Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Dual-Core War - Is Intel in Trouble?

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the just-yesterday-it-was-a-border-skirmish dept.

Intel 411

michaelMSFT writes "Cooltechzone has a column stating that Intel has already lost the dual-core war against AMD. From the article: 'From the performance numbers published on numerous online publications, Intel has lost the Dual-Core War. The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget...I would like to forward a special note to Intel: Please make sure your next generation of processors aren't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440665)

omfg i'm off to kill myself now...

this could have consequences for Linux... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440668)

A musty atmosphere of neglect pervaded the subbasement of University Library. The books on the shelves were covered in a fine layering of dust. There were dim lights over the small study cubicles at the end of each aisle between the towering shelves. The lights produced only enough illumination for the top of the desks, leaving the surrounding stacks and central walkway shrouded in a perpetual twilight.

I had finally found the copy of the heavy API guide I needed for my work connecting my SQL database to the graphical front end I had been slaving over all weekend. However, the intricacy of the cover of the neighboring book drew my attention and I brought it along to the desk for better inspection under the light. The cover looked a lot newer than the heavily thumbed volumes beside it. Emblazened
across the front was the title "Linux - Unleash the Power of your PC" together with a picture of a fat cartoonish looking penguin. As I opened the book I felt a strange buzzing in my head that quickly passed. I shrugged it off as my attention was drawn to a CD which dropped out and landed on the desk in front of me. It bore the same title as the book, together with something about 'Knoppix' which was a word I did not recognise.

I had heard of Linux though. The University ran Unix on some of their servers, although I rarely chose to interact with those systems. Perhaps I should broaden my horizons though. I liked to think I knew just about everything there was to know about using Windows, but you could never have too many strings to your bow. Almost without thinking I slipped the CD into my pocket and returned my attention to my work.

A date with my girlfriend Paige followed the work in the library. I was one of the few students on my CS course to actually have a partner since, although computers interested me and would one day be my means of making a living, I was careful not to get drawn into the geek subculture that seemed to pervade the department. Some of the guys with their nerdish glasses and unwashed t-shirts grunted at me strangely when I declined to join in their games of Counterstrike, but I reminded myself that while they were shut up in a grimy computer lab scoffing Cheetos I was getting laid on a regular basis.

That night in my dorm room while I was getting ready for bed, I remembered the CD in my pocket and fired up my laptop to take a look. I still couldn't make out what the strange messages flowing across the screen meant. Perhaps if I sounded them out their meaning would become clear. I tried to phonetically pronounce the words but they disappeared too quickly to be replaced with a blank screen. I gave up, turned off the light and climbed into bed.

The erotic dream started with Paige slowly caressing my back and buttocks. The caressing transitioned into an incredibly gentle massage starting at my neck and shoulders and running down my back. My butt cheeks were being massaged apart and I spread my legs and raised my rear as her hand reached underneath me from behind to stroke my erection. Her hand was very warm and felt wonderful as I started to slowly thrust into her hand as she started jerking me off. A huge long warm and moist tongue started playing over my testicles and anus. It felt fantastic. No one had ever licked me there before. I never knew how sensual it felt.

As her hot hand was expertly running up and down my rigid penis something started probing my anus. It snaked its way into my anal opening and it started slowly expanding. Suddenly I had the urge to move my bowels, but I didn't care, as my attention was totally focused on my imminent orgasm. My penis was released as Paige suddenly grabbed my sides and jammed her hips against my butt.

I woke up to find myself with my rear in the air. Someone was grabbing my sides and hitting my butt. I jolted fully awake as I felt something expanding in my rectum and realized I was being fucked. The cock in my butt was still expanding and was becoming painfully large. I thought I could actually feel it moving around in my guts like some kind of writhing python. I looked over my shoulder and my heart nearly stopped. The fat penguin from the book I'd found this morning was screwing me with obviousl delight.

He probably only stood about 3 feet high, but he was well proportioned. My shock wore off as I realized the cock in my guts was still expanding. I tried to stand up and fell off of the bed onto the floor as the penguin wrapped his flippers around my waist and planted his massive cock tightly into my rump. With the help of my desk I managed to stand up with him firmly clasped to my backside and his legs wrapped around my hips. I tried to pry his flippers from around my waist, but again I failed. He was amazingly strong.

My rectum was on fire and still the bastard's cock continued to grow. I could actually see my abdomen move as his monstrous penis slithered through my intestines causing my stomach to cramp. I slammed my back into the wall to try to crush him. All this did was push him harder into my rectum as his beak stabbed into the muscles of my back. I pitched forward trying to get away from the pointed bill and ran into my desk.

I could see the scren of my still open laptop. It was glowing and the lines of text which again flowed over the screen appeared to be written with florescent ink. Even in my panic I thought I could make out the faint sound of chanting in the distance: "Linux r0x0rs my b0x0r! RTFM n00b!"

I grabbed the laptop and slammed the cover down. A flash of light blinded me and an electrical shock shot up my arms making them tingle. The penguin let go of my waist and hips and fell heavily onto the floor with a thud. Despite lying on the floor and me still standing his cock was still in my guts. I quickly stepped away from him before he could recover. This ended up pulling about another foot of cock out of my rectum. His gargantuan snake of a penis plopped wetly onto the floor like an empty fireman's hose. It was at least four feet long.

I picked up a pitching wedge from my golf bag against the wall and holding the club like a baseball bat walked slowly over to his still prone form. He didn't seem to be recovering very fast. In fact he appeared to be barely breathing. As I approached he slowly turned his head towards me and spoke.

"Using Knoppix CD an invitation makes. Cut off from Open Source vitality withering does commence. Forever be you cursed for this most evil deed."

