Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel

Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked 335

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lackluster-performance dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Intel launched a new dual core chip with little applause. It appears we know now why, as the chip has been benchmarked by the chaps at GamePC. In tests against the dual core AMD Opteron processor, Intel's new chip gets thoroughly thrashed, losing out in terms of raw performance while eating a lot more power. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked More

Intel Dual Core Xeon Benchmarked

Comments Filter:
  • yeah, but can it run Duke Nukem Forever?
  • Intel knew what they were up against and somehow didn't cut it? Intel has been the masters of their domain for a long time and I'm rather astounded that they couldn't come up with something to 1-up the competition this go-around. They have so much in the way of resources to throw at this too.... why?

    I don't know what's going on behind the doors of Intel, but have people in business department been cutting back on the R&D again?
    • Yeah, I find it pretty amazing (and stupid) myself. It's unfortunate that speed of deployment is more important than quality of development. What can I say, we are an impatient people...
    • Intel knew what they were up against and somehow didn't cut it? Intel has been the masters of their domain for a long time and I'm rather astounded that they couldn't come up with something to 1-up the competition this go-around. They have so much in the way of resources to throw at this too.... why?
      Why? ... WHY? ... Because. [intel.com]
    • Intel has been the masters of their domain for a long time [...]

      (Insert inane Seinfeld reference here.)
    • It is quite simple in fact. Intel was always used to be followed so there was no rush on their R&D department. AMD and others always only tried to achieve what Intel achieved. So AMD putting out 64-bit before them was probably quite a surprise. Now it is obvious that Intel is following AMDs R&D footsteps.

      Intel somehow just can't achieve former glory. And it won't. Intel was always just boosting and never stand behind the words. Anyone remembering 64-bit RISC based Merced. Well, Merced was out (with
    • I think they did achieve their exact goal with this release. It's just not the goal you were thinking of.

      Intel is trying to save their exclusive customers, like Dell. Dell and the others needs something to compete with AMD or else they are going to have to start using AMD. Intel does not want that. They don't want to lose their exclusive deals, so they give them just enough to please them.

      They don't have to win the speed race. They don't have to make it better than AMD in any way. They just need something

      • Exactly. And PHBs everywhere will lap them up because 'no one ever got fired for buying Intel'.

        But the PHBs don't have to work with the shit like their techies do. I work in in an all Dell shop and it's staggering how the quality of their desktops and more recently their servers has declined lately. And Intel has to partly shoulder the blame because these machines run hot. So hot that our air-con in the server rooom can't cope with the flames our new racks throw out.

        But it would be a brave techie to stand u

  • AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Informative)

    by jarich ( 733129 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:22AM (#13826886) Homepage Journal
    I just bought my wife a dual core (3800 model) and it's just as responsive as my dual Opteron. I'm seriously considering selling my dual CPU box and getting a dual core myself just to have fewer fans in the box and generate less heat.

    I had been considering an Intel dual core but it sounds like I need to aim for an AMD instead.

    • Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:4, Funny)

      by master_p ( 608214 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:40AM (#13827011)

      I just bought my wife a dual core

      Lucky you...she asked me to buy her a diamond core...

    • The only reason to get an intel dual core is price. They aren't real dual-cores hence the abysmal performance when stacked against the amd versions, but the amd ones also cost an arm and an leg.

      • Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:49PM (#13827781)
        They aren't real dual-cores hence the abysmal performance

        No, they are honest-to-goodness real dual cores. Two fully functional cpus in a single socket.

        The problem is that the socket only has enough memory bandwidth for one cpu's worth of work. So, even if you double the number of cpus, you still can't shovel the data in and out fast enough to keep up with the work being done. Thus one of the two cores is almost always stalled out waiting on memory.

        The AMD chips have got more memory bandwidth, so they can keep both cpus fed with data reasonably well.

        • Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Eukariote ( 881204 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:34PM (#13828317)
          The AMD chips have got more memory bandwidth, so they can keep both cpus fed with data reasonably well.

