Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's K10 Dead - Intel's Big Opportunity

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 4, 2005 1:21:20 AM

I found a new article.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27421

It seems that AMD's next-generation K10 architecture is dead. This is actually kind of funny really since everyone has been pointing fingers at Intel for delaying the introduction of Xeons with integrated memory controllers. Now it seems AMD is facing problems as well.

Without the K10, the AMD64 will definitely lag behind Intel's next-generation Conroe, Meron, and Woodcrest architecture. Already a Dothan at 2.56GHz Dothan is able to beat AMD's FX-55 and Intel's own Pentium 4 Extreme Editions in all 3d games as well as in most other benchmarks. It also did so while running at 58% lower power comsumption and the FX-55. And this is only a Dothan. Yonah itself will offer considerable improvement over Dothan with its improvements to multimedia and FPU performance. One can only imagine Conroe's potential.

To meet Intel's new architecture, AMD will only have a stop gap measure called the K8L. With the K10 or its replacement delayed until 2008, Intel will have an excellent opportunity to dominate AMD and regain market share over the next 3 years. Hopefully, the execs at Intel perk up and don't squander it.

The Dothan figures are from this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.ht...
November 4, 2005 2:01:43 AM

Yeah!! let's see how Intel becomes the processor king again and we'll be paying twice amount of $$$ to buy an Intel Inside Processor! :eek: 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Nights_L on 11/03/05 11:10 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 4, 2005 2:19:43 AM

Actually Intel is doing pretty well on its own pushing down processor prices. Just look at the Pentium 820. Granted the performance is not on par with say the X2 3800+ but the 820 is 31% cheaper. You can get the dual core 820 for only $245.19. The value of this already low priced processor will only increase as more dual threaded programs become available.

AMD on the other hand actually broke the record for the highest release price for a desktop consumer processor. When the FX-57 was released, AMD priced it at $1031. This went against its previous policy of underpricing against Intel's $999 Extreme Editions.
Related resources
November 4, 2005 2:40:49 AM

Quote:
Without the K10, the AMD64 will definitely lag behind Intel's next-generation Conroe, Meron, and Woodcrest architecture. Already a Dothan at 2.56GHz Dothan is able to beat AMD's FX-55 and Intel's own Pentium 4 Extreme Editions in all 3d games as well as in most other benchmarks. It also did so while running at 58% lower power comsumption and the FX-55. And this is only a Dothan. Yonah itself will offer considerable improvement over Dothan with its improvements to multimedia and FPU performance. One can only imagine Conroe's potential.

Actually, taking Intel's own cherry-picked benchmarks and extrapolating based on the (very generous) assumption that Yonah's performance will scale perfectly with clockspeed, a future dual-core Yonah part at 2GHz falls a hair short of the X2 3800+--the lowest-end dual-core part AMD has <b>today.</b> We can probably expect much the same (perhaps worse) with Sossaman. The power consumption is impressive, but that's about it.

Not to mention which, Yonah's not really scheduled to scale much in clockspeed anytime soon. It will release at a clockspeed <i>somewhat</i> faster than current Dothans--2.13GHz IIRC--but that's hardly an impressive leap. Will it even have 64-bit extensions?

Conroe and Merom might get the performance crown back for Intel. Yonah probably won't though.

"You have been sh<font color=black>it</font color=black> upon by a grue."
November 4, 2005 2:40:55 AM

Don't make a fool of your self.

This is what a member from the amdzone forums has to say about all this stuff:

Quote:

None of this information is particularly surprising or disheartening to me. I had expected K10 to be 4 core and it appears that a 4 core design will be released. I expect this to be done on 65nm which is still a full process generation ahead of Intel. That is, I don't expect Intel to do 4 core until it can produce 45nm.

I don't see anything tragic here. K8 is working fine and AMD will make substantial additions to its architecture. These additions take time and resources. As long as these offerings remain competitive there is nothing wrong with moving K10 back to 2008. Merom is not a threat. Intel won't have a solid offering until Nehalem in late 2007. So, K10 should arrive at about the right time. Okay, look at this another way. Intel was supposed to deliver a very threatening product in the form of Whitefield. Whitefield was canceled. I imagine that this took pressure off of AMD and so they decided that a K8 derivative would be good enough to meet the challenges. I'm sure K10 is still alive in some form and will be out in 2008.






WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A WELL FED SLAVE OR A HUNGRY FREE MAN?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Bullshitter on 11/03/05 11:43 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 4, 2005 3:11:08 AM

Then again you might look at it the way I do. Amd is just not ready to really lay a beating on Intel.
Whitout whitefield, the K8 would make Intel look so bad.
November 4, 2005 5:20:58 AM

BTW dont expect anyone here to take info from THG seriously. The editor in chief is Intel bought and paid for.
November 4, 2005 8:42:40 AM

ltcommander_data is a BS generator, so why bother?
There are people who can memorize lots of things, but understanding little.
You give one a banana, he will go at his keyboard and starts tapping it happy as a cucumber.
November 4, 2005 10:54:09 AM

What funny is theinquirer Has not much info on this subject. Yet has tons of info on Intel Faults.