His pupils started to reflect an eerie reddish glow as he looked up at me. I felt a buzzing vibration in my groin as my cock suddenly shot up to become viciously erect. I blinked and my ears suddenly popped. When I looked back down at the penguin he was not on the floor anymore.

I ran to the light switch on the wall and turned the overhead light on. Using the golf club I lifted the covers on my bed up to look under the bed from a safe distance. Nothing there. I checked under my desk and then carefully opened my closet. He wasn't anywhere in my room. I sat down in my chair as my arms and legs started shaking as the adrenaline rush slowly passed.

My back and rear end were aching. I got up and looked at my back in the mirror over my dresser. There was a puncture wound from the sharp beak but it wasn't bleeding anymore and didn't appear too serious. My anus was another matter. I couldn't see my rectum, so I put my hand to it. I was wide open. I could fit my fist into my asshole. If I squeezed down, I could barely feel my sphincter tighten.

I put on some underwear and then wrapped a towel around myself and went down the hall to the shower. I took a long hot shower and gently cleaned my backside. It seemed that my anus was slowly contracting and returning to normal. Once back in my room I didn't think I would be able to fall asleep, but I was so exhausted I fell into a dreamless sleep.

When my alarm started buzzing I reflexively jumped out of bed, turned it off, wrapped a towel around my waist and with my eyes barely open I marched off to the shower with my shampoo and soap. I didn't wake up enough to remember what had happened the night before until the steamy water hit my face in the shower. It seemed like some sort of horrible nightmare. But I could feel the wound on my back and my anus burned and still felt very loose.

I Disagree (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440669)

Intel has not lost anything. They might be getting their asses handed to them by AMD -- but remember that it often takes huge losses before a company changes its approach to doing business. And that kind of change really is needed at Intel.

And Furthermore... (2, Informative)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440700)

FTA: At numerous tradeshows and computing conventions, analysts and media predicted the launch date of multi-core CPUs; some said Intel would be the first to bring its chips to the market while others stated the opposite.

And furthermore... since when is it whoever ships first wins? What about quality? Cost? Yes AMD beats Intel on both of those now, but that is what I mean when I say that changes at Intel could make them far more competative, far more agile.

To Further This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440774)

Intel isn't all about the pentium!

Re:And Furthermore... (4, Insightful)

bwalling (195998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440786)

And furthermore... since when is it whoever ships first wins? What about quality? Cost? Yes AMD beats Intel on both of those now, but that is what I mean when I say that changes at Intel could make them far more competative, far more agile.

Wars aren't won or lost on the first shot. Wars go on for a long time.

Re:And Furthermore... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440987)

Wars go on for a long time.
You must be american. you should know.

Re:And Furthermore... (0)

thundercatslair (809424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441014)

That was a pretty good burn. If I had them you would get it.

Re:I Disagree (2, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440726)

If Intel wants to beat AMD, how about some asynchronous chips? I remember that being such a good idea back in the day because it would spead up the chip for the most part, and now that clocking across the chip is so complicated, it seems like even a better idea.

Anyone know why this never really took off, besides the fact that it's more complicated?

Re:I Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440883)

I often wondered about that...

The only answer I ever could come up with was: how the fuck do you market it?

How lame is that?

Also, AFAIK, design/testing tools are nowhere near as advanced for asynchronous as they are for synchronous.

Anybody with a clue here?

Re:I Disagree (2, Interesting)

Gud (78635) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440888)

Few reasons: new process, difficult to simulate, difficult to test, shortage of people.
In short high risk project. But given Intel has it's back to the wall, maybe they will give one of their design groups a green light to expriment, like they did with Centrino.
If they get this right an Async processor can run quite a bit faster.
Does anyone know if Async processors are expected to use more or less power than equivalent regular processor ?

Re:I Disagree (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440917)

They use less due to no clock, and actually the design would almost be the same complexity now since you have to account for the fact that a clock signal can't travel the length of the chip before the next clock signal starts, so you have to stagger them which adds an insane amount of shit on the chip.

As for difficult to test... not really, or at least I don't see why it would be worse than clocked chips. Have a test signal, put a stream of data into the chip, then see what comes out. Async should work the same as sync in that case...

Re:I Disagree (4, Informative)

bsd4me (759597) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441025)

As for difficult to test... not really, or at least I don't see why it would be worse than clocked chips. Have a test signal, put a stream of data into the chip, then see what comes out. Async should work the same as sync in that case...

The problem has to due with the variations in timing due to temperature and voltage changes. In general, synchronous logic is simulated at the speced max temperature and lowest voltage (this is typically the worst case (*)). With asynchronous logic you have to test over a range because you have to worry about things happening too soon rather than just too late, and as you add more parallel and sequential circuits things get really complicated.

(*) I'm not positive this is the worst case combination...

Re:I Disagree (2, Insightful)

fbody98 (881072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440910)

I'm just speculating here but probably for the same reason that Cache's that are asynchronous inevitablye perform poorer than those that are synchronous.

Data that moved from one register into another part of the pipeline operating at a much higher frequency would then eventually have to leave this higher clocked space into the register again. Thus, the high clocked registers would process data much faster than it could be fed, and would spit it out much faster than the rest of the chip registers could accept it.

I can already see one way around that (that being having more pipes out than in) but from a cost benefit analysis, you just end up building a Cell type CPU eventually (with different speed FPU's etc instead of SPE's), and that seems to be where their going, multiple general purpose cores, then eventually specific purpose cores.

Kind of like having the math co-processor on the board, and then eventually moving it onto the chip. Who says you can't put the next big thing (maybe the PPU) on the chip as just another core!

one word... headache!

Re:I Disagree (1)

spectral (158121) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441019)

the P4 is already asynch like you're describing, or at least was.. the integer units ran at 2x external clockspeed on the first versions, from what I remember

However, I believe the GP was referring to 'clockless' CPUs, though I might be wrong.

