DELL to use A.M.D.

[mayakindaguy]

Just thought it odd and interesting. Amid all the buzz about Conroe and Woodcrest, why has Dell chosen to go with the A.M.D. Opteron for it's server market?

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/business-dell-earns.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1148011200&en=bda135695877db9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12871788/


Mod Edit: Let's work with the duplicate/ similar thread going here, as not to have the same topic across multiple forums. Thanks.
~ Papa-Ming
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1056940

 

[mobiux]

Supposedly it's only in 4 processor systems, for which intel won't be releasing the next gen technology for a while.

 

[evilmedic]

Well, Woodcrest is only a Xeon DP part and is designed for Dual Processor servers.

Dell will be using the Opteron or the Quad Processor servers. Intel won't be realeasing anything decent in this space any time soon. The current offering, the Paxville (7020 and 7040) and future Tulsa (Paxville with large L3 cache) still suffers from the problems of current intel Quad Processor platform.. The FSB bottleneck.

With a 4 processor 8 core intel server, you will only have ~ 12.8GB of memory bandwidth.. (1.6GB per Core)

With a 4 processor 8 core AMD server, its up to 25GB or (3.125GB per core).

For a Intel woodcrest, 2 processor 4 core server , you will have upto 17.1GB of memory bandwidth. That works out too (4.275GB per core) ... Its no wonder why the new woodcrest will probably outperform opeteron 2xx series servers..

 

[Donnie27]

Supposedly it's only in 4 processor systems, for which intel won't be releasing the next gen technology for a while.

Not to sound like an AMD fan---boy or anything but because Dell is getting the crap kicked out of them by selling only slower, hotter, noisier, more power sucking Intel 4-way systems. Also, even as faster Intel processors make it to the market it will take time to win back markets lost to AMD. Dell should have done this at least 18 months ago.

 

[StealthyFish]

Not to sound like an AMD fan---boy or anything but because Dell is getting the crap kicked out of them by selling only slower, hotter, noisier, more power sucking Intel 4-way systems. Also, even as faster Intel processors make it to the market it will take time to win back markets lost to AMD. Dell should have done this at least 18 months ago.

well, those are only for servers, not for desktops (but btw, just for reference, a woodcrest beats any opteron clock for clock). The desktops also changed out with Pentium Ds (65nm = less heat, in fact, the smithfield released less heat than a prescott) and 6xx P4s (the 6xx series which supposedly uses less power than the 5 series).

 

[JetUsafMech]

Not to sound like an AMD fan---boy or anything but because Dell is getting the crap kicked out of them by selling only slower, hotter, noisier, more power sucking Intel 4-way systems. Also, even as faster Intel processors make it to the market it will take time to win back markets lost to AMD. Dell should have done this at least 18 months ago.

I agree, and would like to add that only in this market segment can AMD meet Dell's volume requirement, IMO.

 

[Donnie27]

I agree, and would like to add that only in this market segment can AMD meet Dell's volume requirement, IMO.

Excellent POINT and something a lot of folks don't seem to get.

 

[Donnie27]

well, those are only for servers, not for desktops (but btw, just for reference, a woodcrest beats any opteron clock for clock). The desktops also changed out with Pentium Ds (65nm = less heat, in fact, the smithfield released less heat than a prescott) and 6xx P4s (the 6xx series which supposedly uses less power than the 5 series).

Been there done that! I just stop posting on the AMD side of the Forum because I said almost the same thing. The problem for Intel is that 4-way market when AMD's Alpha-like tech shows its stuff (8-Way as well). I only mentioned Servers because I know full well that's the only CHINK in Dell Armour. Dell has NO need for AMD otherwise. Dell doesn't need AMD in;

1. Notebooks where Pentium Centrino has been kicking AMD's ass since it launched, Turion changes NOTHING.

2. Dell has ZERO need for low volume X2 Desktops or cheap Semp(R)ons. That's not where the sales are slower.

3. Dell has little need for even 2-way Servers, they sell enough of these lower margin rigs.

4. Dell doesn't need AMD for even for its Renegade Gaming rigs that cost 10K that sold out in two days LOL! Much to the dismay of every AMD Fan on the web

No the only real place Dell was getting Whacked was the highest profit margin segment of them all, the 4-Way market sector. This market gets Sun, IBM, and HP on average 30% returns, not the 3 to 11% if others. Common sense even dictates that Intel wants to see Dell do well or it hurts sales of other products they sell to Dell.

