Hector Ruiz and Michael Dell on stage
Ruiz welcomed three guests to the stage: Juergen Rottler, executive vice president of Oracle Support and Oracle on Demand; Michael Dell, Chairman of Dell; and Dr. David Brailer, the United States' first National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
Rottler discussed how AMD Opteron(TM) has helped Oracle.
Dell addressed how AMD processors will provide a compelling choice for Dell's enterprise customers. Dell Inc released two Opteron servers which beat the crap out of Intel's Tulsa solutions.
FAB36! crank, crank.
Patty cried and cursed seeing the picture above.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 10/23/2006 10:18:00 AM
46 Comments:
Sorry but this is off topic...
It looks as though the Mobile segments is going to end up around 40% of total processors manufactured for 2006.
Projected Mobile
Projected overall processors
90 Million * 100 / 230 Million = 39.13% of the total processors made.
How does this play into your Bankruptcy predictions condsidering Mobile has a higher ASP than desktop, and in which Intel holds about 84%?
Also could you speculate on whether or not AMD could survive on the Server segment alone?
How does this play into your Bankruptcy predictions condsidering Mobile has a higher ASP than desktop, and in which Intel holds about 84%?
Based on the data that AMD mobile units grew 50% q/q, its mk share should be close to 18% now. Also, DELL will soon release AMD notebooks. The switch to mobile will quicken Intel's BK, as mobile is the last profit engine for Intel. Also, Vista roll out will make all Core Duo chips total junk.
On server, DELL's Opteron gear will help AMD gain near 100% of the 4P space. As I stated earlier, the mainstream serevr mkt is changing to 4P. Woodcrest is only ultra low end.
Also could you speculate on whether or not AMD could survive on the Server segment alone?
What's more, Intel just demoed Tigerton--quad-core with quad independent bus, with the goodness of Core 2 micro-architecture. This way, Intel is even taking strong aim at the 4P niche that AMD has gotten used to dominate.
Sorry AMD fanboys, but K8L won't cut it. Micro-architecturally, it is inferior to Core2 (no shared L2, high-latency L3, no load/store reordering, no macro fusion, only direct-mapped L1 with same latency as Intel's 8-way-associative L1, the list goes on), and its interconnect advantage (probably the only advantage) will be (mostly) nullified by the quad-independent bus. So AMD will get pushed to even nicher (more niche??) market of 8P.
Torrenza is the only good thing going for AMD right now. Hope it bears some fruit. Otherwise AMD is history.
In the past, Intel never even as much acknowledged AMD. But now that they have, they are going there with full firepower, leaving no place to hide.
AMD held 13% market share of the mobile segment at the end of quarter 2.
Market share growth
50% growth of that 13% would then be 6.5% growth, which would equal 13 + 6.5 = 19.5% market share.
Intel at 87% of the market grows the remaining 18.5% growth, which would equal 87 + 18.5 = 105.5% market share.
105.5% + 19.5% = 125%
100 * 100 / 125 = 80%
Adjustment for new market share
AMD adjusted market share 19.5% * 0.80 = 15.6%
Intel adjusted market share 105.5 * 0.80 = 84.4%
Your pretty close with the 18%, now I understand your comments about Core Duo (not 64bit), but what about ramp predictions for Core 2 Duo, and the effect that will have on AMD gaining moere market share?
Also, Vista roll out will make all Core Duo chips total junk.
Only many small problems there:
1. Vista also has a 32-bit version, which will probably be more compatible with XP.
2. Intel is promptly replacing Core Duo with Core2 Duo--a full 64-bit chip.
3. Vista won't be adopted overnight. Where I work, they do not switch to new OS on release. They take quite some time for all the drivers to become available and all compatibility issues resolved. Even when they do that switch, they do not upgrade old systems with new OSes. We still have systems running Windows 2000! Thus, by the time Vista becomes mainstream, Intel will be selling 100% Core 2.
Also, could you please stop pulling market-share numbers out of your rear end? You posted a whole post on how AMD's market share is now 25%, and when I pointed out that you were combining apples and oranges (combining YoY and sequential numbers), you revised your estimate to 22%.
Is this 64 bit computing blog or corporate events/earnings projections log?
Is this 64 bit computing blog or corporate events/earnings projections log?
Anything AMD does is about pervasive 64 bit comoputing. Intel is still half in 32 bit age.
