Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: handy169 on November 01, 2006, 05:36:52 AM
-
I been reading about the the new AMD 4x4 systems coming out and all i can say is "WOW". apparently , AMD is gonna use 2 X2 processors ( 2 chip x 2 cores giving you 4 cores total) to power the systems, in comparsion Intel's gonna be using a single chip with 4 cores on it). according to what i saw the AMD will kick the intel systems based on the fact that Intel has to share the single bus to all 4 cores where AMD can use 2 buses to run both chips giving it higher bandwidth to operator. according to prices a 4x4 kit will start under 999 for those that have the money. for comparision the prices of the high end duo core chip alone is about 895.00. i think my money will go with AMD. my .02
-
i don't know much about computers but i noticed amds are cheaper then intels.
what would be the difference between this
AMD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861)
and this
INTEL (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115001)
besides over $200? Which are better?
which would be better to run AH and adobe software? i.e. photoshop, audition, premiere etc. The system requirements for the softwares says intel.
-
Instead of buying into the marketing hype, why not wait untilthey actually ship?
By the way, any benchmark can be done to prove exactly what you want to prove.
Also note, in the real world, you will probably experience about a 5% increase in performance (if that) over a dual core CPU. I'll leave off the long desertation as to why.
-
Originally posted by megadud
i don't know much about computers but i noticed amds are cheaper then intels.
what would be the difference between this
AMD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861)
and this
INTEL (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115001)
besides over $200? Which are better?
which would be better to run AH and adobe software? i.e. photoshop, audition, premiere etc. The system requirements for the softwares says intel.
Anandtech has the explanation you need: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=4
You're comparing the wrong processors.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Instead of buying into the marketing hype, why not wait untilthey actually ship?
By the way, any benchmark can be done to prove exactly what you want to prove.
Also note, in the real world, you will probably experience about a 5% increase in performance (if that) over a dual core CPU. I'll leave off the long desertation as to why.
As Skuzzy said.
Couple of caveats -
a) If the app will use multiple CPU's it should be better that 5%, I remember seeing some benchies somewhere that showed under Windows Vista the 4x4 running those apps showed up to an 80% increase. (bear in mind Skuzzy's warning about benchies).
b) May just need one of these if your thinking of using Vista.
Wait till we see what actually appears Nov 14th when they are slated for release.
-
Photoshop is a mutl-threading app i think. meaning it takes advantage of multiple CPU's. bare in mind any CPU has its strengths and weakness. some CPUs may be better at running applications rather then games. and vise versa. thats why intel uses Xeons processors for servers (8 to 16 mbs of cache to compete with Operton's 2 or 4 Mbs cache) but i do know that 4 cores is better then 2 no matter how you slice it. providing the application you running takes advantage of them. if you running a app or game that only uses 1 CPU then you can 100000 cpus and it make not much difference. but as i see it now .. Intels high end conroe CPU alone is almost 900.00 .. AMDs 4x4 starting kit is gonna start under 1000. so for 100.00 difference your gonna get 4 cpus and the motherboard while for that same money your gonna get just a CPU. also keep end mind that intel has to put 4MB of shared cache on their chips to compete with 2 ( 2 x 1MB) the AMD's CHIPs , so naturally if you gonna compare core duo/ conroe chips with AMDS chips how do you think AMD's chip would run with Twice as much cache on them. AMD's onboard die memory controller will be superior to what Intel uses north/south bridges . no matter how you slice it. also like i pointed out its easy to to see that running 4 cores on a single socket will cause a bandwidth issues with intels new quad-core offerings. and also when amd comes out with quad core chips you should be able to put 2 quads cores in giving you 8 cores. which is a better upgrade path in the future then intels path
-
Don't get me wrong.
If you need that sort of power and have apps that support it multiple cores are the way to go.
This is what I would expect performance wise -
single thread - Woodcrest
multi thread - should be about equal
multiple multithread - 4x4, with the gap increasing the more you throw at them.
Pros/cons
Intel -
Pro - less heat, less power consumption, should fit existing Conroe boards.
Con - limited upgrade path
AMD
Pro - More open upgrade path, will take 2 x K8L's next year making it possible to have 2 quad cores (8 cores) on the 4x4. Or a single K8L leaving the other socket open for FPU's. (yup they are coming)
Cons - HEAT, as one who always criticised the P4's for being hot, can't let AMD get away with it, and power consumption. Will also require a new motherbaord.
My thoughts -
If you absolutley have to have a 4 core solution -
a) If you play mostly games, probably Woodcrest
b) If you you lots of things at once, 4x4
c) Graphics intensive - 4x4, supports 4 graphics cards.
d) If you can wait till next year K8L for socket AM2.
Of course come Nov 14th I could be proved totally wrong.
Just though another interesting difference -
Woodcrest will run on XP Home
4x4 will require XP Pro or Win 2000 Server
-
as stated above:
Just though another interesting difference -
Woodcrest will run on XP Home
4x4 will require XP Pro or Win 2000 Server
woodcrest is intels Xeon server processor and more then likely wouldnt want to run XP Home on it to start with, your thinking of clovertown.
-
Oops I meant Kentsfield, Intels 2+2 4 core solution.:confused:
Still the same -
Kentsfield - XP Home
4x4 - XP Pro or Win 2000 Server
Why?
Because XP Home does not support 2 physical CPUS, but will support multiple cores.
Because Windows 2000 treats each core as a physically seperate CPU, and assumes one core per socket.
Also applies to where I put Woodcrest any where else in the post.
Release date for both (assuming the usaul) - Nov 14th
-
It all depends on the money you want to spend for the system and what you want to do with it. It is not only important which software you run, but also how you use that software.
To run the adobe software an 700 dollar comp is good as well as a 800 dollar one will get you enough for ah2. I am talking of only the computer here without monitor, flight gear, trackir etc. since you have those costs no matter which pc you buy.
But if using that stuff professional I want data security, more hard disk capacity and an UPS. And i want that a lot more than i want whizz bang super CPU. So instead of spending 500 Dollar extra on the cpu and get nothing on AH2 and a 5 percent gain overall i rather buy an 3 Hard disks, a small ups and a quieter case.
If i use the system personal i want, instead of a extremly cool cpu which only gives slight improovements in ah2 over a normaly cool cpu (E6800 over E6600 ), CH Joystick & Throttle, TrackIR 4 and pedals.
When you want to work a lot with images and videos a lot of ram and big disks in a raid 5 (or 6) array will bring you further than the absolute best cpu. So if you plan on spending 3000$ you can get it all, otherwise its wiser to step down the CPU a bit and get a better Graphic / Harddisks / Quality System instead. Comparing equal price systems currently intel conroe core 2 duo are best, if on the high end market, that is if you buy a 6400 or better. On the low end as already discussed in other threads AMD or other Intel processors have some places.
Now, after writing some general stuff which probably nobody reads anyway, to the initial posts of megadud and handy169. When comparing the best AMD and the best Core 2 Duo the intel comes out far on top. When comparing Conroe 2 Duo 6600 to the fastest AMD (FX-62) the intel is still on top, with a whooping price advantage (~400 dollar on cpu... 320 dollar figuring in the more expensive intel motherboard). That is at stock speed. Now others might say they can overclock their AMD / Intel Pentium D, but nothing currently available overclocks like a conroe, giving it eaven more performance advantage.
So the Intel you listed is faster, eaven a cheaper conroe is faster AND leaves money for other stuff.
On CPUs one of the limiting factors is the memory bandwidth. So as long as you use dual channel DDR2-1066 memory 4 cpus arent going to give you double the performance of 2, since they are starving. Worst case the two CPUs do nothing for your application since it is not multi threaded enough to feed all of em, best case it has 4 or more threads but they still have to wait for each other to prevent total chaos. So apart from the coolness factor you get 2 to 40 percent... for a lot of money. I rather hope for a drop in the dual core processor prices with the release than for getting a 4 cpu system.
4 Graphic cards in one system? Cool but i can't eaven afford the best single GPU graphic card and it is not worth it combining 2 or more graphic boards which are not top of the line. The gain of getting one better chip is much higher.
-
does anyone actually have a OEM copy of windows XP home? i know they sale them but i have never seen anyone buy a copy for use to install on systems. 99.9% of copy of XP home i see came with a compaq/HP/dell etc on a recovery disk. on the flip side i have seen tons of OEM XP pro CD's people have bought. i know with HP/compaq/dell recovery disks you cant use the system disk to install windows with othe then the one it came with. and if you make too many changes with XP home you have to reactivate it.
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004498
-
What your missing Schutt -
4x4 won't be bandwidth starved.
2 memory controllers accessing 2 seperate banks of memory.
Communication between the two CPU's via very fast bi-directional enhanced HT links. (much faster than using Kentsfield FSB)
You are correct about the Conroe v X64 comparison.
Only difference is as you go down to the x5000 and below they are on par with their equivalent price Conroe couterparts, but high end yup defiantely Conroe, at the moment.
-
i second thd 367th! , and even when AMD goes to 4 cores on a chip .. it will be 2 busses with 4 cores running to give you 8 cores, where intel will have to either go to 2 sockets like AMD or have serious issues with putting 8 cores on a single bus and make the bandwidth issue worse. now the problem with that is that if intel has to go to 2 cores to fix the bus problem it means them having to have a new motherboard and hardware put into place. where as AMD has set in place it steps to a 8 core system without the problem. that being said, if anyone of you deside to use VISTA and go intels route and then they make you change hardware to copy AMD setup. your probably gonna be stuck buying a another copy of vista. (if you read the VIsta post you'll see why).
also QUAD SLI!
From the looks of it Nvidia's partnership with AMD has grown four more legs in the support of the 4x4x4. As AMD asked Nvidia to create a chipset for its Quadfather launch.
News has hit the web that Nvidia has created the new platform for AMD for the 4x4 launch. The 4x4 plays host to 2 Opteron socket "F"'s on the same Motherboard which will than be upgradeable to AMD official Quad Core CPU which will be released next year. The system will not require registered ECC memory as rumored over the last few months, but will ask for regular DDR2 memory such as Corsair, OCZ, & Geil all provide currently.
The system will not only support quad-core Barcelona CPUs, but will support four graphics cards at the same time. Since the 680a chipset is created from a north bridge and south bridge chipset, there were enough PCIe lanes available to use four PEG (PCI Express Graphics) slots. Two slots come as x16 and two come as x8.
-
At the time of its release in December of 2005, a single chip, eight core, 32-thread, 1.2 GHz UltraSPARC T1 server performed similarly to a two-socket, four-core, eight-thread, 1.9 GHz IBM POWER5 server, performed similarly to a four socket, eight-core, sixteen-thread 3.0 GHz Intel Xeon "Paxville MP" server, and exceeded the performance of a four socket, four-core, four-thead 1.6 GHz Intel Itanium server. Arguably, this made the UltraSPARC T1 the world's most powerful general-purpose commercial server processor, when considering multithreaded commercial workloads.
just kidding .. but thats damn impressive
-
Ok... maybe i missed it but what is the diffrence between a 4x4 system and current dual opteron systems?
-
4x4 is 2 dual-core opteron's giving it 4 cores. also gives gives you 4 graphic PCIe lanes.
-
posted from a review site ..
both AMD and Alienware had the very same demonstration loaded up on their 4x4 system as is pictured here in this slide. Specifically the machines had two instances of City of Heroes running, two HD video streams playing, including a Battlefield 2142 trailer, and a video conversion going on, all at the same time. As you can see all four cores are pegged at 100% utilization but in fact there was plenty of horsepower left to navigate around Windows XP and launch other applications.
http://www.hothardware.com//viewarticle.aspx?page=2&articleid=891
-
Most folks don't even need 2, let alone 4 PCIe x16 slots. The best single-slot card is only a hair slower than the best 2-card setup. Your returns start diminishing quickly, and you pay more and more money. You could spend $2,000 on 4 of the BEST PCIe cards, and still only perform 20% better than any one of those cards running by itself.
It's like selling a car, and claiming one of your best features is 20 cup holders placed throughout the cabin. Well most folks only have X amount of people in the car at one time, and only need X amount of cup holders. Same goes for video cards and multiple slots. My $0.02 on the matter.
As for the Intel/AMD 4-core situation, having all the cores on 1 chip has a benefit and advantage, in that they communicate with each other faster. As has been mentioned nobody's going to benefit from having 4 cores any time soon, but if this is based on the recent Conroe architecture, and AMDs is based on older chips (used together), then the better of the two will most likely be the Intel chip. It will overclock far better, with far less heat and power consumption (based upon Conroe performance). Don't get me wrong, I have respect for both AMD and Intel lines of chips, but Intel has clearly pulled a rabbit out of the hat, and will continue to do so for a while until AMD catches up. AMD lumping 2 of their older chips together is a stop-gap marketing method (again, nobody needs 4 cores right now, regardless of who makes 'em!). If they actually redesign a chip or make a new chip, which could take years if they started now, then they'd give Intel some competition.
For now, Intel's got AMD on the ropes, including the 4-core arena. That's my take on the matter.
-
(http://www.hothardware.com//articleimages/item891/big_4x4mobo.png)
Hrm... you're going to need an extra long case to prevent IDE cables from your CD-ROMs and HD from getting in the way of the second cooling fan, over the second socket. Are they lining up new cases with an extra air intake over the extra CPU?
-
you havent been reading the reviews krusty. most experts speculate intels Quad core chips will not prefrom as well do the the single bus the 4 cores have to communicate on, as apposed to the 2 buses the AMD's quad core will operate on. thats twice the bandwidth AMD has to work with then intels counterpart. as far as having 4 graphic pci express lanes. so what. if you only use 1 you have 3 if you ever deside you want to use them. and again when AMD comes out with quad-core chips is just a matter if switching out chips without any hardware changes. granted anyone using anything more then a single core chip to begin with has to have a need to use them. otherwises its a mute point. but if your gonna build a system this day and age, why not build a system that will expend if you ever need it too. right now at this time the best system for power is the high-end conroe chip i concede that, but once that 4x4 is released that is subject to change and at the same cost if not cheaper then the top conroe offering. why pay for 2 when you can get 4
-
i am sure when you by a 4x4 your gonna want to spring for a new case too. and most people will be using SATA drives with the system as there is only 1 EIDE port..
-
keep in mind that most people will never have a need for anything more then a high end single core PC to play this game.. this system is srictly for people that want to have a kick-ass over the top system. and compared to what your gonna pay for intels top conroe offering right now. the 4x4 is gonna stomp it into the ground at the same price
-
4x4:
3.0GHz
Four memory channels
Support for up to four video cards
Lots of room for expansion
Upgradable to eight core system next gen
High to very high power consumption
Kentsfield:
2.66GHz
Two memory channels
Support for up to two video cards
Medium room for expansion
Smaller upgrade potential (stuck at four cores)
Medium-low to high power consumption
-
You assume the Conroe prices will be the same when AMD finally ships the product.
Intel had announced a few months ago, Conroe prices will be dropping as they are poised to release a faster Conroe at the beginning of 2007.
Comparing prices of CPU's available today against those which have not been released is rather pointless.
----
Handy, you have any idea what a motherboard will cost which has 2 physical memory busses? It's going to be very expensive. That is a ton of real estate.
-
actually skuzzy .. the 4x4 has dual memory busses.. so kev is very right.. and our are so very wrong in that matter. each chip will be able to access one of the 2 banks of memory up to 2GB each.
-
Thanks... i somehow missed that information. Looks like 4000Dollars for a whole computer.
-
the kits for 4x4 are stated to start at under 999 .. conroe is 987.50 with just 2 weeks before sceduled release. and motherboards cost money weither its single socket or dual socket , etc.. i can go buy a single socket 939 mb and pay up to 200 for one. or get a cheap one for 60.. i dont think anyone going into buying a new system is gonna expect not to have to ante up for the best thats being offered. noone is gonna go into any store with 300-400 dollars and expect to walk out with a top of the line system.
when i built mine i spent just under 400.00 for a 3000+ athlon 64/1 gig memory, 160 gb HD. 7300 GS 256MB video card, DVD-RW, and AM2 MB and my system runs just fine with AH2
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Aug/bch20060803037681.htm
The 4x4 platform is an answer to Intel's upcoming quad-core platforms. The system will consist of two closely coupled dual-core processors that, through the form of coherent HyperTransport in use, will act as a single quad-core system. Not many details beyond that have been given thus far, but it is believed that when quad-core processors come out the 4x4 platform will allow an instant upgrade from dual-processor dual-core to dual-processor quad-core, allowing a total of 8 cores on a single machine. And, with an entry level price for motherboard + processors of under $1,000, many the Geek might find it very appealing.
according to that link AMD is stating MB and chips under 1000.00 compared to the high end conroe at almost 1000 for just the chip alone
-
Whoa, there! Might wanna get a shot for those rabies :D
Skuzzy's a fairly smart guy. He's paid to be. I also think he's got a point or two. I'm going to wait until they're actually out and have been reviewed, before I agree that the 4x4 is better than the Kentsfield.
-
well i am a A+ certified tech with almost 20 years of experience, and i to was paid to know things. and the info i am basing anything on is from people that are probably 10 times smarter then me in reguards to analysing chips and cpu performance, so it not like i am just spurting out random numbers without any kind of substantial knowledge. and logic would state that kentsfield arcutecture is inferior to 4x4's , 4 cpu accessing 1 pipeline is gonna be slower then 2 cpus accessing 1 pipeline. now as future need evolve if 4 cores is gonna have a problem. what you think 8 cores are gonna do? granted when AMD moves to quad core they will have the same problem .. but will also have them split between 2 pipes. thats of course thinking intel will keep with the single socket concept.
-
I agree that AMD's idea looks promising, but then so did Prescott.... :D
I'm a conservative person by nature, mind you. This explains my inclination to wait.
How much are one of those motherboards going to cost, anyways?
-
that i dont know.. from press releases mb and 2 dual core FX chips are gonna be under $1000 so i can only speculate on the breakdown of what each is gonna cost .
-
Ahh now i think i got it.
They are more closely coupled than current server systems, since they use a better crossbar switch / Hyper Transport and still have individual memory with full bandwidth to be better than core2 processors.
Two processors are sceduled to cost the same as one quad... so a nice price drop compared to the current amd prices.
Well we will see how good that turns out once they are pited against conroe quad and other dual socket boards. Should give the intel FB-Dimm crowd some trouble.
-
i like how someone put it in a comment :
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/10/intel-kentsfield-general-observations.html
Intel execs lacks the basic IQ. Pat Gelsinger made himself a total retard by typing "I hate AMD" on screen. It's despicable behaviour.
As I pointed out, Conroe fatally wounded Intel and Kentsfield will finish the job. AMD can sell a few hundred K8L now, but it doesn't do it. Why? Because AMD is smart . The few hundred K8Ls will make all other processors worth little. That's what Intel is doing here. With Conroe, AMD basically takes the mainstream market, 95% of Intel's processors are total junk because of Conroe. Now, with Kentsfield, Conroe will be reduced to a $150 chip and Pentium D will be sold at $65, and Athlon X2 will take the sweet spot.
The high end market is tiny. AMD only makes 10000 FX CPUs per quarter. The money is in the middle, and DELL is selling millions of X2 CPUs. I noticed that Alienware is hyping the 4x4 right now. Expect DELL to go 100% AMD by the end of 2008.
AMD is having a major capacity problem right now, once FAB36 finishes ramp by the end of year. Intel will be half dead.
and someone else commented:
People like to talk about price war, they forgot the most important factor in a price war is cost.
AMD's cost per chip is $50 below Intel. When AMD sells a CPU at $100, it laughs to the bank with $59 gross profit. When Intel sells a chip at $100, it loses $40. Just look at the head count, AMD has 10K people and is taking 25% of the mkt. Intel has 100K people.
AMD will soon cross 33% mkt share and approach 40%, leaving Intel and 55%. At that point, Intel will sustain $2.5 billion losses per quarter and will have to raise prices trying to stay afloat, but AMD is ramping up like crazy. If I were Hector Ruiz, I will sell chips at cost just to BK Intel.
and another
It's very simple, just try compute Intel's revenue due to the effect of Conroe. On one hand, you have about 10% Conroe chips selling at $200, on the other hand, you have 90% chips selling at an average of $80, most of them selling at $35 (celerons). Your ASP drop to about $90, a massive drop from the $150 Intel used to enjoy. The Pentium used to be a premium brand, now it's crap. Customers lost confidence in Intel, because they now know Intel was lying to them on Netbust and Hyperthreading.
DELL went AMD because of Conroe -- that should be good enough hurt.
You say Conroe will ramp up. However, by the time Conroe reaches 50% of Intel's production. AMD's K8L will frag Intel real good.
-
Two bits -
Schutt - I think I'm right in saying Intel are dropping FB-Dimms
Krusty - Yes 4 cores on on die would be faster, IF they were coupled using something like HT, but Kentsfields are using the FSB same as the dual core Pentiums.
First naitive quad core won't be available until 2Q 2007.
Both companies up and coming four core offerings are kludges.
Handy -
You don't have to upgrade it to 2 x K8L's, it will quite happily take only one leaving the other socket free for an FPU, GPU (ATI buyout?) or a few other goodies that are to arrive around the same time as the K8L.