          Not just that. The AMD dualcore chips have an on-chip connection between the cores: both cores share a crossbar fronting the memory controllers and have the on-chip equivalent of a coherent HyperTransport connection. So, you see, the AMD design is in fact a real dual-core design. The current Intel dual-cores, on the other hand, share nothing on-chip.

        • Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:4, Insightful)

          by quarkzone ( 133513 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @02:12PM (#13828725)
          The problem is that the socket only has enough memory bandwidth for one cpu's worth of work.

          This is exactly right. It is really surprising that Intel has focussed so completely, almost obessively, and for so long, on the problem of supplying the maximum number of work-cycles per unit of time (GHZ, Pipelining, Itanium's EPIC design) while seemingly paying so little attention to supply-of-work-to-do (FSB speed and architecture)

          AMD has paid quite a bit of attention to the work-supply and has a much more efficiently balanced work-cycle-supply/ data-for-work design. http://www.hypertransport.org/ [hypertransport.org] gives AMD a big leg-up over Intel.

          If Intel fails to do something spectacular to FSB speeds, AMD is sure to continue to pull away from Intel. The more cores and threads per CPU, the greater AMD's lead over Intel will become (at least from a performance point of view), until Intel addresses this problem.

    • Re:AMD's dual cores are great (Score:5, Funny)

      by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:33PM (#13827566) Journal
      A *real* geek would get a dual dual core ;)

    • Just specced out an AMD system for MHD modeling (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 ) <slashdot@defores t . org> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:00PM (#13827901)
      Running a Xeon dual-core is like mounting a Chevy big-block engine under a VW carburetor. The memory access just isn't there. Most of my stuff (modeling the solar corona) is RAM-bound anyway, so there's no win to be had at all by running the dual Intel cores. The Opterons have better RAM latency, which is a win -- but, more importantly, the two cores communicate cache-to-cache at the CPU clock speed, so dual-threaded processes run amazingly fast. If they're sharing memory, you effectively double the L2 cache size of both cores, which is a big win all around.

      So, er, Xeon is teh 5uk and Opteron Pwns.

  • Stupid pre-retail release (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:23AM (#13826889) Homepage Journal


    This release seems dumb for Intel. No optimized motherboards, outrageous power requirements and a really inefficient core? It isn't even alpha-release worthy. Why would Intel release a product that is just waiting for a poor review? Is the high end market that hungry?

    The article didn't need 15 pages to explain Intel's mistakes. Intel will lose more customers to AMD than if they had waited until they had a viable and competitive product.

    400W while idling? For sub-standard performance? Yay.

    • Re:Stupid pre-retail release (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:32AM (#13826947)
      Is the high end market that hungry?

      No, the high-end market is waiting for something that has "Intel" and "Dual Core" written all over it. Everything else is irrelevant.

    • Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:32AM (#13826950) Homepage
      Dell is locked into Intel and they really needed dual core, so there it is.

      • Re:Dude, you're getting whatever we sell you! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:58AM (#13827169) Journal
        Yes, I think this is exactly why. Other big vendors - IBM, HP, Sun - they all have Opteron/Athlon machines in their line-ups. When I asked a Dell rep why Dell had zero, and no intentions to ever have any AMD, he said it was because AMD wouldn't be able to supply them enough CPU's. I call bullshit. AMD has a great deal of production capacity, and adding more all the time. Dell wouldn't have to all of a sudden convert 100% of it's line up with AMD. But, therein may lie the problem. They very-well might have to, or lose some insane deals with Intel. I think that's why they stay Intel - and mention it on every single Dell ad.

        If I could upgrade my existing 2P dell servers to even inefficient dual cores that run too hot, I'd do it. But I doubt my existing servers would be able to cool them, so it's probably not going to happen anywyas. If we could get 2x dual-Opteron servers, we'd jump on it for all our ESX servers - especially with ESX3 and native x64 memory support. SWEET! But no, we'll be stuck with Xeon "EMT64" bastardized x64 CPU's because we're locked into Dell.
        • Dell claim that AMD couldn`t supply enough CPUs, so they sell none atall?
          The least they could do is supply some of their customers instead of none at all. They could also price the systems higher to keep demand lower until supply increased...
          On the other hand, the fact that dell claims AMD couldn`t meet supply suggests that dell knows the AMD systems would sell like hotcakes.

