An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
QUOTE: Well, think of it. AMD designed 64-Bit extensions & licensed them to Intel to use also. Microsoft backs AMD's 64-Bit extension technology along with many other companies.
64-Bit technology is really helping corporate companies due to the fact that they can now use a lot more Memory (RAM).
Now, AMD didn't just release a 64-Bit CPU, they released a completely new CPU Architecture with an Integrated Memory Controller & there Hyper Transport Technology. These CPU's are way fast enough even if they never had 64-Bit.
So, yes AMD wins in innovation, price, performance & design. ;) ---------------------- Now there Dual Core CPU's are great. We probably don't need them right now, but for server/workstation app's they will greatly benefit.
AMD is on the right track with there Dual Core CPU's & is at least 1 year ahead of Intel in Dual Core's.
Intel made me laugh when they released there Dual Core CPU's with \"ONE\" FSB feeding 2 CPUs' LOL, R they ever going to learn that selling garbage will not pay off in the long run..........;)
There's no contract. Intel's discounts to Dell (unquestionably one of Intel's biggest profit sources) provide Dell with little reason to switch to AMD. If the customer base of Dell announces in great enough number that they want AMD CPU's, Dell will cater those too. But the discounts levied by Intel upon Dell are apparently VERY good, so good that unless a LOT of customers wanted AMD's, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Dell would have to make enough profit with their hypothetical AMD boxes to supersede the amount of money they'd have saved by just going Intel. Like Dell has said, they will provide AMD solutions if there is great enough consumer demand... but... there would have to be a LOT, a stinking LOT of consumer demand for them.
This is exemplified in that, very recently, Dell made hints to the world that it *might* just begin shipping Opteron servers. It also dropped the current Itanium-2 server lineup, though it would be foolish of them not to resume Itanium server solutions when Montecito comes out.
Quote:
Ya, know. I hear that Dell is thinking about making Opteron workstations.
For all intents and purposes, the lower end Xeon workstations are still very competitive. Workstations aren't servers, they need to be in the general realm of affordability... and the cheapest AMD solution that can be paired in a dual configuration is the Opteron 145, at $500-some odd dollars. Other than that, you get back to single core Opterons which aren't so high and mighty, comparatively, to Xeons.
Opteron servers is something Dell should jump into. In that respect, there is a LOT of consumer and enterprise demand for good servers, and nobody wants the IA-64 Itanium because of it's very specialized nature. Dell's own target audience, the \"scalable enterprise\" would not be scalable in the LEAST with Itanium. I dunno why Intel didn't make that architecture x86... Itanium-2 is pretty strong.
Quote:
Well, if Dell had half a brain...
Yes. The world's single, largest OEM computer company must be retarded. Fascinating logic. Truly enumerating.
Quote:
they had to reduce there cashe to controle there heat problem. Very small upgrade to 1 CPU .
Um...
Why are they putting 24 MB of L2 cache on the Itanium? Or 9 MB of cache on the Xeon?
Anyways... I hate the Pentium D's. Retarded things. Yonah is the Intel dual core I'm looking forward to. Anyways...
Put all benchmarks aside. Let's look at architecture. This is were AMD's Opterons shine. The Opterons already proved that they are the best in Price/Performance.
So, if an Opteron solution is about $500, then you already know that it's well worth the money. But with Intel's Xeons, you really don't know. And we are talking about \"Real World Performance\"
Last edited by Super XP on Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
And we are talking about \"Real World Performance\"
I know \"we\" are. The Opterons lead in workstation speed right now, but the cheapest ones out there are $500. After those, there aren't any for less than $1,000.
This is one \"STRONG\" reason AMD deserved a BIG HUG :rolleyes:
AMD's Opterons WIN !!!!!!!!!!!!! Total System Power Consumption - Idle Total System Power Consumption - Full Load SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark 3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render Alias Maya 6.5 High Definition Software Render Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPEG to WMV Encode LAME MT - Multi-Threaded MP3 Encode Apache Bench - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2 Apache Bench - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10 Sciencemark 2.0 - Molecular Dynamics Sciencemark 2.0 - Primordia
Intel's ?Paxville? Dual Core Xeon WIN Nothing @ all ;)
Read This Quote Carefully Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUOTE:
Unfortunately, even a solid platform can?t help Intel?s performance numbers, as their new dual-core chips (while powerful in their own right) simply are bested across the board by AMD?s dual-core Opteron processors. Even worse, the Opterons typically perform much better while running at slower clock speeds and only having half the amount of on-die L2 cache to utilize. AMD?s chips also consume far less power and run quite a bit cooler, giving AMD an edge on nearly all fronts. AMD?s top of the line dual-core Opterons are quite a bit more expensive compared to the top of the line 2.8 GHz Dual Core Xeon (which will sell for ~$1,000 per CPU), putting it roughly on par with AMD?s Opteron 270 (2.0 GHz) processor. Even comparing the Opteron 270 to the Paxville Xeon 2.8 GHz, we still would opt for an AMD based solution.