It is expected the K8L should outperform Conroe, but as no-one has actually got their hands on one, who knows.
As Skuzzy says until something actually arrives on the market, you don't know.
[edit] Few reviews of the Kentsfield out there v an FX62, so basically 4 core v dual core. The FX62 is only on average 15% slower.
Strangely not one of them put it up against a 2 x dual core Opteron system which would give a clearer indication of which is better at handling multithreaded multitasking.
Still expect Conroe to keep the single thread speed crown.
-
Originally posted by handy169
actually skuzzy .. the 4x4 has dual memory busses.. so kev is very right.. and our are so very wrong in that matter. each chip will be able to access one of the 2 banks of memory up to 2GB each.
If the motherboard has paths laid out for each bus. If the motherboard does not have disctinct paths laid out, then you are facing normal bus contention just alike a single bus does.
Just because the CPU has a dual bus, does not mean the motherbaord will automatically have it. Without a dual bus implemented in the motherboard, you cannot have two devices reading/writting data from/to other devices. It is quite impossible.
Now, each bank of dual channel RAM has an independent bus. However, if both busses are tied to common for both CPU busses, then you are back to square one with bus contention like a single bus CPU.
If you tie each of the independent channels of the dual channel bus to each bus of the CPU, then you lose the ability to fetch more than 32 bits of data at a time. Contention would be down, but performance might as well.
Just have to wait and see the production parts. Enough of this marketing stuff. Marketing very rarely has much basis in reality.
And prices do not mean much right now. Intel and AMD are always bouncing prices around depending on what the other does.
-
kev-
oh i agree that right now when single and dual cpu's are talked about conroe wins no issue there. but to do so .. they are comparing 4mbs of cache to chips with only 512k cache to 2mbs of cache. so you can see where the advantage is placed. cause cause the clock speed of each chip is really that much faster but the conroe has twice to 4 times the cache to help process and based on my experience when proccesses seti number you boost your production about the same number at the same clock speed. like comparing a when used a pentium 4 with only 256k and i used a athlon XP at the same clock speed with X2 the cache (512k) low and behind the athlon won by simular numbers. also look at the Xeon Version of the conroe.. its has 8mb to 16 mbs of cache and compared to 4mbs and 2 mbs and it beats its badly just as bad even though its basically the same core. and that being the case if i was gonna build a system and had the money i would build it around the woodcrest and not the conroe. another thing is that everyone is under the notion that the 4x4 is for the average joe. its not its for people that have the money to spend as will be the intels 4 core flavor.
-
CPU clock speeds stopped being the real performance measure when the original P4 shipped. It was clocked much faster than the previous P3, but ran slower. It had a larger cache as well, but still ran slower.
It's about the overall architecture. AMD has always been pretty lean and mean when it came to thier design, which allowed them to execute instructions in fewer T-states than a comparable Intel CPU. That is where AMD has had the advantage for some time.
With Conroe, Intel really put the hurt on AMD in a couple of key areas.
1) The process. The smaller process means more chips per die, which directly translates to lower costs. This is hurting AMD in a big way, and you will see that impact in the next few quarters as AMD's net profits start to ramp downward.
This will continue until AMD can get to 65nm, or lower.
2) Clock per clock, Conroe executes instructions in fewer T-states than a comparable AMD. Basically, Intel has taken the leaner, meaner approach to Conroe and beat AMD at thier own game. AMD got caught napping and it will hurt them. The large cache in the Conroe is more for marketing than anything else. Performance gains drop as the cache gets larger.
3) Now Intel has a much cooler running CPU than any comparable AMD part. Cooler is lower power is higher overall reliability. With the Prescott CPU, Intel proved it could build a CPU which generated so much heat it killed motherboard components in the nearby vicinity. While AMD is not nearly as bad, they are headed down the road if they do not get thier process shrunk.
None of this is neccessarily my opinion, but pretty much tangibles. Right now, Intel is slapping AMD around pretty badly. With the next release of CPU's, who knows. When they ship, we can form more objective opinions about them.
-
Next few quarters will indeed be interesting.
One point I'll disagree with Skuzzy -
AMD still makes a profit on CPU's, Intel is losing $ on every CPU they sell, so AMD can still cut prices, Intel are already below the break even point.
65nm - By years end 30% will of AMD will be on 65nm, supposedly.
For most people a 4 core solution is not needed anyway.
I might find one useful though -
FSDS v3
PSP
FSRepaint
All running simultaneously when doing FS2004 models.
Will wait for real world benchies first though.
It might all come down to availability - AMD have been hoarding the FX's for the 4x4 and hope to have enough to launch it 'en mass'.
-
I have seen a CPU-Z screenshot where CPU-Z mistakes an overclocked QX6700 for an QX6900. My guess is that we will see an QX6900 some time in the near future.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
One point I'll disagree with Skuzzy -
AMD still makes a profit on CPU's, Intel is losing $ on every CPU they sell, so AMD can still cut prices, Intel are already below the break even point.
I missed this statement earlier. It is, without a doubt, complety wrong.
-
4x4 is out for me with a motherboard costing $480, on top of that the CPUs, memory, and vid card, thats insane.
Oh well at least my choices are easier now -
Conroe or AM2, suppose it will come down to which will end up having the best quad core performance.
Just waiting on 4 core Conroe v opty 4 core or 4x4 benchies.
Should give a decent indication of what the 2007 AMD quads will do.
Willing to have a not speed crown AM2 if the quads will show a decent boost.
