Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Intel Hardware

Intel's New Architecture Too Late? 226

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the day-late-and-a-dollar-short dept.
rts008 writes to tell us that TG Daily has an interesting interview with Randy Allen, AMD's vice president of the server products division, about (among other things) AMD's recent stellar fourth quarter numbers. From the article: "Responsible for that shrinking lead is especially AMD's server products group. Intel's CEO Paul Otellini recently acknowledged that Intel had to give up market shares to AMD and will likely be forced to hand over more shares until the next generation of server chips arrives. [...] AMD's Randy Allen explains in this conversation with TG Daily why he believes that Intel will need much more than a new processor to be able to slow AMD's growth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's New Architecture Too Late? More

Intel's New Architecture Too Late?

Comments Filter:

  • And this is a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)

    by joib ( 70841 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:38AM (#14537072)
    AMD exec says AMD is better than its competitor. Earth shattering news!
    • No, it's a case of "The Nuts and Volts of News for Nerds"

    • Re:And this is a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:57AM (#14540166)
      Well, for some reason, everyone on Slashdot has a hard-on for AMD no matter what they do. Intel's new laptop chip is keeping up with a desktop Athlon64 3800+ X2, and Intel's 64-bit desktop chip Conroe with 4MB cache is ahead of schedule and due this summer. It's cool AMD took some market from Intel last year, but Yonah is kicking butt, and the coming redesigned Merom/Conroe chip means this year is a big one for Intel. Meanwhile, AMD still has yet to get 65nm going. So, I don't get the constant AMD obsession, but that's just me.

  • question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:41AM (#14537078) Homepage
    I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?

    I know that the new MacBook is running on the Core Duo line, and I understand that's a whopper of a mobile CPU, but I thought that AMD had a strong competitor to the Pentium-M?

    • Re:question (Score:3, Informative)

      by Saven Marek ( 739395 )
      I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?

      No its incorrect. the AMD mobile CPUs still outperform pentium M and their offspring currently the core duo and core solo chips. So the AMD ones are still out in front.

      The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power, but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge so really this is no disadvantage.

      • Re:question (Score:3, Insightful)

        by B3ryllium ( 571199 )
        but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge

        Well, almost always. But thanks for the response; I thought that the person was smoking some fine ganja, just wanted to confirm. :)

      • Re:question (Score:2, Interesting)

        by yoda133113 ( 934923 )
        The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power, but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge so really this is no disadvantage. Spoken like a true desktop user. As someone that uses a laptop exsclusively, and precisely because it is mobile, that diference in battery life really matters. The fact that i can get 4 hours out of my 8 cell battery, and 6 out of my 12 cell battery on a computer that can play HL2 on max settings is something that I find rather convient. Finding a plug in my cl

      • Re:question (Score:5, Interesting)

        by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:53AM (#14537127)
        All the statistics i'm seeing show that the Core Duo beats the Turion hands down by as much as 25%. Also, the Pentium M outperforms the Turion as well. For example:

        http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_d uo_notebooks_trade_battery_life_for_quicker_respon se/page16.html [tomshardware.com]

        • Re:question (Score:2, Interesting)

          by carl0ski ( 838038 )
          shocking who would have thought a dual core
          would beat a single core Turion
          i'm shocked and bewildeered my life has been thrown upside down.


          I'm guessing AMD is holding off for DDR2 before releasing Dual Core Turion
          dont forget Toms Closing Statement

          Microsoft's new Vista operating systems and Office suite, because both should include massive 64-bit enhancements. And who wants to be stuck with a notebook twelve months from now that can't handle 64-bit programs?
          • Uh, someone who doesn't expect to install 16TB of ram in their notebook?

