Comments on: Intel changes the subject

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says Intel has cleverly moved the debate away from pure clock speed, which could hurt AMD.

[scdecade]

uh huh

thank you captain obvious.

[MattLPMP]

How is this a good thing for Intel?

I really must be missing how AMD is on the short end of this stick and they're playing right into Intel's hand. AMD started the "clock speed isn't everything" campaign two years ago and Intel's had to eat their words on that front both with the Pentium M and Itanium, not to mention that the P4 never lived up to its originally projected longevity.

Technologically speaking, Intel is backpedaling all of their architectures to pre-P4 designs for Conroe, burying NetBurst and its current multi-core layout.

So, why, exactly, does AMD "need to go all out in the coming weeks"? They've got at least 12 months, the way I read the Intel roadmap.

What am I missing

AMD has already reset the clock-speed isn't everything arguement. In addition they have also been far ahead in power and heat. Intel processors consume on average 110 watts. AMD's consume 95 and 68 depending on flavor. Intel vows to get down to 80 watts. How does this equate to them capturing the high ground on power per watt leadership?

Wow this report should check his facts before just writing this garbage!

[reedsr]

Cnet please

Cnet I urge you to re-evaluate the quality of your writers, there are many articles that are obvious or that are just plain wrong. How can an Executive Editor write such a biased and untrue piece of work?

Has Mr. Cooper been locked up for the last 4 years and has he been following developments in the Processor industry for very long? that is the only explanation for this article unless Mr Cooper is in fact on the intel payroll.

As stated by multiple previous posters, AMD has been touting lower clocked chips with higher performance since around ~2001.

I plead with you to please secure some writers that are at least somewhat in the know on topics they choose to write about instead of passing off this junk on readers that might not know any better.

In closing I must ask if Mr. Cooper has recieved his check from intel this month as this obviously is so biased and untrue that only someone paid by intel could have composed it.

[bodacious99]

hey steve, get a last name

since you don't post under a real name, i can only assume your cowardice gives you courage to smear others. i guess anybody who proposes an alternative vision to yours must be guilty of "getting a check." like some of the other fanatics posting their jihad against intel, you're either a company employee or amd stockholder. which is it?

[markdoiron]

This Will Backfire . . .

... at least at the consumer level. reason is because if you tell me i have enough processing power (you did), then why do i want to even buy a new computer? because the new one consumes a couple watts less power? has better power management? what does that even mean??? this isn't a car and the differences are subtle, unless looked at through corporate eyes with hundreds/thousands of machines.

so, the message to consumers between the lines is: "speed won't help you compute faster so we won't bother you with those silly numbers; just buy a new computer when the old one breaks down." that isn't exactly the smart way to grow a market. but, hey, it's good for consumers!

mark d.

mark d.

[MattLPMP]

If you've tried Vista...

... you have no comfort in your current processor being fast enough. Vista will usher in a new generation of hardware upgrades, assuming people actually switch to it.

Having played with Longhorn for almost six months, I'm entirely confident that the next 3 years' of desktop computing power (and hard drive spaces) will be accounted-for.

-Matt

[sharikou]

INTEL is hopelessly behind

Look at this benchmark of Sossaman and Yonah
(overclocked to 2GHZ)

http://tinyurl.com/737fa

A few high lights
1) Look at CPU-Z, there is no 64 bit support in
Sossaman
2) 2 Sossaman32s (total 4 cores at 1.5GHZ) basically
tied with Athlon 64 4800+ which has only 2 cores
3) 2GHZ Yonah dual core with 2MB cache is 20% slower
than the entry level Athlon 64 X2 3800+

No wonder AMD calls for a duel....There is no way
Sossaman can compete with Opteron 280/880 at 2.6GHZ. On the power consumption front, AMD is selling dual core Opteron 865HE at 55 watts.

So if you look at the INTEL roadmap, its products of 2006 is far behind AMD products in Aug 2005. That is not a pretty sign.

Also, if you buy any INTEL P4 based products, they will be 100% obsolete in H2 2006, when INTEL moves to Pentium-M based architecture.

[sharikou]

INTEL current power consumption is 3x of AMD

I think the author missed one point: INTEL is just playing catch up, not leaping ahead. The performance per watt concept is not invented by INTEL but AMD. SUN and AMD was talking about 300% performance per watt advantage over INTEL for a long time (see this 2004 AMD PR http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~92637,00.html ). INTEL current power consumption for single core P4 is 151 watts, and for dual core P4 it is 200 watts ( see http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-19.html ). AMD single core consumes 60 watts max and dual core 90 watts. AMD also have low power dual core at 55 watts. If you look at INTEL's 2006 roadmap, their server chip will use 80 watts, that's higher than AMD's 55 watts now.