-
Originally posted by Schutt
.......
That is at stock speed. Now others might say they can overclock their AMD / Intel Pentium D, but nothing currently available overclocks like a conroe, giving it eaven more performance advantage.
So the Intel you listed is faster, eaven a cheaper conroe is faster AND leaves money for other stuff.......
You and I spoke about this briefly in another thread. I am not trying to rehash that. However, since you obviously know alot more about this than I do I was wondering......
I have a Pent D 805. It is a dual core. Its out of box clock speed is 2.66 gig. I am currently running mine @ 4.0 gig. Thats an overclock of like 1.4 gig. Can the conroe's be overclocked to that level?
Also ...... please forgive my ignorance here..... How can my 4 gig pentD be slower than a 2.1 gig conroe? I assume there is alot more involved than the "Rated clock speed" however if you could help me understand this I would appreaciate it.
Originally posted by Schutt
4 Graphic cards in one system? Cool but i can't eaven afford the best single GPU graphic card and it is not worth it combining 2 or more graphic boards which are not top of the line. The gain of getting one better chip is much higher.
I agree completly. I spent quite a bit more money for a true 2x16 PCIE board. I am currently running a 7900gt that to be honest with you is more that fast enough. My original plan was to add another 7900 once the first one was paid for. Right now I just dont see the need.
Edit.... I should have read the entire thread before posting. Skuzzy adressed some of what I was asking about. I will leave it up anyway if you would like to comment Schutt.
Dave
-
Originally posted by Nomak
You and I spoke about this briefly in another thread. I am not trying to rehash that. However, since you obviously know alot more about this than I do I was wondering......
I have a Pent D 805. It is a dual core. Its out of box clock speed is 2.66 gig. I am currently running mine @ 4.0 gig. Thats an overclock of like 1.4 gig. Can the conroe's be overclocked to that level?
So you run your pentium D at 1.34GHz faster than rated, which is 50 % overclock considering its rated 2.66GHz. The conroes get up to 60%, whereas the slowest conroe is way faster than your processor when both run on default.
Also the conroe runs with 65Watt standart, bringing the overclocked one to 100 Watt. The old Pentium D run on 95 Watt or more default, bringing overclocked ones to 130-150 Watt.
Originally posted by Nomak
Also ...... please forgive my ignorance here..... How can my 4 gig pentD be slower than a 2.1 gig conroe? I assume there is alot more involved than the "Rated clock speed" however if you could help me understand this I would appreaciate it.
First, look at one core. Modern processors need more than one clock for each instructions. I dont have the numbers at hand but i think pentium D needs like 16 steps per instruction and conroe 12. As i say, the numbers are off, i am sure someone knows the exact numbers. Point is the pentium D needs a lot more steps per instruction than the conroe.
Now this is not a problem, since the instructions are worked through in a pipeline, that means that 16 instructions are executed at the same time in the pipeline. Now if one instruction in stage 14 turns out to have a result which causes a big jump (to a diffrent place of code) all instructions that are already in the pipeline get thrown away.
Additionally, instructions that dont rely on each other get executed in parallel, up to 4 in parallel. The get assigned to their processing units and the result gets put in order after processing.
Conroe has a much shorter pipeline, resulting in less penalty for jumps (which happen to occur quite a lot). Also conroe has a better prediction of jumps (and starting processing code where it might be continuing)
Conroe has a faster memory interface.
Conroe is better at processing instructions in parallel.
Now, looking at both cores, conroe has a shared L2 cache and each of the cores can access the full cache. That has the advantage that if the application running one core needs a big cache and the other one is ok running a small one they will share it unevenly, maximizing performance.
Further, more important, each of the processors can access the data right away because he knows if its cached. On Pentium D it first needs to check if the data is cached by the other processor.
So a 3GHz Conroe processes the applications faster than a 4.5GHz Pentium D. Vision that like a high school boy trieing to solve a math problem and a guy with master degree in math trying to solve the same. Wile the master guy is older and slower he still has the solution long before the boy. At least usually.
Originally posted by Nomak
I agree completly. I spent quite a bit more money for a true 2x16 PCIE board. I am currently running a 7900gt that to be honest with you is more that fast enough. My original plan was to add another 7900 once the first one was paid for. Right now I just dont see the need.
Edit.... I should have read the entire thread before posting. Skuzzy adressed some of what I was asking about. I will leave it up anyway if you would like to comment Schutt.
Dave
When you need more 1 8800GTX will do far better than two 7900GT.
-
KEV>
keep in mind the 4x4 platform isnt for your casual computer user. be prepared to spend 1000+ for chips. reports have surfaced that the 2 chip combo will be equal too or less then the cost of one dual core conroe chip. so you will get 4 cores (AMD) for the price or 2 cores (intel) if things go as planned .. also keep in mind that when the K8L comes out it will be able to be replace the 2 cores with 4 cores giving you 8 cores. and the K8L will be a true 4 core core procosser
-
Kev... I wouldn't mind an explaination or some kind of link for your "intel is losing money on every CPU they sell" statement.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Kev... I wouldn't mind an explaination or some kind of link for your "intel is losing money on every CPU they sell" statement.
Should have qualified it, every CPU typically used by the home user.
Easy to find, just go digging on the web.
Basically they are using a common business practice -
Using one part, or parts of the business (chipsets etc), to keep the prices competitive on the home CPU's, even though it means they are being sold below cost.
Not wrong, it's a common strategy.
