AMD's Secrets Revealed 119
Techman writes "Three days ago AnandTech brought you a glimpse of Intel's plans for 2001. Now they're following up the coverage with AMD's roadmap for the next year and on into 2002. Does AMD have what it takes to continue their incredible winning streak, or will AMD return to the state they were in before their recent success?"
Re:Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:1)
AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:3)
AMD have always had poor luck with their own processor designs, and seem to stuck following in the footsteps of Intel when it comes to inovation. They've created some compitition in the short term with their cheaper CPU's, sure, but thats only been in the last year or so.
The future is a little more murky. Their x86-64 architecture isn't compatible with Intels IA-64 architecture. Aside from the fact that the x86 instruction set is crap anyway, Microsoft have no plans to support x86-64, instead choosing their long standing partnership with Intel and focusing on the IA-64.
Now, i know that there are people working on Linux, *BSD ports to x86-64 etc. but that is not going to carry AMD into the next decade by any margin. Without industry standards and support for their architecture, they are going to die, pure and simple. We all know how poor Microsoft are at supporting anything other than Intel as well, so don't hold your breath for them (And others) to support two diferent systems.
At the moment, it's AMD 1, Intel 0. But thats going to change pretty quickly, and thats a fact.
T. Lee
Re:SSE and the like (Score:1)
Intel is going to develop all of these instructions and then AMD can just implement them in one of their future chipsets.
They arent "betting" a whole lot on these instructions either, its just something for an edge, even a small one which can mean everything in a highly competative world
Jeremy
duron not cheap enough? Re:AMD Roadmap? (Score:1)
You're bitching about a ~$47 for 600Mhz cpu not being cheap enough when you're using SCSI for your disk subsystem? Are you nuts? ;-)
With regard to the MB price difference, I can sort of see your point but the delta only looks to be 20-30 dollars... (I'm looking at www.pricewatch.com for general prices and www.essencom.com (<--been a satisfied customer there several times) for specifics.).
(Oh, sorry, the retail box with fan & heatsink Duron at 650Mhz from essencom is a whopping $75... heh heh On pricewatch the lowest price is 47 for a back-o-the-truck-special duron 600)
--
Re:Check those numbers. (Score:2)
Could be issue latency to account for the frequency domain changes. They may have to throw in an extra clock every N clocks to keep the PLLs happy.
---
UMA on PCs? (Score:1)
This will be a great thing for cheap systems, if they can get the bandwidth there. Of course, it probably means we'll be stuck with the video solution that is provided with the chipset (like the blasted CRM graphics on my 5-year old UMA-architechture O2), but it still will be interseting to see how this unfolds.
I haven't looked at a processor roadmap for a while (heck, since Intel announced Celerons with cache!)... does anyone know if Intel is planning the same core architechture move? I recognize that the i740 graphics and successors were a step in this direction, but are there plans for the future?
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
It does run x86 code, but is designed for IA-64 (NOT X86). Curiously, most of the /. crowd is bashing Intel for this because it won't run x86 code as fast as a Pentium 4. The Hammer series from AMD is a 64bit version of x86, with all the problems that traditional x86 chips have. It may work out in the short term, but I would much have a 3rd generation IA-64 bit chip than a 3rd generation Hammer chip.
I just pray that whithin 10 years Intel releases an IA-64 based chip that is NOT backwards compatible. For God's sake, it's time to cut the cord...
We'll see (Score:1)
One of the reasons why I think that SUN will buy AMD is because in order to be successful at making processors, you have to sell lots to pay for development, production, new fabs and so on. So how long will SUN keep making their own processors (ps: I know that TI fabs their CPUs but they still develop them)? It would make sense for SUN to acquire AMD because they seem destined to introduce a cheap and good workstation that sells lots. And since the Sledgehammer will have the server goodies (good bus, scallability, tons of cache, etc), it will happily fit in a server line. They have already stated that Solaris will be ported to x86-64.
