Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: Intel vs. AMD - The Road Ahead




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I think the other thing that wasn't accounted for in the article is the rumour (and it's more than a rumour...) that Intel dispatched a team to slap together *something* that's very similar to the Hammer...

    If that doesn't smell of deparation, I don't know what is...In the field of engineering (of which I'm one...Computer Engineer to be precise), you don't just put together a team of engineers and instruct them to "do whatever you can to take some existing architecture, and change it to model/compete with the-other-guys offering...just in case"....If you catch my drift.

    Even when Intel moves to .13u, look at how it will compare to Athlon's Thoroughbred...and then analyze the price/performance issue again.

    It's just like with nVidia GPU's...Could nVidia produce some killer-ass 3D chip with gobs of eDRAM, 512-bit memory interface, multiple-chips, etc ? Of course they could...In the end, does the cost justify such a product? No way...Not yet.

    With every successive generation of chips, people keep insisting that they move towards higher bandwidth architectures (don't get me wrong...I'm all for it)....As it now stands, the GF4 is approaching 70 M trans....Do you realize how much larger the chip size would be if/should nVidia do that right now? Or 2-3 generations ago? What about yields? What about profit? Until such time that they can pull it off from a technology standpoint AND a business one, they're not going to commit to such features...and the same goes for AMD.

    If anything, if you forget about the P4 for just a second, and concentrate on the true next generation platforms...It's pretty darn clear to me that AMD is right where they want to be, and Intel is trying to figure out how to contend with AMD.

    As was mentioned, the _very_ kool architectural changes that Hammer will bring about certainly add a lot of credibility to that assessment, not to mention the fact that they're going to beat Intel to the 64-bit Consumer platform game....

    If you thought AMD was being a little bit creative/deceptive/etc with their XP marketing, wait until Intel does the same with respect to the Hammer.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    362

    Default

    I tend to agree with Charles in his comments....

    we know the PIV produces less per clock cycle (about 2/3) what the current Tbird/Palamino core can produce because of its horrendous 20 stage pipe....and thats the only way it keeps up is by increased frequency...purely viable because of its lower work rate per cycle..... How long can the clock speed be scaled to cover poor core design????

    We know the hammer will have 512K L2 cache (on their roadmap...later this year)

    The bus speed is not really a product of the CPU....its the chipset that carries the weight.....thats how I can run my 1200 tbird at 12*100 or 8*133. There are some timing issues but these are minor.....Intel has put a lot into its chipsets to support the quad fsb....AMD and its chip make

    rs will do the same....and as the Nforce shows it is achievable sooner rather than later.

    I think we will see much of the same....a bit of a blip for AMD with Hammer but that is all dependent of OSs and apps which will use the 64 bits anyway.......it is very nice having a car that can doo 500kph....useless if the roads only let you actually do 100kph....

    What is interesting is that they have a version of Hammer already running on a 64bit version of Wiondows...see here
    http://www.theinquirer.net/23040208.htm

    Looks good for all of us....if Intel and AMD keep at each other and stay about even then WE ARE THE WINNERS.....as soon as one or the other gets too far ahead then that company can start dictating the game (just like M$ do) and we would all be losers.....

    Just hope for our own sakes that they stay about even

    PS Here's another interesting article discounting the fsb fears http://www.theinquirer.net/19040202.htm
    The older I get...the better I was

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Charles, firstly the article was directed at the high-end market, not the value market which is why I focused totally on the AthlonXP and the P4.

    Secondly, I didn't comment on the Hammer because as you said, it IS a whole new architecture and it is impossible to speculate on how it will perform, especially against Intel's 64-bit processor. What I did say is that, if the only change AMD will be making to their AthlonXP before the Hammer is upgraded cache and a shrinked die, Intel have a very good chance to pull far ahead as far as performance is concerned.

    Think about it. If the 2.4GHz P4 outperforms the 2100+ now, how much better do you think it will go with a 533MHz bus, DDR400 and dual-channel DDR memory?

    When I was talking about the nForce, I wasn't saying that nVidia should go out and make a chipset for the Pentium 4. I was merely trying to give an example of Dual-channel DDR and show how it could benefit the P4.
    Asher Moses

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    If you check the excellent review of Pentium 4 vs AMD Athlon XP on www.aceshardware.com, a dual Athlon MP 2000 system is still faster than a 2.4 GHz Intel Northwood. Results on database transactions per second are 151,919 transactions per second for an Intel P4 2.4 GHz system, and the dual AMD Athlon MP 2000 system does 231,333 transactions per second. Also the AMD 760MPX chipset has two slots at 533 Mb/sec, and it's not vaporware! I have one of these ASUS duallie systems running and was pleasantly surprised at how stable it is, how cool it runs CPU temperature 109 degrees F after running days on end, and how quiet it is. Based on data presented in the aceshardware.com review, the AMD MP2000 system even outperforms a dual Xeon 1700 system, and the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz system wins only one of the dozens of tests.

