Thursday, April 26, 2007

Some note that Intel's HPC sales to USA dropped to 0

The trend is set. Scroll down the page and see the light:

"AS to the Intel rep, ask him for his druggist's name. Then ask him how many DARPA HPC awards for computer technology Intel received at SuperComputing '06 last November in Tampa despite having 30 core 2 Duo and 1 Quad core entries. The answer is 0. Then ask him how many AMD got and for which chip. The answer is 4 for the 939/940. IBM got the other 8. Ask him where Intel finished in DARPA's Petascale contract competition. Answer is last IBM split honors with AMD/Cray and IBM has agreed to make the P7 interchangable with the AM3+. Sun's Rock was 3rd. Intel's wonderful technology has shut them out of the HPC market through the end of 2010."

Intel systems can't scale due to the FSB bottleneck.

Opteron rules.

30 Comments:

Blogger doorknob_dan said...

In other news, some people have noted Sharikou's intelligence has always been at 0.

Citing other people's opinions is perhaps the lowest level of jouralistic capability that is possible.

Haven't got anything else interesting to do, Sharikou? Perhaps move out of your parents basement and get a job and contribute to society. Keep up the blog though, the responses from the readers are far more entertaining (and enlightening) than anything you have ever posted.

Ding-dong-Dan

2:01 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Mahboobul said...

Come on, Dan! Sharikou is an AMD evangelist who just reprinted some facts to the readers. It should help his cause. He is doing all he can do to keep people intereseted in AMD. After all the perecepion that AMD is way behind Intel is back in the market place. Let's hope his hype regarding K10 has real meat.

4:42 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger TheKhalif said...

Well, for the first time in a long time, there is something really interesting here.

I realized that Gartner/Mercury numbers leave a lot of things out, like Dell.

It seemed impossible that people are complaining about Dell getting so many chips while Dell has a build to order policy which says we only have returns in the warehouse for more than a few days.

I would say that those Dell numbers are about 4-7% of the market(AMD).

I just got an HP Home flyer and there is only AMD listed in mobile and desktop.

5:11 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger lex said...

Dell has so screwed AMD

Dell preordered and Hector like the cumm sucker he is loaded up Dresden with them orders. Then Dell found out that most people don't give a f*ck about AMD and once word got out that C2D rocks they ordered INTEL inside.

See the tilt in adds these days boys? Its all INTEL, where are the full page adds from AMD. There aren't any because there is NOTHING to advertise. You advertise cheap and people ask why so cheap. Answer, because the performance sucks.

Once all those chips came out Dell said no thankyou. AMD runs to the channel to try and sale and guess what happened, they all said we got INTEL don't need no sucky AMD chips.

AMD runs around with no buyers, drops prices again.. INTEL matches

And the losses pile up 600 million this quater, on track for 800 million next quarter. Goes to the debt market for 2 BILLION of debt.

WHO is going BK now "Ph"ony "D"octorate...

6:54 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Evil said...

What Ph(ake)d, no comment on AMD losing marketshare this past Q. Its horrific performance this past Q. And how about the fact to start this Q off a nice fat 1.8 BILLION dollar debt?

MMMMM... hmmmmm

6:55 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger mi7chy said...

Intel has poor scaling for multicore. It's so bad that it's like buying 3 cores for the price of 4. You heard it right. Pay for 4 cores and lose 1 due to poor scaling.

http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/woodcrest_performance_&_scaling_issues

7:46 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger lex said...

Speaking of cores..

"Ph"ony "D"octorate and follows have you thought about the huge liability and cost of doing a integrated quad-core on a single piece of silicon when you got one little 300mm factory on 65nm.

You got a huge 283mm^2 die. If any of the 4 cores got a single defect killing a transistor or one of the 9 metal layers you got a dead quadcore. Sure you can fuse it to a dual core, but you'll still have the clock tree burning power and all the transistors leaking in the other two cores. What a broken strategy.

