AMD vs Intel

I am just wondering as I couldn't find anything on the board about this Why is the FX55 which has a clock speed of 2.6 fatser than a P4 @ 2.6. I know that they are different CPUs and they are different architectures but it has to more than AMD having an on Die memory controller or something.

My Mum always said God has a plan, guess I was Plan B
43 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. Simply because Athlon's do more work, clock for clock compared to the P4 chip design, which makes them more efficient.

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    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</pre><p></font color=red>
  2. Yeah, and that is partly why the stock market bubble burst too... Next is the housing market bubble...

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    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</pre><p></font color=red>
  3. Efficiency!

    ______________
    Welcome to my Shed of Pleasure
  4. This is almost flame war material. Im certainly not going to start anything.

    BTW, rumor has it that intel runs circles around AMD :tongue:

    Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
    Asus P5AD2-E-Premium
    Crucial Ballistix DDR2 667@<font color=red>DDR2 800<font color=red> DDR2 855 using 3.73EE<font color=red>
    TT 680W PSU
  5. STFU, you Intel scum.

    AMD PWNZ J00!

    ______________
    Welcome to my Shed of Pleasure
  6. With the added pipelines that Intel installed in netburst, comes an error fee. As a result, a lot of the extra speed is tied up in error correction.
    Netburst also takes a major hit, due to memory bandwidth, for the same reason.
  7. P4 waste clock cycles creating errors and fixing them.

    <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>
  8. I wrote this article for my website...I just went off the top of my head and I was about 6-7 beers deep at the time...might be good for a newbie, or good for a laugh so you guys can tell me how wrong I am...http://www.minestorm.com/html/article402.html

    <b><font color=blue>Athlon64 3200+ Winchester/MSI Neo4 Platinum SLI/MSI 6800 Ultra/1 GB Kingston HyperX (Dual Channel)/74GB WD Raptor/600Watt Enermax Noisetaker/ Dual Mitsubishi 21 Inch Monitors</b></font color=blue>
  9. Several Good reasons have been described inside this thread. and a few horrible ones from the fan boys

    the main one that most articles address is the pipeline and amount of instructions that a thread must go through to finish it's computing. when you need to proces more commands to finish a threads computing, it takes longer or has a longer pathway to go. AMD runs around a dozen or so of these commands in it's pipe and intel runs around 30 something. so you have a ration of around 3:1. for every 1 command AMD needs in it's pipeline, AMD only has 1. now this deoesnt equate into intel running 3x as slow as AMD (nice try fanboys). what it DOES mean is intel needed to increase the speed of their processor's mhz.

    Despite what AMD Fanboys will tell you, Intel IS NOT playing a catch up game with AMD. they are not revving up their clock speeds to match AMD. AMD has ALWAYS played cathcup behind intel to meet or beet the intel chips. but instead of revving up the MHZ all the time. AMD makes their chips more efficient to do the same (or better) performance than the Intel Rival. and for you Intel fanboys, higher MHZ also Doesnt mean better performance.

    a good example is the update from the P3 to the P4. the P3 capped out because of heat and they needed to redesign the chip. what they developed was the P4. now the P4 of equal or even greater clock speed turned out to perform WORSE than a slightly lower clock speed P3 because of efficiency.

    last remind for the fanboys
    AMD FANBOYS- AMD usually plays catchup to intel's development and performance and intel USUALLY is the leader in the cyclical developement of processors

    INTEL FANBOYS - Higher clockspeeds doesnt guarantee better performance. AMD has often countered an Intel chip with a better performaning chip due to optimization rather than purely upping the clocks.

    in closing. the CPU market works in cycles.and at any given time one of the companies is chasing the other for dominance. right now, I believe that AMD probably has the upper hand in the desktop market with the FX series. that hcip blows my mind. But thats not to say it'll stay this way. Look at the Intel Pentium-M using the Dothan Technology. this chip could blow the P4 and any AMD out of the water with even LESS clock speeds (highest is around 2.13ghz) and less heat (27w)
  10. Intel is mo l377 then AMD, thus they cost more and as a result are a HOT item. Fo sho!

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    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</pre><p></font color=red>
  11. AMD did play catch up with Intel for a while, but when they decided to drop the MHz race and design the A64, they became leader. I'm not a fanboy, just an observator. And when they design their A64, they designed it to be efficient and scalable. That means that from the start, their chip were designed to either be efficiently used in a multi-cpu architecture or for dual core.