            Maybe I'll want 2 or 4GB of RAM, but that doesn't require 64bit support. Of course if I expect to pump up the systems to 6GB of ram... I'd want a 64bit or enhanced 32bit system.
            • There is a lot more to 64bit vs 32bit than just the ability to address memory. Having word sizes that are larger can help too, along with support of operating systems that may not be available in 32bit. Then again, who needs more than a 16bit OS anyhow?
              • There are trade offs mostly; larger words mean bigger caches, but there are no (known to me) performance improvements that don't also apply to 32 bit CPUs. Even if AMD has a 256bit vector unit, like Altivec, that would still be a working unit on a 32 bit CPU. Motorola's 32 bit G4 had a 128 bit Altivec unit, after all.

                • Re:question (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Wiz ( 6870 )
                  Generally you are correct, 64-bit code is generally slower as it requires more cache & bandwidth than 32-bit code. The only real advantage is in encryption, databases, etc which requires the large word widths where it can provide benefits (beyond more memory available).

                  Of course, we are specfically talking about x86 where the above isn't true.

                  In normal 32/64-bit modes (e.g. SPARC, POWER, etc) the modes are pretty much the same. For x86 it isn't, you get double the amount of registers (8 vs 16) which can
          • shocking who would have thought a dual core
            would beat a single core Turion

            Saven Marek (739395), for one.

            I'm guessing AMD is holding off for DDR2 before releasing Dual Core Turion

            Will it matter? I tried playing the FIRST Dance Dance Revolution on my laptop, and when I took the smashed-up keyboard in to Dell for repairs, they just laughed at me!

            Microsoft's new Vista operating systems and Office suite, because both should include massive 64-bit enhancements.

            How is porting Office to 64-bit code going to provid
          • I was merely pointing out that no, unlike what the person I was responding to claimed, Turion does not beat Pentium M or Core Duo (or probably Core Solo). Turion currently is the worst performing AND the highest power consumption.
        • Since when is Tom's Hardware an authoritative and impartial source of information?

      • Re:question (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CaptnMArk ( 9003 )
        I have a T43P laptop with 2.13 GHz Pentium M cpu and as far as I am concerned that CPU is already overclocked.

        The fan more or less never stops despite me setting the CPU speed to be adaptive even when plugged in.

        I have a desktop AMD machine with 2 hard drives that is quieter than that.

        I must say that I am slighly disappointed in the Pentium M.

        • Seconded.

          In fact it will die if the CPU frequency is not scaled down all the time. 9 out of 10 or so different Pentium M laptop models I have tried over the last 1 year could not survive for more then half a day just typing on them without cpufreq. In fact most did not survive through a full Debian install because Debian default kernel cpufreq support is not good enough (and is not enabled by default). Fixing cpufreq at 75% of the nominal value has kept them alive but this brings the performance to less tha
          • I'm a fan of AMD, but I have to say my IBM T40 (which has a 1.6x GHz Pentium M and runs Fedora 4) is very snappy, and I've never had a heavy-use problem like the one you're describing. I often run very processor intensive, 1/2 day long unit tests on this machine, without any problem at all. I'd say it performs on par with my 2.6 GHz P4 desktop, except perhaps in disk speed.
            • I too have a 1.6 GHz T40 which is fine, but that's not what they're talking about. It's the later models (a 2.13 GHz was mentioned) that are clocked too high to run efficiently.

              I hope Yonah isn't like that. I'd been thinking of an upgrade. I can live with higher power usage, so long as I can clock it down while unplugged, but a noisy laptop I will not tolerate.

            • I think the 1.6GHz Pentium M must be some kind of "sweet spot" between speed and heat. I have a Dell laptop with this chip (700m) and it's perfect. Lots of speed when I need it and the fan only comes on when doing something processor intensive such as video rendering.
        • Perhaps you should be disappointed in your T43P laptop instead.
        • Huh. That's really strange, my T42p, with the 1.8 ghz Pentium-M only even seems to ever even turn ON the fan when I do a kernel compile. For just about everything, however, it's damn near silent. Maybe you should have IBM service your laptop?

      • Re:question (Score:4, Interesting)

        by d99-sbr ( 568719 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:25AM (#14537363) Journal
        The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power, but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge so really this is no disadvantage.