Now look at INTEL. By choosing to integrated the cores 2 they reduce their senstivities to defects as they only got to yield their cores in pairs. Also any single core celeron only carries the burden of a single dead core overhead. Add to the fact INTEL choose to use lots of cache that permits repair you got high yield. Then you got the fact it is on 45nm and Penrym is what only 107mm^2 its almost laughable how AMD is approaching 65nm quadcore with one stinking factory and also chasing Dell and Market Share.

Hector is about as much a "Ph"ony "D"octorate in management is said blogger here.

AMD is going to be BK soon.

Quadcore bankrupt strategy is so obvious.

Now do any of you guys comprehend AMDs huge problem with Barcebalogna regardless of how fast it is it gurantees AMD will go BK.

9:12 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger mi7chy said...

Intel Poor Multicore Scaling

Get 3 cores for the price of 4 (lose 1 of 4 cores due to poor scaling).

Working url:

http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/tags/scaling

9:26 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger abinstein said...

"Sure you can fuse it to a dual core, but you'll still have the clock tree burning power and all the transistors leaking in the other two cores."

You have completely no idea, dude. Barcelona has the ability to adjust clocks of 4 cores independently. If two cores are disabled it's simple matter to shut down their clock trees.

Intel's quad-core has poor scalability due to the slow die-to-die connection of MCM. It's certainly not a good strategy for the customers, and if you don't think so, then you're just a stupid customer.

10:49 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Roborat, Ph. D. said...

how many awards did Alpha had when it was still around? 24! Who owns the Alpha now?

Who do you think will own all of AMD's IPs in Q2'08?

quick make guess...

11:31 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

AMD is totally fragged. Intel will launch Penryn in July, with a state of the art 45nm high-k process. By doing this they have totally prefragged Barcelona.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31804/118/

Since AMD will be using an outdated 65nm process with a huge die size to build a quad core it will be expensive to produce. Intel, thanks to a 45nm process and taking the MCM route will be able to deliver plentiful supplies of Penryn.

But, who knows, AMD might delay Barcelona a few times like they did with R600.

AMD BK Q2'08 or maybe even sooner. At the rate Intel is moving at, taking 6% market share a quarter, AMD will only have 1% market share left after Q4'07.

11:53 PM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Intel Fanboi said...

The Khalif,
Congratulations! You just passed Penix as Sha Ri Kou's dumbest follower.

12:31 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Paul said...

something interesting here as well..
The picture says it all, Superior design from superior architecture.

ftp://ftp.tyan.com/img_barebones/
gt26b4987/gt26b4987_top.jpg

A supercomputer in 1U, TYAN GT26
8-cores t-day 16 cores t-morrow.
Try to do that with and Intel CPU!

1:27 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Randy Allen said...

Wow! 8 Cores in a 4P server! Too bad Intel can do that in a 2P server. Tigerton is coming in Q3 and IBM will produce servers up to 32P. AMD is for ultra low end 4 and 8P only.

Paul Ottelini is in an enviable situation right now. He spoke with authority these days, knowing AMD will soon be totally destroyed by Penryn.

1:52 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger mi7chy said...

Intel might be able to hack a lot of cores into a server but the real question is how many of those cores will be useless due to poor scaling?

Let's see:

http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/tags/scaling

Intel
2-cores lose a 1/3 of a core
4-cores lose 1 core

You see the trend? It gets ugly really fast as with Intel the more cores you have the higher the penalty due to poor architecture.

5:58 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger KingRichard said...

Ro-Borat, Ph. D. said...
how many awards did Alpha had when it was still around? 24! Who owns the Alpha now?

You mean... Intel bought Alpha, and lost the 24 awards they had with Alpha? I mean... Intel has 0 awards... so that's a loss of the 24, no?

Man... Intel DOES Suck! Thanx for proving the point!

7:23 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger symbiansn said...

Intelees do have a point, AMD is doomed... before they raise the usual spankfest up again of course.

K10 will take share from Core 2.
Penryn with monolythic bus is pre-fragged.
Nehalem may compete against K10 when still at 65nm.