Hum Intel 5 to 6 Problems due to high power useage. To Heat and netburst.

vers

Amd

Hardly any info on any problem.

I think the main problem is ltcommander_data Who dont like the fact Amd better then Intel.
November 4, 2005 12:49:21 PM

I agree 100%. Why rush? As if Intel has anything in the next year or two. They can just spend more and more time working on the next generation processor.
November 4, 2005 9:22:55 PM

I take your point and I'll use THG's reviews with a grain of salt. However, in this case THG isn't alone. Every other overclocking review shows the exact same result. Namely the Pentium M architecture present in Dothan shows tremendous performance when overclocked.

Anandtech got the Dothan up to 2.56GHz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=238...

At that speed, the Pentium M is at the top or near the top of application and game benchmarks. The only weakness was in media encoding tasks. However, they do note that Yonah will correct those problems.

"All of the architectural improvements, outside of the move to dual core, involved SSE and floating point performance - the two major weak points of the Pentium M's present day desktop performance."

These results were likewise found by PC Perspective.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=133

"In nearly all cases, the Pentium M easily rivals the top end Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 processors, and in some cases beats them."

With Yonah fixing many of the problems of Dothan, the ability for Intel to generate a extremely high performance processor is there. The only limiting factor is that Yonah is suppose to be mobile based and as such it will be limited in its released clock speeds to save power and meet a 31W envelope. However, this won't stop Yonah from dominating the mobile market.

The real potential of Pentium M and Yonah can only be discovered in the desktop market, when the 31W power envelop is lossened. In regards to this, I believe that The Inquirer had an article a while back about the possibility of a Yonah Extreme Edition. If the Dothan can meet or AMD's FX's at the same clock speeds, Yonah should further expand that potential.

However, I do see Kelledin's point. Intel will probably never release the Yonah to the desktop market at higher desktop speeds. We will instead have to wait on Conroe and Merom which should offer still higher performance due to an expanded architecture. Merom and Conroe will double the L2 cache to 4MB, and a Conroe Extreme Edition will have 8MB. As well, the belt will be loosened for Conroe which will have a 1066MHz FSB to ensure the processor is saturated.

What I find most interesting is the fact that Dothan can reach its high performance with so few execution units. It only has 1 Complex Integer Unit, 1 Simple Integer Unit, and 1 FPU yet it can match the performance of AMD's K8 architecture which has 3 full (Complex) Integer Units and 3 full FPUs. This means that Intel is able to match AMD's performance with less than half the execution units. This hints at the performance potential that Intel could build into Conroe, Merom and Woodcrest should bring. I believe that current conservative estimates are that Conroe will hae at least 2 Full Complex Integer units, instead of the 1 Complex, and 1 Simple. The number of FPUs will double to 2 from only 1. Yonah is already adding full support for SSE2 to fix the shaddy SSE2 additions that were originally built into the Pentium M. Conroe will of course add support for SSE3. Execution performance will be further improved as the use of Micro-ops fusion is expanded.

Any performance gains will of course be matched with reductions in power and heat. Yonah and Merom of course have extrodinary power saving procedures, and Conroe and Woodcrest will no doubt be receiving most of those features as well. Speedstep will obviously be standard, but I think that the most critical thing will be the 65nm process's addition of sleeping transistors. In Yonah and Merom, sleeping transistors ensure that the units within the processor only switch on when needed. When the processor is idle, most of it would be shut down producing little power. On Conroe and Woodcrest, Intel will probably just inverse the process. Keep the units on by default to avoid the slight wake-up latency, but still allow the ability to shut of units when not in use. Slight reductions in power and heat would even be seen when the processor is at 100% load as even under full load, not all the transistors in the processor are in use at once and can thus be shut down.

I seriously doubt josh_1413's claims that "Intel has anything in the next year or two." I believe that he will be presently surprised with Conroe and family.
November 4, 2005 9:28:24 PM

Speaking of Dothan, HP just introduced a desktop PC with a Dothan core! See http://www.shopping.hp.com/slimlinepc
for mote details. Note that although this PC is not a gaming machine it is very small and quiet taking good advantage of the low power CPU.
November 4, 2005 9:51:33 PM

It' funny how bringing up AMD's problems makes one a fool while someone writing on the AMDZONE forums makes them correct. Or how presenting facts makes one a "BS generator" as Era so wonderfully puts it.

And for AtolSammeek, I noticed the fact that The Inquirer limits its criticism on AMD while focusing on Intel. However, its not that I don't like AMD. In fact its great that AMD has shaken up the market. What I don't like is exaggeration of things that people seem to enjoy inflicting on Intel.

