Intel to beat AMD by 20%

serbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
According to the front page, Intel estimates that its next generation will beat AMD's offering by 20%. I sure hope so, maybe we can get some lower prices and faster chips soon.
 

NulloModo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
4,602
Well, considering the 900 series beats AMD buck for buck, and the upcoming Conroe will take the desktop crown for sure (everyone known Intel already has the mobile crown with the P-M and Yonah), that isn't surprising.
 

dekard

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
2,190
I wonder if anyone has taken a look at the performance of these chips and compared them to amd's offering? Its easy for Intel to push out a pr item stating it will blow the doors off amd but much harder for them to deliver on this promise.
 

gwai lo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
1,690
Well, we don't have another source so far...and there's probably going to be some amount of bias in that statement, but Intel did blow the doors off of AMD for...thirty years, who says they can't do it again? ;)

 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,597
gwai lo said:
Well, we don't have another source so far...and there's probably going to be some amount of bias in that statement, but Intel did blow the doors off of AMD for...thirty years, who says they can't do it again? ;)


Very true. They have money and resources AMD can only dream of. You know why Intel didn't turn around and go after AMD from a performance perspective? I'll tell you why. They didn' thave to. Their sales were strong and they are making more money than ever before, despite AMD's growth in the market.

Now, they need a new cash cow to keep that momentum going. Plus, AMD is doing more damage to their bottom dollar than they expected.
 

HmmmDonut

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
126
Only 20%? That seems very small for a new arch. I seriously expecting 30% increase over A64's.

Plus AMD roadmap suggest that will hit PM tdp with the 90nm process. There is supposedly a X2 that will have a tdp of only 30w and this on the 90nm process. AMD is matching tdp on a larger process.
 

FreiDOg

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
4,456
Wait, Intel is saying their next chips are going to faster than the competition?
Stop the presses!!!!111elven11!!!.

Believe none of the PR you read, and about half the benchmarks you see.
 

Jonsey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
2,041
I wonder how they measure the performance. Is it straight performance, or the performance-per-watt Intel keeps trumpeting with its next generation?
 

TheAcorn

Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
939
I'll believe a 5% performance increase when I see it, in benchmarks, done by a third competent and reliable party, like the [H], for example. Believe it when you see it.

Until then this is Intel's PR department creating flamebait all around the internet. :p
 

centvalny

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
3,257
The real battle is on the server's market....and Opteron beats Xeon all the way to the bank :)
 

Logan321

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
1,900
It's alright, Apple will hype that 20% up to 1 million percent for their macintels. :rolleyes:

Realistically, a price per performance/watt is the comparison that needs to be made... and not just the cpu itself, but supporting hardware. Admittedly, once AM2 comes out, there will be less differences between the systems, b/c the same ram can be used for both. And once ddr2-800 is available, that may boost it up in AMDs favor as well, though Intel will probably support it once it's readily available anyway.

I'm not an AMDroid by any means... I just like supporting the little guy. Makes the competition work harder. Same reason I won't shop at wal-mart.
 

SKy042

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,037
Logan321 said:
It's alright, Apple will hype that 20% up to 1 million percent for their macintels. :rolleyes:

Realistically, a price per performance/watt is the comparison that needs to be made... and not just the cpu itself, but supporting hardware. Admittedly, once AM2 comes out, there will be less differences between the systems, b/c the same ram can be used for both. And once ddr2-800 is available, that may boost it up in AMDs favor as well, though Intel will probably support it once it's readily available anyway.

I'm not an AMDroid by any means... I just like supporting the little guy. Makes the competition work harder. Same reason I won't shop at wal-mart.

Price per performance/watt is like a ricer saying that his Honda 2000 makes 100HP/liter as an excuse for why he got beat by a 3Mpg 502 Chevy Big block....it's a lame argument unless it's still faster overall performance/watt regardless.

We know it's possible intel could do it. They've done it in the mobile market. If they do it in desktop they stand the chance of winning me back to their side. But for the moment I'm not holding my breath.
 