Intel and AMD will produce lots of fast processors for cheap. SUN knows that eventually people will see that a x86-64 or ia-64 trounces the US-III with no problem. They will need real performance and a good price. Intel and AMD don't make toys like they used to (except in terms of FP which is due to the x87 isa and not the hardware, and which will be replaced in both ia-64 and x86-64). The best net profits come from hardware support anyway and not development + sales.
Sorry if what I said was a bit incoherent, there is a lot on my mind at the moment. But I do think that before next summer, SUN will have bought AMD because of what I said and more. The only two unknown variables that I can think of right now are MAJc and SUN's pride towards using the Alpha bus, which I was told but can not say whether or not it's true, which is somewhat not as good as SUN's own.
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:1)
well established 64 bit market.
So, where can I get one of these 64bit machines for $2K that will run Windows ME?
I expect Intel/AMD are entering the 64bit market in order to bring it to the home user. That 64bit market is nonexistent, and won't exist until they create it and leave the 32bit home user market behind.
-- LoonXTall
"Microsoft is the only vendor as of yet that has a fix...."
Eh? (Score:2)
Chipsets have been capable of doing that for years.
For example: 100 x 4.5 = 450MHz
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:2)
This is why I think Intel has just sunk billions into what will become Just Another Chip, the non-x86 Itanium. It will join the Alpha, MIPS, Power, Sparc, and others in a crowded server-chip market.
AMD, on the other hand, is going to make a fortune on the x86-64 platform, dominating the NT-or-Linux server market running a mix of x86-32 and x86-64 software. Intel will desperately adapt the Pentium V to handle AMD's 64-bit extensions, and probably run afoul of a judiciously-placed AMD patent. AMD will wind up getting royalties on every Pentium V, and eventually overthrow Intel as the #1 chipmaker.
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
Give it a rest. Don't be such a heavy. This is a forum for information exchange. We can't all be experts in every branch of comp sci.
BTW you missed on the interpretation of developer: the author wasn't referring to software developers, but chip developers/manufacturers.
So take your own advice and someone please mod this inappropriate rant down.
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
Re:? about AMD and VA Linux (Score:1)
Re:Eh? (Score:1)
But instead of giving the clock period, marketeers give the frequency because it increases at every generation. It would be hard to sell something with ever lower and lower figures. When you see things like memory chips, they are rated as PC100 or PC133, but actually the chips are marked with the access time. Of course it is the stupidity of Joe user which makes many vendors able to sell 3-3-3 memory when 2-2-2 is much better (and there latency is very important).
AMD's success? Intel's woes. (Score:1)
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:2)
It's weird cause I actually had heard the exact opposite a couple of months ago. Microsoft had prefered the x86-64 because it was more backward compatible with the current CPUs architecture.
Guess that would have to be double-checked.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
Re:Duron a hit in Europe? (Score:1)
Re:AMD will go back to being incompetent (Score:1)
I see where I am unclear, when I say CAD I mean having the computer come up with the logic and the circuitry, I know they use computers to actually design but its humans doing the design, not a program.
AMD 760 (Score:1)
Re:roadmap (Score:1)
I'm not stupid (OT) (Score:1)
Okay, okay, the thing is I do a lot of CD burning so transfer from the harddrive to the cd writer is the most important step, not raw processing power. I got a scsi drive basically free so instead of spending the extra 70+ whatever dollars on duron, I went celeron and put those 70 bucks into a controller. That's all.
Re:Duron a hit in Europe? (Score:1)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Engineers can measure and compare all they like but those crystals will never be perfect, which is why the numbers are approximated. Since the difference in rated and actual frequency is negligable it's generally considered acceptable to do so.
I'm fully aware of vendors' dirty pool in their marketing schemes, but how exactly does that apply to actual frequency calculation?
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
Re:Here's why. (Score:1)
Hey, don't knock Olds...back in the day, they developed most of the new stuff (automatic transmissions, front-wheel drive, etc.) that eventually appeared in other GM divisions' products. Especially in the era of the Rocket V8s, Olds engines were a Good Thing (TM) to have, used to some extent by everybody but Chevy (an Olds engine would've been too expensive to put in a Chevy, but Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac used a few).
