Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Intel Hardware IT

Intel/AMD Battle Rages On 245

Posted by Zonk from the fight-to-the-pain dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The battle between Intel and AMD has broken out of the cleanroom and literally into public view with AMD's public display CPU speed challenge to competitor Intel. Should the competition take place, the infamous chip makers will battle their best 2-way and 4-way configurations for the latest title as speed king." From the article: "AMD's proposed dual-core duel would be a live, public performance evaluation between server platforms based on the dual-core Opteron 800 Series or 200 Series processors and the corresponding Intel product. Should Intel accept AMD's challenge, the duel would take place at a public venue to be announced in the coming weeks, with testing conducted by a neutral, third-party testing lab. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel/AMD Battle Rages On More

Intel/AMD Battle Rages On

Comments Filter:

  • What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fredistheking ( 464407 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:49PM (#13383558)
    This is just marketing by AMD. There is no way that Intel and AMD would come to agreement on the benchmarking software to use. Both companies know their weak points and their strong points. Neither company is going to agree to lose.
    • Although, I read a lot of Opteron benchmarks over the past couple months, and those suckers are blazing even at encoding tasks and all. The multiple cores humiliate Intel's HyperThreading. I don't think Intel makes any chips that can compete with Itanium...and we all know how much Itanium matters these days. *cough*

    • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:59PM (#13383662)
      It's marketing that will work. Intel won't go through with the bout, and AMD will hold it over their heads for the next five years, and everyone on slashdot will troll about it.

      Truthfully, AMD could do it, even without Intel's permission. Just go grab a chip off the shelf and let loose.

      Lastly, parent's completely correct. There's no way they could settle on what software to use. Intel would argue Linux is made mostly by people with AMD hardware, whereas AMD will argue that Windows has been tailored to Intel for 10 years. Intel will argue that their compiler produces accurate x86 code, AMD will argue it's inconsistancies.

      The only way I could see it happening is if they ran every single possible configuration of software and averaged the results, but I'm sure someone will point out some flaw in that even.

      • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drudd ( 43032 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:11PM (#13383808)
        Of course you know AMD has already done just that.

        You don't actually think they'd challenge Intel to a contest they would lose, do you?

        Doug

        • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:39PM (#13384043)
          You obviously don't get it -- AMD *know* this contest will never happen, because the conclusion could be called either way, no matter what the results. AMD *know* that Intel will not accept because they know no matter how it turns out it'll get spun off the planet. AMD *know* that this will be incredibly good publicity. It's as simple as that.

          I'm not supporting AMD or Intel here, but I do recognise that all this is is a publicity stunt.

          • You have a point, and maybe you're right - but don't be so sure.

            It would be difficult to pull of a somewhat real-world alike test where a Xeon would beat an Opteron.

            Anyone could pull off a synthetic benchmark that would prove Xeon to be the faster CPU of course, but I'm pretty sure you will find it difficult to take off-the-shelf server software and make it run faster on a properly configured Xeon than on a properly configured Opteron.

        • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Holi ( 250190 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:44PM (#13384638)
          Well since intel does not have a comparable dual core server chip I think amd knew exactly what they were doing.
        • Even if Intel wins all the benchmarks, AMD can still argue that they only lost by x% and their chips are much cheaper, therefore a much better deal.

          Intel can't agree to the contest, because that'll be acknowledging that AMD is competitive with them. If they acknowledge that, then consumers will start considering AMD when they make their purchase decisions.

          The only way Intel could come out ahead on something like this would be for them to absolutely trounce AMD on the benchmarks, or for AMD to suffer a hardware failure during the tests.

      • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:29PM (#13383960) Journal
        Truthfully, AMD could do it, even without Intel's permission. Just go grab a chip off the shelf and let loose.

        But the credibility of the results would suffer. If Intel are producing the box, with their reputation on the line, you know they'll have the best possible motherboard, memory etc. for the purpose. If AMD built the Intel box, you don't have this confidence.

      • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jejones ( 115979 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:34PM (#13384002) Journal
        Intel will argue that their compiler produces accurate x86 code, AMD will argue its inconsistancies.
        AMD would love to have another reason to point out the way the Intel C compiler libraries test for the presence of certain features in such a way as to never detect them on AMD chips even if they're present.
      • Truthfully, AMD could do it, even without Intel's permission. Just go grab a chip off the shelf and let loose.