    Now, intel has drop the MHz race not because they did win it, but rather because they were racing alone. And now, they are playing catch up game for 64 bits instruction, rushed dual core and thermal management.

    I dont say Intel make bad chip. Amd are just better and efficient right now. Unless you are a diehard Intel fanboy, you'll be forced to admit that what AMD did with their A64 line is impressive in term of efficiency, thermal management for a good price.

    When Intel introduced their netburst architecture, if you remember, they said that it could achieve speed near to 10GHz by 2005. They are far from that.. not able to even past 4 GHz because of thermal problems. They now need something else, and since they were putting high hope on netburst, they did not really design alternative. While being not that bad, their dual core are not impressive, compared to AMD design. But they couldnt compete with AMD dual core with their single core not going to past the 4 GHz so they improvised something to at least stay in the market equivalence.

    AMD dual core are expensives. But are faster than Intel one in most single threaded apps. But when it come to apps optimized for dual core, Intel are no match. Intel did something right by pricing their dual core lower than AMD. That what they worth really. They are not to be used by professionnal, but by casual users and that where they target it with their price.

    Maybe that this will give you some more time to design something new and improved that will compete or surpass AMD. Only time will tell.

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  12. I am going to have to agree with Pat here. I don't know how you could consider the A64 architecture "catch up". It's Intels turn to play that game.
  13. For acuracy's sake, here is how it went.
    Intel pretty much had it's own way until the K6-2 days.
    That is when Amd started to push.
    With the first athlons, Amd was able to outperform intel.
    Amd hit 1 ghz first. As a kneejerk reaction, Intel pushed out the P4s too early, in an attempt to catch up. It failed, while the P3s made after, were good competition.
    The early P4s, up to the P4b were no competition to the athlons. With the faster fsb, and the larger cache of the P4b chips, Intel was finally able to catch up. For a while, things were pretty close. Then Intel came out with the P4c. That was a clear winner, eating athlons with the faster fsb, and dual channel memory interface. We all know what followed, with the press-hots, and the A64s.
    Personnally, I am somewhat amazed that a group as small as Amd has been able to push things as well as they have, but mostly I'm glad that they are there. Not only have they kept things moving quickly, but have also caused a major reduction in chip prices.
    Amd should get a lot of credit for bringing the PC to what it is today. They get little enough cash.
  14. Intel CPU is like a factory that has really fast production lines, but that has poor logistics/long distance to a warehouse.
    So it has production lines that run fast, but are mostly empty, and which mostly just heat up the factory.

    AMD has built it's production lines next to a warehouse, so AMD can keep it's production line at full use.
    So AMD's lover linespeed won't hurt overall output.
    And lower speed also means less power consumed = less heat produced.
  15. Oh dear.. a correction that needs a lot of ahmm.. correcting here.

    >the main one that most articles address is the pipeline and
    >amount of instructions that a thread must go through to
    >finish it's computing.

    The "ammount of instructions" a "thread must go through" is is absolutely equal on any chip running the same code. You can count them in the binary code if you like.

    >when you need to proces more commands to finish a threads
    >computing, it takes longer or has a longer pathway to go

    Nop, same ammount of "commands", unless you are referring to microops, there might be a difference, but frankly, I wouldn't even know which way.

    >AMD runs around a dozen or so of these commands in it's pipe
    > and intel runs around 30 something. so you have a ration of
    > around 3:1.

    Consider this: both Ford and GM produce the exact same car (the code) on a production line. Fords line only has 100 steps (pipeline length), GM has 200. In both factories, cars move from one step to the other every 2 minutes (clock). Now tell me which one produces more cars ? They will both pump out a car every 2 minutes, so performance will be identical once you get beyond that first finished car ..

    Pipeline length has no impact on throughput, it only incurs a penalty regarding the ammount of "work", say the number of people working on the poduction line, which in the case of cpu's translates into heat. More importantly, it has a huge impact on branch misprediction. In our car assembly analogy, it would be like constantly missguessing what colour and options the customer wanted, and moving the car back from the end of the line to the start. Since GMs line was 2x as long, and it still took 2 minutes to go through every step, that is where it starts to hurt, since much more work is lost every missed guess.