        Right. I take it you've never used a laptop? Power usage is everything in todays laptop processors, as their speed is generally more than ample. My ThinkPad has a 1.2 GHz Pentium M, but according to the Gnome CPU speed panel it usually hovers around 600 MHz.

        Personally, I'd trade speed for lower power usage any day of the week, and I'm sure many feel like I do.
        • It seems to be the misconception that AMD's chips use substantially more power than their intel counterparts. In reality, the average difference during normal usage is marginal, even in laptop terms. And the power usage doesn't fluctuate up as much as Intel's when the processor is under heavy loads. Besides, AMD chips tend to be less bang for the same or more buck, and if you're that concerned with battery life, you can opt for two battery slots in your laptop, and carry a third so you can swap out. But I u

      • Re:question (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bloater ( 12932 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:43AM (#14537440) Homepage Journal
        > The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power ...

        No they don't. They have a higher quoted TDP, but that number is an engineering choice, AMD typically quotes a higher TDP for the same power consumption. AMD is crrently shipping two versions, one of which has a TDP of 25W that under typical use comes in at about 17W (slightly better than the equivalent Intel part even though the AMD part has its memory controller counted in that while the Intel part doesn't). Practically this means no difference to battery life given that the rest of the system is the same (except the northbridge, of course). And you get better performance with a Turion 64 processor for everything except video transcoding. When we see 64 bit optimised encoders, I expect that to change too. It is pissing me off how long it is taking to get hand-optimised AMD64 routines for tight inner loops in various common algorithms.
        • It is pissing me off how long it is taking to get hand-optimised AMD64 routines for tight inner loops in various common algorithms.

          Here, I wrote a highly-efficient 64-bit null loop for you in assembly:

          : loop
          JMP loop
      • the AMD mobile CPUs still outperform pentium M and their offspring currently the core duo and core solo chips

        What do you mean by "outperform"? Raw numbers from some benchmark? I'm interested in what brought you to your conclusion.

        The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power, but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge so really this is no disadvantage.

        If I always had somewhere to plug in my computer, I WOULDN'T NEED A LAPTOP.

        Higher power consumption is indeed a disadvantage in mobile p

      • Re:question (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b0bby ( 201198 )
        I have an AMD laptop; I'd get a Pentium M next time. I'm not looking for absolute speed in a laptop, any modern processor can handle what I want to do. (I like small & light laptops, not desktop replacements.) The mobile Athlon I have runs super hot & needs a fan most of the time, which is just annoying, and the battery life isn't so great. The Pentium Ms I've played with are cooler and quieter, so I'd say for a laptop they are "better" even if they aren't as fast.
      • The only difference is the AMD laptop chips use more power, but you can always plug in somewhere and recharge so really this is no disadvantage.

        Just because someone further up in the thread was discussing the MacBook, I thought I'd point out that this attitude may not hold with Mac users at all. Apple laptops have never been speed demons (at least not recently -- once upon a time they were the fastest notebooks around, but that was a while ago) but they've always had really good battery life.

        I got issued a

    • Re:question (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I know that the Pentium M wins in battery life. Additionally, if it means anything, January's issue of Maximum PC compared an AMD Turion 64 MT-28 with an Intel Pentium M 740 using some benchmark tests, and concluded that the Pentium M was better overall.
    • I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?
      Yes
      I know that the new MacBook is running on the Core Duo line, and I understand that's a whopper of a mobile CPU, but I thought that AMD had a strong competitor to the Pentium-M?
      No

      • Re:Here's the short answer... (Score:5, Informative)

        by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @03:12AM (#14537179) Journal
        I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?
        Yes

        You don't say in what way, so I will. IIRC, The Pentium M is ever-so slightly better in integer ops, but it gets creamed in floating point. Yes, this is fixable.

        I know that the new MacBook is running on the Core Duo line, and I understand that's a whopper of a mobile CPU, but I thought that AMD had a strong competitor to the Pentium-M?
        No

        You are giving a very incomplete answer. AMD has a line of very low voltage K8 chips called Turion (yes, the name's questionable, but that's nothing new when it comes to brands in the processor world). The most efficient run at about 25W, but unlike with the P-M, this figure includes AMD's on-die memory controller, while Intel defers that extra power cost onto the board logic. Also, one of them (I can't remember which) reports wattage at peak value, and the other at typical value.