        And conversely, Intel could do it without AMD's permission.

        Moreover, if enough public attention manifests, that's exactly what will happen... with each side using the tests and conditions needed to assure its victory, and then publishing the results.

        (While we wait for that entertaining debacle, let's prepare by taking the Pepsi challenge, America...)

    • Perhaps more interesting then software, which "neutral third-party testing lab"?

      Perhaps even more interesting, what is a "neutral third-party testing lab".

      Most of these neutral labs are only as neutral as the people paying them are....

      • Easy. Pay me. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hummassa ( 157160 )
        I can be as unbiased as it gets.
        Especially if both companies give me an equal-valued check.
        Send me sealed machines, externally similar cases, preferently ship both together (one company's courier meets the other in UPS's office, they wrap the computers in unmarked boxes). Make only one distinctive mark with a Sharpie pen in one of the cases, give me a week and I'll give you the result, posted in a website:
        "The marked machine performed ..."
        "I put the unmarked machine in such and such situation and ..."
        "Final

    • I'm not sure what "corresponding Intel product" Intel would use. If its an x86 chip, give it up Intel.

      Now in terms of bang for your buck, AMD Opteron wins hands down. Now for raw performance (as if only geeks care for games I guess) I would like to see a showdown between Itanium and Opteron.
    • This is supposed to be a multicore, multiprocessor and presumably multi-tasking/threaded benchmark. In this case, the Xeons will choke on the FSB and the Opterons should win most benchmarks hands-down.

      After you strip games and media-encoding benchmarks, there are not many Intel-biased benchmarks left.

    • Re:What software? What terms? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mapmaker ( 140036 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:34PM (#13384004)
      This is just marketing by AMD.

      Yes, it's very good marketing. The point of AMD's dual core challenge (which everyone here seems to be missing) is that Intel has no dual core server processors with which to compete. In the server space AMD has dual core Opterons and Intel has...nothing. The only dual core Intel processor is Smithfield, which by their own admission [macworld.com] was a slapped-together rush job that isn't good enough for the server space.

      It's like pulling a Ferrari alongside a pedestrian and saying "let's race". One side doesn't have anything to race with.

  • AMD has a score to settle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PsychicX ( 866028 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:51PM (#13383573)
    Looks like AMD is going to really Stick It To The Man for this one. K8 has done a lot for them on all fronts, and thankfully they're not squandering what they've gained from it. If only they'd get a marketing department that wasn't completely incompetent. (When's the last time you saw an AMD ad on TV, hmm?)

    I wonder though, it's interesting that this happens the same day that Intel announces the first details about their new line up. It's like they crash into each other every so often and both fire volleys of whatever they can get.
    • "(When's the last time you saw an AMD ad on TV, hmm?)" The Tour De France

  • Public venue? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nuclear Elephant ( 700938 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:51PM (#13383578) Homepage
    Should Intel accept AMD's challenge, the duel would take place at a public venue to be announced in the coming weeks

    Place the chips in an unmarked bag and drop them in the trash on the corner of 2nd and 4th. We'll let you know when our neutral, third-party testing lab is finished with them and post their results.

  • Finally an open match (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GreatBunzinni ( 642500 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:52PM (#13383587)
    Finally an open match between two independent groups who compete to prove who has the best product available and competing in a leve where the rules are set and the process is (at least somewhat) clear.

    This is what has been missing in the benchmark field. I hope that this trend picks up and that from now on we see the companies battling it out on the technical field instead of the marketing field.

    P.S.:yes I know. This is marketing too. But still, it is a lot better than obscure references and funny and dubious charts which show vage and misleading numbers.
    • Of course, the real answer here is AGAIN is use the CPU that best suits your application. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Any comparison is necessarily apples/oranges.

      If you don't know the needs of your application, or your application is somewhat neutral, then it does not matter so much. Enter factors like cost/FlOPS and convenience of other components (mobo, etc).

  • Much Lucha (Score:4, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:53PM (#13383592) Homepage Journal
    Nah.

