Cost and performance per watt is what it is all about.
AMD fan boyz should thank Intel for the price war - if they still want AMD chips they get to buy them cheaper eventhough Hector originally said he wasn't going to play Intel's game. OOPPS
Add this to my last topic "Fly in the Ointment" and understand the implications. This is a zero sum game and AMD will be the loser. Debt downgrade coming for AMD, margin compression due to price war with Intel, and missed earnings are piled onto the outperformance of around 30% at a about 29 watts lower - pitting the best chip from Intel vs AMD.
Not amazing that AMD bag holders can not see this coming. They also missed the opportunity to get out at 42 down to 16 n change before the dead cat bounce to 19.
$$$$replay of Fly in the Ointement In case you missed it $$$$$$$$$$$$
While Intel ramps its a$$ kickers Conroe Merom & Woodcrest, expect margin compression for AMD and missed earnings just like 2nd Q. After successful ramp expect share take back.
Bag holders unite and buy AMD now on recent short term news of vendors like Dull and I've Been Mugged (IBM) opening their doors to AMD offerings. Short sited.
Woodcrest et al ramps take back share - without a doubt. Intel pushing to 45nm in 2007 and cutting costs of 1 Billion = multiple cans of whoopa$$ Intel is opening up on AMD.
Proof of Concept:
3.05GHz AMD faces off 3.68GHz Core Extreme
TOM'S HARDWARE pits the best from AMD and the best from Intel and overclocks both of them until the blood pours out. The Core2 Extreme goes up to 3.68GHz and the Athlon FX 64 up to 3.05GHz. That's bloody high. AMD's performance increased by just over 7% while the Core went all the way up by nearly 17%. What does that mean to Mr and Mrs Smithes? Well what about the Core2 Extreme compressing an entire 150 minute movie on DVD just under six minutes and a 120 minute movie into DiVX in 93 minutes, one hour faster than AMD's.
Tom's Hardware AMD/Intel comparison test conclusion:
When compared head-to-head, the overclocked Core 2 Extreme outperformed its AMD counterpart by nearly 30 percent across the board.
A quick look at the power consumption we measured during our testing also shows that an overclocked Intel system under heavy load requires 29 fewer watts than the AMD unit, while delivering 30 percent more performance. The strengths of the overclocked AMD system showed up at the other end of the usage spectrum under light or idle loads. In that case, the AMD system consumed 29 fewer watts than did the Intel Core 2 Extreme.
$$$$ Real Life comparisons $$$$$
here is the link if you want to see what they tested:
from a low of 9.9% on Quake 4 Intel new chips outperformed AMD
to a stunning 48% a$$ kicking on Ogg Vorbis
(Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source)
from 1 former AMD fan boy:
"AMD outpacing all others
Strengths: Integrated memory controller, true inter-core communication, large L2 cache, low heat output for its power, fits long life 939 socket motherboards, play games and run antivirus at the same time !
Weaknesses: Now surpassed by Intel's Core 2 Duo series, Does not give backrubs, bring you cold beers or snuggle with you at night, still pricey
Summary: (Edited August 12th by jayhall0315) I have discontinued this review because as any tech geek knows, times change and better products are manufactured. If you are currently in need of a high end processor then take a look at the new Intel Core 2 Duo series. Intel has come back from the edge and is now producing models that can best any of AMD's latest offerings."
Define buggy. How do any of these situations apply to the real world? AMD has errata also, they choose to withold it from the public with their NDA.
That is more buggy than anything from Core 2 Duo.
I've wondered from time to time how a chip making company with as many years of experience as Intel in such a wide array of areas could still release chips that are buggy. I would think that each internal "system" would be nailed down, solidified in design, fully understood, and would behave only as they expected before being introduced into a production chip. And whereas there are always things that slip through the cracks, I would think a high enough value would be placed on fixing it--or making it right--for the end consumer that it would be done that way. Of course, there I go injecting morality or ethics into business. Bad RickGeek, bad...