For instance in Bullshitter's quote from the AMDZONE Forum. What do they mean by AMD's "65nm which is still a full process generation ahead of Intel"? It seems they mean that AMD"s 65nm process will allow them to make quad cores while Intel will have to wait for 45nm. This is far from the truth. In fact, a quad core based on Intel's next-generation Woodcrest is already in the works. It's called Woodcrest and is scheduled for release in Q4 2006. It will use the 65nm process. This has always been the case and has nothing to do with the Whitefield delays. Whitefield is supposed to be Cloverton's replacement in late 2007-2008.

For the comment that "Merom is not a threat." First of all, Merom is scheduled for H2 2006 and won't be competing with the K10 on its now delayed release in 2008. Secondly it is a mobile processor and shouldn't be lumped in performancewise with Whitefield, high-end server processor. I've already outlined the advantages of Merom and its architecture in my post above. Simply put Dothan already meets or beats AMD's K8 based FX at the same clock speeds, Merom and its family should further improve. Besides, the delay of Whitefield does not remove its threat. Tigerton, Whitefield's replacement is based on the same architecture. The difference is the absence of an integrated memory controller.

As well, Intel still has a trump card up its sleave. Up to now we've been talking architecture, while process benefits will also become significant. Intel's 45nm process will be a force to be reckon with. intel has finally solved the leakage problem. This means extremely efficient processors in terms of power consumption and heat production. It also means that large clock ramps can be made without concern for thermal density, since thermals would be very low.

According to The Inquirer,
"So, if you hear gushingly good things about 45nm coming from IDF, believe it. If you hear anyone pooh-poohing Intel and its process tech because of the debacle that was 90nm, just point and laugh. This one will be very very good."

And thats not Intel marketing talk, thats The Inquirer gushing. The same Inquirer that AtolSammeek saids usually has "has tons of info on Intel Faults."

What is even more significant is that this process is scheduled for an early 2007 release. K10 or its replacement of course won't be available until 2008 at least.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25512

Another article backs up The Inquirer.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/4896/
November 4, 2005 10:38:30 PM

Where to begin? That August article is aluding to fully depleated silicon on insulator. That was developed before prescott, was originally slated for use on 65 nanos, but has been pushed back to 45.
Yes, the Dothans have looked promising, we've been talking about Intel shifting thier chips in that dirrection for almost 2 years now.. There is some concern about how high they can actually go. The concensis is that Intel will not be able to market them above 2.8ghz, which just isn't fast enough.
You understand that we are a little jaded, because Intel has just not been able to come up with the goods for four or five years (aside from northwoodc which was pretty good). It seems like most of us came from Missouri, even though we've never been there.
November 4, 2005 10:58:36 PM

Ok, by this time, the H5N1 deadly influenza virus might have kill a lot of peoples. Then maybe terrorist attck would have stike on major part of this planet. You may die tomorrow in a car accident. Or being killed walking on the side of the road. You may paraplegic, in a team sport. No chance to recover. Or recover and enjoying life and not using you computer as often.

What about getting a life? Because, I seriously, don't care at [-peep-] all who will make the CPU that will power my computer in my next upgrade. I won't have choice. I'll take the one that has the best price/performance ratio. Hey, even if I'd like to, I simply can do nothing about that. Nor you..

So, looks at what is happening now. And would anybody would have think about having dual core, when P4 running at almost 10GHz were expected thank to netburst architecture?


Ahhh those peoples always looking to the future are making me sick! Do you realize that your are wasting your present time?

Now, I've wasted enough in this thread.

(\__/)
(=<b>˚</b>.'=)That was my bunny..terminator!!! Now terminated...
November 4, 2005 11:19:43 PM

I can understand people's frustration with Intel. That's why I don't dislike AMD, they've been doing everyone a service by offering stiff competition and driving the market forward. I just try to remain optimistic about Intel, and from what I've seen of Intel's next-generation architecture, there is enough potential there to make me think my optimism is justified.

About the clocking, while its true that Dothan could only clock to 2.8Ghz using standard air cooling, I think the next generation architecture could do a bit better. Conroe and family has their pipeline lengthened an additional 2 steps to 14 steps so it should offer a bit more clocking headroom on the 65nm process. It is also my understanding that the power and heat reductions in the 45nm process available early 2007 should allow further headroom. I hope I'm correct on that belief. Intel is rushing toward a transition to 45nm despite the fact that 65nm is not even out yet. I believe the Merom will be the first to be replaced in 45nm. Merom will only be around about 6 months, then Penryn will be in 2007.

Even without significant clock speed increases, architechtural improvements can continue making performance increases. As I've mentioned Dothan can already match AMD's FX processors performancewise at the same clock speeds with half as many execution units, and with less temperature. With the extra room on the 65nm process and the 45nm process, Intel could easily increase its execution unit count to increase computing power.