    It'd be more interesting if the opposing CEOs dressed up in colorful, masked outfits with capes and boots and took turns body-slamming each other in a ring, surrounded by thousands of cheering fans, and the play-by-play by a prominent Mexican wrestling announcer.

    ...and it would be as accurate.

  • who cares? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@umich. e d u> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:53PM (#13383596) Homepage Journal
    Two computers crunching numbers next to each other, big deal.

    Fistfight between executives, I'd watch.

    • Re:who cares? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Phu5ion ( 838043 )
      Sounds like a reality TV show for Fox.
    • Screw that! I want to see the secretaries go at it!
    • How about a good arm wrestle match?

      One outrageous incident was his arm-wrestling showdown with the CEO of Stevens Aviation in 1992. Both Stevens and Southwest were using the advertising tagline "Plane Smart." To settle the matter, Kelleher suggested an arm-wrestling competition with the winner keeping the rights to the slogan. Kelleher lost the match, but the event generated so much good will and publicity that Stevens let Southwest continue use of the tagline.

      reference [pbs.org]

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nuclear Elephant ( 700938 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:55PM (#13383621) Homepage
    ... global warming on the rise again.

  • Please tell me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by guitaristx ( 791223 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:55PM (#13383625) Journal
    ...that this competition will be measured in FLOPS and not in MHz.
    • Why FLOPs and not MIPs, or integer operations, or specPerf units, or . . . ?

      It's all largely irrelevant and easy for either party to finegle. The point is, there is no univerally agreed-upon benchmark. Each is better than the other at something, and that's what they tout. Unless this is effectively rigged to be a tie in which each wins 50% of the "showdowns" it will never happen.
      • There *IS* a pretty decent benchmark out there which actually correlates well with processing power in terms of data processing speed.

        It was called the HINT benchmark [google.com] and it was developed by a guy at Iowa State University Ames Laboratory. I think they tried to commercialize it but it didn't get off the ground. It was released under the GPL. It's out there in various places.

        If you can find a copy of the software [umn.edu] then compile it up, and it produces some very interesting data. It produces a curve of "quality i
    • Uhh...flops is just as stupid as Mhz.

      Intel would clearly win the FLOPs because they have higher peak floating point execution bandwidth - due to higher frequency (on P4). Or more FP execution units on Itaniums.

      Performance is measured in seconds, not flops or mhz. Pick a computable task - measure how long it takes each machine to complete it.

      • Re:Please tell me... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dsci ( 658278 )
        flops is just as stupid

        Intel would clearly win the FLOPs because they have higher peak floating point execution bandwidth

        Performance is measured in seconds, not flops or mhz. Pick a computable task - measure how long it takes each machine to complete it.

        UH?

        If Rate(Intel) > Rate(AMD) as you assert, then how in the world can Time(Intel) NOT be < Time(AMD)?

        Time = Number of Operations / Rate

        So, if the Number of Operations for each CPU is the really the same (what I assume you mean by
        • Yes, and then try and compile something, and realise that it has nothing to do with floating point performance what so ever.
          • Well, I spend more time COMPUTING than compiling, so FlOPS (or number crunching in general, which would include cache parameters, memory bandwidth, etc), is a better metric. I don't consider compiling a meaningful benchmark for the work my computers do.

            If I spend 1-2 hours compiling, then a single calculation takes 35 hours and I must do about 20 of those calculations, the compile time is insignificant.

            As always, YMMV, and the fact remains, there is no single benchmark or CPU/system best for all tasks
            • Well, I spend my entire day compiling things... My point is not that people do not use floating point operations, it's that people use things that are not floating point as well. Compiling things is just one example of a task that uses almost no floating point processing, and a lot of branch/cache work. No test can deal with all these different things.
        • FLOPS don't include integer ops.
          Also, compilers may compile things differently for different machines. For example - SSE3 or Itanium. 64 bit vs. 32 bit. etc...
        • If Rate(Intel) > Rate(AMD) as you assert, then how in the world can Time(Intel) NOT be You argue that since intels processors operate at a higher frequency than AMD processors, that an intel processor will inevitably complete any task faster than an AMD. You completely neglect the fact that each instruction takes a different number of cycles to execute! A crude, and almost certainly incorrect example: Given an intel processor at 3.6 ghz and an AMD proc at say, 2.8 ghz, assume it takes the intel proce
          • You completely neglect the fact that each instruction takes a different number of cycles to execute!

