Die, Intel Die


R

Rich

(AP) -- Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Intel Corp.'s biggest rival in
the market for microprocessors that act as the brains of personal
computers, unveiled plans for new products it said would deliver
improved performance and efficiency.

Executives disclosed details of a mobile-PC chip design that boosts
power efficiency by allowing parts of the processor to turn on and off
as needed.

The resulting product, part of AMD's Turion family, will offer two
processors on a single chip and a new mechanism for making both of
them work in concert for big jobs or shutting one down when a PC is
carrying out less demanding chores, Phil Hester, AMD's chief
technology officer, told reporters and analysts gathered Thursday at
the company's headquarters.

The company also revealed a design aimed at computer gamers that will
allow two multi-core chips to run in a single PC. With each core in
essence acting as its own processor, the product, code-named 4X4, will
have the capability to deliver a total of four computing engines.

That will make machines based on the 4X4 design better at tackling
demanding tasks often needed by PCs running certain types of programs,
such as games and video editing applications, Hester said.

AMD, once little more than an imitator of the designs of Intel, has
over the past three years emerged with new products that have helped
it steal market share from its larger rival. Intel has vowed to close
the performance gap and retake lost share with three new chips that
will become available in the second half of the year.

Analysts said the products discussed Thursday show that AMD continues
to mount a challenge to Intel, the world's biggest chip maker.

''They're not presenting Intel with a stationary target,'' said Roger
Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates. ''It continues
to be a horse race.''

AMD also said it planned to deliver processors with four computing
engines on a single chip in mid-2007 for servers and desktop
computers, along with technical underpinnings that will allow them to
work together more efficiently.

Shares of AMD closed at $31.39, up 50 cents, in Thursday trading on
the New York Stock Exchange.

By DAN GOODIN AP Technology Writer
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

Boe

Not sure what the fanboy stuff is all about. I was about to buy an AMD
x4800 AM2 system but now I may go with intel core 2- both are very good
chips but the 2.6 core2 I was looking at is much less than AMDs x4800.
Competition is GOOD!
 
W

Wes Newell

I was about to buy an AMD x4800 AM2 system but now I may go with intel
core 2- both are very good chips but the 2.6 core2 I was looking at is
much less than AMDs x4800. Competition is GOOD!
I'd like to know where you found one for sale since they haven't been
released quite yet. The only pricing I can find for one actaully
available is for a 2.16GHz model and it's $475. Got a link to a real
price where they are actually selling them? Can't be a lot of difference
since the 4800 X2 is only $632. I think I'll wait for more info on the
core 2.
 
J

john_doe

(AP) -- Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Intel Corp.'s biggest rival in
the market for microprocessors that act as the brains of personal
computers, unveiled plans for new products it said would deliver
improved performance and efficiency.
tomshardware.com has a intel/amd cpu comparison. The new intel chip
is not as fast as I expected from all the hype. It'll edge the AMD,
but so what ? Sort of like the ATI Nvidia GPU wars, except AMD
seems to have the better technical designs regardless of how much
cache intel wants to cram into a bad cpu.
 
B

Boe

I only have their manufacturer price - hopefully they will be less when they
are available for sale. Listed at $530 for the 2.6 GHz model.
 
B

Boe

I think the hype is that Intel finally is now on par with AMD again. AMD
had been the winner for a very long time. I don't think the hype from real
sources is to point out that Intel is better than AMD or vice versa, I think
it is to say that they are similar in power requirements and performance
which is GREAT because now their is incentive to go improve and reduce
prices!
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

Wes Newell

I only have their manufacturer price - hopefully they will be less when they
are available for sale. Listed at $530 for the 2.6 GHz model.


I only have their manufacturer price - hopefully they will be less when they
are available for sale. Listed at $530 for the 2.6 GHz model.
From what I read, they won't be released til July 24. In that time frame
anything can happen but I don't think you'll see it cheaper than an X2
4800+. Speaking of which, if money is a concern, just buy a slower part
for half the price and raise the clockspeed up to match that of a 4800+ or
more.
 
H

Heinrich

I think it is just great to have these two giants in CPU
development/produktion.
I've had one Intel CPU once (386sx 16MHz) more than ten years ago.
I just havent had the guts to buy myself poor on Intels cpu's. Just picked
the best cpu for the amount of money I had at the moment.
That has resulted in one Cyrix 6x86 cpu and six AMD cpu's. I waited quite a
while upgrading to AMD64 from my Barton system.
I'm not a AMD fanboy, but for just few weeks ago the prizes for good AMD
cpu's was pretty high, even compared to Intels. If Intel made chips cheaper
I wouldnt think twice to buy Intel, if it was a value shot against other
manufactors...

Valueman... not fanboy haha! :)
 
N

NoNoBadDog!

Heinrich said:
I think it is just great to have these two giants in CPU
development/produktion.
I've had one Intel CPU once (386sx 16MHz) more than ten years ago.
I just havent had the guts to buy myself poor on Intels cpu's. Just picked
the best cpu for the amount of money I had at the moment.
That has resulted in one Cyrix 6x86 cpu and six AMD cpu's. I waited quite
a while upgrading to AMD64 from my Barton system.
I'm not a AMD fanboy, but for just few weeks ago the prizes for good AMD
cpu's was pretty high, even compared to Intels. If Intel made chips
cheaper I wouldnt think twice to buy Intel, if it was a value shot against
other manufactors...

Valueman... not fanboy haha! :)




`
Intel does not make an "AMD Style" CPU.

Intel does not make a true Dual core chip with both cores able to
communicate directly.