Sharikou, don't you realize what is happening here......Patty and Paul are probably rolling around on the floor laughing......Dell is still an Intel agent.
http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/Content/onhand.html
All the Intel fanboys are hailing the Core2 as the Holy Grail, but if that were true, why is the industry continuing to move away from Intel?
Rather than using their budget towards research and innovation, Intel opted for propaganda and media hype. They have successfully mislead the public, but the industry knows better.
The Core2 improvements are too little and too late. The entire Intel platform is flawed and cannot scale the way the AMD platform is designed to. It is only a matter of time until Intel's propaganda bubble burts.
Our humble host wrote:
Anything AMD does is about pervasive 64 bit comoputing. Intel is still half in 32 bit age.
I wrote back aways, but was not dignified with a response:
So what? How pervasive is 64 bit code these days? Will the average consumer notice? Care?
For your reference, I checked out the AMD64 ecosystem page. http://www.amdcompare.com/ecosystem/en-us/amd64/default.aspx?Segment=Consumer. For consumer apps, there are a few games that are 64 bit enabled, and most 64bit enabled apps currently only run on... WIN32. So what? I'm not buying the promise of upgradability, and neither are most consumers. Pay for what I need now, not in X years... the early AMD64 adopters (3 years ago!) will likely have moved on to new systems long before there is real 64bit SW availability. Like it or not, that isn't Intel at work, just buyer behavior. 64bit isn't ready or needed yet, and I would bet that less than 1% of the market won't buy Core because it doesn't support 64bit yet. The true consumers of 64bit compute power will be buying Woodcrest, Opteron, or big iron (Power/SPARC/Itanium/PA-RISC) solutions.
11:16 AM, September 18, 2006
Vista does not change the equation. Vista can run in 32b or 64b mode. Applications don't change over night- and I am still betting that core consumer apps see little if any benefit moving to 64bit, and some will actually run slower due to the larger overhead of 64 bits. Can you or will you respond? This strikes to the alleged core purpose of this blog, and I am curious as to your view- unless all you have to offer is "Intel bad, AMD good". In that case, I've already gathered that much...
Why did AMD cut prices again ..arent they already in short supply ??
Only time will tell!. But I predict Dell is the poison pill that AMD has swallowed.. I predict to see even lower profitablity on higher sales.. I can hear AMD's stomach growling!
Dear Dr. Yield
There are a few hundred posts on this subject (32 verse 64 bit future) at this blog. You have already lost the argument months ago, please keep up.
But I predict Dell is the poison pill that AMD has swallowed.. I predict to see even lower profitablity on higher sales.. I can hear AMD's stomach growling!
I predict you will continue to be clueless. All you Intel fanboys proclaimed the Intel/Dell relationship a big part of what is keeping AMD down. Now that Dell is going all out on AMD products, you turn around and predict Dell will sink AMD. Idiots to the extreme.
AMD is set to become much more profitable as Fab36 ramps. Intel has no such advantage in the future. The only way they can cut costs is to continue to lay people off.
And even a half witted moron realizes that every time Dell sells and AMD box, it is one less potential sale of an Intel processor.
There are a few hundred posts on this subject (32 verse 64 bit future) at this blog. You have already lost the argument months ago, please keep up.
Cop out. I have been unable to find substantive discussion of 64bit computing in the consumer space dating back to at least May.
I have used (in the past) non-DB applications that consumed more that 50GB of memory for FP-centric computing. I understand the need for a small segment of the enterprise space. I have yet to hear a compelling technical justification for 64bit at home. I'm still calling marketing FUD on this one- but I'd be delighted if someone could point out an error in my conclusion. Please back up your claim and I'll stop asking.
Amd price cuts do not make sense. I don't have a phd in economics, actually I don't have a phd in anything, but I do have a basic understanding of supply and demand and isn't Amd selling every chip they make? So if demand is so high then why are they lowering their prices? The interesting thing about this is that they are doing price cuts across all Turion 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64, Sempron, and even on some older Opteron models. Again, something ain't right when you can sell every part you make but you still want to sell it for less.
Penix said...
"All the Intel fanboys are hailing the Core2 as the Holy Grail, but if that were true, why is the industry continuing to move away from Intel?"
Enthusiast are not the industry.
As far as I understand the current situatiion, there is a definite gap in performance when looking at Intel.
Anything below the E6400, AMD has something that can compete with the remaining desktop processors offered by Intel price and performance wise.
Thus opening the door for AMD for the next few quarters.