I think that its important to note that the use of an integrated memory controller isn't as significant as it appears. When comparing to the Pentium 4 it obviously is, but Dothan is able to match the K8 using only an FSB. And the Dothan doesn't even have an 800MHz FSB available like the Pentium 4 does. Yonah is set to increase the FSB from 533MHz to 667Mhz, and with up to 1333MHz FSB available, the lack of an integrated memory controller shouldn't be a strong limiting factor on the Pentium M and Conroe architecture.

If someone can show me benchmarks that show the K8 consistantly outperforming Dothan at the same clockspeeds on a variety of activites I might be more conservative in my optimism for Intel. Of course, even if K8 can slightly outperform the Dothan at present, Yonah will be coming out in 2 months to correct many of Dothan's deficiencies.
November 5, 2005 1:15:43 AM

Quote:
What I find most interesting is the fact that Dothan can reach its high performance with so few execution units. It only has 1 Complex Integer Unit, 1 Simple Integer Unit, and 1 FPU yet it can match the performance of AMD's K8 architecture which has 3 full (Complex) Integer Units and 3 full FPUs. This means that Intel is able to match AMD's performance with less than half the execution units.

The real reason why the pentium M is so competitive against K8 it's because of it's huge low-latency L2 cache which really helps that type of processor architecture.

K8 can rape the pentium M in multimedia applications and even in games that are not cache-dependant thanks to it's powerful floating point engine.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A WELL FED SLAVE OR A HUNGRY FREE MAN?
November 5, 2005 1:20:34 AM

Quote:
If someone can show me benchmarks that show the K8 consistantly outperforming Dothan at the same clockspeeds on a variety of activites I might be more conservative in my optimism for Intel. Of course, even if K8 can slightly outperform the Dothan at present, Yonah will be coming out in 2 months to correct many of Dothan's deficiencies.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=238..." target="_new">There you go.</A>

I hope I didn't burst your bubbles. :D 

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A WELL FED SLAVE OR A HUNGRY FREE MAN?
November 5, 2005 1:34:57 AM

Thankfully, low multimedia performance is specifically what Yonah was designed to address. Decoder width for SSE instructions has been tripled, Micro-Ops Fusion has been expanded to include SSE and SSE2 instructions, and SSE3 instructions have been added. Thankfully, Intel has also redone the SSE2 implementation, which was poorly incoporated to the Pentium M from the Pentium III. As well, despite critism of the added latency of shared caches, Yonah's 2MB of L2 cache will maintain the same low 10 cycle latency as Dothan. These improvements should make Yonah more competitive with the K8 until Merom arrives with additional and redone execution units.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2366

I have a question regarding a feature of the Conroe architecture. What is "memory disambiguation"? I think its a type of prefetching but is it a new feature then?
November 5, 2005 1:48:34 AM

Em. If you turn to page 10 you'll see a Pentium M clocked at 2.56GHz is in the top 3 performing processors in 6 out of 8 charts. Out of that it is the fastest twice. Similarly in the Game benchmarks on page 11, the Pentium M is in the top 2 in both benchmarks. Being first in Doom 3 and second in Wolfenstein. That was what I meant by the Pentium M being able to perform equavalent in many cases to AMD's K8 since at 2.56GHz it performs similarly to the 2.6GHz FX-55. Of course it is weak at media encoding which I've replied to above.

Sadly, they didn't include a 533MHz FSB 2GHz Pentium M to compare to the 2GHz AMD64 3200+ although the 400MHz FSB Pentium M is pretty close to it in many cases. The 2.13Ghz Pentium M that they do include is clearly superior to the 3200+ even in media encoding, although thats mostly due to higher clock speed.
November 5, 2005 1:52:20 AM

Why wusy, I believe that's the nicest comment you've ever said to me. It's certainly better than "He'll be raped by me before that happen, I assue you."

I of course understand waiting until Yonah is released. Thankfully, its due early January. Hopefully we see leaked reviews before that. It would either be a Christmas present for AMD or Intel, depending how it goes.
November 5, 2005 4:25:41 AM

On the high end you are correct in terms of what is actually shipping today. However, if price/performance is the criteria the Celeron-M 370 is clearly the best processor today. I think he merely predicts that the high end will follow today's reality on the low end.
November 5, 2005 4:59:48 AM

Quote:
true that Dothan could only clock to 2.8Ghz using standard air cooling

In your dreams. The dothan is hitting a brick wall @ 2.58 basicly. That is not a marketable speed, due to extra voltages, and non standard fsb. Dont expect it to come to market above 2.4. That is not a good enough number to compete with current A64s.
If they do add stages to conroe, expect the IPC to drop. Sure it may catch the A64s speedwise, but at lower perf/mhz. The old mhz race again.
I really dont get you. You remind me of a guy who talked his sister into buying a prescott. I asked if he understood what a bad move that was. He said well yea, but Intel will get better. You to seem ready to sacrifice your sister, in the hope that some day, your great god Intel will get better.
November 5, 2005 5:28:13 AM

one more thing i would like to point out. you can't just compair a 2.5ghz dothan w/ a 2.4/6ghz k8. the speed(in ghz) is scaled between cpu to cpu. notice how much the dothan was overclocked just to compete w/ the k8s. scale the k8s the same clock speed up and they again dominate

<font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>
November 5, 2005 1:13:49 PM

I'm just doing a comparison of the efficiency of the architectures. In such a case, I'm seeing what they can do at the same clock speeds. Thus, a 2.56GHz Dothan competes very similarly to a 2.6GHz AMD FX-55. Obviously its weaker in media encoding, but thats a weakness Yonah is to address.

http://techreport.com/etc/2005q3/idf/index.x?pg=2

Tech Report tells the enhancements to SSE/SSE2/SSE3 and FPU enhancements for media encoding.

