They'll be 512KB/core from now on.

AMD sacrifices 1MB desktop cores
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> They'll be 512KB/core from now on.
>
> AMD sacrifices 1MB desktop cores
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452
>
> Yousuf Khan


I guess my Opty 165 has value after all, but I am still waiting for
more multithreaded applications to make use of dual cores. Until then
it' s a good chance that the benefits of 1mb caches will not be totally
realized.

Gnu_Raiz

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:59:11 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>They'll be 512KB/core from now on.
>
>AMD sacrifices 1MB desktop cores
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452

Hmmm, this guy does not appear to be to "clued in" on what's going on...
e.g. on the "production constrained", Chartered is claiming "deliverables"
in about 3 weeks.

As for Opteron not being a desktop chip, that'll be news to all those who
have been buying s939 Opterons for the past 6-9 months... and the mbrd mfrs
who have changed their BIOSs to suit.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> They'll be 512KB/core from now on.
>>
>> AMD sacrifices 1MB desktop cores
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
> I guess my Opty 165 has value after all, but I am still waiting for
> more multithreaded applications to make use of dual cores. Until then
> it' s a good chance that the benefits of 1mb caches will not be totally
> realized.
>

Interesting that they're getting rid of 1MB/core caches even in the face
of Conroe coming with 2MB/core. Doesn't look like they're too concerned
about falling even further behind.

I guess they're getting ready to go to price war, so they're leaning
themselves down. Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:12:25 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Interesting that they're getting rid of 1MB/core caches even in the face
>of Conroe coming with 2MB/core. Doesn't look like they're too concerned
>about falling even further behind.

The extra cache doesn't help AMD catch up with the Conroe in any
significant way does it?

>I guess they're getting ready to go to price war, so they're leaning
>themselves down. Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
>think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.

Yup, that's what I figure. Since the extra cache doesn't give any
tangible performance in this particular battle, they are better off
digging into the trenches and get ready for a protracted price war
until their next gen stuff comes out. From the looks of things, Intel
seems pretty intent on battering them back to the 10% or even sub 10%
line.


--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

> Interesting that they're getting rid of 1MB/core caches even in the face
> of Conroe coming with 2MB/core. Doesn't look like they're too concerned
> about falling even further behind.

No, AMD's plenty worried about falling behind. But at 65nm they are
going to have the K8L which only has 512KB L2 caches. It makes sense
to drop to 512KB for all parts because then you can use (almost) the
same cache for K8 rev. G, K8L, etc. etc.

> I guess they're getting ready to go to price war, so they're leaning
> themselves down.

I think that's also a good assessment.

> Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
> think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.

If they think Intel will have problems fabbing 4MB cache parts, they'll
learn real soon that's not the case.

DK

David Kanter wrote:

>> Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
>> think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.
>
>If they think Intel will have problems fabbing 4MB cache parts, they'll
>learn real soon that's not the case.

Insufficient production capacity does not equal "problems fabbing"

The little lost angel wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:12:25 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting that they're getting rid of 1MB/core caches even in the face
>> of Conroe coming with 2MB/core. Doesn't look like they're too concerned
>> about falling even further behind.
>
> The extra cache doesn't help AMD catch up with the Conroe in any
> significant way does it?

Well, if you believe their performance rating scheme, then the extra
512KB of cache is the equivalent of a boost of 200MHz in frequency to
them. So they either boost the frequency or boost the cache, looks like
they've gone with frequency for now.

>> I guess they're getting ready to go to price war, so they're leaning
>> themselves down. Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
>> think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.
>
> Yup, that's what I figure. Since the extra cache doesn't give any
> tangible performance in this particular battle, they are better off
> digging into the trenches and get ready for a protracted price war
> until their next gen stuff comes out. From the looks of things, Intel
> seems pretty intent on battering them back to the 10% or even sub 10%
> line.


The smaller cache makes it cheaper for them to make. I think AMD
realizes that their desktop chips aren't going to be immune from Intel
price cuts this time around, so might as well cut their prices and keep
only the cheaper parts. Last couple of years, they've been a bit
arrogant about it, Intel cut prices, and AMD didn't follow suit, so
their Athlons remained way too high.

I think AMD is still mostly immune from Intel pricing competition in the
server segment. Here they can use the lethargy of the enterprise market
to their advantage. Woodcrest might outperform Opteron for a while, but
Woodcrest is going to have to undergo a qualification process before any
significant sales come its way. In the meantime, AMD can work its
next-gen architecture up. I'm willing to bet that most enterprises are
going to continue to buy Socket 940 Opterons, even after Socket F is
introduced, simply because of this enterprise qualification process. So
we might well be seeing their latest Opteron offerings being offered in
both S-940 and S-F formats simultaneously.

The laptop market seems energized like it's never been before. It's
mostly due to the price cuts that have come because of the uptake of AMD
notebooks in the consumer market. Everytime I check out laptop prices
recently, I'm seeing another set of very nice notebooks costing another
$50-100 less than before. It's a steady price decrease, which seems to
be allowing more people to afford laptops who never could before. This
market is definitely price-sensitive. It's been so overpriced for so
long in the past that there's been a pent-up demand. It's surprising but
I think in another year, the consumer notebook market will be larger
than the corporate one. And the consumer market has no hangups about
buying AMD -- the only thing that matters is price and price/features.
It's helped that lcd screens and dvd writers are now much cheaper than
before too.

Yousuf Khan

David Kanter wrote:
>> Interesting that they're getting rid of 1MB/core caches even in the face
>> of Conroe coming with 2MB/core. Doesn't look like they're too concerned
>> about falling even further behind.
>
> No, AMD's plenty worried about falling behind. But at 65nm they are
> going to have the K8L which only has 512KB L2 caches. It makes sense
> to drop to 512KB for all parts because then you can use (almost) the
> same cache for K8 rev. G, K8L, etc. etc.

Plus some mysterious shared L3 cache. Lots of speculation about it being
Z-RAM.

>> Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
>> think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.
>
> If they think Intel will have problems fabbing 4MB cache parts, they'll
> learn real soon that's not the case.


They're probably not thinking about Intel having yield problems, but
it's possible that they are thinking that Intel doesn't have enough 65nm
fabs to produce enough of them. Intel itself is saying that they don't
expect Conroe to be more than 20-25% of its own production by the end of
2006. The rest will be all Netburst.

Yousuf Khan

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:24:53 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Well, if you believe their performance rating scheme, then the extra
>512KB of cache is the equivalent of a boost of 200MHz in frequency to
>them. So they either boost the frequency or boost the cache, looks like
>they've gone with frequency for now.
>
>>> I guess they're getting ready to go to price war, so they're leaning
>>> themselves down. Only the lowest cost parts will do. Maybe they don't
>>> think Intel can produce enough of the Conroes with their huge caches.
>>
>> Yup, that's what I figure. Since the extra cache doesn't give any
>> tangible performance in this particular battle, they are better off
>> digging into the trenches and get ready for a protracted price war
>> until their next gen stuff comes out. From the looks of things, Intel
>> seems pretty intent on battering them back to the 10% or even sub 10%
>> line.
>
>
>The smaller cache makes it cheaper for them to make.

Besides, smaller caches make the chip more likely to reach higher
clock speed, all other things equal, thus getting it to next speed
grade and making up for lost cache. More chips of the same speed
grade from the same wafer - not such a bad business decision.
Also this is the differenciator for the FX line that kinda "justifies"
the exorbitant pricing thereof.

NNN