The average consumer has no clue, what to get, let alone understand what they are getting, they see a price.
Hope it helps.
Amazing, Intel is going to TAPE-OUT 45nm Core Dual’s this quarter! Why would a company produce 45nm 32-bit cores? X-bit also states Intel has reached 65nm cross over from 90nm.
And even a half witted moron realizes that every time Dell sells and AMD box, it is one less potential sale of an Intel processor.
One 6950 sold are 4 Intel procs unsold.
"And even a half witted moron realizes that every time Dell sells and AMD box, it is one less potential sale of an Intel processor."
Actually in AMD's capacity constrained environment right now every Dell AMD box sale takes the place of higher margin channel/other OEM AMD sale.
Unless you think Dell is paying more for chips than other customers?
"Amazing, Intel is going to TAPE-OUT 45nm Core Dual’s this quarter! Why would a company produce 45nm 32-bit cores?"
And please educate us on what this 45nm 32bit product is?
"One 6950 sold are 4 Intel procs unsold."
What % of the market os now 6950?
The enthusiast market, incidentally is very small, puny compared to the server market. The server market is where the big bucks are made, not the enthusiast market that spends more than they need 1/2 the time.
Sharikou, again this is a little off topic, but please look and correct me if needed.
That goes for everyone else as well :).
This is a break down showing cost per processor and ASP for both Intel and AMD
For a basis I will use this source for total processors.
-------------------------------
AMD cost per chip
As of late, with estimates AMD is at about 23% Market share.
230 Million (processors) / 4 (quarters) = 57.5 Million processors per quarter.
57.5 Million * 0.23% (market share) = 13.225 Million processors.
AMD's total Cost Of Sales less $10.5 Million for stock-based compensation = $635.246 Million.
$635.246 / 13.225 Million (processors made) = $48.03 per chip.
-------------------------------
Intel cost per chip
Intel having about 72% Market share would equate to 41.4 Million processors.
Intels cost of sales for processors can be roughly figured out by looking at the CC transcripts. $5.8 Billion of $8.7 Billion (total revenue) = 66% for cost of sales for processors.
Total Cost Of Sales was $4.445 Billion * 0.66 (processor percentage) = $2,933,700,000 total cost of sales for processors.
$2,933,700,000 / 41.4 Million (processors made) = $70.86 per chip.
-------------------------------
AMD and Intel ASP
AMD's ASP is about... $1.3 Billion (total revenue) / 13.225 Million Processors = about $98.29.
Intels ASP is about... $5.8 Billion (total revenue) / 41.4 Million Processors = about $140.09.
-------------------------------
Do these number seem OK?
Or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance...
Actually in AMD's capacity constrained environment right now every Dell AMD box sale takes the place of higher margin channel/other OEM AMD sale.
Please show us all how much Dell is paying for product compared to other volume system builders.
And in fact, AMD's capacity constraints are about the become a thing of the past. Dell knows this, and Dell also finally saw the light and realized other OEM's were taking business away from them because Dell did not have AMD, especially in servers.
Once again, the clueless Intel fanboys flip flop and proclaim whatever AMD does is bad for AMD including a deal with Dell, but somehow Dell was good for Intel and one of the reasons AMD was not gaining market share. Dumb, just plain dumb.
Enumae, according to AMD they do 44 million CPUs per year so:
$1.3 Billion (total revenue) / 11 Million Processors = about $118
"Once again, the clueless Intel fanboys flip flop and proclaim whatever AMD does is bad for AMD including a deal with Dell, but somehow Dell was good for Intel and one of the reasons AMD was not gaining market share. Dumb, just plain dumb."
My bad - I'm sure Dell is paying MORE per chip than standard OEM's channel - thanks for clearing that one up for me!
And I'm sure the shortges reported in the channel have nothing to do with AMD capacity and Dell's requiring (reportedly) a capacity of available chips.
I think you intel fanboys protest way too much, if intel is in such good shape why are you so worried?
The fact of the matter is, intel is in very bad shape, more enron type accounting and stock reports.
In this last quarter intel lost more ground to AMD then they ever have in the entire intel history.
Intel lost more market share to AMD this last quarter then ever before and especially while the conroe was suppose to save them.
Its looking like the conroe/core2/pentium 3 reworked chip is going to be the chip platform that kills off intel.
There are way too many core2 s in inventory and there price keeps dropping faster than there sales are dropping.