        The only way you are at all correct is that Turion adoption was slow, because IIRC laptop manufacturers, for whatever reason, do their redesigns at the beginning of the year, and they missed this opportunity last year (or the year before, whichever) because they couldn't introduce the Turion in time.

        Roughly, Turion laptops get 3:30 to a comparable Pentium M laptop's 4:00.
        • You are giving a very incomplete answer.
          That's the whole point of "the short answer". Providing an incomplete and misleading answer is the best way to succeed. Why, just ask any politician!
        • Turion is also a core short of Intel's Core Duo offering.
        • You are giving a very incomplete answer. AMD has a line of very low voltage K8 chips called Turion (yes, the name's questionable, but that's nothing new when it comes to brands in the processor world). The most efficient run at about 25W, but unlike with the P-M, this figure includes AMD's on-die memory controller, while Intel defers that extra power cost onto the board logic. Also, one of them (I can't remember which) reports wattage at peak value, and the other at typical value.

          I do remember, Intel lists
        • AMD reports peak values, Intel reports average values. Take an Athlon64 4400+ rated at 110W, and put it next to a P4 rated at 130W. Compare the total system power draw. There is no *way* the P4 uses only 20 more watts. 130W-rated P4s have been tested as drawing 170W+ during peak loads.
        • "...because IIRC laptop manufacturers, for whatever reason, do their redesigns at the beginning of the year..."

          "Roughly, Turion laptops get 3:30 to a comparable Pentium M laptop's 4:00."

          What are your sources for these two statements?

    • Re:question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Frodo420024 ( 557006 ) <henrik&fangorn,dk> on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:31AM (#14537387) Homepage Journal
      I heard from someone that the Pentium-M is better than any of AMD's offerings for mobile CPUs; is there any truth to this?

      As usual, the truth is more complex than a mere 'Yes' or 'No'. Yes, Intel has the performance edge with their dual-core M chips. Yes, AMD has a great laptop chip in the Turion, with performance ratings in the 3000-4000 range, while keeping power consumption low.

      Friends of mine have Centrion-based laptops and complain about excessive fan noise. I'm the happy owner of an Acer Turion-based laptop, which only activates the fan when I'm stressing the CPU.

      It's all relative. AMD has the lead on price/performance and does well in power management. Intel has the lead on raw performance, and (in some designs) in power management - but at the expense of performance. I find that the Turion offers a balanced compromise between the parameters, at a fine price point.

    • Well, it depends on what you mean by 'better'. I like to measure mobile CPU's Intel's way... performance per watt. (if it's just flat performance, then it's a desktop CPU, no?)

      In terms of absolute performance, I believe AMD's chips are fine. But in terms of performance per watt, they are absolutely horrible. Intel-based machines will run much cooler and quieter, and last a lot longer on batteries, simply because the CPU is enormously more efficient.

      The Pentium-M is the best technology out of Intel in a
      • Note: my statements re:AMD may be outdated, I'm not that familiar with the Turion line. Imbibe sodium chloride accordingly.

        The Pentium M is still a _great_ chip.

      • Re:question (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ponos ( 122721 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:29AM (#14537855)
        In terms of absolute performance, I believe AMD's chips are fine. But in terms of performance per watt, they are absolutely horrible. Intel-based machines will run much cooler and quieter, and last a lot longer on batteries, simply because the CPU is enormously more efficient.
        Works like "horrible" or "enormously" are a bit excessive, don't you think? It's not like the AMD notebooks run for 30 mins and the Intel ones for 8 hours. This review (http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/09/06/the_turion _64_inside_story_part_ii/page13.html [mobilityguru.com]) for example shows competitive performance from a Turion notebook. As a matter of fact, the Turion has a longer battery life when playing games even though it carries a slightly smaller battery. I am prepared to accept that the "Centrino" architecture has been polished (and this includes the design of the whole notebook, battery selection, accessories etc) and Centrino notebooks may be better overall--not just because of the chip. Furthermore, I even expect intel chips to have slightly longer battery life (despite the review that I linked above!). But the difference is slight, not enormous, and may change in the future.