Re:I Disagree (1)

CTho9305 (264265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441094)

That isn't asynchronous. Asynchronous in the context of CPU designs means not clocked - running at double the clock speed means it's still clocked, and thus synchronous.

Re:I Disagree (4, Interesting)

kpwoodr (306527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440728)

"It's simply not fair for those with limited computing knowledge that buy these systems to pay high prices for underperforming products."

The best thing that could possibly come from this is lower prices for the consumer. I personally ditched intel years ago as a poor college student who desperately needed a computer but couldn't afford the high prices of the wInTel boxes everywhere. AMD has shown consistently that they can make products as good or better than Intel for less money, and pass the savings on to consumers.

Intel has grown to large for their own good, and often get to caught up in marketing and buracracy to do any actual innovation.

If AMD sticks to their guns, the next few years should turn out some very strong advances for the home and business users.

Side note, I'm out of college and making good money now, and I still won't throw down the scrint for an intel machine.

Re:I Disagree (1)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440740)

Intel has not lost anything. They might be getting their asses handed to them by AMD -- but remember that it often takes huge losses before a company changes its approach to doing business.

So you are saying that Intel hasnt lost anything because theyve experienced huge losses?

I think you mean that they can learn from mistakes and change direction, true, but while 'beyond the grey sky there is sunlight' type sayings are great for hippies and psychologists, they don't translate well to investors.

Re:I Disagree (3, Insightful)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440900)


Intel isn't losing money, but talented engineers are a limited resource. They would have bought the farm on Itanium if they weren't making money on Pentium.

What is interesting is that in spite of being so wealthy, their main Pentium line is suffering. It uses more power, it's stopped advancing in MHz, it doesn't scale in SMP well at all, and it loses benchmarks to chips in the same price range with 1/2 to 2/3 the clock rate.

I think what has happened is that HP/Intel got into a rut with Itanium that will take a long time to recover from. Intel won't go anywhere, but they will have to accept getting trumped by their competitors for a few years, now.

To add insult to injury, Opterons are benchmarking faster than even the Itaniums, and in floating point, no less!

Re:I Disagree (1)

romeo_in_blk_jeans (782924) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441072)

Way to take a few words out of context!

"Intel has not lost [the war]...but remember that it often takes huge [financial] losses before a company changes..."

"The war" refrences that continuing struggle of AMD vs. INTEL to produce a faster processor. To lose this war is to lose one's ability to effectively compete. INTEL has not lost the ability to compete, thus they have not lost the war.

If I have to explain this any further, you should consider cancelling your account -- or at least not posting ever again.

Re:I Disagree (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440836)

but remember that it often takes huge losses before a company changes its approach to doing business.

That in it self is the problem. Trying to sustain your business with the reputation of your past products/services does not work very long. The business will continue to suffer as time goes on. Soon the company will start spinning off branches of itself to "focus on core products", then the parent either goes broke or merges to try to hang on. HP comes to mind here but they are much further down that road then Intel is.

stupid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441101)

You know I've been coming to slashdot for years yet sometimes I still read the articles. Stupid stupid me.

Duel core (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440672)

Simple message Intel: start rolling out those dual core Dorathans with x86-64 snapped on, at a reasonable price. They'd sell.

Re:Duel core (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440930)


Why buy them when Opteron performs better at most benchmarks and would probably be less expensive. Opteron is a better architecture (HyperTransport), too. The only people who will buy Intel's chips are people locked into vendor-exclusive contracts (cough Dell cough) or are simply ignorant.

Better Review Over At... (5, Informative)

rimu guy (665008) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440676)

The best comparison of the dual core reviews I've read is over at the great anandtech [anandtech.com] site.

AMD's push with dual core into the server markets half a year before Intel's dual core Xeon arrives is going to tempt a lot of IT departments out there.
On the desktop side, we are extremely excited about the Athlon 64 X2. The 4400+ that we compared here today had no problem competing with and outperforming Intel's fastest dual core CPUs in most cases
The real problem is that AMD has nothing cheaper than $530 that is available in dual core, and this is where Intel wins out. With dual core Pentium D CPUs starting at $241, Intel will be able to bring extremely solid multitasking performance to much lower price points than AMD will. And from what we've seen, it looks like that price advantage will continue for quite some time. It all boils down to economics, and in the sense of manufacturing capacity, Intel has AMD beat - thus allowing for much more aggressively priced volume dual core solutions.

Conclusion: AMD have better chips. But they don't have the manufacturing capacity to bring them out in volume. So they focus on their higher margin chips. Meanwhile Intel keeps from losing face by selling at the volume, lower-priced end of the market. At least until AMD get some new fab plants up and running.

--
VPS Hosting on Dual Xeon Hardware - but just for the time being :) [rimuhosting.com]

Re:Better Review Over At... (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440697)

Yeah, problem occurs when you have to shell out the price difference on cooling those Intel chips :P

Re:Better Review Over At... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440953)


In a small SMP system, the power difference can easily cost a couple hundred dollars in electricity each year.

Re:Better Review Over At... (2, Insightful)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440780)

So what you're saying is, ignoring the cpu vendor, you are paying more for more speed? isn't that the way its supposed to be?

AMD is faster and more expensive.
Intel is slower and cheaper.

Am I right?

Re:Better Review Over At... (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440817)

Didn't it used to be `intel:faster and more expensive`? That's why i bought my first amd k62-300. It didn't have as good floating point, hence was slower than intel for games and stuff, but was 30% the (UK) price.

Re:Better Review Over At... (3, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440877)

Not nessesarly, Intels Xeon chips are still more expensive. Really in all cases but this one the opposite is true. It is funny though how history has switch the twos position. Luckly prices are now based upon supply/demand and not the monopoly pricing that intel had at one time.