Core2 has never beat opteron in the science benchmarks or the memory band with tests and certainly is not impossible to scale up.
Core2 is based from a pentium 3 rework on a 30 year old front side bus bottleneck frozen in history as a legacy antique.
No matter how fast you accelerate a model T, its just a model T when it comes to rest.
The intel platforms for the conroes are simply antique and out dated technology.
$300 to $400 for a work around intel conroe platform is simply outrageous not just my opinion but the opinion of the white box manufacturers.
I replaced both of my conroes with AMD AM2 5000+ due to intel platform problems. Intel not very linux friendly(you know the software that runs 85% of the internet) and all of Google.
Intel pushed all there cpu problems out to the platform motherboards and this has caused massive bottlenecks and problems.
Intels declining sales and increasing inventories along with there dropping cpu prices and layoffs paint a picture of a company going rapidly down hill.
Advertising alone cannot make up for failing technology at intel.
What's more, Intel just demoed Tigerton--quad-core with quad independent bus, with the goodness of Core 2 micro-architecture.
But there is a big problem with that design that Intel FANATIC boys does not understand:
- Motherboard layout and complexity
- Complex chipset design
- Expensive chipset and motherboard design »» Very Expensive to manufacture and to sell
AMD with Direct Connect just needs:
- some pins that connect one processor to the other.
- Almost any chipset will do
- Very easy to do and very cheap mother board layout and design
- Processors can share the memory (more important than share the processors cache)
As AMD lowers prices, it hurts Intel more with pure price cuts giving a growing demand and better sales as well as more of them. AMD ganes more money because its much cheaper for them to make a CPU then it was yesterday.
Understand since AMD wants to be the best it continues to slash prices even if its not needed. This stratagy is working a great deal to there side and hurting intel more because they can nolonger match AMD in price/watt/performance. And its only going to get worse for intel when it becomes even cheaper when 65nm comes out.
They are getting ready to get rid of all 90nm parts and going to 65nm thats why prices are going down, to get rid of whats left in 90nm parts and filling space with 65nm parts for nov and dec. As well with K8L preperations. This will take a wile so they are thinking ahead as there market share rises from this type of markiting warfare. Most fail to see this.
AMD has changed a lot for the future, Intel not. AMD makes much more money from DELL then ever before. 90% 85% pentium 4's are useless, nobody buys them and goes for conroe only 10% 15% of intel and loseing to AMD's price cuts as there will be more after that. Lowered prices on server chips kill intel in the 4P and above world agenst there 2P only capable world Intel crumbles before these new prices.
Get 4 opterons for the price of 1 woodmistake is really a killer deal to the markiting world. Get it yet? The volume AMD makes in mass sales is more proffitable then selling a more expencive chip. FX's are becomeing more and more affordable. Dropping 300 bucks below prices and still falling. 5000+ X2's are now ranging in the $300's. When 4x4 comes out the single socket AM2 will get even cheaper as well as the FX's dropping blow $500 in favor of 4x4 to be the new FX brand.
The FX-64 comes in at about $600 wile the FX-70 at $800 then FX-72 at $1000 finally FX-74 at $1200 these are in twin sets btw and will all use 90nm SOI-3 to reclame the OCability like it had before on the legendary 939's these arn't the crappy AM2's of the past or the same as the FX-62. SOI-3 will also be included in the 65nm die size when released. AMD manages to destroy any hopes of intel ever matching them in price or performance when this happens.
This is a different stratagy then intel is use to and most would see only as a gimmic but if you see what they are really doing here you would know its far more then just some trick infact its better then anything Intel is capable of. Low cost servers, super multi tasker desktops for gamers or video editors at half the cost of a intel. It can't get much better then that.
AMD dominates in this field because they know better and how to sell more for less and get the intrest in proffits in huge volume because its a cheaper solution on motherboards to everything else. Intel needs to think of a totally different way of selling cpus if they want to win. Performance and speed isnt always everything. The 1st thing somebody looks at is the price.
Doesn't matter if conroe can do 10% more, it fails in features and price. SOmebody will be like well I can get a $70 mobo that has everything on it with a $130 dual core, so why would I spend $180 and $130 on a cpu and mobo with less features. Doesn't work for the average joe you see. AMD wins without the better chip because of the better overall prices agenst a similar performing intel box witch costs much more.
