Tuesday, February 28, 2006

INTEL's last hope: marketing

The Centrino team at Israel are hyping up their 32 bit Core Duo and 32 bit Merom technology like crazy. You feel a sense of desperation, even the usually soft speaking Nathan Brookwood of Insight 64 said "[o]nly a psychoanalyst would be fully qualified to analyse Intel's behaviour".

First let's analyse the hype on Core Duo, a 32 bit mobile processor with 2 Pentium M cores.

INTEL's Corporate VP of the Mobility Group Mooly Eden had a presentation on Core Duo which I reported here. According to his presentation slides at here, Core Duo had the following selling points:
  • Revolutionary processor
  • 70% performance increase
  • Over 28% longer battery life

What's revolutionary about the 32 bit Core Duo? According to Mooly Eden, there were two technologies, Dynamic Intel Smart Cache Sizeing and Enhanced Intel(R) Deeper Sleep. Frankly, I don't see anything revolutionary here, these two can be best described as minor improvements, Core Duo is pretty much two Pentium M cores glued together and put on a shared front side bus. After so many years, the Israeli amateurs have not figured out how to do 64 bits and Mooly Eden's excuse was that "It may take many years for enterprises to demand it (64 bit)".

What about so called 70% performance increase? Let's look at an independent benchmark done by AnandTech. As we can see, the 2GHZ 2MB cache Core Duo is generally slower than AMD's lowest Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2GHZ, 1MB cache). The X2 3800+ is 20% faster than Core Duo in DivX encoding, X2 3800+ is 17% faster than Core Duo in Windows Media Encoding, 11% faster in playing Battlefield 2. Overall, the X2 3800+ won 16 benchmarks, the Core Duo won 6. In tests the Core Duo did win, the margin of victory is always less than a few percent. Keeping in mind that the 2GHZ Core Duo is INTEL's top of line and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is AMD's lowest entry level, you see although Core Duo represented a quantum leap from Pentium 4 D, its performance is still far below AMD64.

What about the so called "28% longer battery life"? Again, it's hype with no factual foundation. According to this Tomshardware test, Core Duo consumes more than twice the power of a Pentium M or Turion when doing low load work such as reading and office work. According to INTEL's design data sheet, Core Duo has an estimated Thermal Design Power of 67 watts, which is consistent with my estimate that Core Duo is at least 53 watts based on an AnandTech measurement of system power. In comparison, the Opteron 870HE is only 55 watts max. No wonder DELL is only making 17inch, 8 pound desktop replacement notebooks with Core Duo.

So, we fully analysed INTEL Israel's hypish marketing on all three aspects. Core Duo is no revolutionary chip, is just a modification of Pentium III; Core Duo is not 70% faster, but 10-20% slower than AMD's lowest entry level Athlon 64 X2 3800+; Core Duo does not run cooler, but runs hotter than Opteron 875HE server chip (2.2GHZ, dual core, 8 way SMP).

I am impressed by Israeli's ability to hype, but I am equally unimpressed by their ability to deliver.

Now, what about the "revolutionary" NGMA called Merom designed by the same Israeli team? Again, from the all hype no beef messages, I don't see anything revolutionary there for the so called NGMA. The only new feature we know is the so called 4-issue core. However, the PowerPC 970 has a 4-issue core, yet Steve Jobs was not impressed. Can INTEL Israel do better than IBM? I seriously doubt it.

When Mooly Eden went back to Israel to talk to some of his old collegues, they told him: 'You're only one year in marketing, and already you're brain-damaged."'

4 Comments:

Blogger John Bell said...

20% worse than AMD, might be a good idea.
http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006/02/conroe-and-merom-in-later-part-of.html

4:44 AM, March 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the author about Core Duo: Where in the hell does it say the TDP is 67W?? All I see TDP is 31W in page 70. I assume you are just a big fanboy towards AMD.

While you don't believe Anandtech's results in every other test you believe that their power consumption results are right, that sort of destroys your credibility.

On here:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2005/11/intel-has-efficiency-problem-in-yonah.html

You naturally assume Yonah has worse IPC, when you claim in your blogs "memory latency is so important" and Dothan/Yonah is using Slow DDR2-533 with 4-4-4-12 timings while X2 is using DDR400 with fastest timings possible: 2-2-2-5

The two CPUs are close to each other that Dothan/Yonah having 3-3-3-8 timings over 4-4-4-12 will put it tie/win in favor to Dothan/Yonah.

Back to power consumption again.

While Tomshardware's FIRST Yonah results show that Core Duo laptop had bad battery life, its clear that laptop differences make so much difference that Pentium 4 can have equal battery life as Pentium M, or at least close to it. Look here: http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1762&cid=14&pg=4

Unless you are blind you can see above that not only the MSI M635 with Turion 1.8GHz is FASTER than 2.0GHz Turion, it also consumes the LEAST power of all the Turion laptops. Hmm.