    >Despite what AMD Fanboys will tell you, Intel IS NOT playing
    > a catch up game with AMD. they are not revving up their
    >clock speeds to match AMD.

    Oh please, both intel and AMD constantly up their clocks *and* try to improve IPC.

    >AMD has ALWAYS played cathcup behind intel to meet or beet
    >the intel chips

    Except at those times when the fastest CPU you could buy was an AMD 286-12 Mhz (*), an AMD 386-40 MHz, a K6-233 MHz, arguably an Athlon 500, without a doubt the 700, 1 GHz, 1.2 GHz,.. the first XPs, and now A64s and opterons.

    >a good example is the update from the P3 to the P4. the P3
    >capped out because of heat and they needed to redesign the
    >chip.

    Great example, except P3 was in no way thermally limited, especially not Tualatin on 130nm.

    >Look at the Intel Pentium-M using the Dothan Technology.
    >this chip could blow the P4 and any AMD out of the water
    >with even LESS clock speeds (highest is around 2.13ghz) and
    >less heat (27w)

    Spoken like a real fanboy yourself here.

    (*) granted, that chip was manufactured by AMD, but sold by intel. Imagine a chip that looks like this today:
    <A HREF="http://www.cpu-collector.com/photos/AMDN80L2868C2H_FL.jpg" target="_new">http://www.cpu-collector.com/photos/AMDN80L2868C2H_FL.jpg</A>

    :)

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  16. Weren't you a Intel fanboi that saw the light?

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    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</pre><p></font color=red>
  17. Quote:
    ...AMD 286-12 Mhz (*)..,
    (*) granted, that chip was manufactured by AMD, but sold by intel.

    AMD Also made 16 and 20 Mhz versions of the 286, and the 20mhz could actually outperform a 386/20 in Windows 3.0.

    Mike.
  18. Quote:
    Unless you are a diehard Intel fanboy, you'll be forced to admit that what AMD did with their A64 line is impressive in term of efficiency, thermal management for a good price.

    ???

    Not really.

    IMHO you could only say that if you were an AMD fanboy. Anyone even remotely neutral would have to admit to the simple fact that with as many process changes (and not just the die shrinks) anyone would easily net around the same improvements.

    Had the P3 gone through the exact same changes as the Athlon you'd end up with the same efficiency and thermal management. In fact, that's exactly what the PM is, and it's even more efficient and has better thermals. Not that this makes it better, since it also has lower clockspeeds and could use a few architectural changes to compete better on the desktop. But the point is that if you stick with any one architecture, you'll find ways to make it better.

    The only real difference between Intel and AMD was that Intel tried to actually switch to a new architecture at one point. AMD didn't. They're still making upgrades to the same architecture.

    Was either path better or more impressive? Not really, since neither seemed to really gain any significant foothold over the other. AMD still has the performance advantage that they've always had, and Intel still has the market share. Had either company actually managed to make a significant change in that, <i>then</i> they'd have done something impressive.

    <pre><font color=orange><i>Jesters do oft prove prophets.</i> -Regan in
    King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</font color=orange></pre><p>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
  19. Quote:
    Had the P3 gone through the exact same changes as the Athlon you'd end up with the same efficiency and thermal management.


    The p3 was better than the thunderbird for heat, it is a fact. But I'm not talking about 5-6 years old chip. The P3 is no more current as well as the thunderbird. We have NOW Prescott and A64. The P3 was not able to attain high MHz that Intel was wishing, so they devellop a product that could.. but it was not performing as they were hoping for.

    Quote:
    But the point is that if you stick with any one architecture, you'll find ways to make it better.


    If AMD would have stick to Athlon XP architecture, would it be better now than the A64 architecture? I dont think so. A64 architecture allow AMD to devellop new technology that allowed improvement in performance, thermal and power management. They did the wise choice when they stopped their XP developpement in favor of the new A64. Intel keep ramping up the MHz hoping to reach higher speed, but it fail.

    Quote:
    The only real difference between Intel and AMD was that Intel tried to actually switch to a new architecture at one point. AMD didn't. They're still making upgrades to the same architecture.


    Intel switched from the P3 architecture to the P4 423, 478 and 775. AMD switched to the Athlon 462 to the A64 940, 754 and 939. So each of them switched 2 time of architecture, with many revision core. Intel switched faster than AMD to a new socket, and keep trying to improve it, to a certain point, with revision while AMD used their socket 462 longer until they were not able to make it better. Then they switched to A64 which they are still improving with different core revision.