If you don't like me OCing Dothan to 2.56GHz to compare to a 2.6GHz FX-55, you could take another example. In the anandtech report they didn't include a 533MHz FSB 2.0GHz Dothan. But even if you look at the 400MHz FSB 2.0GHz Dothan its results are slightly slower but close to the performance of AMD's 2.0GHz 3200+. Regardless of what speed you want to look at, Dothan compares similarly to K8 at the same clock speeds. Of course, Dothan is doing it with half the K8's execution units and without an integrated memory controller.
November 5, 2005 1:51:29 PM

Dothan at 2.88GHz has been reached using a stock air cooler.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=342

They found the Dothan at 2.8GHz to beat a FX clocked at 3.2GHz in SuperPi. Which is quite interesting considering Dothan's weakness at FPU calculations.

2 more stages in conroe and merom isn't such a big deal. The architecture is expanded to such an extent that the 2 stages won't affect it performance wise. For instance the expansion of the 1 complex, 2 simple decoders to 4 complex decoders. Addition of FPUs, expansion of the ALUs to at least 2 complex instead of the 1 complex, 1 simple that there is now. Micro-ops fusion will continue to be expanded, and Macro-ops fusion will be added.

The Inquirer feels
"On the baggage side, the lower integer performance is more due to the shorter pipe length, and it looks like Merom cores will be faster than Opteron+'s in int, but lose a little to them in FP, quite the change."

Interesting how a the mobile Merom variant will beat the Opteron server. Conroe, and Woodcrest aren't even mentioned.

"Clock for clock, look for a 30% improvement. This chip is going to give AMD quite the run for its money."

Certainly The Inquirer is impressed.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623
November 5, 2005 3:30:09 PM

Your mistake is that you are comparing Intel to AMD on what AMD has out now, and what Intel will have out maybe in another year or so. AMD is still faster clock for clock, not only that the A64 will be clocked higher than Dothan when it comes out, so therefore, it won't be able to compete (athlon 64 FX57 VS Dothan at 2.5GHz MAYBE) Dothan has no chance. On the dual core front, we all know Intel won't even come close to the performance to the Athlon 64 X2 for quite some time. Intel will have to adopt the on-board memory controller before they even start. By then, AMD will already have its next generation architecture out. I like Intel, and I like AMD, but i have a hard time believing Intel will be able beat AMD in performance for quite some time. On the server front. Whitefield has been cancelled, because it has no chance to compete. Intel's whole Server department is a pile of crap. Now since you are reading news that is like 2-3 months old, let me catch you up! :p 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2009...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27188
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/intel_monte...
November 6, 2005 1:14:31 PM

I'm waiting too dude, had it with AMD and have been waiting for intel to come up with something
November 6, 2005 7:36:31 PM

I believe the topic of integrated memory controllers on Intel's architecture has been debated many times already so I don't want to start another one. I still think that the use of an integrated memory controller is not critical to Intel, since the shorter pipelines and large amounts of low latency cache reduce the impact of memory latency. Memory bandwidth issues are also not that severe as Intel is already planning to transition to DDR2 800 or higher for introduction with Conroe.

While the above may be true for the mobile, desktop, and 2-way server markets, I admit that integrated memory controllers are critical to 4-way and higher servers. A quad-core 4-way setup cannot work on just an FSB. While Whitefield has been cancelled and integrated memory controllers delayed, Intel has been making headway in freeing up the FSB. Tigerton, Whitefield's replacement, remains a 4-core solution, and while it doesn't have an integrated memory controller, it will feature Direct Interconnects between processors. In a 4-way situation, it will help free up valuable FSB resources. While it isn't preferable, its better than nothing.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?...

I agree that Intel's server division is having some real problems, but I believe the criticism needs to be focused on the right place. While the 4-way and higher server section is definitely lacking, Intel's current architecture has no problems in the 2-way server market. There individual 1333MHz FSBs, 800MHz quad channel memory and large amounts of low latency caches mean the 2-way segment is neither latency nor bandwidth starved. As well, the 2-way segment is still on track to release the quad-core Cloverton in Q4 2006. Regardless, with the 45nm process scheduled for early 2007, these processors will quickly be replaced. With the reduction in costs, and additional die space caches can further be expanded to reduce the need for an integrated memory controller. At that point, the K10 or its replacement still won't be out for another year.