    For my part, I will stay with AMD systems, because they offer a better combination of high performance and low price.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    If you check the excellent review of Pentium 4 vs AMD Athlon XP on www.aceshardware.com, a dual Athlon MP 2000 system is still faster than a 2.4 GHz Intel Northwood. Results on database transactions per second are 151,919 transactions per second for an Intel P4 2.4 GHz system, and the dual AMD Athlon MP 2000 system does 231,333 transactions per second. Also the AMD 760MPX chipset has two slots at 533 Mb/sec, and it's not vaporware! I have one of these ASUS duallie systems running and was pleasantly surprised at how stable it is, how cool it runs CPU temperature 109 degrees F after running days on end, and how quiet it is. Based on data presented in the aceshardware.com review, the AMD MP2000 system even outperforms a dual Xeon 1700 system, and the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz system wins only one of the dozens of tests.

    For my part, I will stay with AMD systems, because they offer a better combination of high performance and low price.
    Thanks for that unrelated post, now tell me where in the article I was talking about the Server/Workstation Market? To quote myself:

    I am only going to be talking about their desktop processors as that is the only concern we have in this article. The server/workstation and mobile segments are totally different issues altogether.
    Asher Moses

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acid


    Thanks for that unrelated post, now tell me where in the article I was talking about the Server/Workstation Market? To quote myself:

    I am only going to be talking about their desktop processors as that is the only concern we have in this article. The server/workstation and mobile segments are totally different issues altogether.
    Don't be too hard, I think his post is quiet relevant in that the Multiprocessor market 'is' slowly moving to the desktop. Anyhow I thought I'd make this little post of what the current roadmaps, rumors and releases show for the Athlon and P4 this year. I've only looked at the top desktop CPU's coming out and ignored the other segments.

    Current
    AMD - AMD Athlon XP (Palomino) 2100+
    Intel - Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood A) 2.2Ghz

    Q2
    AMD - AMD Athlon XP 2000+, 2200+ & 2400+ (Thoroughbred)
    Intel - Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood B) 2.26 & 2.4Ghz

    Q3
    AMD - AMD Athlon (Barton) 2600+
    Intel - Intel Pentium 4 2.5Ghz, 2.6Ghz (Northwood A), Intel Pentium 4 2.53Ghz, 2.66Ghz (Northwood B)

    Q4
    AMD - AMD Clawhammer (Hammer) 3400+
    Intel - Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz (Northwood B)

    AMD
    Palomino - 0.18u, 266mhz FSB
    Thoroughbred - 0.13u, 266mhz FSB
    Barton - 0.13u, 266mhz FSB, 512 KB L2 cache
    Hammer - Totally new. See links and discussion above

    Intel
    Northwood A - 0.13u, 400mhz FSB
    Northwood B - 0.13u, 533mhz FSB

    I don't know about about everyone else, but at no point do I really see AMD falling far behind Intel (if at all).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    439

    Default

    In the end it's all a matter of waiting for the benchmarks. Some people will agree with the article and some won't, but until we see some evidence, everything is just speculation. At this point, arguing is pointless.
    Asher Moses

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19

    Default

    "Charles, firstly the article was directed at the high-end market, not the value market which is why I focused totally on the AthlonXP and the P4"

    Fair enough Asher, I was referring to your comment on page 5
    "In the value segment, AMD plan to keep the Duron on the Palomino core till Quarter 3 of 2002 , when they will be releasing their Appaloosa core that not only shrinks the die to 0.13, but also bumps the FSB up to 133MHz (266MHz DDR)."
    My point was that by the end of this year (about the time Intel's 533 MHz parts come out) the Athlon XP will BE the value market, and the Clawhammer will be what the P4 is competing against.

    "Secondly, I didn't comment on the Hammer because as you said, it IS a whole new architecture and it is impossible to speculate on how it will perform, especially against Intel's 64-bit processor"

    Again, fair enough...my point is that this is a common mistake today (IMHO) because while the Clawhammer will indeed be 64-bit capable, it's market is the high-end desktop. Itanium won't be it's major competitor (that's Sledgehammer's domain), the P4 will be...and while a bus and clock speed increase will help the P4 enourmously (as you pointed out), it shouldn't come close to what the Clawhammer's new architecture can achieve.
    As an aside, Clawhammer is already sampling and being demonstrated. We should be seeing reviews as soon as the NDA's run out (a little birdie told me...<grin>).

    Cheers,
    Charles

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Hammer should have to start off a 533mhz bus, which was reported a long time agoto make Intel's 400 look dated. dual channel ddr for the sledge hammer, not clawhammer.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    Hammer should have to start off a 533mhz bus, which was reported a long time agoto make Intel's 400 look dated. dual channel ddr for the sledge hammer, not clawhammer.
    . . .arrrh I don't believe Hammers bus has be specified (feel free to point me to something that says otherwise) and 533mhz P4's are due out soonish.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •