm not talking about Market Share.
October 16, 2004 1:37:04 PM

Raystonn also said that RDRAM was definitely going to be the standard memory for PC's. He needs to explain that one.

I found an interesting quote from him from Nov. 2001:

""It would also be interesting if Intel produce a DDR based 533 FSB Northwood chipset..."

This would require DDR533 or a dual-channel DDR266 chipset. Dual-channel DDR is planned eventually with the Plumas chipset for the Xeon. I do not foresee it happening for the Northwood Pentium 4."

Funny how times change.


<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
October 16, 2004 1:37:54 PM

Hey, your post was one of the best around...

...the others, mind you, were disappointingly unintelligent...
October 16, 2004 1:45:09 PM

Actually, this whole <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">thread</A> from late 2001 is interesting, with Ray talking about a new Intel breakthrough, the "Terahertz transistor" that solves the heat problem and will allow the continuation of Moore's law through the end of the decade. Ray was such an Intel propagandist. This is one of those old "Ray vs. Matisaro" threads that I miss.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
October 16, 2004 2:10:05 PM

Times do change. I never got the impression that he was blowing hot air though.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
October 16, 2004 2:20:32 PM

Quote:
Times do change. I never got the impression that he was blowing hot air though.

No, I wouldn't say that. But Ray was definitely biased toward Intel, which makes sense considering he works for them. I just found it frustrating to try to contradict him about anything because of his position with Intel and the way he stated everything as fact. So I'm enjoying the fact that some of the things he was so sure about didn't quite happen the way he said they would.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
October 16, 2004 3:53:37 PM

Another money quote from Raystonn from Sep. 2001, regarding the Athlon64's on die memory controller:

"I can only tell you a couple of things regarding that design at the moment. That processor will be completely locked into whatever memory type that controller uses. Additionally, you will no longer be able to control the FSB speed from the motherboard's BIOS. It will be controlled by AMD. You can say goodbye to one of the major methods of overclocking. Overclocking of the memory system will be entirely impossible. Should AMD decide to lock the multiplier on its processors as well, you will be unable to overclock at all. This would be a dark day for the hardware enthusiast scene."

I think he was slightly wrong about that.

And here's one from the same thread about AMD having to use RDRAM in the future:

"It is inevitable that within 5 years they will be forced to create a DRDRAM chipset. Looking at the roadmaps for DRDRAM and SDRAM (including DDR, QDR, DDR-II, etc.), all forms of SDRAM will have been far surpassed by then. I doubt they have any plans to die off like Cyrix."

Here's the <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">thread</A> for you or anyone else who is interested.

I guess I shouldn't pick on Raystonn so much, but there were a lot of people who worshipped everything he said a few years ago. Just goes to show that even the smartest, most informed people can't really predict what's going to happen a couple of years down the road.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
October 16, 2004 5:00:01 PM

Being underdog in terms of performance is not a new experience for Intel. Since Athlon release (1999), Intel is always behind AMD in terms of performance (except early Northwood "B" vs. Palomino/T-bred"A" and Northwood "C" vs. Barton days).


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 16, 2004 6:47:41 PM

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah ahhhha hhhhaaaaa!

_____________________________________________
<font color=red> And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign </font color=red>
October 16, 2004 8:58:44 PM

I like the idea of a 10ghz processor rather than what Intel/AMD are doing now. Both being equal (cache/smarter design and faster mhz).. I prefer more mhz. Hopefully they'll find a way to ramp them to 10ghz soon.

You can see why AMD took the route they did with the Athlon and A64 now. They never could handle a production MHZ war, so they got smarter..

when Intel cant even do 10ghz easily, you know that AMD never will be capable of doing it. They have to design smarter because their production capacities are so dwarfed.




I think eventually, like always Intel will outpace AMD like the Northwood days.. they just made too many blunders for the next 6months or so to keep pace. I think they are PO'd though and with dual core next year it wont seem as dreary for intel as it seems now..
October 16, 2004 10:16:17 PM

Raystonn was impossible to argue against. He said he worked for Intel and knew everything. I hardly have those kind of credentials and I couldn't prove that he was lying.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
October 16, 2004 10:41:56 PM

Quote:
I like the idea of a 10ghz processor rather than what Intel/AMD are doing now. Both being equal (cache/smarter design and faster mhz).. I prefer more mhz. Hopefully they'll find a way to ramp them to 10ghz soon.

You can see why AMD took the route they did with the Athlon and A64 now. They never could handle a production MHZ war, so they got smarter..

when Intel cant even do 10ghz easily, you know that AMD never will be capable of doing it. They have to design smarter because their production capacities are so dwarfed.




