Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Bring on the competition (Score:3, Funny)
i certainly hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
The last thing we need is for Intel to have no real competitors. Innovation would slow and prices would hike up.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing we need is for Intel to have no real competitors. Innovation would slow and prices would hike up.
SPECint_rate_2006 vs SPECint_rate2006? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes!!! (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be prudent.
Using "up to" in benchmarks and comparisons... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Up to" is sugar-coated for "You can't expect any better than this" with a implicit translation of "It can get a whole lot worse".
Ex: If CPU X get "up to" 100% more performance than CPU Y, but in all tests but one, actually has 1% of the performance, I'd rather have CPU Y.
"Up to" means nothing to me, except as an advertisement for the competator; whichever has the least unpleasant average and worst case performance is the one I'm interested in.
Re:Using "up to" in benchmarks and comparisons... (Score:4, Interesting)
And those numbers would be indicative of anything either. The problem with CPU benchmarks is that they have no real world application; Everyone has different needs. However, the marketing types for both the suppliers and consumers need numbers to push in front of each other, so they make up these things which those of us in the field understand have no real world meaning.
It's a vicious circle, non?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If your specific needs happen to be similar to the things benchmarks stress, then you can expect the results to be relevant. If your needs differ wildly from benchmark methods, then you can expect the results to be irrelevant - but most likely they will be equally irrelevant.
Benchmark performance is, at the very least, a better indication of relative performance than clock speed of cache size.
Fact is, few end users actually NEED
Re: (Score:2)
"at the same frequency" is pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
C//
Correction (Score:4, Funny)
amd quad-cores are true quad-cores with a better.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also If amd where to copy intel and put 2 dies on the same cpu they will have a better link for them that will not eat up chipset to cpu bandwith.
Re:amd quad-cores are true quad-cores with a bette (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all you can't put two dies on the same cpu, or at least it would be a horribly bad idea. You can put 2 cpu's on a die. Now I thought AMD already did this but they could just package several chips together and I'm feeling too lazy to look it up.
Anyway, yes for Intel chips they must communicate over the FSB. However, as I've recently been finding out they don't do that much communicating. For instance most cache state info is generated just by listening on the FSB. Th
Why casual users can't be bothered (Score:5, Interesting)
I read tech news daily and am getting sick of the media wars... It is no wonder casual users get fatigued trying to keep up. Casual opinions depend on which day (or week or month) a person chooses to research product offerings. It is no wonder I am always hitting a brick wall when trying to get my users to educate themselves so they can get more out of their tech. They don't know what to make of all the posturing.
This is not a function of the tech world developing *that* quickly. It is a result of the major players trying to out-strategize each other. I don't want to see anymore benchmarks (or hear about anymore promised software) until I am standing in front of a demo machine that is running the tech.
Guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Regards.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously though, Intel's got the performance lead for now, but AMD's got the better tech and their release schedule "lags" Intel's a little. So Intel got the "jump" on AMD release cycle wise, and now you've got the situation where Intel has a brand spanking new product out that beats AMD's old offering by about 10-20%, at best at stock speeds.
I personally am waiting for AMD's release and benchmarks before making a final decision, but the fact that I'm doing so already says which way I'
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel seems to have taken a "no response" approach to media claims, instead producing product and letting guys like toms hardware do their thing. This isn't to say they don't advertise, but they don't take out full page NYT (or was it washington post?) ads chest pounding like AMD does.
-nB
Re:Why casual users can't be bothered (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh. (Score:5, Interesting)
2 of our attorneys just got quad-core Mac Pros with Studio displays. For writing documents on. Maybe the occasional slide show. I'm stuck on this 3-year-old Dell with dual CRT monitors. Old ones.
Sorry, just had to bitch a little. Your comment is more real-world than you may have realized.
Parent
Re:Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate selling. I'm damn good at it, but I hate it. To quote Zoidberg:
Selling's about kissing ass and pushing off whatever it is you're selling on whoever has a wallet, no matter what their needs. Ok, at the retail level maybe not so much. But any sales job that pays close to 6 figures, yep.
Yeah, I'll pass. And I'll be doing what I want when I leave work at 4:3
Re: (Score:2)
But of course you just wanted to troll. I wonder how much you have invested
Re: (Score:2)
AMD needs to rebrand itself too (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing a chip as using less power is the same as having Toyota make an exclusive advertising campaign toward wheel-chair bound people: the group you're targeting has few people in it and they're going to research any product they buy. The server market is important, but when I buy my shiny new server, power consumption isn't my first consideration, nor is that the only thing AMD offers.
With this announcement, I'm hoping AMD starts a new slogan touting, say speed. That's what I buy a processor for primarily. AMD's always been fast for the cost and it's high time they market themselves as being faster and better rather than being "as good as" Intel. My new pick for a marketing slogan? "Upgrade to AMD" AMD should position its chips to be slightly more expensive at every pricing tier, but in doing so, blow them away in performance. (In the present economy, businesses have money and will gladly spend more money on products they feel are superior. Ford spends more money on marketing than BMW (but which would you rather own?). AMD should be trying to make Intel look like Ford, rather than being the "Ford alternative".)
AMD is marketing to a minor concern of a niche audience, while they ought to be using their superior performance (at a given price point) to sell hardware. Would you rather be a "power saver" or "upgrade to AMD".
Re:AMD needs to rebrand itself too (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nice - but when we look at purchasing $250k - $500k of servers, power consumption as an important factor.
