 |
|
Who's Online
|
There are currently 275 people and 0 DV-member(s) online.
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD?
| |
Posted on Friday, August 26 2005 @ 18:24:20 CEST by Thomas De Maesschalck |
AMD, and its users, sometimes try to make fun of Intel but it looks like he (Intel) who laughs last, laughs best. AMD beat Intel by delivering its 64-bit processors Athlon 64 and Opteron two years ago and by having a slight overall performance edge over Intel's offerings. AMD's offerings also have a better dual-core design and on average they use less power. The only segment where Intel is still the obvious number one is the mobile segment, where their Centrino continues to score high.
There used to be a MHz race in the past but AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's high clockspeeds so they introduced performance ratings. The main reason for this is Intel's Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture which focused on high clockrates. Back in 2003 the chip giant claimed to be able to deliver 10GHz processors by 2005 but high power consumption prevented Intel from doing so. So Intel recently decided to make a drastic switch by developing a new processor architecture which combines the best features from the NetBurst architecture with the Pentium M architecture.
Anyway, these performance ratings are based on a formula and were introduced by AMD to show consumers that AMD's processors are as fast as Intel's, despite having a lower clockrate. This was called the 'busting the MHz myth', as many people used to believe MHz was the only thing that matters. But it isn't. Intel later followed by introducing performance ratings as well.
To many people's surprise AMD recently sued Intel for unfair competition and a few days ago they also posted a challenge in several big U.S. newspapers. AMD challenged Intel to a dual-core server processor duel but Intel's CEO Paul Otellini said at the IDF he wasn't interested in this. He said he always thought that companies and products are best judged in the marketplace, and that he will leave it at that.
Intel, who owns more than 80 percent of the x86 desktop processor market, wants to be on top again and presented very impressive plans for the coming years. Their new marketing buzz word appears to be Performance per Watt. The main plan for Intel's future appears to be offering more performance and a lower power consumption. Today's high-end desktop processors have reached a huge thermal design power of 130W and Intel will try to reduce this to 65W for future generations. There are even plans for a whole new category of processors for devices called handtops, which will only consume 0.5W.
At the Intel Developer Forum the chip giant presented impressive plans with their next-generation power-optimized processors which will be launched in 2006. They claim the upcoming Conroe processor for desktop systems will offer five times the performance/watt of the Northwood which was introduced in 2003.
Woodcrest will give the server market more than 3 times the performance per watt of Intel's Nocona which debuted in 2004 and Merom will mean a 3x performance per watt boost for the mobile market since Intel presented the first Pentium M Banias in 2003.
It will be interesting to see how AMD will react to Intel's next-generation processors. When asked about it AMD just said they introduced their next-generation processors two years ago with the Athlon 64 and Opteron. The only new thing recently presented by AMD is its dual-core Turion 64 for notebooks which will be available by early 2006.
It isn't sure how AMD will react to Intel's performance per watt buzz as this is something were Intel will have a clear advantage over the next few years and AMD's plans for the future are quite vague. Although AMD recently said it will try to reduce the power consumption of its future processors and they are also working on a new core which will be released somewhere in 2007 with larger cache memories and support for DDR3 memory.
AMD managed to boost its marketshare with its 64-bit Opteron, Athlon 64 and Turion 64 processors but they are still a small player and I guess they will have a hard time to keep up with Intel's new power-optimized processors.
What do you think? Are Intel's new plans just a big bunch of marketing buzz or will they really run over AMD this time?
|
Add to Del.icio.us | Digg It | |
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 06:20:01 CEST | theres no need for a reaction by AMD, they already have proccesors that offer what "intel will offer" in the next year, anyway is funny to see how intel is trying to survive, because is clear that their marketing programmes arent enough.
anyway i just wonder how many glitches these "new" processros would have, i mean everytime that intel launches a new product this has some problems in their firmware, compatibility with other technologies, anyway these guys only make ma laugh and i dont se why AMD has to take any action against this new crap. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 10:39:04 CEST | Pure marketing BS as usual.
AMD has the current lead simply because Intel became complacent. Their dual core solution is a hurried mish-mash, and AMD is slowly but surely beating Intel on all fronts.
If you want to talk about Power per Watt, the current Pentium D's are truly awful - less performance than the AMD X2's and twice the wattage!
If you want to talk future offerings, instead of concentrating on catch phrases, Intel needs to actually deliver the products to market. If they do, I'll be happy to switch from an AMD X2 to the equivalent Intel product.
For the moment, even if AMD CPUs do end up using more power, they are simply architecturally better designed and perform much better in games - which is what most high-end CPUs are bought in the consumer desktop market. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 11:26:41 CEST | intel market BS speach 101 since the netburst has burst like the dog it always has been
pump some hype about our new stuff which dates back to the pentium pro.
there new chips are goin to be better ,well duh amd will be matching them or beating them like they have for the last 2 years.
hell the last time intel held a lead over amd was the k6 v p3 6 years ago ,amd have been beating them on every from bar MHZ since then |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 11:45:13 CEST | Intel , Intel when you gonna stop your marketing Buzz. Remember RAMBUS marketing ?