          As for being locked in to dell, how come? Hardware isn`t such a lockin scheme as software is, you can easily drop in a sun or hp serve
        • I'm sorry, but you aren't listening to AMD very well if you call BS...in their own lawsuit they said they were selling every processor they could make...and adding several hundred-thousand Dell systems would completely burst them, even with the new fab.

          So, which current AMD vendor(s) would you like to sacrifice to all-mighty Dell, praytell?
      • Dell is locked into Intel and they really needed dual core, so there it is.

        If you need a big name company, then HP and SUN would be good alternatives, both offer Opteron-based servers and workstations.

  • Wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Canadian_Daemon ( 642176 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:23AM (#13826890)
    From the article... 4 cores with 4 Virtual CPU's. What a beast. And they even talk about licensing issues
    we were curious if having eight processors (four physical cores + four virtual processors) would cause operating system-related licensing issues. After all, even multi-threaded operating systems like Windows XP Professional are sold with a "2 Processor" limitation. While technically the system still only has two physical processors, dual-core and Hyper-Threading technologies are certainly pushing this limitation further than Microsoft originally intended.
    I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this.
    • I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this.

      This isn't cheating. Microsoft & others must update their licensing to accomodate. And its not as clear as the Hyperthreading issue that they will. On the bright side, you can usually turn off Hyperthreading in the short term, to get it down to a "managable" 4 CPU's

    • Microsoft licensing (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you get an older version of Windows, that machine will count as having eight processors. With Windows XP, Microsoft has clarified their view, namely that they count sockets, not cores or virtual cores. So Intel isn't cheating on this, they are doing exactly what Microsoft wants.
    • I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this.

      Time changes: One upon a time multi-CPU was high-end and expensive. But now you'll find them on consumer PC very soon (in the form of dual core CPU), and Microsoft along with others will steadily relax the CPU count requirements. Of course, Intel is not "cheating" the system: they just make CPUs...

    • I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this.

      And I can find it interesting how one can give a meaningful and valid explanation of why the hell should an OS have different license prices based on number of physical processors ? (Specialy when taking in account that the different versions (1/2/4/8/... CPUs) are basically all the same technology onl

  • Power Consumption (Score:5, Funny)

    by matr0x_x ( 919985 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:23AM (#13826901) Homepage
    This is the 21st century in North America, since when do we care how much power a CPU uses. *Drives away in Hummer*
    • Well I assume it's not due to the mistaken belief that having a large power hungry computer is safer.

    • Re:Power Consumption (Score:3, Insightful)

      by walt-sjc ( 145127 )
      We care when we have our servers at a colo, and end up only being able to fill our racks 1/3 full due to the massive heat output and power usage. Most colo's are built for somewhere around 300W per square foot. If your servers are more efficient, you pay less for power and less for rackspace.
    • Since about August 30th. (Pedals away on solar powered scooter)

  • Bah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:24AM (#13826903) Journal
    Got through several pages of the benchmarking before it appeared /.ed.

    First concern is that though the chip has been released, motherboards configured for it aren't close to release yet. I'd rather see it benchmarked as distributed, since that's what really matters to the end user.

    Second concern is power usage and heat production. If you can't make a chip as powerful as your competitors, you better make sure it is not as expensive to operate. Really, why would someone choose to use a chip that is less powerful, intrinsically costs more to operate, and costs more to cool? Chips are cheap enough that the operating costs are often now more expensive than initial cost.

    • Re:Bah (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrNemesis ( 587188 )
      Really, why would someone choose to use a chip that is less powerful, intrinsically costs more to operate, and costs more to cool?

      Regrettably, because it has the Intel logo on it. I'm lucky working in a company where if I say I want AMD, I get AMD. I'm sure there's plenty of hardware geeks on /. who've asked for a shiny new Opteron server and been smacked back by either a company "Intel-only" policy, or their reseller's "Intel only" policy.