            I did not neglect that at all. That's why I said use an average FlOPS number obtained over some set of real calculations. At this level, it simply is a number to compare.
  • Isn't that an oxymoron by now? Every single "this was tested by a neutral 3rd party" review you hear about has a corresponding "that neutral 3rd party wasn't neutral at all" story to dupe. Even if there are "neutral 3rd parties" out there, will anyone trust them enough for AMD to be successful in this marketing campaign?

    Doubt it.
    • Let the boys from id Software set up a Doom 3 server so AMD and Intel can frag it out. That should be a fair and neutral test to determine which CPU sucks down the pineapple. :P

      • Re:Neutral 3rd Party? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bfree ( 113420 )

        You know you may actually have something. Set up a major gaming contest with various suppliers of machines. Don't benchmark, but rotate the players around the machines (keep all ui hardware identical) and use statistics to see which supplier won.

        Secondly you could do a rerun of the recent assisted chess competition (afair you couldn't cheat unless you managed to get away with an illegal move) except simply make it a software assisted competition. Bring whatever code you want, but you have to run it on t

  • Why should they accept? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by weedenbc ( 719416 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:56PM (#13383636)
    Accepting would only hurt Intel so there is absolutely no reason why they should take the challenge. I mean come on, they are in the business of making money, not proving a community of geeks right.

    AMD has scored some points with this challenge but IMHO missed a huge opportunity. They should have started an ad campaign pointing out that all the P4 class products that Intel has dumped on the world were sub-par to their own.

    Intel presentations today were full of hyping a per watt performance. I would have immediately launched an ad campaign that showed exactly where Intel stood with it's current desktop and server offerings in a per watt basis.

    It really pisses me off how a company can talk up its products and convince a ton of people to buy them, then turn around and say that they really sucked and they just managed to sucker people in with marketing and brand name recognition.

    • Re:Why should they accept? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by popo ( 107611 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:06PM (#13383734) Homepage

      I couldn't agree more.

      AMD has *THE WORST COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT I HAVE EVER SEEN*

      It blows me away that AMD doesn't run an ad campaign that says something like "AMD: Faster"

      AMD's consumer messaging and advertising is hilariously bad. (Just look at their website, its like something some secretary did in Frontpage).

      AMD continuously acts like they don't have the money to fight Intel's 170 Billion Dollar image. Its hilarious. AMD is an EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY! I know 2 million dollar dot-coms that have a more savvy marketing department.

      AMD should position itself as the more expensive, elite brand. Not the sucker underdog.

      If you can't meet production numbers, be Mercedes. Be Ferarri. Don't be Saturn and charge a higher price for crying out loud.

      My 2 cents.

      • AMD continuously acts like they don't have the money to fight Intel's 170 Billion Dollar image. Its hilarious. AMD is an EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY! I know 2 million dollar dot-coms that have a more savvy marketing department.

        Remember that the purpose of a marketing deparmtment is to (ahem) make money. Are these two "million dollar" dot-coms making EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS?

        So, who's savvy, again?
        • I think there is still a point though, marketing plays a larger role in helping get and attain market share than geeks care to admit.

          AMD and AMD fans shouldn't be complaining about market awareness when AMD barely has an ad budget. Sure, I see an occasional full-page magazine ad but I don't remember any TV ads. Really, they should at least drop a couple mil for a spot during the Superbowl, at least to show the PHBs that AMD does exist.
          • AMD already does good business in the server/workstation market, thanks to Sun and others. The truth is that AMD can't handle a huge amount of demand. They're expanding gradually, building fabs with new and better tech to crank out more processors, but they have nowhere near the production capacity of Intel.
      • It blows me away that AMD doesn't run an ad campaign that says something like "AMD: Faster"
        Yes, because we all need to take our 99.6% CPU idle time up to the next level. If you're utilizing more than 0.2% of your CPU cycles on average, you're obviously yesterday's crap.
    • It really pisses me off how a company can talk up its products and convince a ton of people to buy them, then turn around and say that they really sucked and they just managed to sucker people in with marketing and brand name recognition.

      Can they sue for fraud?

      Can the win?

      Can they get paid in something other than coupons?