I think eventually, like always Intel will outpace AMD like the Northwood days.. they just made too many blunders for the next 6months or so to keep pace. I think they are PO'd though and with dual core next year it wont seem as dreary for intel as it seems now..

Sorry to tell you that but you are a moron.

Click <font color=blue><A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">HERE</A></font color=blue> if you real<b>l</b>y are an <font color=red>idiot</font color=red>.
October 16, 2004 10:41:58 PM

*Stupid double posting.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by coylter on 10/16/04 06:44 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 16, 2004 11:19:08 PM

With the amount of money intel has for researching you do expect them to remain on top, and normally AMD shouldnt have kept up and probably should have been out of business. but it didint work that way. there are many reasons for this, one major factor they took amd too lighly, and as well they are not locating their resources in a good way, and one major factor the 15% of the market share amd holds are to their loyal customers, these people supported amd even in the days when they were severly outperformed by intel, thats becaouse of intels bad practices years ago.Right now AMD has the upper hand, they got the better processor all around processor. however i have noticed some dip in their product management recently. i think they made a mess with their prodcut numberings, for example, s754 3400+ (newcastle) easily outperforms s939 3500+. and is much more cheaper. and the supposedly new comings like a64 4000+ practically same as fx-53. its not a good offering in my book. its not a new processor but they are marketing as a new one. AMD may have the best processor around, but they shouldnt think of the consumers as stupid as intel have thought.
October 17, 2004 2:40:58 AM

yep this is the same old thing. intel messed up, thats the only reason its faltering in performance and prefrences among oems and ppl. never anyhting aobut amd's accomplishment. alos hear the same old thought that this si a some sort of flook and intel can take it back at anytime, that just isnt so true anymore.
October 17, 2004 2:45:09 AM

People please!

All the money in the world does not mean that you possess the best products. What happened to Novell when it was king of the networking hill and possessed all of the cash? Where does IBM really stand in the pc market?
October 17, 2004 3:39:40 AM

One thing I seid before. Amd and Intel leap frog each other. Now for price, Market share and such Intel topdog. And AMD is underdog. But Another fact is Amd top dog on speed 64bit chips And Intel right now is the Underdog. Trying to useing extra cache and such.

Everyone remember Intel 3.2ghz. Then Amd released the frist 64 bit chips? Intel quick fix was Intel 3.2 ee L3 2 megs cache. What happen? Well Intel got scared the Underdog Amd was the speed king.
October 17, 2004 5:49:58 PM

i dont think the EE was a 'response' to athlon 64 chips. if it was then intel was pretty stupid to make thier response be a $1k cpu that still istn able to outshine top fx processors in many cases.
October 17, 2004 7:30:36 PM

I can't think of any other reason why they would release that chip. It seemed very much to be a response to the FX specifically. At the time it was released, it was standard fair that people were paying more for Intel chips than AMD chips.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 17, 2004 8:02:11 PM

why are you bringing up these old ass topics, so he was wrong on a few things. so the [-peep-] what. hindsight is 20 20.

wpdclan.com counter-strike game server - 66.150.155.52:27015
now featuring valve security module!
October 17, 2004 11:46:45 PM

Quote:
Then Amd released the frist 64 bit chips? Intel quick fix was Intel 3.2 ee L3 2 megs cache.


he didnt say fx, he said amd 64bit chips, thats what i was talking about. the EE wasa response to an fx sure, but not 64bit in general.
October 18, 2004 12:01:55 AM

Got it. That's true, the response to 64bit is EMT64. I'm really looking forward to seeing benches done, like anandtech did for AMD64, on 64bit apps under an EMT64 chip. That will help paint a better picture on how bad off Intel is right now performance wise IMO. Do I expect much? Nope, I expect really sorry numbers, but it will be nice to see the hard evidence.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 18, 2004 12:05:40 AM

Like many sites said, I'd expect the first generation of chips with EM64T from Intel to be rather pathetic. I'm thinking they need at least 9-12 months to get a truly competitive product out in the CPU market, and even that's optimistic. I don't doubt they'll manage it, but I don't think it will be soon.

Plus, they launched a whole new platform which has yet to catch on. LGA775's adoption will probably be rather limited in 2004. Maybe LGA775 will look better in 2005, who knows.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/17/04 11:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 18, 2004 1:33:42 AM

hmm 9-12 months to be competitive on 64bit...

