9 replies to this topic

[x2p]

Second-class Intel to trail AMD for years. Parity prayers aimed at 2009
By Ashlee Vance
October 29, 2005 00:11 GMT


Two weeks ago, Intel looked poised to mount a serious challenge to AMD's server processor performance lead. Then the shockers arrived. Dual-core Itanium chip production slowed because of quality concerns.

A sophisticated future Xeon processor was cancelled. Plans to unite the Itanium and Xeon lines around a common architecture to make servers more affordable and faster have been pushed out likely until 2009. In short, bad news for Intel customers.

Underneath all of these roadmap adjustments lurk some painful technology slips that must have customers concerned. In particular, it now appears that Intel will stay married to its front side bus dependency for much longer than previously expected and will fail to deliver integrated memory controllers on time.

Where Intel had a very real shot at closing the gap with AMD in just 18 months on previous roadmaps, it now looks more likely to trail for close to four years. This should worry folks at Dell, HP and SGI, as they're most vulnerable to Intel's shortcomings.

[tntoak]

It's karma coming around to bite Intel in the ass. When AMD first went to processor ratings with the Athlon series, Intel's PR guys were at the forefront of ridiculing AMD's decision. The problem was that Intel still viewed AMD as an also-ran, even when the Athlon64 first was released. Consequently, Intel never really viewed AMD as a viable competitor until the Athlon64 was released, and even then it was a delayed reaction.

The other thing that had hurt Intel in this area is that the Athlon64 was designed from day one for dual-core capabilities, as the single-core dies are literally a dual core die with only one core. So all AMD had to do was to put the second core in that unused space.

AMD also planned for dual-core from the start by implementing the onboard memory crossbar, which is what the X2 series uses to communicate between cores. Intel had IA64, then jumped to EMT64 (AMD's 64-bit implementation with Intel-specific instructions added); and when AMD announced their dual-core solution, Intel had to react hastily once again, with the Pentium D. I think Intel is in more trouble than people realize, because it literally seems like the innovation and trendsetting once reserved exclusively for Intel's offerings has now completely moved to AMD.

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

i have a few things to correct you on, tntoak , First off the Athlon 64 was not designed for dual cores .....it was designed to be an efficent cpu and support X86 32/64 bit by allowing it to run both addresses. AMD decided to go dual core because it would be more efficent to do so instead of ramp up clock speeds and run into the heating problem that Intel ran into with the Prescott. IA64 is a RISC archtecture thats totally different from x86-64 which the Xeons are able to do. AMD had been researching Dual Cores even while the Vinice and Winchester cores were around but it was easy to impliment the feature because they had a game plan before the 90nm process came. Intel is far from lacking in innovation ... you have virtualization , VIIV technology, and soon the Pentium 4 will undergo a major restructure in the form of a shorter pipeline , a lower thermal output, and will actually perform like it should at normal speeds. The new Pentium 4's and Pentium D's will not be a push over by no means...But amd has that ring and is running with it now... if AMD can continue to match and beat intel ...they will only get better.

[x2p]

intels chips are tricks look it up..... pentuim 4 ht cought,this thread is not about saying intel is cra its about the small time company going big,watch thow in 5 years time you will be slagging amd off as well

[patman174]

I dont think any of the newer AMD or Intel chips are something to be taken lightly. Both are very good chips. Granted, in the 32 bit world, i would rather run Intel. I have had past experiences with both, and the Intel's to me do much better. Then when you get into the 64 bit area, i most definately want the AMD's. I am in the process of saving up, and finding the parts i need to build me a 64 bit system in the next month to month in a half. I think both are great and pick which suits your needs.

[Visentinel]

Patman Athlon64 is faster than Intel in both 32 and 64bit arenas thanks to A64 having a far Superior Architecture.

[RedInferno]

I used to like intel...now i'm not so sure....AMD has definitely changed from a discount alternative to a superior brand in a few product cycles.

[Visentinel]

haha even when AMD was a discount alternative they pwned !
I overclocked a Athlon XP 2000+ 1667mhz to 2400mhz with 400FSB
it was a Tbred-B with AIUHB Stepping =D

I owned all my buddys with PC performance >=)

[tntoak]

Quote

i have a few things to correct you on, tntoak , First off the Athlon 64 was not designed for dual cores .....it was designed to be an efficent cpu and support X86 32/64 bit by allowing it to run both addresses. AMD decided to go dual core because it would be more efficent to do so instead of ramp up clock speeds and run into the heating problem that Intel ran into with the Prescott.

Wrong. If you look at the Athlon64 die, it was split into three sections. Single core models used two sections - 1 for the core, and 1 for the on-board cache. The empty section of the die is where the second core was placed when AMD started making dual core models. You can check AMD's white papers, as well as reports from MaximumPC and several other sources. This is not "secret" knowledge - it's pretty easily accessible.

You also forget one important fact: AMD left the GHz race behind when they started releasing the Athlon line of CPUs. So claiming the move to dual core was to avoid the speed issues is a false claim, as the move away from pure clock speed happened years before dual core CPUs were produced by AMD.

Edited by tntoak, 01 November 2005 - 12:19 AM.

[Neon]

ok this is me putting a blanket ban on Intel and AMD snipes LOL...AMD ARE BETTER WE ALL KNOW

nah guys fall out if you want, but please make it up afterwards!

I prefer AMD these days but back when the PII 300/333/500 were on the scene i had those, i got four in this very room somewhere lol