Also the upgrade path for intel is very sad when you buy something you really half to upgrade the whole thing if you want anything that comes down the road in the next 6months. People like AMD because you don't need to change the mobo for atleast 3 years because they make it compattible with everything in the future for years to come.
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=9824&sid=1147ab2ece4b78b0c5d13380f3e5a277
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=10235&sid=1147ab2ece4b78b0c5d13380f3e5a277
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=10232&sid=1147ab2ece4b78b0c5d13380f3e5a277
The truth of the matter is intel fails in every part as it goes. In time Intel will fall to this type of marketing. If you can't sell conroes in mass then you are doomed. AMD can make all the cpus they want with increaseing demand witch is good for marketing and the media wanting more raseing popularety of a product so more stay with AMD and vear away from intel for this reason AMD is superior in how they make chips that scale. The indistry wants that, not old 2P intel crap.
Micro-fusion is just a marketing gimmic. Most of conroes L2 is the only reason why it is faster because it loads things way ahead of time. Without L2 it would be worse then a AMD in performance. Conroe was made to bench and for this reason the cache has a lot to do with it. Just like it can't handle 64bit stages very well at all.
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=2&sid=1147ab2ece4b78b0c5d13380f3e5a277
Proven here. Thank you very much for letting me clear that up. Have a nice day and don't let the fandom get to you so much it only makes you look like a hot headed inconseated jurk that no one will take seriously that has nothing better to do then bItch and compalne about how they think Intel is better then AMD but the reality is well we know whos better just by the proof I have explained.
"And please educate us on what this 45nm 32bit product is?"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061019222838.html
Answer, core 2
Mikolaj said...
"Enumae, according to AMD they do 44 million CPUs per year so:
$1.3 Billion (total revenue) / 11 Million Processors = about $118"
That would change bothe there ASP and Cost per chip.
You have already done ASP, so here is the cost per chip...
Cost of Sales $635.246 Million / 11 Million Processors per quarter = $57.74 per processor.
Thanks.
Yeah, right! Core 2 Duo my a*s ! Core 2 Duo is just a P4 extension, nothing more, nothing less. It's not even a pure 64 bit processor. So, Intel guys: just f**k off! You're telling me that Intel Core 2 Duo is the best choice right now??? Bleah ! I've just bought a F-S Amilo Pa 1510 notebook with Turion X2 "inside" (1.6 GHz x 2)and I must tell you guys: it is amazingly fast and stable! For what I'm doing right now (e-mails, internet navigation, desktop games, cad-cam, image processing, site admin, etc.) is more then enough !!! So, what the hell I need a Merom based laptop that drains the battery? That is not enough processing power??? AMD still rules and it will rule from now on... I just wish AMD good luck and happy expanding! Suckit down Intel funboys!
PS: If you have something with my bad (maybe) english, just tell me ;) I'm not an american nor english. Just a romanian guy...
"And please educate us on what this 45nm 32bit product is?"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061019222838.html
Which, if you have passable reading skills, clearly states the device supports 64bit instructions, and adds SSE4. If it is a straight shrink, die size should drop to 70mm2. Realistically, add another couple of megs of cache (because you can) and the new instructions, and maybe its ~100mm2. That's a lot of dpw...
Think we'll ever see an answer about how pervasive 64it is on home desktop? I'll wager not...
"PS: If you have something with my bad (maybe) english, just tell me ;) I'm not an american nor english. Just a romanian guy..."
I don't think any adult-like person would have problem with your English, but I think you've got some facts wrong.
1. Core 2 Duo has little is anything to do with P4. It is a "extension" (so to speak) of P3, not P4.
2. Core 2 Duo seems to be as much a 64-bit processor as Intel's EMT64 spec (which is very close to AMD64), although IIRC it accesses only 36-bit physical address (versus 40+ bits for K8).
3. For the programs you listed, except perhaps gaming which is video-card constrained, I believe Meron should perform better than Turion X2 at the same clockrate. But I do agree that Turion X2 is the more cost- and power-effective choice.
4. I wouldn't agree with some of the language you used; but it's just my personal preference. ;-p
Yeah, right! Core 2 Duo my a*s ! Core 2 Duo is just a P4 extension, nothing more, nothing less
The Core 2 Duo has NOTHING in common with the Pentium 4, aside from the FSB they use. If you want to be really cynical you can say it's just an upgrade to the Core Duo which itself is based on the Pentium M core. Whether or not Core is a new architecture is not important, all that matters is that you are full of shit. Core 2 has nothing to do with a P4, end of story.