Intel does not have an on-die memory controller.

Intel does not have Direct Connect Architecture.

Intel does not have Hypertransport Bus.

Intel Processors are still based on the 9 year old Pentium 4 architecture.

Intel processors still use a Northbridge Chipset for Memory I/O.

Intel simply puts a new sticker on the case ("ViiV") and makes no internal
changes and tries to sell it as a new technology.

In real world tests, the Conroe was able beat AMD by about only 9%, not the
40% Intel claimed earlier.

While I value the competition, and think that Intel is getting closer to
making a worthy chip, Intel does not make anything like the AMD64 or the
AMD64 X2 processor.

Bobby
 
B

BillL

Matt_2k34 said:
Just a note - the core cpu oc'd to 2.6ghz beat the (STOCK) 'main' AMD
processors - and even beat the intel EE and 900 series.. good in my
book for saying it have only two thirds the amount of pins/pads as the
AMD and a much slower FSB - only beaten on one thing but i neglect to
remember what it was...

Your right, intel doesnt have hyper transport OR onboard RAM
controller. This does give a big bonus in latency to the AMD chips -
but intel are slowly but surely increasing the FSB - and Intel has
something AMD doesnt - HyperThreading- Much more stable and quicker
than any AMD ive ever used (used a 939 3000+), very sluggish even on
what id consider a fast setup.

Intel are cutting prices of Single core chips by up to 60% and dual
core by 15%, on the 24th of July :) My Bday - brill :p And AMD will cut
prices also but they havent said how much - just it wont be nearly that
much...

I admit AMD's are 'Better' in certain aspects- such as gaming, but im
very happy with what i paid for my system, and as far as im concerned i
would never buy another AMD system so long the intel chips are as stable
as this one.

Also ViiV is new 'technology' It changes the way teh cores interact
with the caches and also the mobo itself - better performance less
wasted energy - id say that was pretty good from intel's camp. :)

Also you might wanna be awares of the new xeon processor coming out -
that was very powerful - very fast and stable aparently :) Would love
to see what a dual core AMD would do against that one, and then a dual
core ver of it :)
If you're refering to the review (which i can no longer find btw) where they
ran game benchmarks at 640x480 then I'd say what's the use of that? Yes, I
realise that this is meant to take the GPU out of the equation but who runs
a game at that resolution?

Having said that I am interested in Conroe but this would need a new mobo,
RAM and possibly GPU (if I decide to upgrade from my current A64 3200+,
Nforce4, 2GB DDR RAM and 6800GT). It all boils down to money in the end
..... then again there's always Mastercard/Visa? ;o)

BillL
 
N

NoNoBadDog!

Matt_2k34 said:
Just a note - the core cpu oc'd to 2.6ghz beat the (STOCK) 'main' AMD
processors - and even beat the intel EE and 900 series.. good in my
book for saying it have only two thirds the amount of pins/pads as the
AMD and a much slower FSB - only beaten on one thing but i neglect to
remember what it was...

Your right, intel doesnt have hyper transport OR onboard RAM
controller. This does give a big bonus in latency to the AMD chips -
but intel are slowly but surely increasing the FSB - and Intel has
something AMD doesnt - HyperThreading- Much more stable and quicker
than any AMD ive ever used (used a 939 3000+), very sluggish even on
what id consider a fast setup.

Intel are cutting prices of Single core chips by up to 60% and dual
core by 15%, on the 24th of July :) My Bday - brill :p And AMD will cut
prices also but they havent said how much - just it wont be nearly that
much...

I admit AMD's are 'Better' in certain aspects- such as gaming, but im
very happy with what i paid for my system, and as far as im concerned i
would never buy another AMD system so long the intel chips are as stable
as this one.

Also ViiV is new 'technology' It changes the way teh cores interact
with the caches and also the mobo itself - better performance less
wasted energy - id say that was pretty good from intel's camp. :)

Also you might wanna be awares of the new xeon processor coming out -
that was very powerful - very fast and stable aparently :) Would love
to see what a dual core AMD would do against that one, and then a dual
core ver of it :)
"ViiV" has nothing to do with the way the cores interact with anything.
"ViiV" is nothing more than Centrino for the desktop MCPCs. To qualify for
the "ViiV" sticker, the system must consist of an Intel motherboard, Intel
processor, Intel video solution and Intel proset 100 or above for Internet.
It brings absolutely nothing new to the table. The processor can be any
Intel processor, from the worthless Celeron M on up.

As far as the Xeon, it cannot compete. It does not use standard x86 and
x86-64 extensions. No company is going to invest in a chip that also
requires investment in replacing all current software with proprietary
versions that only run on the Xeon platform.

Don't get me wrong...I have no ill-feeling toward Intel, other than they
make inferior products and their deceptive marketing practices.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Scott Lurndal

NoNoBadDog! said:
As far as the Xeon, it cannot compete. It does not use standard x86 and
x86-64 extensions. No company is going to invest in a chip that also
requires investment in replacing all current software with proprietary
versions that only run on the Xeon platform.
Can you expand on this statement? It's my practice and understanding
that non-kernel code operates identically on Xeon and AMD processors,
including the 64-bit extensions. While there are differences between
the processor families (3dnow, power management, virtualization technology),
they are isolated (for the most part) to kernel mode code and code which
uses the SIMD instructions conditioned on processor capabilities bits.

That said, I can build systems with AMD Opterons that I can't yet build
with any Intel family processor (thanks to Hypertransport). For example,
I have a two socket system with 48 lanes of PCI-express; one cannot build an
intel-based system with this I/O capacity.

scott
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top