Now, in response to you claiming that I am using old articles, there is a valid reason for doing that. What is that reason? It’s simply because those are the newest articles concerning Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest, which are respectively the mobile, desktop, and 2-way server markets. The articles you listed are for the server market, specifically the 4-way segment. I don’t see how problems in the 4-way server market will affect Intel’s performance in the mobile, desktop, and 2-way server markets.

For instance, the article you listed on The Register clearly is talking about Whitefield and Tukwila. The article's opinion that Intel will trail AMD for years, then clearly applies to the 4-way server market. Reiterating, the articles I brought forth are dealing with the mobile, desktop, and 2-way server markets.

Now, you may claim that I am using old articles, but in fact the article you listed from The Inquirer is outdated. That article was released on October 24. The next day, The Inquirer released another article detailing its claims.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27192

The Inquirer then invalidated the above article on October 31. Upon learning the details of Tigerton, The Inquirer commented “So, if you were following the goings-on from this article, let's just say we are a lot more hopeful on the raw numbers side, but less so on the cost side.” This is in response to Intel’s use of 4 FSBs to supply Tigerton, which The Inquirer feels “alleviates a lot of my performance worries”. It does have concerns on cost but it notes that “in the four way space, this is far from a killer, those boxes are not exactly cheap to begin with.”

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27334

In terms of the last article on Itanium, I can’t really argue with that. I never support Itanium to begin with so I won’t bother defending it.

Regardless, when you claim that I’m using outdated articles, you should try to list articles that actually refer to something that I’m talking about. Bringing up articles on the 4-way segment to debate a position on the mobile, desktop, and 2-way markets is irrelevant. As well, you should take care to make sure an article you claim to be updated really is, as in the case of the article from The Inquirer.

BTW, the new layout of the Forum is nice although it now looks like every other forum on the internet. I wonder what TG stands for. Tom’s Guide Forumz just doesn’t sound right.
November 6, 2005 9:09:44 PM

Well the updated style is great. Its a lot more visually appealing than the old one. I wonder when they'll update the main site to this look.
November 6, 2005 9:40:43 PM

This is the default phpbb board style. I don't think they would want to use this style for everything :wink:

In fact, we need a theme that somwhat resembles the look of the old forum (at least for the sake of old timers)
November 6, 2005 10:44:16 PM

Well, I meant the silvery embossed theme they are using like for the news, hardware, network, mobile,etc. menu bar on top. They've updated the network and mobile guides to the new theme. Just wondering when they'll apply it to the main hardware guide section.
November 7, 2005 1:45:26 AM

Hey, I'm serious. Toms Networking didn't look the way it did a few months ago.

http://www.tomsnetworking.com/

I've also noticed that the forum doesn't tell you the number of views anymore. I find it helps pinpoint popular threads which are often the interesting ones.
November 7, 2005 1:39:40 PM

And here I found this jewel:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/251/le-turion-dans-les-desktops/page1.php (you'll need a translator).

As you all can see, the P-M is not a great contender to the K8 as many said it would be. Overall, PM did well, but this is one more piece of evidence that PM's IPC is not higher than K8's.

I'm still confident that Intel will not bring a true quad core solution untill it goes to 45nm process to compete with AMD's 65nm quad core offerings.
November 7, 2005 5:09:08 PM

Great idea! I think we can do something like this soon. :lol: 
November 7, 2005 10:59:39 PM

The results of those benchmarks appear to be valid, but the problem with them is their limited scope. The majority of the benchmarks are media encoding based which the Pentium M architecture is known to be weak at. The emphasis on media encoding skews the overall impression towards a view that the Pentium M is weaker.

A more global comparison is created by GamePC, the now famous people who created the Dual Core Paxville comparison. GamePC tests over a variety of areas including Business Applications, Games, 3D rendering and media encoding. Going through the benchmarks, a 2.13GHz Dothan beats a 2.2GHz AMD64 in all 4 games and in both content creation programs. Its faster in 3D Studio, but 4 seconds slower in Maya, 2 seconds slower in WMV9, but faster in LAME.

Overall, by including a larger variety of applications GamePC gives a more fuller picture of the Pentium M's abilities. The 2.13GHz Dothan beats a 2.2GHz AMD64 in almost all real world cases.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pm915&pa...
November 7, 2005 11:14:57 PM

I just noticed that GamePC offers newer benchmarks as well. This time they added a 2.26GHz Dothan. Just as the 2.13GHz Dothan is superior to the 2.2GHz 3500+ in the previous comparison, the 2.26GHz Dothan is superior to the 2.2GHz 3700+. In fact, the 2.26Ghz Dothan beats a 2.4Ghz 4000+in 3D Studio, Content Creation, and Audio Encoding. It also offers fairly comparable performance in most other benchmarks.