    • It really pisses me off how a company can talk up its products and convince a ton of people to buy them, then turn around and say that they really sucked and they just managed to sucker people in with marketing and brand name recognition.

      It really pisses me off too! I, mean, how many times can Microsoft sell the latest software release by telling everybody "You must upgrade now! The previous release was too buggy and insecure!"... Oh, wait, we were talking about Intel, weren't we...

      Yes, all the latest Intel

  • Geek Pay-per-View (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @05:58PM (#13383655)
    Maybe we could get a few undercard matches as well?

    Windows v. Linux, quickest from blank disk to running system
    vi v. emacs, first to edit a 10 page document
    RMS v. Bruce Perens, which person does the audience kill first
    • vi v. emacs, first to edit a 10 page document

      ...with novice users, using the built-in tutorial and help to get started. :-)

      (As I recall, the first time I invoked 'vi', the only way I could figure out how to exit it was to unplug the machine.)

      Mike

  • Two Reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:00PM (#13383671) Homepage

    Right now they have 2 objectives:

    1) Ensure that the hundreds of millions spent on their new German production plant (set to open soon) was worth it by creating a media frenzy & consumer demand.

    2) Cast a spotlight on Intel's unfair marketshare by once again proving that Intel's products are inferior and not capable of maintaining their position in the marketplace without unfair practices.

  • McDonald's VS. Burger King? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gabecubbage ( 711618 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:05PM (#13383727)
    I don't see where Intel would enjoy any strategic advantage in participating.

    Burger King has in the past been fond of touting its #2 status -- as has Pepsi.

    But the big boys, McDonald's and Coke, generally like to pretend that #2 doesn't exist. After all, it would only publicly legitimize their fear of a threat by doing so. AMD gets positive publicity whether they play and win, play and lose, or if Intel refuses the contest.

    Whereas Intel can only AT BEST hope to win the contest and essentially say "Hey, it's actually true that there are viable alternatives to our technology out there, but just remember that for the time being we outperform the competition by 1.23%."
  • From the previous /. article today about Intel's "next-gen" CPU offerings in 2006, it is evident that Intel is currently behind AMD in the dual core arena. What Intel will offer in 2006 is already available from AMD (single die dual core and lower power consumption).
  • This wont happen because AMD has a clear lead in server cpus. Xeons dont scale worth a darn and the Itanium has been doa. Intel is treading water and pumping up the marketing machine just to stay afloat. No real benchmarks or numbers displayed at IDF and AMD has more processing per watt right now.

    What I want to see is Bush(might makes right) vs Cindy(you killed my baby) in a boxing ring. If bush beats up on a woman or gets pummeled he would lose either way.

  • AMD could actually lose this one (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:11PM (#13383802) Homepage
    If Intel, for instance, chooses to pit a dual Itanium 2 system against the dual Opteron. Itanium 2s can have shitloads of L3 cache (like 6M, vs 1M in the Opteron), which is perhaps the most important performance feature of a server chip.

    Keep in mind that server applications are a totally different beast from desktop/gaming apps/multimedia apps (things that most people here on slashdot are accustomed to). While a media application has a very high instruction throughput (say, 2 instructions retired per cycle, or more if you consider the SIMD part), server applications can be as slow as 1 instruction retired every 10 cycles. This is because they have poor cache locality, and they block on data from the main memory. In any case, for a server app you generally want as much cache as possible.

    • Cache helps improve perforance when your entire dataset can be loaded to cache, but I expect most realworld benchmarks would use a database much bigger than 6MB. Thats when the Dual Core nature of the dual opteron(twice the cpus) and built in memory controler would clean house.
      • It's not actually necessary to fit the entire DB working set in the cache to get performance improvements. If the larger cache reduces the misses to memory by, let's say, 20%, it's still a great deal (because these misses easily cost 200->400 processor cycles, and out-of-order execution can't really do much in this time anyway)

        Also, the Itanium instruction set allows cache placement hinting. You can tell the processor not to allocate a L1 (or L2) cache line for something that you know for sure you're n

    • Itanium and its "IA64" architecture, is merely able to SLOWLY emulate the myriads of 32 bit software titles we all use today, even in server applications. Unlike Opteron which can execute 32 bit x86 code natively along with x86-64. And I will take compatibility any day over the amount L3 cache a CPU has.