    Quote:
    Had either company actually managed to make a significant change in that, then they'd have done something impressive.


    AMD did push the market to newer thing. They brought 64 bits
    and customers, by buying the cpu put pressure on software developper to move to 64 bits faster. They forced Intel to adopt their 64 bits instruction set. They put pressure on dual core with their new architecture scaling really well with 2 cores because it was designed with dual core capability, better than Intel one that have been rushed to the market to have something to compete. But Intel solution do work! But if it hasent been from the pressure that AMD put, maybe Intel alone would have wait longer to release either 64 bits cpu or dual core. AMD brought something good. This is called "competition". Competition is maybe not good for the customers, as they are "forced" to upgrade because newer CPU perform better in benchmark, which in turn, put more pressure on our ego. But for avancement in technology, this is good. If you look further than your own home and doom3 or HL2, you will see place where faster computer is really needed and can even save life. And that is a reason to keep improving thing.


    Performance alone wont have me buy something. performance/price ratio will. I dont care if the Prescott 3.4 is faster than my 3000+. Because I know that my system give me a good feeling in term of performance and I still have money to do something else, unless your computer is your only passion. In my case, I have a quad (ATV), I do scuba diving, I travel and I enjoy good time. And that cost money. So, the less I put in one thing, the more I have for the other. that might make me look like an AMD fanboy, but I'm not. I just try to make smart choice base on the knowledge I have, and for NOW, AMD is a better value than Intel. I dont need benchmark for that.. they would only tell me that my computer is not the fastest one around. But it does everything right and fast enough for me.

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  20. And what it means here?

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  21. Aye, different socket doesn't necessarily mean different architecture. The P4 has gone through 2 socket changes now... yet the architecture is essentially the same.

    <font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
  22. You said:

    "AMD did push the market to newer thing. They brought 64 bits
    and customers, by buying the cpu put pressure on software developper to move to 64 bits faster. They forced Intel to adopt their 64 bits instruction set. They put pressure on dual core with their new architecture scaling really well with 2 cores because it was designed with dual core capability, better than Intel one that have been rushed to the market to have something to compete. But Intel solution do work! But if it hasent been from the pressure that AMD put, maybe Intel alone would have wait longer to release either 64 bits cpu or dual core. AMD brought something good. This is called "competition". Competition is maybe not good for the customers, as they are "forced" to upgrade because newer CPU perform better in benchmark, which in turn, put more pressure on our ego."

    So first of all, you claim that AMD forced Intel to use AMD's 64-bit set. Is that really a great accomplishment? What this means is that AMD had to spend the money, time, and work to get software companies to open up to the idea of using 64-bit software (which still isn't mainstream, and won't be for some time). Then Intel comes along and says "ok, *tweak*, now our hardware can be used by those software companies too...Thanks for blazing the trail, AMD". We've seen AMD ride Intel's coat-tails before with things like MMX and SSE. AMD, being the smaller company with the smaller RnD/Marketing budget, maybe shouldn't be driving the industry. Looking at their balance sheet, it certainly isn't sustainable right now. I would love it if Intel pushed through new markets and provided new capabilities and then AMD continued to capitalize on Intel's success. IMO, they're being slightly more aggressive right now than they can sustain.

    Another good example of AMD on Intel's tail is Dual Core support. Or rather, more generically, multi-threaded applications. A lot of the reason for the adoption of AMD dual core chips will be that Intel has already paved the way with HT, trying to at least begin the adoption of multi-threaded application design. I think this is fantastic for AMD. Why don't they continue this model? If AMD's trying to gain significant market share immediately, I think they're suffering from dillusions of granduer.

    I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
  23. Hasn't AMD been designing it's CPU's with multicore architecture in mind since 1999? It's rather obvious that AMD was planning for this long before Intel. Seems like Intel is following the leader.

    <b><font color=blue>Athlon64 3200+ Winchester/MSI Neo4 Platinum SLI/MSI 6800 Ultra/1 GB Kingston HyperX (Dual Channel)/74GB WD Raptor/600Watt Enermax Noisetaker/ Dual Mitsubishi 21 Inch Monitors</b></font color=blue>
  24. G5's roxor intelzilla and amdminizilla times infinity

    =P

    Hands down.