Handy - Yes I know, but the costs are going to be way beyond what most were expecting. Even if as has been suggested the top end pair will on par ($999) with the top end Conroe, you now add a $480 mobo, 4 x DDR2 DIMMs (2 for each CPU), and an PCI-E graphics card. (for me anyway, still using AGP).
-
It's not easy to find kev. It's not a "common buisness practice".
You made the statement, please back it up. I'd venture to say a corporation that has made 9 billion in proffit so far this year is not selling every one of their chips at a loss. I'd venture to say a company that has made 2% of the proffit while holding 20% of the market has much less room for price adjustment. That's just an observation.
I don't think you really understand chip sales much at all. It really comes off like you've been to an AMD fanboy club where everyone starts talking about how Intel is willing to lose money on chips to drive AMD out of buisness when there really isn't much of a clue as to how that works.
Our low end CPUs are, by far and away, our biggest sellers. They always have been. The server CPUs make money, but they don't make the money that the little stuff does. Can you explain how our biggest selling product is sold at a loss? Can you explain how selling 40 million processors and turning 10 billion in revenue is possible when 30 million of those processors were sold at a loss? Do you think we make all of our money on chipsets?
That statement is so out of left field, I just had to respond.
-
actually didnt intel report loses this quarter??? i could be wrong but i know they are losing money more and more each quarter
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/20/77574_HNintelprofitfall_1.html
-
No probs Mini-D just give me some time to find it, was looking for something else at the time and just happened to read it.
Actually it is not usuall for a business to use one part of business to prop up or make it possible to sell things below production/R+D costs in another part.
Whole idea being eventually you start to break even on them the more and more you sell.
Typical early / mid/ late life product cycle.
As long as the overall result is a profit.
-
Originally posted by handy169
actually didnt intel report loses this quarter??? i could be wrong but i know they are losing money more and more each quarter
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/20/77574_HNintelprofitfall_1.html
You are most definately wrong given that the link you cite reports 1.3 billion in proffit. Intel has not had a quarter in the red for at least 13 years. AMD has.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
No probs Mini-D just give me some time to find it, was looking for something else at the time and just happened to read it.
No problem. It should, as you said, be easy to find by just "googling it". I, however, didn't find anything other than some saying "intel sells chips at a loss" on message boards in the 3 hits that I could round up.
-
PS... once you've recouped your expenses, nothing is "being sold at a loss".
-
Thx for taking the time Schutt.
It does make sense. Although I still want to believe that my 4.0 805 is faster than the 2.1 Conroe (Shrug) ;)
Dave
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Actually it is not usuall for a business to use one part of business to prop up or make it possible to sell things below production/R+D costs in another part.
What is that "other part" that makes the big bucks for Intel and helps to subsidize the chip sales? You aren't suggesting that we make all of our money off of DELL and sell our processors directly to the consumer at a reduced price are you? Because... that's so anti-normal-buisness it's hillarious.
Come on Kev... it's been a week. Where's the easy to find info on this.
-
Kev, I have stayed out of this, as I know MiniD works for Intel and is in a better position to answer the claim you made.
But, for the love of logic, think about it. Smaller process yeilds more dies per wafer. This is a substantial cost reduction per die. If the yeilds are good, and I see nothing the marketplace to suggest Intel is having any kind of yeild problems, then Intel should be able to undercut AMD AND do so with a higher net profit per CPU.
It is just logical.
From a business side, Intel had to figure they had a winner on thier hands, and also knew AMD would not be able to compete. Sales projections probably were on the order of 100% higher (a guess) than previous processors. So they are able to amoritize the development costs over a larger number of parts, keeping the costs lower than previous generations of CPU.
Now that was just some speculation. I really have no insight to how Intel handles its amoritization schedules, but a per part schedule over some period of time is generally the method most companies use. The time period is generally the projected peak sales life of the product.
At any rate, there is no way AMD's larger process can be produced cheaper than Intel's smaller process, given good yeilds for both companies.
-
The chip is smaller and the wafers are significantly bigger. I don't know if AMD still suffers much from yield issues, but I do know that Intel does not on anything it's currently making.
The only processors that I know of Intel selling at a loss were the original Pentium chips. The yield on those chips weren't measured in chips per wafer, but rather wafers per chip. That ended in late 92. Hell... even the Itanic is a money maker and I don't know that the chip was really ever intended to be.
Kev... both companies are kicking around a 45-50% proffit margin on thier chips right now. Nobody is even close to claiming that chips are being sold at a loss. If you'd like to know who has more room for price reduction, you really should just look at corporate proffit over the last... oh... 10 years.
-
OK kev... since you couldn't provide a link, I will:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ32006EarningsRelease.pdf
Look at page 10.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
OK kev... since you couldn't provide a link, I will:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ32006EarningsRelease.pdf
Look at page 10.
Sorry Mini_D, my Mums been in hospital the last 16 weeks and it gets a little hectic sometimes.
Profits don't tell the whole story -
i.e. compared to last year - Intels quarterly profits are down between 35% and 52%.
AMD are up, compared to last year.
Diff topic -
Upgrade soon, got a question for you that may help me decide -
Will the native Intel quad cores work with the current C2D motherboards?
-
Kev,
I wish to point out you haven't provided anything to support your "intel sells it's processors at a loss" statement. I have provided a link that outlines Intel's income and breaks it down by category showing how much of their revenue is generated by processor sales, you have shown nothing.