    • Re:AMD could actually lose this one (Score:4, Informative)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:08PM (#13384291) Journal
      AMD could actually lose this one
      If Intel, for instance, chooses to pit a dual Itanium 2 system against the dual Opteron.

      Not in x86 emulation mode, they won't.

      AMD covered their butts on that one... The challenge specifically states x86, with "the corresponding Intel x86 server processors that are commercially available in volume."
    • They would win the contest and loose the marketing battle. Itanium is dead in the water and Intel knows this.
    • AMD would still win on price/performance as Itanium chips are much more expensive and the volumes are so low that the supporting chipsets and motherboards are more expensive. Itanium would lose on performance/watt too which Intel just yesterday decided was an important metric.

    • Re:AMD could actually lose this one - maybe not (Score:5, Informative)

      by bunyip ( 17018 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:49PM (#13385197)
      We have a bunch of 4-way Itanium systems running as servers, we tried out 4-way Opteron machines about 18 months ago and they were twice as fast on our app. We've bought a couple of hundred 4-way Opteron boxes since then and we're very happy with them.

      Our code is branch intensive with low cache locality. Since Itanium can't handle out-of-order execution, memory stalls kill it, hence the need for a giant cache. Intel's compiler didn't help, we mucked with it for months. For Opteron we used gcc, compile and go, took about a day to move 500K lines of C++.

      Intel could only win this on hand-coded floating point.

      Alan.
  • Should Intel accept AMD's challenge,

    Yeah, like this is ever going to happen.

  • From AMD.COM (Score:5, Informative)

    by WndrBr3d ( 219963 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:14PM (#13383827) Homepage Journal
    Here's the actual link [amd.com] to the challenge issued by AMD to Intel on AMD's own website.

    Much more information than the /. link.
  • AMD proposed, Intel declined [theinquirer.net].

    What's next on the agenda?

    - shazow
  • I can see the excitement now. The suspense. THe music pumping through the crowd of geeks in a huge outdoor arena. The ushers directing you to your seats. The skantily clad women handing out deoderant (geeks... get it?) and sunscreen.

    Giant projectors displaying 400ft screens, each with a progress bar from the testsuite going from 0% to 100%... slowly moving... getting closer [four hours later] almost there...

    Please- this doesn't sound like a venue I'd really want to attend. I imagine the press would be

  • Intel's Reaction (Score:2, Informative)

    by entj1 ( 797103 )
    Here's a quote from Intel in this article [forbes.com]

    Separately Wednesday, Otellini addressed its smaller competitor, Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD), which today took out full page ads in national newspapers to challenge Intel to a "dual core duel" to see whose chips are faster. Said Otellini, declining the opportunity to attack, "I think that companies and products are best judged in the marketplace."
  • AMD64 dual-core technology provides industry-leading performance, is easy to upgrade and is energy efficient,

    None of these matter as much to me as Performance/$$.

  • Intel already turned them down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:22PM (#13383900) Homepage
    Intel's Paul Otellini has already publicly refused to take up AMD's challenge. He said he prefers such things "to be worked out in the market."

    That's Intel-speak for "we know we can't beat you in any fair contest, so we're just going to outspend you ten-to-one in marketing and make everyone think we're faster, just like we've been doing for the last five years."

    Yup, that's the way to do it. If you can't beat 'em, FUD 'em to death.
    • "products are best judged in the marketplace" == FUD? This is currently at +4, but I just can't understand where in Otellinis response there is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt...

      Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I got from your post: When Intel tries to suggest they are faster it's FUD and not a fair contest. When AMD suggests (by challenging) that they are faster, the same does not apply?

      To me this looks like a PR stunt, plain and simple.

  • Literally? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's a good thing you said "literally". I was going to think that the Intel/AMD battle has moved metaphorically into public view.

  • Now, just hold on. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @06:41PM (#13384058)
    Who won the last round? Coke or Pepsi?

    In the end, they both sell more units to the piglets.

    God, I detest corporate marketing.

    I've been accused of being, 'Too Serious' and not allowing myself to just, 'Have Fun'. Fine. I can sort of see the argument. . .