    F@H:
    AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2000+ down][1.3x2][366]
    Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

    "...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
  25. Quote:
    But I'm not talking about 5-6 years old chip. The P3 is no more current as well as the thunderbird. We have NOW Prescott and A64.

    Sorry, but as wusy said, you don't seem to understand architecture. I'm not talking about 5 year old chips. I'm talking about the fact that even the A64s and Opterons of today are all just reworkings and improvements to the same architecture that the original Athlon core was based on. You can walk right back through the changes very easily to their beginnings. Just as the PM is based on the P3's architecture. (And really, we could trace that one even further back.)

    And without getting that basic fundament right, the rest of your post falls to pieces and isn't even worth commenting on.

    <pre><font color=orange><i>Jesters do oft prove prophets.</i> -Regan in
    King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</font color=orange></pre><p>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
  26. Quote:
    So first of all, you claim that AMD forced Intel to use AMD's 64-bit set. Is that really a great accomplishment? What this means is that AMD had to spend the money, time, and work to get software companies to open up to the idea of using 64-bit software (which still isn't mainstream, and won't be for some time). Then Intel comes along and says "ok, *tweak*, now our hardware can be used by those software companies too...Thanks for blazing the trail, AMD".


    Ok.. I will try to make my point clear this time. I've been using 8 bits cpu..then 16 bit..then 32 and now, we have 64 bits. What I mean is that it takes someone to start the trend. This time , it is AMD. I remember the trill it was from switching from 8 to 16 bits computer. They were fast.. And then , going to 32 bits. Wow... I like technological avancement.. always going further. And now, not yesterday or tomorrow, but now, AMD set the pace to newer trend.

    We all know the Wright brothers, they set the path to modern aviation. But before them, there was other man who attempt to fly in funny machine.. Maybe they were the AMD of aviation, setting up a trend even if others were thinking they were idiots.

    The Wright brothers got the first flying machine with engine .. They should thanks all those who got terrible idea and get killed in their machine.. they did teach them, not the thing to do, but the thing to avoid. And that matter too.

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  27. I might not have used the right term in my posts, but I still believe that AMD did make thing happen, for the better or the worst.

    My point is, if you want to do something, start something..


    AMD did start the 64 bits train... Is that for the best, or the worst, I dont care, they just did it, and if trend in CPU keep going as it always had, then, 64 bits will be better than 32 that was better than 16 which was better than 8.

    AMD did design their CPU with multi processor/multicore in mind. They knew it was going to happen, they were ready.

    I know that I look like an AMD fanboy. Well, maybe I am.. because I'm excited to see new thing and ideas happening in the computer field, other than high MHz..

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  28. I remember the day of the 100 MHZ main boards hitting the market I believe that Intel was the first to produced the 100 mhz with the Intel 820 chipset designed for rdram ram but that was expensive and was not selling, out came the memory translator hub on the pc3-2000 main board but this was a call back and then the slot 1 processor was a failure and disappointed almost ever Intel user and that is when Intel sat still and watched AMD climb the ladder and today in my opinion AMD won the gamers hearts. That is what started the war between Intel and AMD. I too was an Intel fan and truly believed that they were the best, I was wrong. I switched to AMD design and was amazed by the performance of the processor and main boards.

    I do believe that Intel has made systems what they are today, because of its failures systems got better for the user, I lost trust with Intel processors and chipsets on the expense of my dollars after the 820 chipset.
  29. I believe the K6-2s were the first chip to use a 100mhz fsb.
  30. That very well may be correct I wasent following the AMD charts at that time I was only intel then.
  31. >So first of all, you claim that AMD forced Intel to use AMD's
    > 64-bit set. Is that really a great accomplishment?

    Oh yes it is. For several reasons. First, and maybe most importantly, AMD64 has guaranteed the long term viability of x86. You might have forgotten, but not much more than 5 years ago, most people expected the world to abandon x86 in favor of IA64 (Itanium) as the need for 64 bit computing would make x86 obsolete. Intel can claim all they want, I'm quite certain their plan was to move IA64 down to the desktop where and when 64 bit became a requirement, and sooner or later, that will include pretty much all (non embedded) markets. If it wheren't for AMD64, and intel feeling the heat, we all would have had substantial less choice than we have now. You really can not overestimate the importance of this; its even felt in the high end RISC market where Power, Sparc, IPF and others are being more and more pushed into shrinking niches with x86 (64) growing into higher end every year.