$BangforThe$

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,672
If as you say intel has done it on the mobile front . Why would you think they won't deliver on the desktop. I have seen what yonah does @ 2.7 and I am very sure the Conroe cpu will bitch slap yonah merom.
 

1c3d0g

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,266
FreiDOg said:
Wait, Intel is saying their next chips are going to faster than the competition?
Stop the presses!!!!111elven11!!!.
...
After your panties have dried up, and you've settled down somewhat, you can bet your ass Intel has what it takes to bring down any competitor. For a long period of time they had marketing monkeys dictating where the Intel ship should be going, but now that the real captains have taken over, I'm pretty confident they know what they're doing. ;)
 

FreiDOg

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
4,456
SKy042 said:
Price per performance/watt is like a ricer saying that his Honda 2000 makes 100HP/liter as an excuse for why he got beat by a 3Mpg 502 Chevy Big block....it's a lame argument unless it's still faster overall performance/watt regardless.

For home users I agree. I think if there were a large disparity between power usage of two comperable chips, people would tend to migrate towards the cheaper of the two, not the lower power of the two. (Though vendors might want the lower power, smaller PSU and easier to cool means cheaper computers).

In the corperate world performance per watt is a big deal.



1c3d0g said:
After your panties have dried up, and you've settled down somewhat, you can bet your ass Intel has what it takes to bring down any competitor. For a long period of time they had marketing monkeys dictating where the Intel ship should be going, but now that the real captains have taken over, I'm pretty confident they know what they're doing. ;)

Calm down and read the last sentance in my first post. I'm not bashing intel, I'm bashing marketing departments. And my soiled panties have little to do with either. :)
 

serbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
According to Tom's Hardware (eh..), socket AM2 with DDR2-667 is no faster (maybe a little slower) than what is out now. This is with unproven hardware though, so take it with a grain of salt.
 

Bona Fide

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,382
serbiaNem said:
According to Tom's Hardware (eh..), socket AM2 with DDR2-667 is no faster (maybe a little slower) than what is out now. This is with unproven hardware though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Yeah...I get that strange feeling that the production parts will be significantly better.
 

mavalpha

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
10,451
HmmmDonut said:
Only 20%? That seems very small for a new arch. I seriously expecting 30% increase over A64's.

Plus AMD roadmap suggest that will hit PM tdp with the 90nm process. There is supposedly a X2 that will have a tdp of only 30w and this on the 90nm process. AMD is matching tdp on a larger process.
You're absolutely right. Many/most of the single-cores, and even an X2 3800+, will be around 30W on AM2 when it launches. And this is without needing to migrate to 65nm, let alone 45nm.
 

Duke3d87

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
430
mavalpha said:
You're absolutely right. Many/most of the single-cores, and even an X2 3800+, will be around 30W on AM2 when it launches. And this is without needing to migrate to 65nm, let alone 45nm.
um. Keep in mind that the Conroe series has 4x the cache that the AMDs have and have 4 issue core instead of 3. Also, you are comparing AMD's LV cores with Intel's high voltage cores. When they release LV Conroe cores, then compare them with AMD LV cores.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
Duke3d87 said:
um. Keep in mind that the Conroe series has 4x the cache that the AMDs have and have 4 issue core instead of 3. Also, you are comparing AMD's LV cores with Intel's high voltage cores. When they release LV Conroe cores, then compare them with AMD LV cores.

Nonetheless...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060215195420.html

One of the most interesting things about the new processors is their heat dissipation. Dual-core CPUs with F core stepping and up to 2.6GHz frequency and 2x1MB L2 cache will boast maximum 89W TDP. The today’s processors with similar technical specifications demonstrate 110W TDP at 2.2-2.4GHz core clock rate.

AMD managed to reduce the power consumption by optimizing the transistor leakage current.