[sharikou]

P4 single core 3.6GHZ PC uses 287 watts

AMD dual core PC uses 185 watts. INTEL dual core 3.2 GHZ PC uses 315 watts. But INTEL performance is significantly lower than AMD.

Unfortunate, but true

Mr. Cooper brings up an interesting sidebar regarding the rivals in general that is commonly not talked about. Beyond the intricate minutia of power, clock speed, and the "He started it" and "I did it first" mentality, there is something to be said about the way about large companies conduct business and what they strive for. As one who has no desire to be a cheerleader for one company over the other, I do find myself disappointed at how AMD tends to base their existence on competing with Intel. Yes, Intel does and has always been more profitable and has carried more marketshare than AMD. And I think we all realize (whether we like to admit it or not), they've earned it. You can't get away from the fact that they have been an innovative player in this business and produce first-rate products with tremendous reliability. However, AMD has been a formidable competitor and has acheived some independent designs & ideas in the last few years that has definitely kept Intel on their toes. This is a good thing. My advice to AMD would be to refrain from concentrating all their attention to simply trying to beat Intel. Instead, they should look to themselves and strive to thier own goals & desired achievements. Sure, they are #2 in this business, but hey, that isn't such a bad place to be. They are at least still in business and are clearly competing unlike many other companies that have tried and failed. Adolescent ad campaigns, babes in skantly tiger suits, and coffee & doughnuts aren't going to provide any competitive edge. It just gives the impression of being desperate for attention. They don't need to spend energy on things like that. I don't think Intel cares or gives much attention. I suggest trying a new approach. You may be suprised.

[MattLPMP]

True, if the market were fair

Your point is well made, but assumes that AMD could successfully compete on merits alone.

Like Dell "arrangement", Intel has blocked or dissuaded many of its OEM partners from using AMD products since the arrival of the Athlon -- AMD's first truly competitive product.

If AMD beats Intel at any given price-point and delivers more power-per-watt than any P4 chip, then why aren't their chips available in more systems?

AMD forced Intel's hand with DDR, with 32-bit-compatible, 64-bit processors, and now with multi-core architectures. When does AMD get a break?

[sharikou]

AMD is the undisputed leader and Gold Standard

You all seem to out of touch with reality: AMD is the leader in every way and INTEL is trying to catch up.

1) AMD has designed x86_64 in 1999 and INTEL was denying the need for it. Now INTEL copied x86_64 from AMD on some but not all of their chips. INTEL's copy of x86_64 will be complete in 2H 2006.

2) Multi-core, AMD designed Opteron to be multicore in 1999, and INTEL only started in 2004. INTEL admitted its work was a kludge, see "Intel's dual-core Pentium 4 a rush job": http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php

3) Focus on performance not frequency. AMD has been doing this since 1999. INTEL moved from 12 pipe stages of P3 to 22 stages on P4 and 38 stages to Prescott, to bump up frequency (not performance), INTEL was talking about 20 GHZ in 2003 based on the Netburst. Now, INTEl moves back to P3 and 12 pipe stages and 2 GHZ.

4) Performance-per-watt. AMD and SUN brought up this concept and measure in 2004. See my previous post. INTEL has a 300% disadvantage to overcome.

5) Direct Connect Architecture. AMD has done away with the obsolete FSB design and use direct links between CPU and CPU, CPU and I/O, CPU and Memory. INTEL won't have this until 2008.

6) Embedded memory controller. AMD has this designed into every opteron and athlon64 and sempron64. INTEL needs a separate chip for memory controller. INTEL is rumored to copy this AMD idea in 2007.

[bodacious99]

come off it

wow, that reads as if you were taking dictation from AMD's PR department. my only conclusion is that you're a shareholder (or company employee)

[Mendz]

I agree...

Software is mostly limited by its hardware. Hardware should be the primary source of power saving and security features. Having these features in place on the hardware level should be more effective rather than relying on software alone.

Though speed is still the name of the game as software development continues to progress, it is about time that hadware companies address the prevailing issues on power saving and security.

With the continuing sales growth of mobile devices, Intel wins for focusing on power saving features. And with the continuing threats on security, Intel wins for focusing on security features.