    If AMD had not successfully pushed AMD64, 5 or so years from here they wouldn't have a market to compete in anymore. x86 would have dried up, IA64 too patent ridden to make a clone. 32 bit cpu's just wouldn't sell anymore. Yes AMD64 *is* a significant achievement.

    >What this means is that AMD had to spend the money, time,
    >and work to get software companies to open up to the idea of
    > using 64-bit software (which still isn't mainstream, and
    >won't be for some time

    AMD invested in it, off course, but it really wasn't that expensive. From a hardware POV, adding 64 bit extentions is almost trivial. Of course, it does require a very significant change of the core, but if you are designing a new one anyway, extending it is easy. From the software support side, AMD only did a minimal effort, simply because they can't afford much more, but Jerry going on trial in defense of Bill Gates was a very cheap way to get MS to support their ISA :D

    Then there is another relatively big feat about AMD64: server space. Its not only its performance than made Opteron crack into the tier one server market, it was also its 64 bit ability. Opteron now holds 10-15% of the server market, a highly lucrative niche AMD previously held about no market share in at all. It now has its chips sold and marketed by Sun, HP, IBM, Cray and other high end server OEMs. It gets motherboard support from companies like Tyan, iwill, supermicro, it gets chipset support by nVidia, ATI, Serverworks (!),... Contrast that with a couple of years ago, where taiwanese motherboard vendors would not even dare publically sell a desktop board for AMD chips, and we only had white box boards with either AMD chipsets or VIA crap. This change is fairly phenomenal, and AMD64 played a significant role in this change.


    Nah, IMO, extending x86 to 64 bits really isn't much of a technical achievement; "anyone" can do that, but making it a success, and getting intel to adopt it achieved quite a lot for AMD:
    -it ensured its core market (x86 cpus) will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
    -it killed off any hopes for intel to make Itanium, and their associated ~$10B investment mainstream and/or profitable
    -it gave them a significant foothold in the lucrative high end server market
    -it gave them the image of being an industry leader, not just a follower or cloner which is extremely important to get adopted by big corporations.

    All that for no more than a maybe a (few) hundred million $ (my WAG) is a fantastic deal.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  32. I think the important thing to realize between AND and IMTEL is that without one or the other we're all royally SCREWED

    they're direct competitors. Copetition breeds innovation. both have come up with wonders and both have made flops. (anyone else remember their first generations of AHTLONS exploding and smoke comming out of thir computers or 2nd degree burns on their fingers from it?.. just me? sheesh)

    they both have influenced the PC market today. who's ahead now doesnt mean they'll be ahead 2 years from now. and vice versa.
  33. 10-15% of the server market? What?

    Who's your source?

    Here's a clickly that shows in May 2005 that Operton had 5.7% of the x86 server space (so that doesn't include the non-x86 server space)...

    <A HREF="http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=1299&pubid=3&issueid=49" target="_new">http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=1299&pubid=3&issueid=49</A>

    An interesting quote
    ""Opteron is still a viable product," said Joseph Gonzalez, a Gartner analyst. "You can run a lot of your older applications on it. It's also a little bit lower-priced than some of the Xeon offerings," he said. "It's not going to make a huge inroad into Intel's sales, but it's going to bring in a lot of revenue for AMD.""

    I believe only AMD's most extreme optimistic projections have them at 12% by the end of the year. I'm curious where you got your numbers from.

    I'm just your average habitual smiler =D<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Wolverinero79 on 06/03/05 03:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  34. Here one thing Wolverinero79. If you read anything on Tomshardwaer site about Dual core cpu and Hypertreading you understand there differnt.
  35. Well obviously, but the concept and the pavement needed by software companies in order to support a multi-threading application environment are similar. You could theoretically argue that other things really started the multi-thread revolution, but it seems like (and at least what the industry recognizes) is that HT was the start of the push of multi-threading to average joe consumers (instead of giant servers or workstations). Dual-core is another step forward, but is building upon the work done by HT.

    I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
  36. Quote:
    An interesting quote
    ""Opteron is still a viable product," said Joseph Gonzalez, a Gartner analyst. "You can run a lot of your older applications on it. It's also a little bit lower-priced than some of the Xeon offerings," he said. "It's not going to make a huge inroad into Intel's sales, but it's going to bring in a lot of revenue for AMD.""