If I had to compare processors to cars, the P4 would be a Cimarron [johnnysgarage.com] (a J-car from Cadillac is still a J-car) and the Athlon would be more like a 442 [442.com] (lots of power for a not-unreasonable price). :-)
Don't knock "your father's Oldsmobile." :-) (Hell, mine isn't all that different from his...a '77 vs. his '73.)
Re:266Mhz FSB? (Score:1)
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
GaAs and other technologies (Score:1)
Re:SSE and the like (Score:1)
a). Adding SSE2 was directly responsible for the 79% speedup of P4's SPECfp score over P3/Athlon. The instructions are superior to the X87 instructions which the other ones use. This is "innovation"
b). AMD is copying SSE2 on the Sledgehammer project.
Re:AMD Roadmap? (Score:1)
Re:Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Amen, Brother (Score:1)
I care less about a name, so I won't pay premium for BMW if some other company comes up with equally good product for less.
Returning to the topic of AMD - don't you think that one of the reasons for AMD not being used in the corporate environment is the corporate obsession with DELL, the only Intel-only big PC manufacturer?
Re:Duron a hit in Europe? (Score:1)
Re:AMD will go back to being incompetent (Score:1)
Still not stupid (Score:1)
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
Why is it unfortunate? It would be a huge error to waste billions of lines of code written for x86 just in order to get some theoretical improvement in speed.
And in any case if you really need serious performance why not get an Alpha? Few people do actual computations and for most it is really unimportant whether the architecture is x86 or not.
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
That 20-Stage Pipeline (Score:1)
Re:Check those numbers. (Score:1)
How can they claim that both the 200 and 266MHz FSB CPUs are the same speed? That simply violates the FSB x multiplier rule (1100 / 266 = 4.135338345865; 1200 / 266 = 4.511278195489). I seriously don't expect a chipset to be able to set its multiplier to a non-integer setting.
SSE and the like (Score:2)
I ask myself: why bother? Don't they see that playing their cards on such proprietary instructions is a very bad thing?
I remember that not a lot of people complained when Intel decided to introduce Slot1, and I still don't know why. It looked perfectly clear that Slot1 wasn't necessary at that time and Intel was doing it to screw AMD and Cyrix over. (Only Intel's processors would be Slot1, and you wouldn't be able to use both on the same motherboard).
It didn't work quite like they expected, even with their quite large market share. At this moment the situation's even worse, and I can't see a very good future to the ones who decide to fragment the market like this.
Not only this is bad for Intel, it's bad for us (developers AND consumers) as well. AMD also occasionally releases new instructions, even less successful than Intel's.
I, as a developer, wouldn't want to write my software 3 different times to make them compatible with (a) old MMX-only machines; (b) AMD's processors and (c) Intel's processors.
People in general, as consumers, wouldn't get software that's optimized for anything because developers aren't _willing_ to optimize their stuff.
The bottomline: everyone loses.
Note that I don't blame Intel for this practice. The new instructions are good for marketing and they NEED to get out because they are intelligent solutions to coding problems. AMD thinks the same way. The problem is we need compatibility.
Flavio
Re:Heat issues (Score:2)
Kryotech.com [kryotech.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:SSE and the like (Score:1)
AMD implemented MMX because Intel owned the place and because there were absolutely NO previous DSP instructions in the x86 family.
Now Intel doesn't own anything more, and AMD wouldn't bother to implement their instructions for 2 reasons:
a. They already have their equivalent ones.
b. They don't wish to bow down to Intel in any way.
I wouldn't downplay SSE's importance either, because _every single article_ mentions it as a point where Intel prevails. On the marketing side, SSE is great, since Intel pays a couple of companies to develop some products with SSE extensions and shows off how fast the processor is. [Since we're discussing marketing, why exactly do you suppose Intel is pushing their processors' clock instead of striving for a better processor/MHz ratio? That's part of the reason]. On the technical side it's also good, but as I've said, it's bound to fail.
