Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (169653)	8/23/2005 1:03:13 PM
From: KeithDust2000	Respond to of 275872

Joe, It looks like Intel will be back in the game in a year. more details: theinquirer.net

To: Joe NYC who wrote (169653)	8/23/2005 1:15:32 PM
From: mcmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

It looks like Intel will be back in the game in a year. Well as long as the game is competing on roadmaps you may well be right. Real product is however a different matter. Remember 10GHz? All in all it looks to me that Intel's roadmap competes OK with AMD's currently shipping product. I am not, however, overwhelmed by what I have seen so far and neither it seems is the market.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (169653)	8/23/2005 1:22:13 PM
From: NicoV	Respond to of 275872

Of course, Intel is inflating their numbers. Look at the slides on the Anandtech article: Notebook: Merom >= 3x Banias. I.e. a 35W TDP Merom (dual core) will have 3times the performance of a 35W TDP Banias (i.e. a single core of a Merom will be 50% faster than a 3 year old Banias). That doesn't look that spectacular at all, I assume that AMD will be able to make similar claims with a 35W dual core Turion in 2H 2006. Server: Woodcrest (dual core)>=3x Nocona (single core). Assuming that both fit in about the same TDP, 1 Woodcrest core would be 50% faster than a Nocona core of 2004. Desktop: Conroe >= 5x Northwood. This is probably the biggest increase, presumable because of the low efficiency of Northwood. Since Conroe's TDP (65W) is lower than Northwood (85W or so IIRC), we may again look at maybe 60% improvement per core over a 2003 Northwood. Please also remember that for perceived speed (i.e. what you see during everyday use), the only thing that matters is single threaded performance and the extra 2x factor for going to dual core won't matter to most users.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (169653)	8/23/2005 1:28:32 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Joe: Opteron already has more than three times the performance per watt of P4 Xeons. Don't go by the TDP numbers because Intel uses some liberal typical standard and AMD uses a absolute worst case family standard. By end of 2006, it will be on 65nm and may get 5 times the performance per watt. So Merom compared to the competition at that time it is shipping looks to be hot, slow and expensive. Ditto for Conroe when it ships. It is always the same with Intel. Lok at some year or two down the road product goals against a real world shipping CPU of today. Use our pie in the sky numbers (which we rarely meet) versus our competitor's current real world numbers. A few questions need to be answered. How do they measure performance? Doing what? How do they measure power? Are the standards like AMD's? Doing integer logic operations at battery power clock speeds (lowest speed they go) on software (programs and data) that fits entirely in the L1 caches will have a far larger performance per watt numbers than a CPU running heavy floating point code at top speed on huge datasets. The former can use the lowest voltages and the smallest currents, thus have low power use and have ok performance but, have high performance numbers than the exact same CPU, running a application that uses 8GB of memory for its working set, doing lots of DP FP operations at top speed. The many stalls due to memory latency, branch heavy code and non optimal binaries and the high supply voltage, cause the power used to be high and the performance to be low making the performance per watt be very low. I take Intel's future numbers with a huge pile of salt. There is just too much wiggle room and history to have any confidence that any of the goals will be met. Pete