Yes, the Opterons could obliterate a Xeon any day.
Well, I think AMD should do just that ASAP, gain as much market share away from Intel & then prepare for an \"Intel Attack\" in 2007.
This would be the best thing AMD can do for themselves. While AMD is working on Hyper Transport 2 & possibly \"Tri-Core Opterons\" to compete & beat Intel's coming Quad-Core Xeons, they should steal away as much market as possible ?RIGHT NOW?.
This way we the consumer will get the best while these guys make the Millions ;) & tare each others throat about. LOL
The reason for ?Tri-Core? Opterons is because AMD can sell them dirt cheap & still make them highly competitive against Intel?s new line of Quad-Core Xeons coming in 2007. What do you all say?
I think the \"new\" quad core Xeons are going to do a lot better than people think. You've got to remember, the new Xeons are NOT going to be Netburst-based CPU's, they're moving onto performance-per-watt, and so far the Pentium M architecture is performing above and beyond the call of duty -- at 27W.
I think 2006 is a more likely estimate for Intel's comeback on the desktop front. They've already won the laptop one.
I think the \"new\" quad core Xeons are going to do a lot better than people think. You've got to remember, the new Xeons are NOT going to be Netburst-based CPU's, they're moving onto performance-per-watt, and so far the Pentium M architecture is performing above and beyond the call of duty -- at 27W.
I think 2006 is a more likely estimate for Intel's comeback on the desktop front. They've already won the laptop one.
Well, I am sure Intel will come back harder than hard. They are also going to implement there new Bus technology called CSI Technology. I think that is the name :)
But I wouldn't underestimate AMD's 65nm Tri & Quad-Core CPU's with SOI & there new Hyper Transport 2 & DSL Technology (Form of Strained Silicon - A lot more efficient than Intel's version). What I like about AMD?s & IBM?s DSL Technology is that it?s upgradeable & expandable where as Intel?s version of Strained Silicon is limited & cannot be expanded unless they take another route.
But, never the less, I do admire Intel for one thing, putting aside there bulls**t monopolizing, addictive & corrupted ways to undermine the CPU industry LOL, that they sure do come up with unique technologies like Hyper Threading & the SSE?s. It?s too bad for them that they didn?t have a better CPU foundation to build those unique technologies on like AMD has.
This is one reason I like AMD, I use AMD, & I love there Innovation & there Gamind CPU?s :)
But I wouldn't underestimate AMD's 65nm Tri & Quad-Core CPU's with SOI & there new Hyper Transport 2 & DSL Technology (Form of Strained Silicon - A lot more efficient than Intel's version).
That's true -- and frankly, I'll give AMD due credit in the field of HyperTransport, something that should become as common on CPU's as SSE is. The advantages of HyperTransport are plainly clear, even Intel recognizes this (and would be stupid not to). HyperTransport is far better in this day of dual-core CPUs, which, due to their data-hungry nature, require a \"bigger straw.\"
Intel has recently ditched their server chip roadmaps, the only one chip staying there is the dual-core Xeon (Woodcrest). Montecito (dual-core Itanium 2) is getting pushed back, and Whitefield (quad-core Woodcrest) is being cancelled entirely in favor of Tigerton, to be released in 2007. Tigerton is to introduce a, quote; \"New high-speed interconnect.\" Even still, it won't feature an on-die memory controller, I believe this is because Intel doesn't want to include the on-die memory controller until they can include the CMOS voltage regulator on the chip (following their performance-per-watt CPU philosophy).
I'm liking the micro-ops fusion technology incorporated into the Pentium M architecture, and I like the shared cache Yonah will feature. That should have a HUGE benefit on performance. Then there's Merom with 4 MB of on-die cache. :D
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