It's about time to admit you just might have been wrong on this one. Right now you're trying to throw up vague replies as some kind of defense and it's just not working.
Have a nice day!
-
I know, like I said haven't had much spare time because of Mum being in hospital.
Haven't even been in-game for close to 2 weeks.
-
Let me spare you the time of futile searching, then:
Intel does not sell it's processors to the public at a loss. The public actually pays a premium on their processors. The companies that pay the lowest margin are the Dells, HPs, Apples and such. We're still making money on them, but not the same margin we make off of processor sales to the public. Though, the % of our proffit that is made by these three is substantial.
And don't get hung up on % of increase or decrease in proffit kev. It's a fool's trap... especially when one company is hovering around breaking even. AMD going from 17 million in proffit to 100 million looks like a huge leap in terms of %, but it's just noise. Intel's proffit margin is dropping, as will AMDs (this quarter). AMD's % proffit will also drop significantly after aquisition costs of ATI kick in and have driven them to delay the startup of a new manufacturing fab in NY.
AMD has no room for dropping revenue right now. Intel does. Intel also has plenty of room to lower the proffit margin on their processors, as they are accounting for most of Intel's revenue right now.
There is no other product sold at Intel that comes close to generating enough revenue to enable Intel to sell processors at a loss. No company subsidises their main product with lesser products... that's not the way it works. The main product subsidises lesser products. Right now, proffits from chip sales pay for an $800 million loss on other ventures such as communications and Wi-Fi projects.
The only company I know of that has subsidised it's processor sales in the last decade has actually been AMD who had a quarter where all of their proffits were a result of flash memory sales and the processor division actually lost money.
-
intel: 4 fantastic new cores
vs
Amd: 4 average old cores
Intel won EVERY test by 15-40%.
AMD are loosing it very very bad here.... Not to mention 65nm cores was released this week.... do we have reviews? do we see any samples around? nope, none....nothing...
sure, AMD have HT bus so cores are not limited by FSB.... and sure they have on-board memory controller, but they just don't do enough work per cycle compared to Intel, and that's going to take a few YEARS to fix... and AMD don't have money for R&D.
I'm a AMD fan, been that way since 1997, but if the company is still selling top end CPU's in the next 5 years i will be VERY surprised. Lets just hope they don't drag ATI down with them.
But then maybe they already have? Nvidia released new product lines, yet we've heard nothing from ATI.:o
-
And just days after AMD announced they are ready to start 65nm production, Intel announces they are testing 32nm process.
ATI is going to be very hurt from the acquisition as the company pretty much has to be frozen while AMD ungulfs it. ATI will probably be out of the high end video card business after this. Look for them to get more focused on the mobile and onboard chip business.
-
omg! 32nm?? DAMN I thought 62 was pushing the physical limits!
Or have they started using that new technology where the switch is only 3 molecules wide? I remember reading about that 5+ years ago, but never heard if anybody implemented it...
-
Originally posted by Krusty
omg! 32nm?? DAMN I thought 62 was pushing the physical limits!
Or have they started using that new technology where the switch is only 3 molecules wide? I remember reading about that 5+ years ago, but never heard if anybody implemented it...
i think intel have working 11nm process (for memory cells, and testing.... but not for cpus)
-
If we can make 11 nm on memory, it should be easier on CPUs. They are not as dense as memory.
I don't recall the 32nm process being the next on the agenda Skuzzy... I thought it was the 45nm process. I do believe that it's been published that the folks at D1D (in Hillsboro) are trying to get some CPUs out for testing as soon as possible on the 45nm process with metal gate transistors and hi-k gate isolation. I honestly don't know how that's going, though. D1D should be able to do it since they're about as hard core as it gets on the manufacturing development side of things. The 65nm core2duos are being moved out of hillsboro to the super high volume stuff in NM and AZ.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
If we can make 11 nm on memory, it should be easier on CPUs. They are not as dense as memory.
I don't recall the 32nm process being the next on the agenda Skuzzy... I thought it was the 45nm process. I do believe that it's been published that the folks at D1D (in Hillsboro) are trying to get some CPUs out for testing as soon as possible on the 45nm process with metal gate transistors and hi-k gate isolation. I honestly don't know how that's going, though. D1D should be able to do it since they're about as hard core as it gets on the manufacturing development side of things. The 65nm core2duos are being moved out of hillsboro to the super high volume stuff in NM and AZ.
oh, maybe it was wrong i sure i read one company had "working" 11nm gates.
but then making 1 gate vs making 400million? :eek:
-
MiniD, it was in a press release from Intel. 45nm is next, but they claimed to have some in-house 32nm working.
If you do not know about it, then I wonder if it was one of those *theoretical* press releases someone made up.
-
I'm sure we've made some 32nm gates as well as some 11nm gates. I seriously doubt we've made 400 million of them on any one chip.
If you look back over the last 5 years, you'll see that we show pictures of working gates about 3 years before the process is released. Given that it takes about 18 months to develop a process, you can summize that the pictures are not necessarily indicative of things to come.
45nm is the next sure thing. That should be the 1266/68 stuff. The 1270 stuff is so far off I wouldn't pay much attention to it.
-
Sorry taken so long, but things are hectic ( Mum might be getting out of hospital this week).
Haven't managed to dig out that article again, so I'll have to go with what you posted.
Quick question -
Looking at getting E6600 just after Christmas, maybe before (not much time).
Recommendation for mobo / mem?
[edit] mobo must have 2 PCI slots - one Dell RAID card and one for sound card.