I don't really buy his arguments, but I'm posting it anyways.

AMD's K10 Is delayed or dead
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27421

Yousuf Khan

On 3 Nov 2005 20:41:56 -0800, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I don't really buy his arguments, but I'm posting it anyways.
>
>AMD's K10 Is delayed or dead
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27421

I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but AMD sure hasn't said much
about any future generation cores. All they are talking about
publicly are tweaks to the existing K8 core.

I'm not sure that AMD is necessarily in desperate need of a new core
just yet, but if they want to keep the advantage they have now they
are definitely going to have to continue pushing forward. With the
way things are going it seems that Intel could easily catch up with
AMD by sometime in 2007 if all AMD is planning on doing is tweaking
their existing core.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill wrote:
> I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but AMD sure hasn't said much
> about any future generation cores. All they are talking about
> publicly are tweaks to the existing K8 core.
>
> I'm not sure that AMD is necessarily in desperate need of a new core
> just yet, but if they want to keep the advantage they have now they
> are definitely going to have to continue pushing forward. With the
> way things are going it seems that Intel could easily catch up with
> AMD by sometime in 2007 if all AMD is planning on doing is tweaking
> their existing core.

My feelings too, but I'm not sure a new core is all that important to
them. It seems all of their performance improvements were as a result
of stuff that hangs off of the core, but isn't really a part of the
core, like HTT and memory controller; making further improvements on
those seems to be the path of greater return. They can probably make
even lower power AMD64's by adding circuitry into the existing core
like Intel did with the Pentium 3 to come up with the Pentium M, which
would be the intelligent power management stuff.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but AMD sure hasn't said much
> > about any future generation cores. All they are talking about
> > publicly are tweaks to the existing K8 core.
> >
> > I'm not sure that AMD is necessarily in desperate need of a new core
> > just yet, but if they want to keep the advantage they have now they
> > are definitely going to have to continue pushing forward. With the
> > way things are going it seems that Intel could easily catch up with
> > AMD by sometime in 2007 if all AMD is planning on doing is tweaking
> > their existing core.
>
> My feelings too, but I'm not sure a new core is all that important to
> them. It seems all of their performance improvements were as a result
> of stuff that hangs off of the core, but isn't really a part of the
> core, like HTT and memory controller; making further improvements on
> those seems to be the path of greater return.

The K8 had several improvements that were not related to their memory
controller or HT that were significant. Certainly, the most noticeable
changes were those two, but they also did some interesting stuff with
distributing and slightly enlarging instruction queues.

I think that depends if you are talking about MP performance or single
socket performance. I don't see a big advantage in the case of single
socket systems. In fact, I think AMD will be at a slight disadvantage
when they are still using shared interface systems and Intel is using
shared cache (again, for the 1 socket scenario, unsure about MP).


> They can probably make
> even lower power AMD64's by adding circuitry into the existing core
> like Intel did with the Pentium 3 to come up with the Pentium M, which
> would be the intelligent power management stuff.

I think you are trivializing what Intel did with the Pentium M. The
Pentium M is a radically different chip from the P6 or Pentium 3.
Sure, there was some different circuit design stuff done, but there was
also quite a bit more. Intel has been steadily improving their
decoders, so that some operations which used to be complex are now
simple, etc. etc.

If you want to get a grasp on the differences between the P!!! and the
PM, check out:
ftp://download.intel.com/technology/...iss2_art03.pdf

I'm assuming you are familiar enough with the P!!! uarch to make the
implicit comparisons...

David

Tony Hill wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2005 20:41:56 -0800, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I don't really buy his arguments, but I'm posting it anyways.
>>
>> AMD's K10 Is delayed or dead
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27421
>
> I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but AMD sure hasn't said much
> about any future generation cores. All they are talking about
> publicly are tweaks to the existing K8 core.
>
> I'm not sure that AMD is necessarily in desperate need of a new core
> just yet, but if they want to keep the advantage they have now they
> are definitely going to have to continue pushing forward. With the
> way things are going it seems that Intel could easily catch up with
> AMD by sometime in 2007 if all AMD is planning on doing is tweaking
> their existing core.
>

Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have
taken a lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that
they have a little more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is
all they are doing: using the available time for exactly that.

Rob Stow wrote:
> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
> the available time for exactly that.

Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)

"Intel's new 65-nm processors"
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/

"AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/

Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>> the available time for exactly that.
>
> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>
> "Intel's new 65-nm processors"
> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/
>
> "AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/
>
> Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.
>

All he has to work with are Intel and AMD press releases, so what
I was seeing in those articles is exactly what those two
companies have been saying - nothing more and nothing less.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:39:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>>> the available time for exactly that.
>>
>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>>
>> "Intel's new 65-nm processors"
>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/
>>
>> "AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/
>>
>> Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.
>>
>
>All he has to work with are Intel and AMD press releases, so what
>I was seeing in those articles is exactly what those two
>companies have been saying - nothing more and nothing less.

Don't you think though that it is also typical of a mindset which has not
grasped just how far ahead AMD is right now? We see it all the time here.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:39:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>>>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>>>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>>>> the available time for exactly that.
>>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>>>
>>> "Intel's new 65-nm processors"
>>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/
>>>
>>> "AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
>>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/
>>>
>>> Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.
>>>
>> All he has to work with are Intel and AMD press releases, so what
>> I was seeing in those articles is exactly what those two
>> companies have been saying - nothing more and nothing less.
>
> Don't you think though that it is also typical of a mindset which has not
> grasped just how far ahead AMD is right now? We see it all the time here.
>

You are missing the point: Sassen said *nothing* to indicate
*his* mindset. One of his two articles regurgitated AMD's press
releases and the other regurgitated Intel's. Period. Full stop.
In those two articles the content/opinions from Sassen=NIL.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:39:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>>> the available time for exactly that.
>>
>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>>
>> "Intel's new 65-nm processors"
>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/
>>
>> "AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/
>>
>> Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.
>>
>
>All he has to work with are Intel and AMD press releases, so what
>I was seeing in those articles is exactly what those two
>companies have been saying - nothing more and nothing less.

Intel press releases were always more marketing-geared and, let's put
it this way, overly optimistic. According to some past Intel press
releases and road maps, NetBust was supposed to surpass 4GHz by this
time. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results"

NNN