They have also managed to OC the Dothan to 2.75GHz. The results are spectacular especially in games. It only loses to AMDs dual cores in other applications since they are multithread optimized.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pm780&pa...
November 7, 2005 11:39:26 PM

I hate to make another post but going through GamePCs older processor comparisons, I've noticed that they too have a Turion vs Dothan article.

Once again, they are comparing over a wide variety of applications and tasks. Regardless of the clock speed, the Pentium M beats the Turion in every benchmark except Sciencemark which GamePC notes that "AMD chips have always performed strongly in Sciencemark" so this isn't particularly worrisome. Although there are often slight imbalances in clock speeds on the higher model, which may be viewed as skewing the results, the one case where their clock speeds are equal is at 1.6GHz. In this case, the results are confirmed with Dothan beating the Turion in all benchmarks except Sciencemark.

It is also important to note that Dothan was only using DDR400 memory which is limited to DDR333 by the motherboard. Dothans now commonly use DDR2 533MHz RAM which is also available in dual channel mode. The extra bandwidth would have helped fill the Dothan's 533MHz FSB better.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=turion64...
November 7, 2005 11:49:03 PM

Quote:
The results of those benchmarks appear to be valid, but the problem with them is their limited scope. The majority of the benchmarks are media encoding based which the Pentium M architecture is known to be weak at


You are full of BS.

You have all kind of tests:
Media encoding, file compression, 3D rendering, Sciencemark, Super Pi (which the P-M owns) and gaming (which the Turion and the Athlon 64 owned).

Please, read back again the review which is more recent than the old gamePC benchmark. :wink:
November 8, 2005 2:18:23 AM

I just feel they put extra stress on media encoding by putting multiple benchmarks on video, audio and file compression which all essentially test the same abilities. As well, the common use for labtop processors is not video encoding. The french site fails to include benchmarks on 2D content creation which is far more useful when determining the effectiveness of a notebook processor.

Sadly, the french sight also does not disclose what motherboard they are using with the Dothan. They say that its under NDA. They also do not disclose what speed RAM they used to test. They only say DDR2. This could make a difference since DDR2 533MHz would actually be able to fill Dothan's 533MHz FSB while if they used only 400MHz DDR2, Dothan would be at a decided disadvantage. Dothan is also designed for dual channel DDR2 533 RAM.

In addition, the Turion review on GamePC is not old. It was written on 4/26/2005 while your french article was written on 5/10/2005. Two weeks is hardly significant when reviewing the same architecture. Besides, thats why I included the reviews of the 2.13GHz Dothan written on 5/19/2005 and the review of the 2.26Ghz Dothan written on 8/25/2005. Both are more recent.
November 8, 2005 3:05:35 AM

I hate to be picky, but could you find a site that isn't so etail oriented, without the heavy intel links. It kind of makes thier benches seem tainted.
I mean the order of thier cpus is a little suspect. (xeon, PM, P4, PD, then Amd? For a game PC? seriously)
November 8, 2005 3:28:41 AM

Em. I think you're reading a little too much into their order.

I'm assuming you mean this page:
http://www.gamepc.com/shop/category.asp?catalog%5Fname=...

They are actually ordering numerically. It just happens that AMD's use such high socket numbers so they are listed last. The reason why Xeon is first is because they forgot to put a dash. ie Socket 604 instead of Socket-604. The software automatically sorted the Xeon first because of the space. Everything else is in proper numerical order. There isn't favourism here.

To further alleviate your worries, going to the Custom Rigs page:
http://www.gamepc.com/shop/custom.asp

On the side bar, its Opteron, X2, AMD64, Xeon, Pentium D, then Pentium M.

Its also important to note that GamePC is the website that first released the review detailling the extreme heat problems with the Paxville DP Dual Core.

I think your worries of bias are misplaced in this case.
November 8, 2005 6:11:48 AM

Quote:
I think your worries of bias are misplaced in this case.

Well, as long as you think my worries are misplaced, then I guess everything is just fine. Are you sure though? You dont think maybe it might be in thier best interest to hype certain products?
Silly of me to think that, they really dont have a "cough profit cough" ulterior motive.
November 8, 2005 4:14:42 PM

Quote:
Silly of me to think that, they really dont have a "cough profit cough" ulterior motive.
By that reasoning almost no site in the world can be trusted because nearly all have some form of profit in mind. (Sales, advertising, page hits, status, ego, etc.)
November 8, 2005 8:35:34 PM

Quote:
What I find most interesting is the fact that Dothan can reach its high performance with so few execution units. It only has 1 Complex Integer Unit, 1 Simple Integer Unit, and 1 FPU yet it can match the performance of AMD's K8 architecture which has 3 full (Complex) Integer Units and 3 full FPUs. This means that Intel is able to match AMD's performance with less than half the execution units.

The real reason why the pentium M is so competitive against K8 it's because of it's huge low-latency L2 cache which really helps that type of processor architecture.