      FWIW, AMD recently launched the new single-core Opteron 254 [techreport.com] and it u

      • Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Red Flayer ( 890720 )
        Part of that will just take time to change. Demonstrable cost savings mean something to the PHBs... especially if they can present it to their PHBs.

        Although, I do think AMD could do a better job of advertising to the masses... which would definitely help with mindshare.

  • Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:24AM (#13826906)
    Intel is notorious for "Unnouncements". They will simply unnounce some strange new technology that is "coming real soon now" but they will leave out all of the details. This might just keep Dell from leaving them.
    • Without reading the article, I'm going to make some assumptions. (Like "thrashed" means 10% faster.) In which case, this is a case of market management.

      Intel can release an underpreforming platform in the server area because "it's validated for a server environent." Otherwise, people can purchase a P4 based server from IBM or some such. By not making noise that the unit has been released, people will assume that it has been on the market for a while - and that's why it is slightly less preforming. It's a
      • Without reading the article, I'm going to make some assumptions. (Like "thrashed" means 10% faster.)

        Well, I RTFM and it seems the difference is definetely more than 10%. There are some benchmarks like, MPEG to WMV encode where the fasters Opteron is 100% faster than the fastest Xeon. In MP3 encode, Opteron is 50% faster.

      • Re:A good example of marketing management (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually, you are wrong and you would not even have to read the article to check that. Both the dual-core Intel Xeon and the dual-core AMD Opteron are designed to work in a server environment. These are the chips that you find in the latest blade systems from several vendors (IBM, HP, Sun, Dell, etc.) and they are targetting big businesses, not the average consumer as you imply.

        And the results are actually not good at all for Intel. "trashed" is not about 10% faster, but about a significant gap: 2 or 3

  • Is GamePC really Intel's target here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:24AM (#13826910)
    Is GamePC the best place to read benchmarks on a dual core Intel Xeon chip? The article appears to be /.ed already (or just REAAALY slow at my end) so I can't read the results, but I can't help but think somewhere called GamePC isn't exactly Intel's target audience here.

  • Who would be suprised? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:25AM (#13826915) Homepage Journal
    Intel is engineering for it's next gen chips that are still vaporware as far as i'm concerned. AMD put out some great technology that works today.

    The big question will be who is the leader next year! As far as i'm concerned the opteron/amd64 has already proven intself against p4/xeon arch and it's up to the next gen chips to see who will stomp on who.

    Will AMD pull some new tech? Will Intel be able to deliver or will sun come around and smack everyone with the new Niagra chips?

  • Coral cache link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Freggy ( 825249 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:28AM (#13826923)
    http://www.gamepc.com.nyud.net:8090/labs/view_cont ent.asp?id=paxville&page=1 [nyud.net]

    Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically?

  • Stock market (Score:5, Funny)

    by 13bPower ( 869223 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:30AM (#13826936) Homepage Journal
    Hello, Stock market? Please read slashdot. I need to sell my AMD stock and buy a new amp.

  • strange. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:31AM (#13826944) Homepage
    You would think with all their resources intel could start to make a chip to compete with AMD.

    Its really surprising to think AMD blind-sided intel this badly (multi-core/x64), but I guess they really did. Good for them, and great for us. Once again supply and demand in the free market prevails.

  • Nice, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bullfish ( 858648 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:32AM (#13826952)
    Amd has thrashed intel for a few years now in terms of cpu performance so this is no surprise. What they really need to do is become more marking savvy. Most people don't know amd even makes chips. That includes many computer literate people as well, whereas even the luddites know who intel is

  • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Intel is all about the Mhz (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:42AM (#13827028) Journal
    Intel has been really slacking more and more since AMD beat them in the 1GHz race. After that Intel has seemingly been focusing on making the 'fastest processor' and not improving on the design much.

    It seems to me that Intel procs these days are more of the same but overclocked; while AMD has been making their procs more efficient, by running cooler and streamlining the instructions.