        P.

    • Not really. While AMD stuff can outperform the Core Duo stuff, right now the Core Duo has a distinct advantage in power consumption. This is, of course, a power/watt compairison. If all we care about is computing power, the Intel EE 955 is probably king right now in most respects, followed by the AMD FX-60.
      • I'd have to content that point. No P4 comes close to a fast Opteron for doing "real work" (scientific calculations, etc). In 64-bit mode, programs like Matlab absolutely scream on an Opteron.
    • The big problem with the Turion is that there don't seem to be very many of them out there. Especialy the really low power Turion MT models. I'm guessing that AMD prefers to make higher-profit Opterons on their limited fab capacity, and who can blame them, but other theories would be evil Intel plots or a yield problem that AMD are successfuly keeping secret. Anyone know why?

      I have an Acer Ferrari 4000, with a Turion ML and it's VERY FAST. A lot faster than friend's Pentium M machines. OK, the core duo (a p

  • TechWeek: AMD Wakes the Sinking Giant (Score:5, Informative)

    by $exyNerdie ( 683214 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:43AM (#14537083) Homepage Journal
    Another perspective here:

    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/1026311 3.html [thestreet.com]

  • Creative uses of our legal system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:45AM (#14537095) Homepage
    TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?
    Allen: Absolutely

    Don't you just love it when a corporation thinks our legal system is just another subsidiary of their marketing department.

    • "Don't you just love it when a corporation thinks our legal system is just another subsidiary of their marketing department."

      Gee, if you can't say "Our product is better than the competitor's in every way and would be selling better were it not for our competitor's illegal actions" in court, where can you say it?

      Guess what: lots of victims of crime like to use the courts for revenge or other selfish motives. That doesn't mean the actions of their assailants are any less illegal.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:50AM (#14537114)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • fact is, once the PHB's realise the "Intel inside" sticker is not an absolute requirement, Intel will have a hard time getting the cat in the bag again...

  • I'm a huge AMD fan but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theheff ( 894014 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:59AM (#14537141)
    You have to give Intel credit for ruling the mobile CPU market. AMD doesn't even come close in this area. And with everything becoming lighter, smaller, more portable, and dependant on lower power consumption... you can't count Intel out at all. Perhaps we're starting to see two companies that used to compete directly with the same kinds of chips begin to specialize at what they do best: performance for AMD and mobility for Intel.

    • Agreed. I'm glad to see that there is some competition amongst the processor companies, even if that competition is just x86s and all of the other architectures are dead (some of us are still a bit bitter over the loss of MIPS, ALPHA, PowerPC, etc.). AMD has done a great job with the x86-64 extensions (so great, the Intel adopted them to design their own x86-64 chips), and AMD is committed to raw performance per dollar. Intel, as you stated, has done an outstanding job with chips for laptops and other lo

    • For one, Intel just won a major contract: Apple. Though Macs are a small minority of total systems sold when compared to all PCs, they are a reasonable player compared to other OEMs, and they've now decided they are all Intel, all the time. I suppose this could change, but not any time soon. Apple just cast in with a new provider, it'd be foolishness to switch again before they've even completed their transition (plus there's probably a contract involved).

      Also Intel is allegedly releasing a new chip lineup

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Cyclical industry, this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asliarun ( 636603 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:59AM (#14537143)
    In all the flamewars that will ensue, i think the one thing to note is that the CPU industry is very much a cyclical one, especially for the big players. While a design mistake by a small company might potentially be fatal (or get taken over by a bigger competitor), big companies can afford some minor slip-ups and still come back strong. The only problem is, the cycle is usually big (at least in internet terms, which is more like dog-years), and it easily takes a large corporation a few years to do this. All said and done, both these companies have their traditional strengths and selling points that are fairly distinct (process technology vs architecture, features and stability vs performance and value for money) etc. Given these unique USPs and perceptions that these companies have developed and nurtured over the years, it will always be a see-saw battle, IMHO. Of course, these perceptions also change over time, but again, it takes time and even this is cyclical as well.