Especially look at the power consumption figures when:
HP NX6125 with ML-37(2.0GHz 35W)
512MB DDR
15 inch screen
ATI Mobility Radeon X300 "DISCRETE" graphics
FASTER HARD DRIVE

gets lower power consumption than

MSI S270 with MT-37(1.8GHz, 25W)
512MB DDR
Slower drive
Integrated graphics
12 inch screen

"From AMD's persentation, with DSLSSOI, AMD's 65nm is much lower on power."

According to here: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT123005001504&p=14

the above is a very common AMD fanboy(a radical one too at that) comment and shows Intel's have lower leakage.

"According to AMD, the Athlon 64 x2 3800+ is a 89 watt chip, therefore, the Yonah is at least 89- 36 = 53 watts*, which is basically the power consumption of two Dothan cores."

Wrong. According to most reviews and the comments of most people in forums, A64 reaches MUCH lower than 89W TDP. AMD link: http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

89W for 130nm 2.2GHz 512KB Athlon64
89W for 90nm 2.2GHz 512KB Athlon X2

But the X2 consumes LESS POWER. What's up with that?? It means both CPUs never reach 89W, and more ~50-60W, and what I have seen across the net, same is true with Pentium M/Core Duo.

Also you can see Tomshardware's SECOND Core Duo review trying to clear up USB 2.0 bug shows that Core Duo's rather have a good battery life: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/page2.html

Even after losing 76 min battery life, Core Duo STILL has better battery life than Dothan. Again here: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/14/microsoft_to_release_patch_for_power_drain_bug/page3.html

So it proves you wrong there. Your comments are so flawed.

6:51 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger anomy said...

To the author about Core Duo: Where in the hell does it say the TDP is 67W?? All I see TDP is 31W in page 70. I assume you are just a big fanboy towards AMD.

While you don't believe Anandtech's results in every other test you believe that their power consumption results are right, that sort of destroys your credibility.

On here:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2005/11/intel-has-efficiency-problem-in-yonah.html

You naturally assume Yonah has worse IPC, when you claim in your blogs "memory latency is so important" and Dothan/Yonah is using Slow DDR2-533 with 4-4-4-12 timings while X2 is using DDR400 with fastest timings possible: 2-2-2-5

The two CPUs are close to each other that Dothan/Yonah having 3-3-3-8 timings over 4-4-4-12 will put it tie/win in favor to Dothan/Yonah.

Back to power consumption again.

While Tomshardware's FIRST Yonah results show that Core Duo laptop had bad battery life, its clear that laptop differences make so much difference that Pentium 4 can have equal battery life as Pentium M, or at least close to it. Look here: http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1762&cid=14&pg=4

Unless you are blind you can see above that not only the MSI M635 with Turion 1.8GHz is FASTER than 2.0GHz Turion, it also consumes the LEAST power of all the Turion laptops. Hmm.

Especially look at the power consumption figures when:
HP NX6125 with ML-37(2.0GHz 35W)
512MB DDR
15 inch screen
ATI Mobility Radeon X300 "DISCRETE" graphics
FASTER HARD DRIVE

gets lower power consumption than

MSI S270 with MT-37(1.8GHz, 25W)
512MB DDR
Slower drive
Integrated graphics
12 inch screen

"From AMD's persentation, with DSLSSOI, AMD's 65nm is much lower on power."

According to here: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT123005001504&p=14

the above is a very common AMD fanboy(a radical one too at that) comment and shows Intel's have lower leakage.

"According to AMD, the Athlon 64 x2 3800+ is a 89 watt chip, therefore, the Yonah is at least 89- 36 = 53 watts*, which is basically the power consumption of two Dothan cores."

Wrong. According to most reviews and the comments of most people in forums, A64 reaches MUCH lower than 89W TDP. AMD link: http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

89W for 130nm 2.2GHz 512KB Athlon64
89W for 90nm 2.2GHz 512KB Athlon X2

But the X2 consumes LESS POWER. What's up with that?? It means both CPUs never reach 89W, and more ~50-60W, and what I have seen across the net, same is true with Pentium M/Core Duo.

Also you can see Tomshardware's SECOND Core Duo review trying to clear up USB 2.0 bug shows that Core Duo's rather have a good battery life: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/page2.html

Even after losing 76 min battery life, Core Duo STILL has better battery life than Dothan. Again here: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/14/microsoft_to_release_patch_for_power_drain_bug/page3.html

So it proves you wrong there. Your comments are so flawed.

6:54 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger anomy said...

"But the X2 consumes LESS POWER. What's up with that?? It means both CPUs never reach 89W, and more ~50-60W, and what I have seen across the net, same is true with Pentium M/Core Duo."

Because if you believe X2's consume that much, you can also say that Pentium D's are much better than they actually are...

6:56 PM, March 09, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home