Back in the days when dual-cores were just beginning, this indeed was HUGE. Do you want 30% more Irwindales which would require 100 tons of cooling, or the AMD dual-cores which require 30 tons of cooling? The same is going to happen at the dual-core/quad-core boundary.
As CPUs are cheaper and cheaper and A/C systems remain a constant cost, the people who spend large amounts of money are going to look more and more at power costs. They're probably aiming at business customers who don't buy *a* server, but buy a *hundred* servers.
Parent
Re:AMD needs to rebrand itself too (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And I assume there's a strong correlation between power and noise. Most people's homes are quiet enough for a loud machine to really call attention to itself.
Fly me... (Score:5, Funny)
But marry me soon baby, I need the money
SSE4? Please, don't get distracted over little things like whether or not I can cook!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SSE4? I'm not buyin' either AMD or Intel until they're at least at SSE256. What's that? It'll take a while? That's OK, I don't have the monies to get them now anyway.
<sarcasm/>
For my type of workloads, straight SSE2 is still just fine. I'll take an improvement on that now instead of, say, waiting for the x86 world to match AltiVec instruction-per-instruction. But i would go for a wider ISA - give me 4x64bit registers
What's really relevant ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's really relevant to me is the performance per dollar ... not just dollar of CPU cost, but also dollar of whole system cost (including software, if that goes above zero), and dollar of energy cost (including the cost of shoving waste energy out the back door in seasons I does me no good to keep it indoors).
Real life tasks (Score:2, Insightful)
I currently don't need more speed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if AMD can produce a cheap and silent system with good graphics performance I am all for it. Say something as fast as an X24400 and an Nividia 7600 GT all for about $300 then you have a winner. You will sell millions.
A quad core system? I just don't need it yet.
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you know what they say about lies, damn lies, and benchmarketing.
Or, if they don't say it, they ruddy well should.
Parent
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:5, Insightful)
However AMD doesn't need to attempt become relevent again. They are currently very relevent. Did Intel become irrelevent when they were behind AMD on performance? No. In the past, AMD did lose more by not having the performance crown, and one could certainly imagine the momentum they were gaining in the K7 days fading quickly if Intel had come out with a superior chip. But today, AMD has both the marketshare and the OEM support to be merely competitive performance-wise and still be relevent. So they lose out at the top speed grades. If they can continue to match up their products to Intel's at lower speed grades, and they will, then they will continue to be a good choice for many people, and will definitely still be relevent.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:5, Informative)
In any case, what matters is what Barcelona will ship at, which has not yet been specified. In any case, if Barcelona lives up to AMD's stated expectations on performance, it will be a killer CPU. Your statement about Intel's potential improvement leaps are spot on, and fall into Inforworld's Tom Yager's statements about Intel which are essentially phrased as "Core 2 is Intel's last hurrah". Why? Because Intel is essentially running on 10 year old technology and is rushing to catch up, despite some of the nifty architectural things they did recently to speed up C2D (integrated L2 cache for example).
I also believe that Intel is now following AMD's lead by leaving extra headroom for those that prefer to OC their CPUs and concentrating more on TDP and stability. I've noticed that Intel's chips since P4 are certainly more stable, while my rather severely OC'd AMD CPU occassionally (twice this year) shuts down, most likely due to heat or a RAM instability (since the shutdowns happen during low usage periods at night, I'll bet the 20% OC'd RAM is probably to blame).
Basically, right now Intel owns the crown, but they own it while comparing to AMD's last gen CPUs which are 3+ years old.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly this sounds more like fanboi talk than a serious analysis. If your goal is to diss Intel and give AMD props then saying they are using 10 year old technology makes sense. If you are actually trying to argue that AMD's future is much brighter than Intel's it's totally non-sensical. If Intel can gain huge performance benefits just copying stuff AMD is doing now while AMD has to make huge advances just to stay competitive I know who I would put my money on.
Parent
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually Hypertransport is an open standard and anyone can implement it. AMD doesn't have the clout to force proprietary standards on the market, so their only hope to have a standard adopted is to make it open and royalty free.
Which is why Intel will (probably) never implement it. They aren't interested in standards which they don't control. They already don't like the fact that AMD is cross-licensed for all x86 tech, which was part of the motivation for creating the entirely separate IA-64 ISA. When IA-64 failed and Intel was forced to implement x86-64, the only reason they used AMD's spec was because Microsoft said that they would only support one x86-64 ISA, and AMD got their first. Basically it took MS to out-monopoly Intel. So unless they are forced to use HT, they won't, and I can't see any way they could be forced. They may implement something similar -- they will have to in order to address multi-socket scalability -- but it will not be compatible.
AMD would love for Intel to copy their tech. Every time they do, it makes AMD look like the leader and Intel the follower. You could practically hear the screams of orgasmic joy from AMD when Intel announced EMT64.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Intel is already shipping 3GHz Clovertowns, and the article states that AMD has not released the Barcelona clock targets. It they ship substantially below 3GHz (2.4?), then
Re:Nice attempt, AMD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... they're not. If they were using clock speed as a metric, they would be saying "Look! We're running at 3.5GHz and Intel is only running at 3GHz!" while completely ignoring the actual performance -- exactly what Intel did all those years. They are instead talking about performance-per-clock-cycle, which (according to this) means that a 2.66GHz AMD chip would be considerably faster than a 3GHz Intel chip. We can expect them to continue touting the overall performance rather than raw clock speed, since they look better from a performance standpoint and worse from a raw clock speed standpoint.
How is that different than what they've been saying all along?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "we" that already "know"s that? What 4-core AMD processor beats its Intel competition?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)