AMD haven't only more patents related to CPU logic than Intel but theirs are of most significance too (*cough* Hypertransport *cough*)

AMD put their technology into real practice.

History will repeat itself again. Buy AMD at $5.

8:31 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger fomitchev said...

IMHO Intel conspired with Dell to kill AMD.

It was a win-win situation for both Intel and Dell: Dell got dirt-chip CPUs and Intel got its vengeance. I am convinced it was a planned act by the two. And AMD was stupid enough to fall into the trap.

When AMD was operating at 100% capacity they decided to sell chips at a discount (!) to Dell in hopes of increased volume in the long run. On one hand this is a reasonable strategy, but devil is in the details. AMD has gone Dell when the company could not produce enough chips to satisfy the market demand (Q3/06). By choosing to sell chips at steep discount AMD deprived itself from much needed cash (as you sure know AMD has a long history of financial troubles, especially now).

In accord with the deal with AMD Dell has sucked in many chips but then (presumably in conspiring with Intel) did not use them all; perhaps it never planned to. The end result was that Dell absorbed AMD’s chips when they were in highest demand; in return AMD got small revenue due to deep discount of the sale. Thus AMD shipped hot chips, but got little money.

Months later Dell back-paddled on the order and returned the massive inventory of chips to AMD. WTF? Was Hector desperate enough to get Dell’s business to sign a non-binding agreement? The end result was that AMD got many of its chips back, when Intel was already in the lead with the new Core 2 processors. AMD not only had to pay back a substantial portion of whatever little money Dell paid for the chips, but also ended up stuck with sizeable inventory of chips that now were obsolete (few months is a lot of time in the chips market), the market price of the chips was a lot less than in Q3/06, and market opinion stared to sway back towards Intel. There was not possibly a worse moment for AMD to refund the sale and accept a load of old chips in its inventory, which instantly ballooned. Essentially a sizable chunk of AMD’s Q3/06 production went completely to waste.

This sounds too damn precise of a strike against AMD to be a mere coincidence. I think Intel and Dell cleverly exploited Hector’s delusions of grandeur. I am sure it was a planned strike on behalf of Intel and Dell, although this probably cannot be proven. Indeed, can one come up with a more clever way to sink a company?

8:34 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

mi7chy
"It gets ugly really fast as with Intel the more cores you have the higher the penalty due to poor architecture"

It doesn't rellally matter, 128 cores will still be faster than 32, no matter what interconnect you use.


kingrichard
"Man... Intel DOES Suck! Thanx for proving the point!"

What's the point of having lots of awards if you are poor as rat.


symbiansn
"AMD haven't only more patents related to CPU logic than Intel but theirs are of most significance too (*cough* Hypertransport *cough*)"

HT is irrevelant and it is an open standard so anyone can build their system around HT practically for free. Since some time ago same goes for FSB.

9:08 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger TheKhalif said...

The Khalif,
Congratulations! You just passed Penix as Sha Ri Kou's dumbest follower.


If I were a follower I would name myself "'insert name' Fanboi"

I don't usually even post here because I never agree and get sick of people like you.

9:50 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Aguia said...

HT is irrevelant and it is an open standard so anyone can build their system around HT practically for free. Since some time ago same goes for FSB.

Are you talking of Intel FSB?

If yes, you do know that VIA/SIS/ATI/NVIDIA has to pay to Intel each time Intel bumps the FSB a little (400»533»667»800»1066»1333)?
Same bus = different speed = new license = new payment.
I wonder why Intel is profitable.

Maybe AMD should make the others pay to. Already starting with socket AM2+. Chipset or mother board makers some one as to pay for using the Socket or bus.
The world isn’t made of charity, just ask Intel bank account.

9:56 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger symbiansn said...

ho ho

It doesn't rellally matter, 128 cores will still be faster than 32, no matter what interconnect you use.