Flavio
roadmap (Score:1)
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:2)
I dunno. If they can get x86-64 on the market before IA-64, then people will start buying them even if they just run the same old 32-bit software, as long as it is able to run that software faster than 32-bit processors. That could lead to enough of an installed base that Microsoft will have to consider it. Microsoft has always utterly depended on the legacy. Do you think anyone would bother with Win2000 if it couldn't run any Win9x applications? Would they bother with it if they couldn't try it out on their existing hardware? No way. If x86-64 can get a large enough installed base before IA-64 hits, then AMD will become a part of the legacy that Microsoft needs.
I think the Microsoft and its herd will follow whoever happens to be the price/performance leader aming 386-compatables. If that turns out to be x86-64, then MS won't hesitate to stab Intel in the back.
---
Re:AMD will go back to being incompetent (Score:1)
okay so they didnt really steal it, aquired it then.
All I know is... (Score:2)
The K7 to my knowledge doesn't have a serial number on it that other people can happily query for.
Whereas it's possible for the P4 to be faster at new software compiled and built with new extensions, etc. The Athlon is faster at what's running now and appears to be a better PIII than the PIII.
SMP + Slightly upped MHZ = sweet right now.
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:1)
Your analysis appears to be 2 years behind the times. Oops.
Re:Here's why. (Score:1)
Resorting to the worn-out automobile line of analogies, it looks to me like AMD needs to spin off a differently named company to sell the "quality" line of (really AMD) processors. Pull an "Acura" in other words.
Re:Duron a hit in Europe? (Score:1)
* Or "Athlon with enhanced cache", but personally I think that's a long-winded and silly name.
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
I'll answer that one. (Score:3)
It all depends on how soon Intel will release a DDR chipset, and whether it resembles the stability of the 440BX or the follies of the 820. If Intel can make a nice clean DDR chipset compliant with the DDR standards (as they have promised to do), then Intel could have the fastest desktop x86 setup out there. Of course, they already do, but cost is prohibitive and the demon Rambus has not yet been dispatched to the pits of hell. A price drop and a DDR chipset for the P4 could very well be the tolling bell for the Athlon.
266Mhz FSB? (Score:2)
AMD will go back to being incompetent (Score:2)
Maybe the future will be different but so far AMD has failed to create its own designs.
AMD has a good plan, take other companies great designs and use them as their own. It works well if you have designs to buy, but its hard creating a company when you dont have the ability to innovate. They got the Athlon design from some small company that they purchased, the name escapes me.
The p4 will come out in newer revs with faster clockspeeds, DDR support, .13u technology, and copper interconnects and when it does it will kick ass, the NetBurst technology will really help when it gets up to 2Ghz speeds. On the lowpower market we have the low power p3 and on the server market we have the Itanium that will become widely accepted. AMD looks like its in a good position now, but it should go down dramatically in the future years.
jbischof
Price price price price Price price price price (Score:2)
----
Duron a hit in Europe? (Score:3)
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:3)
The PowerPC is very nice processor. IIRC, IBM has released open "PC like" MB designs based on the PowerPC - with an invitation for anyone to manufacture them. Any takers so far?
Unfortunately, giving up on x86 binary compatability is still considered to big a risk for PC/MB producers. Even us open source OS users recognize that there will be that occasional binary driver or commercial software that we need to run and it's only available for x86.
Ever see NetBSD on a G4 cube? I did at Comdex/LBE and it's nice, reportedly much faster than equivalent Pentiums but expensive...
Better stuff is already out there, but it's the old cliche of BetaMax vs. VHS - the product with mass market appeal will continue to reign.
Re:The Truth (Score:2)
If only they tested the damn second serial port on the new 2130's...
I had to use one of those motherboard serial cables that waste a slot (quite valuable in a 2U). I found one in a box 'o' cables and it worked. Then we told VA (we asked for two serials in the first place) and they sent us a box of them, all different. None of them worked. I can get the winmodem in my notebook working, but not a simple external USR 28800?
Tested, huh?
Maybe I'm angry because my thumb is still a little scarred from removing a hard drive from one a couple of weeks ago. Ouch.