Intel failures (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441078)

Not quite.

AMD is faster and cheaper.
Intel is slower and more expensive.

Currently, AMD beats Intel with pure performance in high-end market, AND wins over Intel with cost-performance ratio in other segments.

This is a BIG problem for Intel - they're losing everywhere. Their advantage is starting to erode in all three segments: market, technology, and mindshare. Their past failures are now cursing them back.

- Decision to go with clock-based marketing
- Failure to keep clockspeed up due to heat problem
- Several product recalls due to design issue
- Failure to introduce new memory standard (RDRAM)
- Application trend still going after single-processor capability and speed (killing hyperthreading effectively)

All these failures/decisions only helped AMD to beat Intel. Yes, Intel is now trying to get back to the right track, but it'll take some time to catch up with AMD.

Re:Better Review Over At... (4, Interesting)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440842)

I find this all very amusing actually, since until recently AMD ruled the desktop/home PC market based on price/performance, whereas Intel maintained its market share because they were so datacentre friendly. When I'm buying racks of enterprise 2, 4, and 8-way x86/x64 processors, a price difference for $100 per CPU is a small component of the overall cost, and frequently is worth the up front capital cost for a 10-20% performance boost.

What I'm seeing is AMD is going to begin kicking ass in the enterprise space for enterprise rack servers and blade configurations, a traditional domain where Intel has ruled. And as for dual-core on the desktop, I don't think the market is really there for that level of performance yet... not many desktop apps can take advantage of those features, just like x64 is just future-proofing your destop for the time being.

So the immediate price difference between AMD and Intel offering doesn't tell the whole story. Intel is going to get hit where it hurts the most -- enterprise markets.

intel wins here - FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440680)

Damn 20 second AC delay...

Hack! And not the good kind... (5, Insightful)

egregious (16118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440682)

I had a root cannal done yesterday, so it might be the Percocet talking:

This article is total hackery. Any two comments will have better background and more insight than TFA.

It's just a "AMD is better!" article that mentions dual core CPUs for some reason. No context, no information.

Re:Hack! And not the good kind... (5, Insightful)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440970)

It ain't your medication - I felt the same way.

The guy says "I think" and "I feel as though" too many times for me to take it any more serious then a forum or Slashdot post.

It's some dude that thinks he can be an online "journalist" by posting garbage like that on a web site.

Re:Hack! And not the good kind... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440974)

How are you feeling?

Re:Hack! And not the good kind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441102)

I agree with you. The article may be correct or incorrect, but because no facts are given, the article seems to be an ad for AMD.

Silly? (5, Insightful)

Marthisdil (606679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440701)

as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.

Yeah - but the thing is - is the performance worth twice the price? Being that's the only way you can go with AMD right now - paying twice as much (if not more) for their dual core chips compared to Intels.

Funny that.

Re:Silly? (2, Insightful)

fbody98 (881072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440829)

AMD's labeling scheme is particuarly interesting in this respect, they are positioning every one of their Dual Core products above every single one of their single core products. The last consumer single core product (exclusing the FX) is the 4000+... every single chip above that, and for the foreseeable future, will be dual core.

The 4000+ just dropped in price, presumably in anticipation of pricing the dual cores above that. That they offer single threaded performance that isn't too much further below their single core counterparts (AMD seems to have dual core at higher relative frequency to their single core products than intel) and multithreaded content that isn't constrained by the north bridge memory bandwidth (hypertransport seems very long sighted now) makes it a viable option even for those who use primarily single threaded apps, i.e. games.

I would get a dual 2.2 GHZ A64 machine over a single 2.6GH A64 machine if the price were comparable, informed consumers will likely do the same, but the number of informed consumers buying computers is compartively small.

To the person who said marketing wins, you're right, and everything I just typed doesn't really mean al that much.

Re:Silly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441118)

I'll be buying a 4400+ when they come availble this summer. My first AMD system and it should be a nice one.

Re:Silly? (1)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440863)

Here is something I have noticed in my career both in private and educational setting. When you are for e.g. setting up a cluster running up a tab in the range of $250-$500k, the accounting dept is not bothered. For them, they have to get this purchase order done now or we loose the money. For the vendors it really doesn't matter if they take a $100-$200k hit because they make more money out of support, upgrades etc; and trust me you will need that. So if you are talking about enterprise level, then the suggestion of the sys admin or the systems designer wins and trust me I am going for best performance money can buy (its not my $$). But on the other hand, if you are talking small private companies or individuals, your argument has merit.

Re:Silly? (2, Insightful)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440998)

yeah the Intel chip may be half the price of an AMD but when you buy that shiny new Intel PD you also need to shell out for a new mobo to run the damn thing. This esentially brings the overall upgrade price more in line with AMD's price.

With AMD, if you are currently running a 939 mobo all you need to do is a firmware update when you buy the new chip.

Looks like Intel.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440702)

..has less Intel(ligence).


then AMD)

Ah the usual /. overstatement (4, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440708)

Massive, multi billion dollar corporation suffers small setback and so doom is imminent.

Intel will only be in trouble when Dell, HP, Fujitsu and every other major manufacturer drop them in favour of AMD. Until that happens its business as normal.

Re:Ah the usual /. overstatement (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440840)

All AMD has to do to make this happen is compete in price with Intel.

From what I hear, Dell has a sweet deal with Intel to *only* sell Intel and AMD hasn't or can't match the deal in a way to make it more profitable for Dell. Dell is about the sum(cheaper, better, faster). AMD will have to ante up to knock Intel down, but then Intel has billions of dollars that AMD doesn't. If the weaker of the parties starts a war of attrition, the weaker party will die first.

I mean come on. At this point, AMD is producing a better chip. Intel's biggest problem is that Itanium turned out to be what can be considered a bust and Opteron didn't. If Dell wants to compete it will need to sell 64bit servers, and well. Itanium isn't what everyone is clamoring for.