Read about all of Intel's Core 2 errata PDF (as of August, 2006), and post your thoughts below about Intel's flagship architecture having 47 bugs with no planned fix. - by RickGeek
INTC has to overcome low memory bandwidth and a dated FSB system.
That's why they used 8 times the cache, and have to go to the next process shrink before AMD.
Keeps them in the game, but it's hardly profitable, let alone efficient.
ck out this one under GD Hardware:
"We�ve got to hand it to ol� AMD; they�ve kept things entertaining for us and have done a lot to help propel the performance of desktop and server CPUs a great deal forward.
But this is where their little parade comes to a screeching halt � why? Because in the most simplistic of terms, Conroe (dubbed Core 2 Duo) kicks the Athlon64 right in the balls and doesn�t look back. I hope AMD PR gets used to being on the other swing of the pendulum; maybe this will help knock their ego back in check � but that�s a whole other ed-op piece for another day."
Childish stuff. You'd think they were talking about football teams or whatever.
Where are the Core 2 devices in stores? It appears that Intel is to do another stepping because of the bug list? That's the risk of pre-release - bragging rights don't matter to people who need a machine for some particular purpose. Some of those purposes are rather serious - hospitals buy PC's and laptops and shouldn't have to wait a year or two for the bug list to settle down. Few buy computers like young guys buying cast wheels and a huge spoiler for their old Civic.
Would people buy stocks that way? Could be, but only once.
Tiger Direct top 10; Intel owns 7 of 10 and the #1 & #2 seller
The market place truly is the indicator, since about 15 days ago AMD owned all ten of the top slots.
1. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40G
2. Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz /
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / 2MB
4. Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67G
5. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.40G
6. Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2
7. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40G
8. Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.67G
9. Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2
10. AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 2.80GHz
same situation at TG Stores, top 10 Intel owns 6 of 10 and the top slot.
Server side - AMD appears to be teetering on the precipice of getting Served
It took a few years, which is normal for any architecture redesign, but we feel Intel has finally created a product that is not just competitive to the AMD Opteron. Woodcrest outperforms all of the competition in 2-way configurations, and it does so with lower power consumption. This combination leads to better Performance/Watt in all tested situations. Woodcrest not only outperforms it's predecessor by over 100% in Performance/Watt, but it outperforms Opteron by as much as 60% in Performance/Watt. In terms of straight performance the Woodcrest led the way by anywhere from 18 to 35% at higher system loads. We feel that Intel has the vision to continue this trend, as they have a clear roadmap for next year and beyond. Expect to see even further gains in 2007.
"Your standard of quality and exemplary management skills, decision making, and execution is I'veBeenMugged (IBM) and pink sheet Cray CRYYQ.PK"
It's IBM/AMD R&D/processing that's giving Intel such a bad time, so your attitude is unremarkable even though it was IBM that made Intel originally.
A Cray whitepaper from 2004 and still valid describes why the Opteron chased the Itanium out of not just supercomputers, especially the table on pp4. Look at the cost difference too and look up the difference in power consumption. Elsewhere in the paper are remarks on the advantage of Hypertransport interconnects and on-board north bridges. The advantages clearly apply to most, though of course not all, applications. ( http://www.cray.com/downloads/whitepaper_closing_the_gap.pdf ) Newer processors from both companies will kick up the numbers in the paper nicely, of course. Also IBM/Sony Cell processors may replace the whole list in HPC when they are available.
Speaking of power consumption, the power company in California is giving nice rebates to purchasers of Sun Opteron-based servers for low energy consumption. Perhaps servers based on the new generation of Intel processors will make it to that list. Hopefully they will - the more the better. But to be in the running they have to actually get here first. There are no pre-dollars for pre-announcements.
>>"Server is still safe"<<
We shall see, when pricing and performance is factored in.
90nmAMD vs 65nmIntel costs should be less to make for Intel w/ better margin and as you mentioned better performance.
I'm still looking for the 3rd online retail spot top 10 list for the trifecta b4 I call game over.