128 Clovertown cores against 32 super-scalable K10's should have a dawn close fighting.

What's the point of having lots of awards if you are poor as rat.

What's the point of collegials like Bill Gates, Paul Allen and then Microsoft at all so? Fight and win, that's what AMD do round after round.

HT is irrevelant and it is an open standard so anyone can build their system around HT practically for free. Since some time ago same goes for FSB.

Hypertransport is an Itanium-trasher. Intel started crying their pennies spent with EPIC and IA-64 development short after AMD depleted super-scalable technology.

10:03 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

aguia
"If yes, you do know that VIA/SIS/ATI/NVIDIA has to pay to Intel each time Intel bumps the FSB a little "

Not any more.

11:17 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger abinstein said...

"IMHO Intel conspired with Dell to kill AMD."

It is an interesting theory.

Except that it is equally likely that Dell returned AMD chips simply because it wasn't able to sell them, due to Intel's more competitive offers (lower priced P-4 and better "perceived" performing C2D).

In either way, Dell is losing more share against HP, so whatever "strategy" it took didn't benefit the company.

On the other hand, the success of Intel against AMD last year IMO comes from the ability to sway the opinions of hundreds of on-line sites and millions of PC buyers by "selective benchmarking" tactics.

11:36 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger abinstein said...

"It doesn't rellally matter, 128 cores will still be faster than 32, no matter what interconnect you use."

This is wrong. The more cores you have the more important the interconnect is. 128 cores will be faster than 32 cores with the same interconnect at the same frequency, but it is very possible that 128 cores become slower than 32 cores when the latter use a superior interconnect technology.

11:38 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger abinstein said...

"HT is irrevelant and it is an open standard so anyone can build their system around HT practically for free."

No, not for coherent HT that is used for inter processor connections (which is what's relevant here).

11:40 AM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger lex said...

Does INTEL suck or what

1.6 Billion profits on 8.9 revenue
45nm x86 products already up and working and soon to be in production
4 45nm 300mm factories on track to be up in less then a year
4 65nm 300mm factories rocking C2D
3 90nm 300mm factories cranking chipsets and PentiumDs.


AMD is kicking ass..

Barcebalogna now where to be found with less then a quarter to go..
600 + Million dollar loss
Just added another 2 billion debt to the books at 6%+
Slowing ramp on their single 65nm 300mm factory
Got no 45nm technology nor 45nm factory on the horizon.

AMD is a rocking and rolling... LOL

Is it no wonder Sharikou is a "Ph"ony "D"octorate PhD?

You fanbois should spendmore time playing video games then being stupid sheep following the "Ph"ony.
You know if you were in Japan you might actually be mistaken for a dog.

4:54 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

abinstein
"This is wrong"

So why are those huge boxes made? Are you seriously trying to say that those multi million dollar boxes are sold only thanks to marketing?

"No, not for coherent HT that is used for inter processor connections (which is what's relevant here). "

If cHT isn't an open standard then why AMD has been talking about it that much? Isn't Torrenza an open standard?

5:04 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Tim said...

"TheKhalif said...

I don't usually even post here because I never agree and get sick of people like you."

Yeah - he's was over at THG a lot spewing Sharidouche style nonsense.....

7:25 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Randy Allen said...

It's blatantly obvious now:- AMD fanboys have nothing left to argue now that Intel simply wipes AMD out across all market segments. Nvidia wipes out all AMD's GPUs with ease. 8800 GTX is twice as fast as X1950 XTX GPU. Clovertown frags Opteron by 79%.

So they do the only thing they have left to do:- complain about the FSB and Intel's integrated graphics.

Not that it matters, AMD's market share will be only 1% after Q4'07. AMD is finished.

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy one of the fastest desktop computers money can buy, powered by a lovely Quad Core 2.4Ghz (Got to love those price cuts! Who cares if AMD goes BK?) Kentsfield CPU and a Geforce 8800 GTX. More than enough to frag a 4x4 spaceheater while using half the power for CPUs.

7:26 PM, April 27, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home