Dell will sell AMD if only in the server market. The question is when.

Re:Ah the usual /. overstatement (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440919)

All AMD has to do to make this happen is compete in price with Intel.

No, they can probably do that already. What AMD really need to do is invest a gazillion dollars in Fab capacity so they can compete on volume and quality with Intel, then then market will come to them. Its the lack of a gazillion dollars and investor scepticism regarding AMDs ability to mass produce high yield chips thats holding them back.

Re:Ah the usual /. overstatement (4, Insightful)

Bedouin X (254404) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440892)

Exactly. I'm a huge AMD supporter but all you have to do is look at last quarter's financial reports to see the bottom line here. The Athlon 64s have pretty much been kicking Intel's ass all over the place in the applications that most people use for the past couple of years and they still make a small fraction of what Intel makes.

I would agree with other posters that right now AMDs largest issues are capacity and marketing (people need to ask for AMD) as the technology is there.

Re:Ah the usual /. overstatement (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441039)

HP already sells AMD chips in addition to Intel. It's Dell that is the single-CPU maker holdout.

Intel 0-2 (5, Interesting)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440710)

It lost out in 64-bit acceptance and dual-core, so it seems. But apart from tech-aficionados, the world is 32-bit x86, which is Intel's domain.

What does that mean for the future? Absolutely nothing. Until and unless the world switches to 64-bit or dual-core computing in droves, Intel still has time to catch up where it matters.

IBM is playing it smart, however. It's investing in consumer electronics with the Cell. That is growing faster than the desktop or server market.

Even if AMD is beating Intel, it has nothing in the consumer electronics domain.

Re:Intel 0-2 (1)

GoodNicsTken (688415) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440748)

"Even if AMD is beating Intel, it has nothing in the consumer electronics domain" Humm, I thought the AMD symbol had to do with a memory gate, because their core business is CE memory NOT processors.

Democratization of tech (2, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440844)

IBM is playing it smart, however. It's investing in consumer electronics with the Cell. That is growing faster than the desktop or server market.

The mainframe makers had their lunch eaten by the minicomputer makers. The minicomputer makers had their lunch eaten by the PC makers. Now the PC makers are going to see their lunch eaten by the consumer electronic makers. Everytime someone comes up with a way to find more customers (on the low-end), they create tech that eventually supplants the tech of the prior, more limited, customer base.

From this standpoint, IBM is in a good position with processors (the Power/PPC family) that work in consumer electronics, desktop, and mainframe applications. Intel is also doing well with low-cost processors that can run Media PCs. On the otherhand, I fear that AMD's niche in the high-end PC and server market will disappear once consumer electronic processors become fast enough to handle desktop and work-group server applications (just like PC-grade processors supplanted SGI's specialty graphics machines). Sure, there will always be room for specialty processors (e.g., for super-duper clustered DB servers) but it won't be a big market.

Or Intel 2-0? (1)

Dink Paisy (823325) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440862)

Intel is certainly losing the x86 performance race to AMD right now, but they are still selling more 64-bit x86 desktop and server chips than AMD is. With lower prices, the same may well happen for Intel's dual core chips.

Intel is also ahead technologically, with their mobile Pentium-M line having lower power use and higher IPC than AMD's Athlon 64 line, while running at slightly lower clockspeeds. Even the lower clock speeds may be due more to the desire to keep power low for notebooks than the abilities of the chip. That's somewhat beside this story, though, since the Pentium-M chips are neither 64-bit nor dual core.

Re:Intel 0-2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440972)

Until and unless the world switches to 64-bit or dual-core computing in droves, Intel still has time to catch up where it matters.

Intel already lost in science and engineering. Opterons are selling like mad, there.

Lost? Yeah right. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440714)

There's only one question you have to ask: How many dual-core AMD Athlon64 machines will Dell sell this year?

Intel may have the poorer performing product but they will still win where it counts: profit.

Re:Lost? Yeah right. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441055)

Dell has approximately 18% of the market (largest single group). What other manufacturers do is of relevance. HP is at just under 16%, which is pretty close.

Unbranded OEM PCs are still the largest group of manufacturers, accounting for around 40% of the global market.

Businessmodel for free software? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440722)

1: Make free software.
2: ?
3: Buy dual core from amd instead of intel.
4: Profit!

Intel hasn't lost until Dell sells AMD (4, Insightful)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440724)

I seriously consider that one of the biggest factors in this so called CPU "war".

The other thing is volume. I believe one of the reasons AMD is able to create superior processors is because they don't crank out nearly the volume that intel does.

If they did it would take them longer and cost more to upgrade the fabs each generation.

Top Down vs. Bottom Up (no it's not dirty) (5, Informative)

fbody98 (881072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440725)

Intel and AMD's approach to the dual Core (and to chip production in general since the A64) producion has one fundamental difference that will shape their incomes and profit margins.

AMD produces their chips Top down, they introduce dual core in the professional space first. In this case the 8xx series, then 2xx then finally 1xx and the desktop space. This allows them to take advantage of the increased profit margins and lower volume of the professional space. While their chip producion is ramping up they don't have to worry about demand outstripping supply. Thus they maximize their profit on their smaller fabrication abilities. The con to this is market penetration is smaller and validation "should" take longer.

Intel OTOH goes bottom up (and don't get me started on whether the pentium D is really dual core) producing first their desktop chips, and then when they're properly validated and their market presence and fab capabilities have been fully leveraged, then they move the chips into the professional realm, this allows the to maximize their profits as a fab that caters to volume.

Declaring a winner at this point is silly, as neither one has actually completed their cycle let alone vanquished the other.