"AMD has changed a lot for the future, Intel not. AMD makes much more money from DELL then ever before. 90% 85% pentium 4's are useless, nobody buys them and goes for conroe only 10% 15% of intel and loseing to AMD's price cuts as there will be more after that."
Well, honestly, even though I'd like to agree with your point of views, you should remember what you said above is based on the assumption that 1) Intel could not ramp up Core 2 faster, 2) Intel's CSI will come in or later than 2008, and 3) Intel's 45nm doesn't help much.
If all three above are true, then AMD seems to have a much brighter future than Intel. However, IMO that is unlikely. I think Intel and AMD still have a good fight in 2007, and they each have respective strength in some aspects.
The part that is really ugly is Intel's aggressive "new core" approach. From an engineering point of view, that is waste of a lot of resource. It'd be much better to release one good core/microarchitecture in a longer while, than to saturate the market with many names and brands. Intel is clearly playing monopoly-like "strength" here to try to kill off AMD (in a marketing style). However, this will easily backfire. I've seen too many people not wishing to buy new computers because they just bought brand new P4 less than a year ago. Eventually the upgrade speed is determined not by CPU manufacture but by consumers. If Intel successfully saturates the market with many slightly different CPUs, not only people wouldn't be buying AMD's future larger-step release, they won't upgrade to Intel's 4 "new cores" in 2-3 years, either. As I said, such an aggressive new-core, small-improvement approach is not sustainable for both Intel and for the industry, Intel is wasting lots of engineering resource here, and its sole purpose is to kill off competition (i.e., typical Intel non-competitive behaviors).
"Intel not very linux friendly(you know the software that runs 85% of the internet) and all of Google."
Interesting. I have noticed no problems that have came either from CPU or motherboard, though both are from Intel. Could you specify what problems it has?
Btw, Intel has opensourced its GPU drivers. Rather nice gesture for all the OSS people :)
"Most of conroes L2 is the only reason why it is faster because it loads things way ahead of time. Without L2 it would be worse then a AMD in performance"
Could you show us how big perfomance increase comes from the additional cache? IIRC, 2M vs 4M was ~3-5% speed difference.
lol @ everyone that says P4s dont sell...
Go out of your caves and ask joe sixpack what he'll buy, i'll bet its an intel and mostly like and Pentium. Even with the Core (2) architecture, Pentium remains a strong brand in the head off many people. And thats why Intel still sell P4s.
Just a romanian guy...
//////////////////////
a smart one at that !!!
“clearly states the device supports 64bit instructions”
There is a big difference between SUPPORTS 64-BIT and really works. The 64 bit code belongs to AMD; everything else is just that, something else.
Well if the 64bit code belongs to Amd then doesn't the X86 code belong to Intel? You can't have X86-64 code without the X86 chucky. Intel invented the X86 that is why they have 75% of the market. You know the reason that Romania is a third world country? Because it fell to the communist. America is the greatest nation in the world because it stands up for itself. Don't come in here kissing our far technologically superior a$$ becuase you know what? No matter what chip you buy it still helps to support our cause, To keep little peasant countries like yours in their place.
Intels 64 bit should be renamed 32-Plus or Bench-32+ or Super-32.
What is it with these AMD fanboys claiming AMD has a "true" 64 bit architecture while Intel has a "fake" 64bit architecture? That's just stupid.
AMD64 is just a series of 64bit extensions to a 32bit processor, how do you think AMD just turned the 64bit extensions off in the earlier socket 754 Semprons? (A "real" 64bit CPU would be something like an IBM POWER5 CPU)
Intel took AMD64, renamed it EMT64 and added it to the Pentium 4. A Pentium 4 with EMT64 is just as much a 64bit processor as an Athlon 64 with AMD64.
Could you show us how big perfomance increase comes from the additional cache? IIRC, 2M vs 4M was ~3-5% speed difference.
The programs that gained the biggest advantage from the extra cache were stuff like WinRAR, where having lots of cache helps performance a lot. Even then the difference was only 7% between the models with 2mb and 4mb of L2 cache.
What a historical picture, Hector Ruiz and Michael Dell shook hands on stage!
2006 IDF, Intel exec joked "I hate AMD". I would guess, 2007 IDF, Intel exec would joke "I hate Dell".
Dell low-cost efficiency + AMD low-cost efficiency = killer efficiency.
-Longan-
Post a Comment
<< Home