9-12 months for windows 64bit release....


strange how these things work out sometimes lol
October 18, 2004 2:33:39 AM

That long for WinXP 64-bit?... :frown:

I was expecting it for about 1Q05... or 2Q05 at the most...
October 18, 2004 1:19:10 PM

Who cares about Windows XP-64, I've used XP long enough to want to use LornHorn.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 21, 2004 1:27:08 AM

XP64 is merely AMDs distraction.. it wont ever be mainstream until Dell starts shipping EMT64 systems and Microsoft supports EMT64 in XP64.
Besides a tinkering Linux user.. 64bit on the desktop shouldnt excite a soul with a brain.

Its pretty clear that AMD never could keep up production wise.. and things might get a bit harder for them as they arent nearly as capable when it comes to popping tons of cache on processors.


If both manufacturers are almost maxed out speed wise (2.6ghz and 3.8ghz).. which i dont entirely believe quite YET (i know AMD has a shrink coming soon and intel does too sometime as well)..
then cache is the short term answer. That solution, IF amd is stuck to doing it with Intel.. is a losing game.. and fast.
They just couldnt put 1mb of cache on every processor they produce and remain competitive.. it will be like the olden days. Lots of RED.

Not that the P4 will ever catch up to the AMD in gaming performance.. but the gap will shorten up fast once AMD is stuck to the cache method of improving performance, while intel puts out dual core 3.6ghz processors with 2MB of cache.
October 21, 2004 2:29:44 AM

Reality check. Amd has been shipping chips with 1 meg of cache, for over a year. Intel is stalled at 3.6, while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom. Amd has caught up even in the "built for Intel" progs.
Look, I know you want your god, intel, to rule, and she will again. Just not for a year or two.
October 21, 2004 3:03:10 AM

Quote:
while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom.

Really? I must have missed that one. 25%, you say? They have 2.4Ghz processors for a while now, so I assume you're saying 25% on top of that. That's a square 3Ghz. Do they have that kind of headroom? I hope they do, but they have <i>not</i> "just shown" that....

None of the review sites I saw could do 3Ghz with overclocked 90nm A64 samples; they would manage 2.6Ghz, 2.7Ghz at most. Where did you get 25% from? And don't say liquid nitrogen cooling; P4s can do 6Ghz on that!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/21/04 02:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 21, 2004 3:12:46 AM

Quote:
64bit on the desktop shouldnt excite a soul with a brain.

While I might agree that the hype has far exceeded the benefits we got up until now, I don't think you can honestly say that. 64-bit mode brings along a performance benefit in some cases and enables a lot of things that couldn't be done otherwise. So what I'm saying is - say that again in 3 years.
Quote:

Its pretty clear that AMD never could keep up production wise..

They would have - and are actually having - a hard time. They've never had to meet the demands they're meeting now. But nothing is to stop them from keeping up production wise. It will, however, take time to match Intel's production infrastructure.
Quote:
which i dont entirely believe quite YET (i know AMD has a shrink coming soon and intel does too sometime as well)..
then cache is the short term answer. That solution, IF amd is stuck to doing it with Intel.. is a losing game.. and fast.

You missed a lot of things there. First, AMD has just finished a rather successful shrink to 90nm. Intel's next shrink (65nm) will only come by 2H05 at best, and that's not too soon. Intel is resorting to cache because it is taking a very violent beating performance-wise and feature-wise. So it cannot be called a losing game for AMD; they're miles ahead already....
Quote:
once AMD is stuck to the cache method of improving performance,

Who said that? AMD isn't stuck! Intel is!
October 21, 2004 3:37:28 AM

When is Longhorn supposed to be released? I like what I have seen so far. Im not very technically savy, but to a newbie it is an eye catcher!
October 21, 2004 4:12:05 AM

Quote:
Reality check. Amd has been shipping chips with 1 meg of cache, for over a year. Intel is stalled at 3.6, while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom. Amd has caught up even in the "built for Intel" progs.
Look, I know you want your god, intel, to rule, and she will again. Just not for a year or two.


They do not have 1meg of cache on even close to their entire product line..

until the 4000+ it was a FX feature only.
What I meant was, intel can put 1mb on every processor (prescott).. AMD can't and remain competitive.

If they could produce as many A64s (of all speeds) with 1MB and produce as many of those as intel does 1MB prescotts, I'd poop in your mouth for you.
I dont think they could afford to put 1MB on their entire consumer line (minus the budget sempron line) and remain in the black.

Lets not get out of hand here... AMD is still a production gnat while Intel is a production giant. Its all flags and glory for AMD fans but its still in comparison a tiny organization. All it would take is their flash business to take a nice dive and hey-day is over. And i dont want that, i like the products that are resulting from this competition.
my next PC is most likely a FX55 (just waiting for the NF4)..
October 21, 2004 9:04:11 AM

Can you say clawhammer? If you dont know what you are talking about, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to post, and prove it.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!