    Faster isn't better these days and Intel needs to realize this before it's too late.
    I just picked up a +3200 AMD Sempron which is clocked at 1.8Ghz and compre that to the AthlonXP +1600 at 1.4Ghz I had before, it has well over double the perfomance in almost every application. From doubling the fps in Doom3 to cutting compile times down by half. For a 400Mhz difference there is a lot more going on then just 'speed'
    • Correction:
      I have a +3100 AMD Sempron not a +3200 AMD Sempron ;)

  • Why always gaming? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:42AM (#13827033) Homepage
    Why do they always do gaming as the benchmark? It's a server processor!!! Do some crypto!

    Check this out image [libtomcrypt.org] where "nocona" is a Pentium 820D [dual-core 64-bit P4].

    Those are cycle counts for RSA-x private key operations [with padding] on various processors.

    TFM == tomsfastmath
    LTM == libtommath
    DC == dual-core [two threaded] tomsfastmath :-) Shameless plug but also good numbers when doing RSA work I guess.

    Tom

    • Re:Why always gaming? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bad form replying to my own post [hence the AC]

      ops per second [libtomcrypt.org].

      FWIW, the AMD64 is at 2.2Ghz, AMD32 [Athlon-XP-M] @1.8Ghz, P4 @3.2Ghz, Nocona @2.8Ghz.

      So yes, a 3.2Ghz P4 Prescott gets roughly the same number of RSA/sec as a 1.8Ghz Athlon-XP ... :-) There is a slight power consumption difference [one of them tops out at 110W the other 45W ... I'll let you do the math].

      Tom
    • I'd love to see where a recent Via processor falls on that graph. According to some folks in the know, their hardware encrypting engine makes the recent Via chips cruise right through encrypting/decrypting tasks. They suck for anything else, but apparently they do excel at one thing and do it well.
      • VIA processors only accelerate AES [in ECB, CFB and CBC mode I think]. Not bignum math.

        As for where it falls? VIA processors are *less* efficient than a P4. Sure they take no power to run but they also take many times the cycles to do anything.

        Tom
    • Dude, this is an ANTI-INTEL website. They'd never post stuff that makes their darlin' AMD look like a pile of puke.

      • Um, it isn't hard to make Intel look bad.

        Go to the store, buy two boxes, one an Intel Pentium 620, another an AMD Athlon64 3200+ or so [roughly price compariable I think].

        Grab two blank hard disks, two gentoo cds and one local distfile mirror. Start from stage1 and build a good 700 or so packages. Tell me how many ***hours*** of work you can complete on the AMD box before the Intel box is even finished.

        Not fair enough? Ok, try measuring the latency of ECC P-256 and RSA-2048 operations with the fastest co

  • HORUS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:44AM (#13827046)
    These have been availible in Dell servers for a while now according to the online store. Intel are truly screwed for at least the next 6-12 months by the looks of things unless they are hiding something seriously good. I had thought that perhaps they had been based on Apple's decision to switch, it looks like they might just be pretending to be better than they really are though.

    AMD looks like it's going to continue to be the winner on performance for the foreseeable future, especially with it's totally awesome HORUS chipset on the horizon which might just hail the beginning of commodity super computing.

    For anyone wondering what HORUS is, it's an SMP system that can link 4 Opteron's together over HTT. The real killer is that it can it's self be linked to 4 other HORUS chips over InfiniBand. A HORUS SMP system appears as another Opteron chip to the other HORUS groups. AMDs current plans are for HORUS to scale to 32 CPUs in a hot swappable configuration. It's going to be great.
    • Commodity supercomputing arrived a few years ago with Beowulf clusters, which happen to be much cheaper than ccNUMA machines. I'm sure SGI and Newisys would be happy to see the HPC world suddenly drop MPI and switch to OpenMP, but I don't think it's going to happen. I see Horus being used for commercial servers (e.g. databases, server consolidation, etc.), not supercomputing.

      BTW, Horus doesn't use Infiniband. Maybe it uses IB cables.

  • Intel Dual Core: Worse Perfomance, Better Pricing (Score:3, Informative)

    by adisakp ( 705706 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:50AM (#13827096) Journal
    This is just about Intel Dual Core in general.