Re:Top Down vs. Bottom Up (no it's not dirty) (1)

crudeawakening (867472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440828)

To all those people who say Intel's chip is not "dual core" because of how it is built. Come on! Who cares, whether it's dual core or dual cpu or however you want to play word games just get over it.

The power of marketing (5, Insightful)

FeetOfStinky (669511) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440741)

The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget...

I disagree, and I say that as someone who hasn't built an Intel machine in years. There are a lot of regular Joe consumers out there who are barely even familiar with AMD, primarily due to Intel's aggressive marketing (ding-ding-ding-DONG) and their partner relationship with major manufacturers (cf. Dell).

Good marketing will keep inferior products afloat for quite some time.

Re:The power of marketing (2, Funny)

Have Blue (616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441037)

And besides, Intel chips will make my Internet faster and my MP3s sound better!

Re:The power of marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441081)

Good marketing will keep inferior products afloat for quite some time.

case in point Microsoft.

Os2 was better, BeOs was better, APPLE IS BETTER, I can go on.... but because MSFT spends more in marketing than all those other combined has in Operating capitol they stick out as the "only choice".

Hell their marketing department is flooding the market with so much FUD as to TCO and stability and other worthless drivel that even smart IT and tech people here believe it.

Example? switching to linux will have to re-train all users and that is expensive.

Ignored fact: switching to XP has that same expense unless your IT departments take the time to disable the XP-ness and revert to windows 2000 behaivoir. XP has the SAME need for retraining because it act's dramatically different than 2000.

Only an opinion piece - don't bother reading (4, Insightful)

inflex (123318) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440744)

What a waste of 5 minutes of my life and a few hundered K of downloads :-\

Turns out this was nothing more than an extended opinon piece (yes, yes, I know that's perfectly fine) but I was looking for something with some hard-core comparisons, especially since they started out saying "we'll just compare the desktop scenario to keep matters simpler" --- *click to next page* Aw what!? nothing!

Sounds like someone was just after some slashdot publicity.

Re:Only an opinion piece - don't bother reading (1)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440822)

I have to agree. I wasn't going to even post in the discussion but with clichés like: no pun intended, to say the least and sudden change of heart wasn't what I would expect in reading a technical article. Then I went and searched [google.com] on the author and (let me add my own cliché) put the nail in the coffin for this author. Total waste of two clicks.

I can sum it up what he was trying to say with my interpretation included: Competition sucks when markets get tight.

Re:Only an opinion piece - don't bother reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441007)

Well, let's not forget that it's merely an opinion article. Once I realized that, I wasn't expecting anything technical to begin with. There are already tons of reviews out for dual-core, so you can always check them out. And I think he used those phrases to make the column a bit more interesting and spicy. This is exactly what John C. Dvorak (PC Mag's popular columnist) does at PCMag.com.

Re:Only an opinion piece - don't bother reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440921)

should have used google web accelerator. 1.5k and .2 seconds saved!

Re:Only an opinion piece - don't bother reading (0)

inflex (123318) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440946)

Damn, just wasted those gains reading your post!

DRTFA (-1, Offtopic)

Zo0ok (209803) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440747)

Dont read the fucking article. It just contains personal oppinions and trivial details. It oversimplifies things too. Its not insightful. I usually like AMD and likes them to beat Intel, but this story was simply to thin.

Did I miss the proof? (3, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440750)

Am I missing where they actually include some information about the benchmarks? I suppose what he says could be common knowledge that doesn't require proof and I am just out of the loop, but it's still good to post something like proof.

If this is true it would make some sense. I get to use an AMD64 at home and a similar P4 at work on computers with similar specs and I enjoy the AMD's performance a lot more.

This whole thing sounds familiar though...

I seem to remember when Prefetching was hitting the adverts, and AMD was doing some hefty investing in those prefetching adverts just to have Intel turn around and produce more powerful prefetching technology. I guess it can go both ways.

Any dual core vs dual cpu benchmarks? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440759)

I'm really curious to know how dual core compares to similar mhz dual cpu.

Anyone?

My results in a lab environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441029)

I've have pitted a dual-core Itanium Xeon (dubbed Prometheum) against a dual SMP relay set up with two AMD Socket A 2800+ (running at 2.4 GHz).

In a clustered configration the AMDs blow the Intel out of the water. In the 64-bit version of Windows XP Professional, the Intel chip gets higher frame rates in HL2, Bryce, and of course Photoshop (where the integer operations are the limiting factor). It could also be that the AMD system has a S3-Virge 16MB video card, while on the Intel system we have a NVidia 6800 with 256 MB. But since no texture information is passed, the differences are negligible.

The one thing i find, is that the AMD works better with pcAnywhere, Citrix and Telegard. Again, the AMDs are on Fast Ethernet, while the Intel box is connected via a frame relay maxed out at 72kb/s.

All in all, we prefer the AMD, because of its lower cost and variety of Front side bus configurations.

Which is nice.

Re:Any dual core vs dual cpu benchmarks? (5, Insightful)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441079)

In the case of the AMD Opteron dual cores?

Pretty simple: Slightly better than two single cores, mainly due to the fact that the Opterons are close coupled, and teh CPU cores commun icate directly in the package over a Hypertransport channel.

In the case of the Intel dual cores?

They have no direct communication, no HT bus, and all messages and RAM access has go to the northbridge chip and face a FIFO queue to memory.

In the case of thermal/power performance?
At similar performance the AMDs are using about 60% the power, and making corresdpondingly less heat than the Intels.

Despite what the "Intel fanboys" are saying, Intel HAS lost this war at the first battle.

And Dell will keep selling Intel, for a while.
Until it start to hurt the bottom line.

In the meantime, the changes are already happening.
SuperMicro, who NEVER build boards for anything but Intel CPUs, are now selling a dual Opteron board.

The Emperor really does have no clothes!