K8 can rape the pentium M in multimedia applications and even in games that are not cache-dependant thanks to it's powerful floating point engine.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A WELL FED SLAVE OR A HUNGRY FREE MAN?

Thats what he said why are you rehashing... oh wait your attempting to be smart... My bad I thought you might be trying to be constructive.
November 9, 2005 3:30:25 AM

I highly concur on the idea of constructive discussion here. A lot of this is like rock, paper, sissors. If you are measuring processors on media encoding the clear winner is Pentium D. Hovwever, to me this is a very strange benchmark since it is a batch job. Who cares if I kick off an encode this evening at 11 if it completes are 3am or 4am; what is the difference? On the other hand, games are also a special case (but an important one) which also depend on graphics. Is the processor the determining factor here? If you have and extra $ to spend do you spend it on uP of gPu?
November 9, 2005 4:15:11 PM

I found this tidbit interesting.

Quote:
A 2 GHz Pentium M scores a respectable 1500 in SpecInt, but trails far behind with a specfp score of about 1000.


From

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2598&p=4

The M is a not a bad CPU, but more of a focused processor that does certain things great and others on par. It will never be a superscalar killer.
November 9, 2005 11:10:56 PM

Quote:
I highly concur on the idea of constructive discussion here. A lot of this is like rock, paper, sissors. If you are measuring processors on media encoding the clear winner is Pentium D. Hovwever, to me this is a very strange benchmark since it is a batch job. Who cares if I kick off an encode this evening at 11 if it completes are 3am or 4am; what is the difference? On the other hand, games are also a special case (but an important one) which also depend on graphics. Is the processor the determining factor here? If you have and extra $ to spend do you spend it on uP of gPu?


The difference is these guys e-penis and who's got the better wording for why AMD rules and Intel sucks. All that matters to these guys is the common believe in one over the other regardless that the entire community knows or not.

Plus I think they like to see their text on a website "hail the internet" I has brought us together and allowed anyone that can figure out what the power button does to share their views.

Even the weirdo’s that don’t go outside have access....
November 9, 2005 11:49:12 PM

It's interesting because the article you point out is about the advantages of Itanium over current architectures. Itanium is significantly more efficient than even the Opteron in terms of efficiency, performance per watt, and core die size (excluding L3 cache and other things not part of the core logic).

"But compared to the best x86 design today - the AMD Opteron -, the Itanium does about 60% more work per clock cycle in integer, and about 115% more work per cycle in floating point."

Sadly, Intel has taken too long to bring new cores to market resulting in the decline of Itanium.

In terms of the Pentium M, they were actually comparing Banias in this case. From the chart above, the Itanium processor they used was Madison which is built on the 130nm process.

"If we keep it fair and compare the two cores using the same process technology"

The Pentium M on 130nm would be Banias. If they used a Dothan core with its 2MB L2 cache and 533MHz FSB, the results would have been higher. Maybe not drastically, but they didn't compare it to current Dothan architecture.

Besides, as has been mentioned before, weak FPU performance has always been the case with the Pentium M architecture. Part of it is that the Pentium M only has 1 FPU and 1 vector unit while Opteron has 3 full FPUS. Itanium itself can execute 4 floating point instructions in parallel. Due to the smaller number of execution units, there is no doubt that the Pentium M's FPU performance is less. As well, the vector unit on the Pentium M is still based on the Pentium III. As such, its SSE2 performance is poor and it doesn't have SSE3 support. Pentium M's 1 FPU does not handle SSE instructions.

Yonah itself was specifically built to address the Pentium M's poor FPU performance. While it still only has 1 FPU and 1 vector unit, both have been redesigned. The FPU can process some types of commands faster now, while the vector unit has had its SSE2 support rebuilt and SSE3 support added.

Merom will further improve things by adding more execution cores. Intel is looking at 2 possibly 3 full FPUs instead of a split FPU and vector unit, and 2 or 3 full ALUs instead of 1 simple and 1 complex as is currently the case.

As neither Yonah nor Merom is out yet, it isn't that fair to compare it to current architecture. However, it is important to note that Intel recognizes the performance limitations of the current Pentium M and is designing processors specifically to address it.

Its rather interesting that you brought up that the Pentium M "will never be a superscalar killer." The Pentium M was never designed to compete with high-end server processors like the Itanium or the Opteron so thats to be expected. As well, the Pentium M architecture "will never be a superscalar killer" because its last incarnation will be Yonah. By H2 2006, Merom and family will come out and will they are related to the Pentium M, they are not the same architecture. The Inquirer has long confirmed that it was designed from the ground up.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623

Regardless, the point of the Anandtech article you quoted was to say that superscalar architecture in the future will be irrelevent. The processing of additional threads whether through more cores, Hyperthreading or Coarse Multi-threading (which the Itanium is particularly good at with a 30% performance boost) is the future.

"The focus is no longer on IPC or Instruction Level Parallelism (ILP). It is on Thread Level Parallelism (TLP). "
!