Issue #94 is not on line yet, but this is the article the Inquirer commented on here: theinquirer.net
*** Editorial: Free Advice for AMD and Intel
By Kevin Krewell {3/25/02-02}
Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it. It
often comes from people without full knowledge of a
situation. It is suspect because if it is so
important, so astute, why is it free? Well, at times,
we all feel compelled to butt in, and I am no
exception. It sometimes takes an outsider to look at a
situation and make a common-sense suggestion to
clarify the issues involved. In the name of
journalistic fairness, I have balanced my suggestions
by offering advice to both AMD and Intel in the same
editorial.
I believe someone has to point out when the emperor
has no clothes, and in this case, the missing clothing
is customer demand for AMD's SledgeHammer processor.
To be blunt, I doubt there is a significant market for
AMD's SledgeHammer, and I think AMD is placing
engineering resources on the wrong opportunity. Before
I explain why I have come to this conclusion, let me
say that I consider AMD's Hammer family an excellent
engineering solution. I also see AMD's evolutionary
64-bit migration plan for the x86 instruction set as a
good conservative strategy. I believe the ClawHammer
processor will gain acceptance as a high-performance
processor for desktops, notebooks, workstations, and
one- and two-processor servers. AMD probably senses
that Intel's Xeon processor is vulnerable because its
very deep pipeline and small L1 caches are not
efficient on server applications. I have a problem,
though, with AMD's chances for SledgeHammer in the
low-volume, high-margin, high-barriers-to-entry, and
ultraconservative server market for four-way and above
processor configurations.
AMD's SledgeHammer is designed for multiprocessing
systems that use from 4 to 16 processors. With
coherent HyperTransport links between processors, AMD
can gluelessly connect arrays of SledgeHammer
processors, not unlike the capability of Compaq's
forthcoming Alpha EV-7 processor. AMD has stated that
SledgeHammer will allow it to penetrate the server
market by offering a complete solution, from one
processor to many, as Intel does. Although that claim
is technically correct, what major OEM would actually
design and build a server using SledgeHammer? And,
perhaps more important, are any AMD customers asking
AMD to build SledgeHammer?
A quick review of the top five server OEMs, which
(according to Dataquest) have 70% of the server
market, does not provide a promising candidate. Compaq
has already committed to Itanium, having killed the
future Alpha EV-8. Compaq may shortly merge with HP,
and HP co-developed the Itanium architecture, making
it very unlikely that HP, or a merged HP-Compaq, would
choose SledgeHammer. IBM already has the excellent
Power4 and has support for Itanium, giving it no
incentive to add another 64-bit architecture. Dell has
yet to field any non-Intel solution. Sun is committed
to the UltraSPARC architecture but will sell Linux
boxes using x86 processors. To avoid competing with
Sun's own high-end servers, Sun's Linux boxes will
likely be limited to one- and two-processor solutions
and be very cost sensitive. Those boxes offer a good
opportunity for Athlon MP and ClawHammer. SledgeHammer
systems larger than dual-processor systems would be
too threatening to the UltraSPARC interests at Sun.
This situation leaves AMD with high-end, tier-two
server candidates like Cray, Fujitsu-Siemens, SGI, and
Unisys. These smaller vendors would have to spend
millions on system design and validation for a
processor that has no market share. If AMD is counting
on Itanium's eventually failing to be competitive, as
its critics have maintained, Intel may still have the
rumored Plan B for Xeon-Yamhill. Eventually, 64-bit
computing will be essentially free, from a silicon
standpoint, and Intel will add extended addressing to
the x86 architecture.
A much better return on AMD's engineering investment
would be provided by focusing on a new mobile-specific
processor. When AMD went from zero market share to
roughly 40% of U.S. retail notebooks in 2001, it
showed it could swiftly grow market share, given a
competitive product. Furthermore, AMD might also be
able to leverage the expertise in low-power, high-
performance processor design from its recent Alchemy
acquisition.
Intel's Banias processor will likely change the market
for notebook processors in 2003, when clock speed and
core voltage control schemes will no longer be
sufficient for a mobile processor to be state of the
art. Intel is poised to raise the bar with lower-
leakage power management, dual VT semiconductor
process technology, and specialized chip-set support
with integrated wireless LAN capability. We also
expect Intel to have microarchitecture-level power
management controls.
The notebook market is growing faster than the market
for either desktop PCs or servers. Mobile processors
may not have the very high prices of server
processors, but mobile is a market in which AMD has
had a successful track record and could provide a
greater number of its customers with a product they
want and will actually use.
The Name Game at Intel
In my last editorial, I railed against marchitecture,
but for the moment I would like to embrace one of my
favorite marketing games: naming processors. I think
this is a timely discussion, because Intel is about to
make some major changes in its processor lineup, and I
think there's still time to help it make the right
choice.
In mid-2002, Intel will take the Celeron product from
the P6 generation to the P7 generation (which Intel
calls the NetBurst architecture, refusing to get into
the generation-number game with AMD). The NetBurst
version of Celeron is a new-generation product with a
new socket, new instructions, different performance
characteristics, and several other innovations. When
the change from Socket 370 to Socket 478 versions of
Celeron occurs, it should not be done without a clear
marking that indicates to OEMs, VARs, and consumers
that the "new" Celeron is significantly different from
the old one. Intel should add a modifier to Celeron
brand name to clearly indicate the distinction. The
modifier could (and should) be as simple as a "2" (as
it is the second microarchitecture generation for
Celeron) or a "4" (a reference to the similarity to
Pentium 4) postfix. I cannot sufficiently stress how
important I think this clarity will be for Intel's
customers.
In addition, in 2002, Intel launches its second 64-bit
microprocessor-McKinley. If ever a product needed an
image booster, it's Itanium. The obvious name change
would be Itanium-2 or Itanium II. Some wags have
suggested Anadium, derived from the next element in
the periodic table after Titanium. (If Itanium is
titanium minus the T, then Anadium is vanadium minus
the V.) I'll leave it to the highly paid name
consultants to decide whether it should have Roman
numerals or Arabic and be hyphenated or notóalthough
I'm fond of the retro Roman numeral version (sans
hyphen).
If AMD or Intel is reluctant to follow this advice, it
does come with a full money-back guarantee.
It will show up here: mdronline.com
BTW, it is a free subscribtion for the e-mail version: mdronline.com
Anyway, what is he really saying?
- That it will be an uphill battle for AMD to get the Tier 1 OEMs to use AMD products in their server lineup? Gee. What a revelation.
- That Clawhammer is fine for single and dual, but there is a problem with SledgeHammer? Does he mind the extra HT link, or the extra cache, or extra channel of memory? Which one does he have a problem with? He doesn't specify. Just because SledgeHammer can be used as a 4 to 8 way system, it doesn't mean that it is not a fine processor for a single CPU system, with 1 or 2 HT links unused.
I wonder how much it pays to come up with these editorials, since we do it here for free.
Joe |