At the moment AMD lead the processor war, Intel just try to catch up with AMD.
If intel want to lead this war, they need to release new core , not the Pentium-M or the out of dated Pentium 4.
Poor Intel , they just run of ideas and keep on changing their plan.
10 Gig in 2005 yeah right ...
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 12:53:06 CEST | PR Marketing BS, Intel knows they're behind this time..its something they hav to do.
Didn't they said this abt Prescott? bfore it was release..suppose to run cooler etc etc etc..
Until Intel release a processor that is what they claim to be then all this is just marketing BS..
& its abt bloody time they adopt things from their Pentium M counterparts ..Pentium M is actually very good.
Pentium 4 is the biggest absolute crap ever.
AMD64 atm rocks & everyone knows it. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27 2005 @ 22:35:43 CEST | Well it's clear Intel can't keep up in the performance dept. or the wattage use dept. but 2- 1.5ghz dual cores is only a hair faster then a 4800+ X2 in cinibench, and I bet these 2 dual cores cost more then one 4800+, plus a dual socket mobo wont be cheap either.
Intel is leas impressive every year!
Waiting on fab36 dual core Opterons on 65nm. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28 2005 @ 01:20:13 CEST | | AMD fan boys trying to deny the facks. LOL. Who are the sore losers? Who is suing Intel because they cant get market shares. haha. Also who first made the 'over rating' ratings so they could try to trick the consumers into thinking that their processors were higher speeds than they were. HAHA. Yes, AMD caught Intel and surpassed them for a few years through 64bit (wich only few software companys support 64bit but are testing and releasing for the future). Intel will be back on top and hopefully for good. Why deny it? Fan boys? I think compition is great for the consumers and bussinesses. But AMD whining and crying makes me laugh. What will make me cry is when CHINA surpasses Intel and AMD in processor power, that will be a very sad day. It will happen with the billions they are spending on the foundations and research for their own processors. :( Yes, im a intel fanboy! LOL |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28 2005 @ 03:03:08 CEST | | Did Intel pay you well to write this BS
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 1)
by johndoe on Sunday, August 28 2005 @ 21:45:59 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | In the least possible words, I'd say Intel, too little, too late! Now all you can do is play catch-up to AMD which keeps gaining market share day by day.
The only way Intel could get ahead now is if AMD were to somehow manage to shoot themselves in the foot, a strategy very familiar to Intel! |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 30 2005 @ 17:00:52 CEST | Intel may be behind in the desktop market but the Centrino platform is simply superior to AMD's mobile offerings and for the first time notebooks are actually outselling desktop systems!
So you could say Intel still has a lead in the PC market! |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, September 03 2005 @ 15:41:52 CEST | Amd overall has the Better product, in desktop, server, and even in he notebook sector. Intel always promotes their CPU's and say how great they will be, only to come out with something that is sub-par. Also the misleading PAPER launches of intel tries to make it seem they are as current as AMD. As for the marketshare, Intel has billions on advertising and power to muscle AMD out of markets and has been proven. Reason japan banned them for a month, also there are investigations done in europe as well against Intel. Amd probably wont win the lawsuit, but will bring certain things to light. Both CPU's are great, but for now AMD is better and has been on the right track. Most AMD's releases have had little problems, in where intel keeps running into problems. That will keep going as proof with dual cores, until the restructured Intel starts working again. Also those who think the Pentium M is a better CPU (Centrino is not the name of the PM, but the combination of the PM, the intel chipset and intels wireless in a laptop) are wrong. The reason why the PM was winning over Turion initially is because it was tested in a desktop setting. New tests and benchmarks done in a Notebook setting shows that the Turion is a better performer. Also the Turions are more cost effective
here is one site for proof
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1/1/
In the last few years, AMD has released more technology advances as Intel. Maybe once Intel gets back on its feet, we may see a good competition. But if the past can tell the future, when AMd said they would have a good product, they were good on their word, and Intel.....well, they talk a lot and dont really havent lived upto the expectations. |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, November 27 2005 @ 11:11:23 CET | Intel is best ;)
AMD only 4 games ( puzzel, maybe PAINT and minesweeper ) |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: Intel's Performance Per Watt to be bad for AMD? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, May 15 2009 @ 16:32:57 CEST | | Those articles meaning nothing to a customer such as me. what I would concern is that someone of hardware expert can recomand me a piece of pc that suit my best requirement. actually performance per watt sounds good idea to me. but the word "performance" is not good enough to me. a gaming pc for example, I want fps per watt. this involve g. card as well not just cpu.... or shortest windows vista (default setting) start up latency per watt, this involve harddrive and lots tests. also if I want both factor above that gives a index value or somewhat... oh, my head hurts... |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