Dual core with Linux? (1, Interesting)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440763)

I've been wondering if AMD64x2 can be supported in Linux without a BIOS upgrade. I've got a Shuttle SN95G5 that I'd really like to drop a dualie into next year, but I'm not sure Shuttle will support it - and if they do I'll need Windoze to run the upgrade. Since Linux ignores a lot of BIOS functionality, will my box "just work" with a dual core running Linux?

I see 2.6.12rc3 has "full support", but what does that mean to me?

Re:Dual core with Linux? (2, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441120)

Ask yourself this, "Does Linux support multiple cpu's?"

You now have your answer.

Nose-picking (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440766)

McAfee makes the viruses!! (virii?)

Even worse -- AMD can't buy Intel's dual cores (4, Interesting)

IronChefMorimoto (691038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440768)

The Inquirer points to an Info Week blog via Silicon Investor that basically says that AMD can't even purchase dual core Intel CPUs to benchmark them against its own offerings -- they're not available for sale anywhere:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23018 [theinquirer.net]

I agree that the costs of the AMDs are exorbitant right now as they migrate their production, but if and when they get their fabs worked out, prices could really drop and even things up on that level.

I guess the real concern, though, and some have already noted it -- so what? Until I see an AMD dual core CPU option on Dell.com's various stores, Intel isn't going to be hurtin'.

IronChefMorimoto

Where are the numbers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440773)

This article is just talk without presenting any numbers. There should be links to benchmarks.

As it is the article doesn't seem very balanced.

Yonah (3, Interesting)

crudeawakening (867472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440797)

Intel still has the dual-core laptop chip (Yonah) coming out in the first half of 2006. This is the chip I am interested in. This chip is based on their Pentium M "Dothan" chip that I currently am running. The Dothan chip is quite impressive, I can run it at 1.8 GHz with only 1.068 V and 600 MHz at only 0.700 V. So a dual core chip based on this architecture might not be a heat monster at all. Wait and see on this one. As for one or the other "winning" the dual-core war, that's pretty lame an assesment considering neither company has even shipped more than a handful of these chips. As far as I can tell, the AMD chips perform a bit better but you pay more. If I had to buy one, I'd probably go with the Intel 2.8 GHz chip because its less than half the price of AMD's cheapest dual.

It is all about the Memory! (4, Interesting)

mprinkey (1434) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440806)

Dual Xeon systems (even with DDR2 RAM) cannot supply enough memory bandwidth to keep both CPUs running. We are lucky to get 80% of the single CPU performance when running two instances of a scientific app on two CPUs. Adding more cores just makes the situation far worse as now four CPUs will be competing for that same memory path.

Opterons are way ahead here with their built-in memory controller and dedicated memory banks for each CPU. Intel's SMP folks really need to pull a rabbit out of their hat and right quick. The last cluster (256 CPUs) I built used dual Xeons because they were still slightly faster on our applications over similarly priced Opterons in spite of the degraded SMP performance. Next time around, I doubt that will be the case.

Article Summary (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440818)


From TFA:

Personally, I think Intel has pretty much lost control of the enthusiast segment.


This nicely sums up the entire article...a two page personal opinion, berift of any real facts, statistics, or figures.

This 'story' was pointless.

Re:Article Summary (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440835)

You beat me to it. What a pointless article.

Prescott (5, Funny)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440847)

Please make sure your next generation of processors aren't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.'

I still haven't figured out why anyone would want to name a processor after John Prescott [google.co.uk] , British Deputy PM and Eater of Pies.

What's next? The Intel Widdecombe [google.co.uk] ? The mind boggles.

Re:Prescott (2, Funny)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440887)

I still haven't figured out why anyone would want to name a processor after John Prescott, British Deputy PM and Eater of Pies.

Because it packs a punch but is rather slow.

TWW

Why are we reading somebody's rant? (4, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440868)

There is no news in this article, just a splashy title. Intel will eventual build something based on the Pentium M. The Pentium M is much more efficient and will be more so in the future. The next generation of dual core Pentium Ms will be an interesting challenge for AMD. I still think AMD will win, but the war is far from over.

Second chance (3, Interesting)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440872)

They just need to jump a few steps ahead. Say, 4-8 cores, but unbalanced in order to optimize performance/price. Have one very good core intended for dealing with single-threaded workloads, with the rest of the cores being as stripped down as possible while still supporting the same instruction set.

Re:Second chance (1)

ugo (305502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441004)

Isn't that basically what Sony's Cell procesor is all about?

Re:Second chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441028)

Have one very good core intended for dealing with single-threaded workloads, with the rest of the cores being as stripped down as possible while still supporting the same instruction set.

And in turn destroy the S in SMP. I guess that will become AMP.

Suprise!? No. (4, Insightful)

bradleyland (798918) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440895)

This is no suprise. The Athlon64 on its own is generally a better performing processor than Intel's offerings. Also, its oft-touted on-die memory controller means the chip was "designed from the outset" as dual-core friendly. AMD's marketing department is apparently shoving this down every reviewer's throat.

What's making Intel look silly is not the fact that dual-core Athlons outperform dual-core Intels, but the fact that AMD has out planned Intel in the somewhat long term. Intel's short term goal of chasing GHz into oblivion is biting them in the posterior.

None of it amounts to much if AMD can't gain ground on Intel in the market. Call me when AMD's market share moves by more than 0.1% per quarter [itfacts.biz] .

This is Way (3, Insightful)

vcbumg2 (592292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440909)

The reason that the AMD chip is so much higher is that it is harder to make and THAT much technically better that the Intel processor.

AMD
As many of you know AMD has decided to toss the old memory access system and access main memory directly from the processor.
This allows AMD to have a true dual core chip sharing memory resources with on chip Core-to-Core communication.
The real benefit is the direct memory access and on chip core-to-core communication.