? about AMD and VA Linux (Score:3)
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:2)
I'm also questioning their reasoning in the 64 bit market. However, AMD and Intel are BOTH new players in the well established 64 bit market. I'm looking at their entry into that market more from a perspective that it'll push prices of established 64 bit processors down. AMD would have been smart to have licensed MIPS or Alpha 64 bit technology, which they could have been producing 6 months ago. Sledgehammer's going to have to be pretty damn impressive to convince me to move to it. But the 64 bit playing field is the level one AMD can use to compete against Intel.
And keep in mind that Microsoft has traditionally not done well in the 64 bit market. Perhaps the Itanium will give them the incentive they need to move over. Right know all we know about Windows for IA64 is that it boots, which it also did on the Alpha (And we all know how well THAT went.) Perhaps AMD's betting that Windows won't do well on IA64 and that sledgehammer will give all those Windows addicts a place to turn.
Someone had to put all that chaos there!
______ "Our 'n about"
\_bi_/
Re:Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:2)
I don't know (Score:1)
From the Fortune Program (Score:2)
From the fortune program that came with my Linux distro (red-hat).
SOI (Score:2)
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
Re:Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:1)
Quake and Email..
Followed by..
StarOffice/MSOffice
Napster/Gnutella (hopefully)/ICQ/AIM/etc
None of which need massive numbercrushing power..
Followed by a small black dot on the horizon which is all the applications combined that need more than 650Mhz!
Spend your dimes on RAM/HD/NERF toys..
Re:I'll keep on waiting... (Score:1)
Well, yeah... but, don't you think that might be overkill?
Benefits of SIMD processing (Score:1)
They're extremely useful for 3D graphics and signal processing and can speed those up quite a bit. I'd still rather see some dedicated signal processors on add-on cards, but that would cause a whole lot of new bus traffic.
Anyway all those software synthesizers and cool multimedia stuff can really benefit from floating point SIMD, since it can basically speed up common floating point operations by 200-300%. e.g. digital filters usually mostly use multiply and add and that's what SIMD speeds up. SSE2 seems to do to double floats the same that SSE did to single floats.
Tunnel vision (Score:3)
However the question I have is... is either company looking into and/or developing something not based on x86 architecture?
Isn't there going to be some point where the developers have to sit back and realize that they've done all they can with it?
I realize that this will potentially cause huge problems both in hardware and software but I think both companies would be doing themselves a favor to start planning for that day now.
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:2)
Well, let's look at the P4's biggest weapon: SSE2. That is NOT x86. Sure, it's ostensibly x86 because it's in an x86 chip, but that's it. SSE2 will require completely new compilers. The way I see it, when you have to re-write significant portions of a compiler, you've just made a serious architecture change.
And pay more attention - Intel's Itanium is most *DEFINETLY* not an x86 processor.
Isn't there going to be some point where the developers have to sit back and realize that they've done all they can with it?
Okay, most developers won't give a crap - 90% of them don't write compilers or use ASM, they use something on top of that. All you *might* need to worry about is performance. So, to sum up, most developers won't care if their stuff is running on x86 or ia64 or x86-64; so long as they can simply re-compile their application.
Good lord, don't talk about what you don't know about. And don't insult anybody/anything unless you're damned sure that you're right.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:SSE and the like (Score:1)
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
My guess is that future processor innovations will retain an x86 emulation or dynamic translation capability so that the huge investments in x86 code don't get lost. AFAIK this is exactly the kind of thing IA64 is supposed to do -- half-limp in x86 mode or fly in native mode (if you believe the marketing...)
It would seem really unlikely at this point that Intel, AMD or anyone else in the x86 space would jettison that technology for a totally incompatible processor, even if it offered logarithmic increases in performance. In fact, x86 compatibility is so important Transmeta has designed a CPU around emulating it (bit of an overstatement, but you get the idea).
Re:Check those numbers. (Score:1)
non-integer number
So that makes it all clear for 1.2GHz tb, but 1100MHz and one gig parts are still strange, as the 1.1GHz would need 0.125 step... well, maybe the new chipset does support those as well.
Re:SSE and the like (Score:1)
I just dont see how SSE Is that big of a deal, and AMD can always enahnce SSE (3DNow) etc, its all basically the same thing.