    Intel knows AMD Opteron Dual Cores are faster. That's why this generation dual cores (at least P4D's) from Intel are so cheap aside from the ridiculous "Extreme Editions".

    I recently bought a Dell computer. I had a choice of getting a dual core for $50 more. Now I can rip a CD to MP3's using EAC/LAME in about 3 minutes when it used to take 15 on my old computer. I'm happy with my $50 doubling my performance for MP3's and xVID (DivX) creation.

    I really wanted a higher-performance dual core AMD computer but when I was pricing those out, the price of the upgrade to a dual core AMD *ALONE* was around the price of my entire Dell computer.
    • I recently bought a Dell computer. I had a choice of getting a dual core for $50 more. Now I can rip a CD to MP3's using EAC/LAME in about 3 minutes when it used to take 15 on my old computer. I'm happy with my $50 doubling my performance for MP3's and xVID (DivX) creation.

      RIAA lists Dell and Intel as major contributors to Internet piracy -- subpoenas to follow...

      I only wish.

    • Only they're not quite double the performance, because they share the memory bus. Any memory intensive application will hit contention between the 2 cores...
      AMD have a faster memory interface to begin with, and in a multiprocessor system each processor has it`s own connection to memory...
      Although the 2 cores on a single AMD processor share their connection to memory, they dont share with other chips in the same machine and their connection to memory is still faster than intel`s. Also AMD have an internal co
    • Likewise - I got a Dell (mainly for the sweet deal on the 24" LCD) and went with the dual core Pentium D, just the 2.8ghz version. Its a remarkably responsive machine, for not a huge amount of money. Powerful, quiet, and cheap. I'd like to have gone AMD, but on the (relatively speaking) low end, Intel's pricing just spanked theirs for dual core.
  • allow me to share my excitement.

    (points at intel)
    MWA HA HA! HA HA!
    MWA HA HA! HA HA!

    Ah... felt so good. Thanks :)


    • --
      Submitters: Use Coral Cache!
      Before: website.com/path
      After: website.com.nyud.net:8090/path

      just a note on your sig,
      as you can see the following link
      http://www.gamepc.com.nyud.net:8090/labs/view_cont ent.asp?id=paxville&page=1 [nyud.net]

      is also slashdotted. why do people think that mirrors can handle the load when the main site cant? you do realize if everyone started linking ALL their stories to coral cache, coral cache would have to bare the load of every slashdot story right? how long do you think they would foo

  • xeon has no chance vs opteron.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aachrisg ( 899192 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:55AM (#13827139)
    ..as long as opteron has seperate ram (chips+bus) for each CPU and xeon doesn't. I assume intel knows this.
  • Intel's new chip gets thoroughly thrashed, losing out in terms of raw performance while eating a lot more power.

    AMD should be touting its own Performance per Watt figures right now, rather than waiting for Intel to eventually catch up.

    • Except AMD would be completely obliterated in the perf/watt benchmark in the vast majority of the market. Just look at Intel's new cores they released.

      AMD knows better. They don't brag where they can't.

    • AMD should be touting its own Performance per Watt figures right now, rather than waiting for Intel to eventually catch up.

      Maybe, though I wonder if the Pentium M (AKA Pentium 3 but they can't call it that anymore) still holds the title for P/W. The mobile stuff seems to be Intels last technological lead over AMD.

      Intel's problem is that the Pentium 4 architecture isn't very good, they had a really great chip design in the Pentium Pro, then when downhill with the Pentium II, when the Pentium 3 came out

  • Intel - Itanium and r&d resources vs. x86 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:22PM (#13827448) Homepage
    Its pretty clear that intel is sliding in the x86 race. The reason has to do with development cycles and all the work and money Intel spent on that risky itanium venture. Itanium diverted R&D funds from x86 and when Itanium failed in the market place, intel wasn't working hard enough on x86 and fell behind.

    The next generation of chips may be different. Competetion is good.

      I'm pretty chip agnostic, although a while back I had an cyrix 486 chip in a notebook and didn't even know it wasn't an intel.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close