    Those are just trying to lick Intel, or are thingking K6 era, or Slot A Athlons.. :)

    "Opteron still viable"

    In case some don't know, the Opteron is best x86 server CPU by a <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=10" target="_new">HUGE</A> margin.
    I guess that it probably makes it "still viable", and that it "can run a lot of your older applications"..

    :D

    Am i starting to sound like a fan boy ? :|
  37. >10-15% of the server market? What?
    >Who's your source?

    Ahmm... can't find any sources to back up that claim :)
    I seem to recall I read a report stating just that, but it most likely was just of some subniche where opteron has a 10+% marketshare. Probably 2 and/or 4 way servers. Remember, in volume (not revenue), the bulk of the server sales are low end, glorified 1 socket destops that companies like Dell sell as entry level file/print/whatever "server". Often even with Celerons. If you look at 2 and 4 socket systems, I expect Opteron to do a whole lot better, though I can't find any numbers.

    One more thing: keep in mind Opteron has only been enjoying significant tier 1 support for a relatevily short time. Sales cycles in these markets are also long, so you're not seeing the whole picture yet. check back in another quarter or two.

    Anyway, none of this hardly changes my argument, unless you want to argue Opteron/AMD64 has not enabled AMD significant (for them) leverage in the high margin server market.

    As for the Gonzales/gartner quote.. doh!. Wheren't Gartner the guys that predicted Itanium crossing over with x86 by 2004 ? They are good at getting industry numbers, but their "<b>anal</b>ysis".. well, is just that :)

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  38. Quote:
    the fact that even the A64s and Opterons of today are all just reworkings and improvements to the same architecture that the original Athlon core was based on.

    No doubt about it. The first look at the A64 design as posted on THG made it clear.

    Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
    Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
    Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
  39. Quote:
    The first look at the A64 design as posted on THG made it clear.

    That is an old and rather feable argument, and I have grown too sick of it.
    What that shows is that Amd is using the same basic layout as they did with the Tbred b. Layout is such a small part of architecture as to make thier deduction laughable.
    If components were interchangable at that level, exactly 0 parts from an xp chip could be used on an A64. Everything about the components has changed, except where they are positioned on the chip.
    Why have they kept the positioning? Because it helps minimize crossover current. That's a real problem, that Intel just cant seem to get thier teeth around.
    Would Intel like to see Amd change thier layout? You bet, then Amd's leakage current problems would be almost as bad as Intel's
    Does keeping something that works mean Amd's architecture is unchanged? Only to those who haven't looked a little deeper.
  40. Quote:
    No no, it's not about layout. It's about how the logics and the flow diagram works.
    Much of how the processor interprets the given data from the days of the first Athlon is somewhat the same to Athlon64.

    Ask yourself why they kept the name 'Athlon'.


    Being all designed to interprete x86 code, you cannot expect big change in logic...

    They keep the Athlon name because it is a well recognized name now..


    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  41. A couple years ago, I read an article on the internal architecture changes between the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 CPUs. If I remember right (I'll go find the article or a similar one soon), aside from the add'l instructions (SSE II/III, 64-bit registers, etc.) and the ODMC, they took the basic XP logic units unchanged, and enhanced the decoder, scheduler and branch predictors to increase the utilization of the LUs.

    Mike.

    Edit to add link to an article re. A64: <A HREF="http://www.cpuid.org/K8/index.php" target="_new">http://www.cpuid.org/K8/index.php</A> Turns out it wasn't completely unchanged from the K7, but largely unchanged...
    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by fishmahn on 06/06/05 11:40 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  42. That's what it looked like to me too! A souped up XP! There's no question it works great, but I don't think it was all that radical. I just don't feel much like hunting up the documentation. I must be too "feeble". [action]smacksEndyenlikebiatch[/reaction/shotby9mm]

    Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
    Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
    Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
  43. The core wasn't radical, it was all the other integration that was... ODMC, HyperTransport, Exclusive L1/L2 cache (I think that's what it's called - where it doesn't duplicate the data in a lower-level cache), effectively enlarging the cache without extra transistors. Can't do much to a core that is already a nicely balanced (balance between clockability and IPC) RISC core with 6 (I think its 6 - 3 ALU, 3 FPU) execution engines. Just tweaks...

    Mike.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel Product