Jeremy
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:3)
-_Quinn
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:1)
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
1. There will never be dual-proc P4 motherboards.
2. You know what a non-existent chip's (the Palomino core has not been released) performance will be.
Get back to me on that, if you could.
Re:I'll answer that one. (Score:1)
Without the use of the silly P4 optimizations that intel is trying to get pushed through, 1x1.2GHz Thunderbird with PC133 SDRAM is faster than 1x1.5GHz Pentium IV with PC800 RDRAM at everything but playing Quake III. It remains to be seen if Whistler will be successfully built with Intel's optimizations; If not, the Pentium IV will not be as successful as Intel may hope.
Re:AMD are always going to be the also rans... (Score:3)
Re:AMD Roadmap? (Score:1)
First, I'll take your capitalized "so" as sarcasm and reply...why yes, yes it is faster...by 100MHz. That would be 100 Million cycles a second. That is a lot. lets see that would be 1/9th or about 11.1%. Now lets see when you had a 66MHz cpu and your buddy had a 166MHz cpu you were completely blown away. Sure it's a different ratio, but it is still a sizeable step. It's not like they have produced a 933MHz cpu and claimed it made a difference.
Second, if you're building a "low end" processor why the hell are you throwing SCSI at it? If it's low end SCSI doesn't/shouldn't even cross your mind.
Re:AMD Roadmap? (Score:1)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
The mhz ratings on chips are approximate, to boot. The only part of the equation that's exact is the multiplier. The bus speed always varies a little bit from its rated value, and even if it were exact you aren't going to get nice clean numbers (as in multiples of 33 or 100) by multiplying bus speeds like 66 or 133mhz.
The Celeron 333 was actually 66 x 5 = 330mhz for example, and that doesn't even take into account that the bus isn't actually running dead-on 66mhz.
AFCArchvile, some research before posting maybe? Not that it matters I suppose, people who know even less keep modding you up anyway.
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
Battlestar Galactica?????? (Score:1)
Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:1)
Re:I'll keep on waiting... (Score:1)
This post is fake. (Score:1)
AMD Roadmap? (Score:3)
What I think's impressive is that they're actually meeting their demand. That was always AMD's biggest problem (besides the fact that every product was a direct Intel knockoff ;) - they could never turn out enough chips. Seems like they finally turned that around with the Athlon.
However, the article did raise at least one important point - for a "low end" processor, the duron's just not cheap enough! I'm assembling my own computer right now, and I chose to go with a celeron because the Duron chips and compatible motherboards were just more, and I preferred to put the extra money into some things that really enhance performance for me, like a SCSI card and more RAM.
Of course, as soon as DDR is budget priced, I see myself putting together a different system altogether...
Re:266Mhz FSB? (Score:2)
266 Mhz front side bus does not make much difference in terms of performance however. Mostly the increas is due to DDR memory.
Re:Here's why. (Score:3)
Naturally, this applies somewhat differently to the /. kind of crowd. It is possible for someone to build their own box that has an Athlon chip in it that is still a quality machine. I just built my own machine and it has an Athlon 800 chip in it and a real 3Com NIC and a video card with it's own RAM. This however isn't the usual case when you buy a preassembled AMD machine. These are often the budget models that have a winmodem, shared video RAM and all manner of other shortcuts. This reflects badly on AMD and when combined with their lack of support for dual processors rules them out in the high end mass market.
_____________
Re:AMD Roadmap? (Score:2)
Re:Here's why. (Score:3)
I think that's what they have done to a certian extent. When they launched the Athlon they wisely decided not to refer to it as K7. Not only did they change the name associated with their CPU but it was also the fastest chip on the market when launched. Now a little over a year later they've managed to look less like a Geo ("It'll get you there and back, but don't expect too much.") into more of a Chevorlet ("Quality, full featured automobile at a fair price."). Now with their recent development of dual processor capable motherboards they may be approaching something on the lines of a Pontiac ("Good performance, quality machine, low cost."). While Intel is starting to look more and more like an Oldsmobile ("A nice comfortable car for fuddy-duddies.")
My apologies to those of you who aren't from the US. I realize that these auto brands aren't exported very often and you might not be all that familiar with them. Also, I apologize for the slogans, it should be quite clear why I am in computer programming rather than advertising.