    One more thing: Can we please have a genuinely unbiased discussion/argument, for a change, please??

  • Mobile devices (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Life700MB ( 930032 )

    I believe the mobile market is about to explode, if it hasn't done it yet, and Pentium M's laptops are an overhelming majority over the AMD's powered (Turion?). And now here are the Yonah... AMD has a long road to be the king of the hill.


    --
    Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

  • AMD shouldn't get too cocky (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 99luftballon ( 838486 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @03:07AM (#14537167)
    The Opteron strategy was a masterstroke and they have the edge in the technology battle for the fastest processor. But the company has a long way to go before it beats Intel.

    I particular getting dual core onto the desktop first isn't going to be as big a coup as AMD thinks. Business generally doesn't seem to want dual core desktops yet and is certainly unwilling to pay a price premium for it.

    So while Craig Barratt sidelined everyone with the Itanium processor AMD got the edge, but they may not keep it...
  • Intel has beat on AMD by: 1 Dumping memory prices to hurt AMD's bottom line. AMD's working on corporate restructuring to fix this. 2 Having a proprietary lead in tech. AMD has a better 64bit option, so Intel lost this battle. 3 Advertising/Corporate mindshare. AMD's making significant inroads with the blue suits AND gamers. 4 Better Manufacturing/Better product delivery. Intel still beats out AMD. Even now, AMD is NOT producing enough Athlon64's in the 3000-3500+ speeds to keep up with demand. Int
    • pssst ... AMD stopped producing A64's of the 3500 and lower models a month or so ago. Any you see for sale are the scraps left in the supply chain. ... anyone can run a 3000+ easily OC'ed 600mhz to 2400mhz. They had to stop selling them and use that headroom by slapping on the faster model numbers. It was too big of a cheap short cut.

  • Better Interview With #3 AMD Guy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hack Jandy ( 781503 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:46AM (#14537453) Homepage
    Better interview with Henri Richard from AMD here instead:

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=295 [dailytech.com]

    The TGP interview is OK, but that guy is just a mouthpiece.

    HJ

  • I am an AMD fan BUT ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xdesk ( 550151 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:49AM (#14537465)
    While I am a strong AMD (and generally "underdog") fan and I have predicted 2005 as a good year for AMD , I am afraid that 2006 can still bring surprises ... some good but many potentially bad ...
    My analysis:
    1. AMD will probably remain the leader on desktop machines at performance/$ and maybe (but not so certain) on performance/watt and overall performance;
    2. however AMD is still far behind Intel in the notebook market, and totally out of the picture in the "thin and light" segment - that should become an important target for AMD!!!
    3. more important AMD seems far behind Intel in the 65 nm transition - and without that 2006 can be a bad year for AMD;
    4. the problem is not so much the speed gain on 65 nm but more on the L2 cache (which remains far behind Intel) and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL on the PRICE - AMD is slowly giving up the most important weapon they had against Intel and without some cuts on price for the X2 line AMD might seriously loose market share to Intel in 2006 !!!

    • price - not very important (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nido ( 102070 ) <nido56&yahoo,com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @05:50AM (#14537706) Homepage
      and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL on the PRICE - AMD is slowly giving up the most important weapon they had against Intel and without some cuts on price for the X2 line AMD might seriously loose market share to Intel in 2006 !!!

      Real world experience with marketing demonstrates that there are much more important things than 'price' in selecting a product. Wally World puts their cheapest "microwave" in the main trafficways. Mesmerized Customer says, "hey, good idea, I could use a new 'microwave', and damn, this thing's dirt cheap. But it's probably a POS, so I wonder what else they have..." Then they go into the isle and pick out a more expensive microwave, which has a significantly higher profit margin for WW, which is probably cheaper elsewhere (source: Frontline documentary on WalMart [pbs.org]).