Who needs 65nm? :D
(Up to 2.6GHz, that's FX-60 to ya)
 

Duke3d87

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
430
Raudulfr said:
Nonetheless...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060215195420.html

Who needs 65nm? :D
(Up to 2.6GHz, that's FX-60 to ya)
ok and? They are still hitting a process limitation and have to work a lot harder to get it to work well. When you start adding more cache, you use more die space and then it costs more to produce your processor. Shrinking the die is a lot more about performance. It's also a big business move.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
183
Take it for what its worth...
My friend at Intel told me they have allowed 75W to acheive the desired mghz. They should sample this week if all goes well. He also said Conroe is a bad mofo, and will be performance per watt king.
Again this is what I was told so believe it or not... whatever.
 

Duke3d87

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
430
savantu said:
Because Intel can get with a 65nm cpu at 65w the performance of a AMD FX62 at 125w....

Besides , 65nm brings a lot of cost savings for Intel..
They can also make a processor with 16 MB of L3 cache (dual core) based on netburst operate within 140 watt territory. That's 16 MB total at 140 watts. I believe that's a bit more then AMD's cache. And this is netburst we're talking about.
 

StealthyFish

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,591
lol, and i'd believe an increase in performance around there... the pipes on it are 12-16 task...... how many does the X-2 have? please tell me? 17. Conroe is also supposed to come out with the top end at 1333mhz fsb and 3.3ghz clock... higher clock than any X-2 and less pipes than that X-2
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
StealthyFish said:
lol, and i'd believe an increase in performance around there... the pipes on it are 12-16 task...... how many does the X-2 have? please tell me? 17. Conroe is also supposed to come out with the top end at 1333mhz fsb and 3.3ghz clock... higher clock than any X-2 and less pipes than that X-2

I think it has more Pipes or 14 for Conroe and 12 for X2. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surpised if AMD didn't add at least two pipes for K10.
 

serbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
Donnie27 said:
I think it has more Pipes or 14 for Conroe and 12 for X2. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surpised if AMD didn't add at least two pipes for K10.

What would be the point? It seems like goin the larger pipe route would just kill the latency advantage AMD has built up.
 

Buckus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,635
At least it doesn't have a 31 stage pipe. That's like trying to drink a Big Gulp through a 3 foot straw: It takes forever to get to your mouth.
 

serbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
Buckus said:
At least it doesn't have a 31 stage pipe. That's like trying to drink a Big Gulp through a 3 foot straw: It takes forever to get to your mouth.

But once it comes you start choking on how much you get :p
 

empoy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
423
I suggest that we should have a sticky topic for Intel microarchitecture tutorials :cool:

I see a lot of mis-informed souls.
 

cyks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
1,234
serbiaNem said:
According to the front page, Intel estimates that its next generation will beat AMD's offering by 20%. I sure hope so, maybe we can get some lower prices and faster chips soon.
I will belive it when I see it.
 

8steve8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
189
everyone stop waisting ur breath, and just wait 6 months, then we will know.
 

Asian Dub Foundation

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
7,940
we'll see when it happens.. .but its sure going to be exciting... competition is great for this market, cuz we the users benefit
 

serbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
empoy said:
I suggest that we should have a sticky topic for Intel microarchitecture tutorials :cool:

I see a lot of mis-informed souls.

Feel free to try and make one :)
 

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
serbiaNem said:
What would be the point? It seems like goin the larger pipe route would just kill the latency advantage AMD has built up.

Yes to a point. Two more stages wouldn't kill off any advantage, hell Northwoods have 20 stages and lower latency than the Hammers. P3 has fewer Pipes (10) than Dothan 12 or 13 and then Conroe has 14. Nope, two more pipes would allow K10 to gain an easy 400MHz with a few prime cuts with as much 800MHz Gains. Less stress combind with faster Transistors and Improved Process could also see something like 3.8GHz when all is said and done. Pure Speculation on my part, ZERO Proof.

BTW, Latency was added to Venice to improve stability.
 

benamaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
1,146
I think Intel caught up nicely. AMD really pulled ahead but Intel's newest chips are really competitive. I buy what performs the best though and I guess we'll just wait and see.
 
Top