Last but not Least. Where I see IMC as almost a gimmick on Desktops and Notebooks, its a must Servers and Intel knows it. Until they change over, it will be rough going for them. Intel Fabbed a lot of the IMC enabled Alphas long before there was any Hammer.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Well, Woodcrest is only a Xeon DP part and is designed for Dual Processor servers.

Dell will be using the Opteron or the Quad Processor servers. Intel won't be realeasing anything decent in this space any time soon. The current offering, the Paxville (7020 and 7040) and future Tulsa (Paxville with large L3 cache) still suffers from the problems of current intel Quad Processor platform.. The FSB bottleneck.

With a 4 processor 8 core intel server, you will only have ~ 12.8GB of memory bandwidth.. (1.6GB per Core)

With a 4 processor 8 core AMD server, its up to 25GB or (3.125GB per core).

For a Intel woodcrest, 2 processor 4 core server , you will have upto 17.1GB of memory bandwidth. That works out too (4.275GB per core) ... Its no wonder why the new woodcrest will probably outperform opeteron 2xx series servers..

er. never heard of bandwidth measured in size only

also, you're assuming that these servers will be s940, and not socket F. if it's the latter, we've got 4 dual channel memory controllers working at probably either ddr2-667 or ddr2-800.. giving anywhere from 42.6gb/s to 51.2gb/s theoretical (by your math, 6.4gb/s per core)

but bandwidth isn't a very good way to measure system performance, it's just one small aspect of it

 

[Donnie27]

Well, Woodcrest is only a Xeon DP part and is designed for Dual Processor servers.

Dell will be using the Opteron or the Quad Processor servers. Intel won't be realeasing anything decent in this space any time soon. The current offering, the Paxville (7020 and 7040) and future Tulsa (Paxville with large L3 cache) still suffers from the problems of current intel Quad Processor platform.. The FSB bottleneck.

With a 4 processor 8 core intel server, you will only have ~ 12.8GB of memory bandwidth.. (1.6GB per Core)

With a 4 processor 8 core AMD server, its up to 25GB or (3.125GB per core).

For a Intel woodcrest, 2 processor 4 core server , you will have upto 17.1GB of memory bandwidth. That works out too (4.275GB per core) ... Its no wonder why the new woodcrest will probably outperform opeteron 2xx series servers..

I'll do it the easy way.

endian.net

Showing 1-11 from 11 results. Page: [1 ]

2006-04-20 Intel Woodcrest is an 80W part The Inquirer [rm]
Now talk of 65W.

2006-04-17 Microsoft unveils Intel server roadmap The Inquirer [rm]

2006-04-13 Clovertown, Cinema and Woodcrest rock The Inquirer [rm]

2006-02-28 Intel multicore approach needs psychoanalysis, claim The Inquirer [rm]

2006-02-16 Intel tells its employees all about the Clovertown CPU The Inquirer [rm]

2006-02-16 Intel attempts dragging quad core Clovertown into 2006 The Inquirer [rm]

2006-02-10 Intel promises quad server chips for Q1 2007 The Inquirer [rm]

2005-12-31 AMD-Intel server market faces Woodcrest vs F-Step scrap The Inquirer [rm]

2005-12-04 Top Secret Intel Processor Plans Uncovered: Intel plans to unleash the first quad core CPU (Kentsfield) within one year. The switch to 45 nm in 2007 will enable eight cores and up to 12 MB L2 cache (Yorkfield) per CPU. We x-rayed the com... Tom's Hardware [rm]

2005-10-25 Intel server strategy crashes as Xeon roadmap changes The Inquirer [rm]

2005-08-23 Intel Merom is designed from the ground up: Intel Developer Forum: Merom wasn't built in a day The Inquirer [rm]

http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=115161663&forumid=1

http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=115161653&forumid=1