    After all, this is the only time in history, a window which will be open for only a few brief nano-seconds on the geologic time scale, where I can buy scratch-n-sniff stickers and scratch-n-win lottery tickets, and fizzy sugar water in a can, and pop a high-tech ecstasy pill and wear spandex and running shoes and play video games and watch movies and all of that other crazy stuff. Hey. Sure. It's all fun. This is a once in a billion chance of a lifetime to try all those funky toys out.

    But pardon me for thinking there are FAR more interesting things in life than falling in line with some corporate promotional department's greedy wishes so that some millionaire can make another million off everybody's inability to resist their fascination with shiny plastic doo-dads and fake boobs.

    Sure, perhaps I might seem, 'Too Serious' to the average burger-eating, cell-phone fashion zombie. --But I also have self-respect and an identity of my very own which I didn't buy at some death star mall. I take pride in not jumping whenever some corporate marketing shill tells me to get addicted to his ice cream.

    And I DO NOT CARE whose microchip is faster.

    But then. . , perhaps I'm just getting old. All that crap was fun when I was a teen, so to each his own. Live your life in whatever way suits you best!


    -FL

  • maya paint effects at 10 paces.

    runs both linux and windows (and mac for that matter,) processor intensive.

    and it makes such pretty pictures...
  • neutral, third-party testing lab
  • Does anyone have any expirience with opteron cpus for servers?
    How do they perform under server-loads compared to xeons?

    We are currently running dual-xeons only (heavy i/o and/or memory throughput,
    webserver and java servlet engines) and I'm curious how a dual-opteron would deal with that kind of load.

    Anyone know any serious, real-world benchmarks comparing the two?
    Are the Opteron boards mature enough for production use, yet?
    • Our old box was a dual 2.4 (or was it 2.8) ghz xeon.

      The new box is a quad operton 950 with 16 gigs of ram.

      Both ran as web servers. To give you an idea of how much faster the opteron is (Yes, I'm aware it's 2 cpu vs 4), the xeon box with Zend's php caching is twice as slow as the opteron box without any php caching on a php application with 250,000 lines of code.

      No contest at all. Even if we pulled two of the cpus, I'd be willing to bet similar performance.
  • Intel should hire the guy in Japan who clocked a P4 to 7.1Ghz to supply some liquid nitrogen cooling, I'm sure Intel would win comfortably then!

  • Say the magic word ... TCO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by flyingace ( 162593 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:46PM (#13385167) Journal
    I would not be surprised if somebody in Intel says the M$ magic word 'Total Cost of Ownership' next. Isnt that what M$ said after trying to run benchmarks against Linux.

    I know this sounds like apples and oranges, but all they have to say is Intel processors have lesser TCO than AMD.

    Its one of those things that nobody can substantiate or refute.

  • Isn't Intel already winning? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:04AM (#13386402)
    Most of the big computer makers are Intel-only. Most stores selling PCs are selling mostly 'Intel-Inside' machines. Most corporate PCs and servers are Intel. AMD's server share just went up to 11 percent and AMD was ecstatic about it. Seems like Intel has the business pretty well locked up so what reason do they have to respond to AMD's challenge? I predict they will just ignore it.

  • quakecon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kronchev ( 471097 ) <kronchev@gmailPASCAL.com minus language> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @04:19AM (#13387354) Homepage
    I was at Quakecon, which was sponsored by Intel. Saturday (i think it was, it's all a haze) an AMD guy came and in front of the center was passing out AMD shirts and tattoos. By the time he was out of shirts one of the Quakecon organizers came over and started yelling at him that he "couldn't be there", and AMD wouldn't be a future sponsor if he stayed. They went off to the side and yelled for a while. I went and got something to eat.

    On the way back I see the AMD guy walking away from the center, with a huge stack of temp tattoos in his hand. I ask for one, he gives me THE WHOLE STACK and says "don't let them see these or theyll take your badge and kick you out".

    Later that day I saw him and his coworker as they were leaving, they gave me about 10 more shirts, which I gave to all my friends. I personally put an AMD tattoo on my forehead and wore the shirt...my friend went and started passing tattoos out in front of the Intel booth and a guy literally ran up, pushed him, and started yelling "what the fuck are you doing, you're not allowed over here anymore!"

    Good times.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close