_____________
Re:GaAs and other technologies (Score:2)
benchmarks, bottom lines, and upgrade paths. (Score:2)
The only thing that really counts, in the end, is what is your overall performance, and what do you have to pay to get that performance.
Reviews on anandtech, tom's hardware, and hardocp all indicate that the 1.5 GHZ P4 is essentially equivalent to a 1.0-1.2 GHZ Athlon. A 1GHZ Athlon can be had for under $300 : a 1.5 GHZ P4 is running at a touch over $1000.
The socket 423 that the P4 fits in is going out by early next year: OTOH, there don't appear to be any plans to phase out socket A any time soon. This leads me to think that the Athlon will be more upgradeable.
At the very least, you can start with a Duron now and get an Athlon later- the same cannot be said for the celeron/p4 scenario.
RDRAM is more expensive than SDRAM and has marginal performance benefit. DDR-SDRAM will reduce this benefit to nothing in real world tasks.
For those of you that buy on brand, buy Intel: if you buy based on real numbers, buy AMD.
Re:Tunnel vision (Score:2)
The x86 comes in through a translation layer (kind of like the PowerPC's translation of the old 68K ops).
In fact, Intel changed their entire strategy so that they could make the market ready for the IA-64.. The main issue is that we wanted to have high band-width memory that could work with many many simultaneous memory requests.. We wanted deep pipelines, and speculative out-of-order operations. We wanted to make heavy use of instruction caching.. These are all the sorts of technology Intel has been trying to force feed the industry (See RDRAM).. The reason for this was that Italium (IA-64) is a super-pipelined, multi-way, parallel-op processor that can do all of it's memory prefetching at the beginning of every function call speculatively (meaning that it can even survive accidental illegal-memory references, much like with C++ exeptions.. Fast on the norm, slow on the rarely found case of an exception).
Intel needed motherboards in place that demonstrated to the public the ability to handle large CPU's with heavy power loads. Multi-path memory structures that work best in a pipelined manner where latency wasn't even an issue (most memory accesses in IA-64 aren't needed for many many instructions).. Additionally, they needed to address the huge CPU to memory disparity. The ability to handle concurrent operation (a la SPARC). In short, Intel has basically taken ideas from just about every CPU manufacturer that I've ever heard of.
Thankfully, the industry has benifited by some of Intel's exuberance. We've had the war of the memory architectures which has given us DDR-SDRAM. We have massive transistor busses.. We have competition with Alphas and SPARCs (since their turf has officially been shared). We have competing ideas for how a high-end server should look (see AMD's K8 line).
For better or worse, IA-64 is here today.. Even if nobody buys it 2 years from now.
-Michael
AMD's bet (Score:3)
Second is the 64 bit stuff. x86-64 is one of the lamest ideas to come out of a high tech company since boo.com, and everyone who so much as looks at the name knows it. The only way it could go anywhere is if the competition was, what, several years late, having difficulty ramping to high clock speeds, requiring major new compiler technology, and probably many more things as well. Since they've met the first few requirements, I'll hold off on judgement.
They are counting on Intel to screw up. From the past, this may work. It's not really a good thing to count on. Innovation often fails too, but I hope they don't just go into a holding pattern with the Athlon. That was a big win for them; to do well they have to follow it up with others now.
I'll keep on waiting... (Score:2)
The Truth (Score:3)
The truth is, Intel was one of VA's original financial backers, and Intel is still DEEP into VA's pockets. They have an "Intel Deal" and that's about all there is to it.
VA will tell you, "there's more to it than that, you have to realize that we make sure EVERY componant on a motherboard and system is FULLY functional in Linux before we aprove it for use. We have done a lot of software engineering for Intel systems, and it will take a lot of time to do it for AMD systems." But, that's bullshit. With all of VA's staff and resources, and the whole open source community porting to every bit of hardware under the sun, VA can't do an AMD system... Yea, ok... whatever...
Re:Thank the Quake Gods for the Arms race. (Score:2)
Re:This post is fake. (Score:2)