Intel
The Intel dual core chip is as big of a marketing trick as hyper threading. Intel took to generic P4 processors ground off the edges and placed
them on a single die. I am not making this up!! this means that any communication processor to processor has to actual touch the system bus.
If you know anything about the way processors work you know memory management for SMP machines is not easy, but imagine trying to manage
a shared cache and shared main memory when the only core-to-core communication has to hit the system bus!

AMD did something very right but needs to bring the price down to ever get any reward.
Before anyone gets in a war about AMD kicking Intel down just recall the Intel marketing budget is more that the entire operation capitol of AMD.


Codeman

nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440916)

That's not the way it works. All intel has to do is announce and show off dual-core chips and all of their current customers will stick with them. As a monopoly, they just need to do enough to keep people from migrating away from "the standard".

CoolTechZone (2, Insightful)

ACNiel (604673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440942)

AMD has always had some cool, cheap chips. They haven't won anything yet.

It amazes me how little people appreciate about business in the IT world.

Who wins when everyone agrees Beta was a technically better format, but only sell VHS?

Branding works, and Intel has that on their side for a little bit longer. They would have to lose several of these battles before they start to lose their branding advantage. And just because you think Prescott is atrocious, if it performs better than previous Intel chips, the ones that business owners are replacing, who is going to look elsewhere?

Since Intel sides with Microsoft, (0)

merpal (873013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440962)

I'm pretty sure 99% of the Slashdot crowd will react favorably to this article. :p

AMD is leading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12440964)

At least for now AMD is leading in terms of dual-core CPUs. If I was to buy a new PC I right now it would be an easy decision to go with AMD.

Two-Faced Market (2, Insightful)

eander315 (448340) | more than 9 years ago | (#12440981)

While the article is mostly pointless, I do find it funny that, with the exception of the enthusiast market, pretty much everyone has and continues to buy Intel chips no matter what the price/performance ratio beacuse the little sticker says "Intel Inside". Now that AMD has turned the tables and often has the faster chips and tries to charge a premium for them, everyone cries foul. Where have you people been the last 20 years?

TFA... (3, Insightful)

Shoeler (180797) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441027)

Was one of the most general, non-specific, didn't quote any numbers piece of crap that I've wasted 2 minutes reading in a long time. Not once did the author compare these stats from "various on-line resources". Not once did he show any shard of evidence.

However, he is of course correct - but it's a useless read without any references.

Bored with hardware? (5, Interesting)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441044)

I remember when was I was in my teens (15 years ago) I used to love reading about the latest hardware advances.

These days you'd find me hard pressed to get excited about anything hardware related. I have a fast system with lots of ram and a decent GPU, and thats all folks.

Much prefer to pay a raging teen money to build the damn thing for me.

Do people find themselves as they get older more interested in software design, algorithms, and licensing debates?

Hardware just doesn't do it for me anymore.

Intel Ok, AMD Ok, Everybody Can Win (4, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441064)

I don't think it's time to bury Intel yet, or AMD for that matter. If I've learned anything over the last many years, the better technical product doesn't always go on to dominate the market. But I would say that market domination is not necessarily needed to make a nice profit. AMD is making better performing chips than Intel right now, and with the dual core chips they should be making a nice profit with premium pricing. The market for such chips is currently limited to tech enthusiasts (such as PC gamers) and those with specialized computational needs. That's okay because with the right pricing that could be a very profitable niche. Apple is doing pretty well right now without being anywhere near dominant in the personal computer market due to a fiercely loyal user base, premium pricing, and some genuinely cool products. Apple is not the biggest, but they are profitable. AMD can do likewise.

Intel of course has nothing to worry about. They have the volume customers through deals with Dell, HP, and others. And they are picking up the low end of the market for dual core chips. These are not as good performance-wise as the AMD chips, but the lower cost is appealing to a more budget minded market. And with economies of scale, Intel certainly makes a nice profit. So it is unlikely they'll be shutting their doors anytime soon.

Everybody can win here. AMD has the harder job for now because their survival depends on continuing to produce better chips and growing their niche of customers. But as long as they make a profit, they can stay in the game.

I say this all the time, but... (2, Interesting)

thegnu (557446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441088)

I love AMD. Really, I noticed from the very beginning (well, the beginning for me, back in 1996) that Intel was very very focused on advertising, and AMD was not. That's not to say that Intel didn't make a 'better' processor for a while, but I've always favored AMD because I knew I wasn't paying for the Blue Man Group with every processor.

Also, AMD's current domination has been in no small part in my mind because of the rock-solid stability of the NForce chipsets. The Pentium's early stability can be attributed to the fact that Intel built their own chipsets as well, so there was a consistency a-la Mac, and AMD was reliant upon 3rd parties who were not quite as awesome as Nvidia.

I'm delighted constantly by AMD, and I'm specifically delighted by the Venice-core processor, which because it runs at 30W at full load will allow me to make a very quiet computer that is also state-of-the-art. This doesn't necessarily apply to the dual-core thing, except that conciousness of factors other than sheer eardrum puncturing performance has been one of the hallmarks of AMD's career.

Dual Core performance comparisons? (1)

amichalo (132545) | more than 9 years ago | (#12441090)

I am interested how AMD's dual core offerings compare to Freescale MPC8641D dual core chips and other dual core PowerPC offerings in IBM's pipeline.

Does anyone have any insight into the landscape of the emerging dual core market space - who is ahead and who is not (besides Intel)?

Nothing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12441129)

After reading this, I view hasnt changed. It says liek some AMD fan just wants to put Intel down. I myself am an Intel fan, but respect both chip makers for what they have to offer. If you are going to make a claim to something like this, then I would hope you would be able to back it up with some types of numbers. Anything at all really.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?