      If price is all you push, your company will end up like General Motors ("We just lowered the sticker price on EVERYTHING!"), mismanaged [generalwatch.com] into the ground [thetruthaboutcars.com], and have to give away your product at a loss...
    • 3. more important AMD seems far behind Intel in the 65 nm transition

      I read recently that using SOI effectively gives the performance of one "scale generation" down. Is there any validity to this?
      • SOI reduces capacitances on the chip and allows the chip to run faster as the transisters then don't need to source/sink as much charge to drive outputs to the proper voltage levels. I'm not sure just how much faster, but it is a significant amount.

    • 65 nm process, price (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AK__64 ( 740022 )
      AMD is fully planning on transitioning to 65nm in 06. Also, many fanboys are speculating (hoping?) that prices will decrease with the new socket (M2) and the opening of Fab 36 in the next few months.

  • Few things... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:59AM (#14537498) Journal
    The Turion 64 ML-40 is 1/2 the price of the Pentium 780, around 350-400 dollars more (via froogle and pricewatch) The core-due also has 2 megs cache per core of cache.

    Also where is benchmarks and battery life when each cpu is clocked at its lowest power saving? If you are going to do a benchmark for batterylife, how about actually doing the most important tests..

    And, AMD laptops are opendesign to OEM vendors, so they can use any hardware and save money. Intel wants to control this to more of a degree for the centrino name, thus higher costs.

    Now, I'm not bashing Intel, I cant wait for the 900 chips with dual core and virtualization. But that article could use some more info and less "Intels new chip is awesome compared to Old hardware on different platforms, blah chipset etc.."

  • I have learned something by reading this thread! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZenShadow ( 101870 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @06:06AM (#14537772) Homepage
    What I have learned:

    1. Intel has faster processors than AMD.
       
    2. AMD has faster processors than Intel.
       
    3. Intel has better battery life than AMD.
       
    4. AMD has better battery life than Intel.
       
    5. Intel dual-cores do better than AMD on multi-tasking.
       
    6. AMD dual-cores do better than Intel on multi-tasking.


    I never knew that having all the facts could be this simple! Thanks, Slashdot!

    --S
  • Might be a bit off topic but the name 'AMD' is not very catchy or impressive. I would change the name if I were running AMD.

    How about something like "AdvanceChip" or "PowerChip" or something like that instead?

  • Please stop the zealotry... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deviant ( 1501 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:17AM (#14538737)
    I know that every time I read any article that mentions AMD v Intel that there will be people from the AMD side that come on and say there is not a single compeling Intel product and no reason to have a non-AMD processor in anything. I saw similar zealotry in the comments to anandtech.com's review of the processor - and they are a pretty unbiased and trustworthy source. Here is what they had to say...

    "Our initial analysis still holds true, that for a notebook processor, the Core Duo will be nothing short of amazing for professionals. Looking at the performance improvements offered everywhere from media encoding to 3D rendering, you're going to be able to do a lot more on your notebook than you originally thought possible (without resorting to a 12-pound desktop replacement). In the past, power users on the go had to sacrifice mobility for CPU power, but with the Core Duo, that is no longer the case ... We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller." And it accomlishes this with power consumption that is along the same lines at the previous generation high-end Pentium M chips.

    I would think that as technology enthusiasts that we would be able to give credit where credit is due and recognize that, at the moment, Intel has a better processor lineup for laptops and AMD has a better line for desktops and servers - that it is possible for each to have strenghts and weaknesses as their produts evolve and change in different ways. Keeping an open mind and an up-to-date understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each helps us to choose the right tool for the job and the budget.

    I just can't believe how many are unwilling to concede even one success for Intel in their belief AMD is always better... The competition is helping all of us in spurring on better products and prices and the variety of options allows us to choose the right tool for the job.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and fire them all off, wouldn't you?" -- Garrison Keillor

Close