You got it, AMD servers are here, and AMD gaming rigs aren't far behind.

5/19/2006 12:14:17 PM

did u hear Dell bought Alienware?

5/19/2006 12:14:40 PM

meh

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : also , u hear that dell dude got caught smoking pot?!?!]

5/19/2006 12:14:50 PM

one clarification... by the end of the year.

5/19/2006 12:15:07 PM

Link plz.

5/19/2006 12:40:59 PM

http://www.theregister.com/2006/05/18/dell_picks_amd/

5/19/2006 12:44:55 PM

AMD's up close to 10% over yesterday's close after this news. I feel AMD has more edge than Intel on CPU technology. It's cheaper and faster. It'll be tough for a bloated company like Intel to come up something with something that can leapfrog AMD in the near future. A few years back, people said that Intel will kill Marvell.


How'd that work out?

5/19/2006 1:09:52 PM

i'd still use intel in my home system. I've had nothing but bad luck with the chipsets and mobos surrounding amd procs.


Especially now that Intel has the best price/performance overclocking proc.

~$140 for 3.6 stable on air and 4.1 stable on water.

5/19/2006 1:12:31 PM

I'm sure you're correct there, but that ain't gonna sell more CPUs, as overclockers are a niche market. But, we're talking about this at two different levels, so it's kinda moot anyway.

5/19/2006 1:16:13 PM

because that extra 500mhz will let you do what exactly? Transcode Porn 5% faster?

And that 140 bucks turns into 400 bucks when you actually buy all the watercooling components.

At which point you could have just bought the better, faster, cheaper AMD cpu and been done with it.

5/19/2006 1:19:29 PM

subtitle - *with the amount of energy wasted by non-AMD powered servers*




[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 1:54:37 PM

Quote :

" because that extra 500mhz will let you do what exactly? Transcode Porn 5% faster? "

the original proc is 2.66. It OC's to 3.6 on air. and 4.1 on water.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/index.html

Quote :

"A short while ago we tested Intel's latest flagship processor, the Pentium EE 965 (Extreme Edition), which costs nearly $1,100 at retail outlets. Even this CPU, which still isn't available at too many locations, has to surrender first place to this stealth candidate. Things look the same for the top-of-the-line AMD processor, the Athlon 64 FX-60, which also fell behind in most of our benchmarking categories."

so for $400 you have a proc that beats out an $1000+ one.

OC'ed to 3.32 it beats out the $300 AMD 64 X2 3800+. And 3.32 is done with a $60 zalmann cooler.

5/19/2006 1:55:56 PM

I swear by Intel...centrino chipset revolutionized the laptop sector.

5/19/2006 1:58:29 PM

^ yea cause we're really talkin about laptops here douche

5/19/2006 1:59:29 PM

even in the non-laptop market...Intel is awesome. They design everything...everything works and performs correctly, and the performance/price is right.

5/19/2006 2:02:18 PM

you've also managed to void your warranty, put stress on the cpu it wasn't intended to handle, not to mention the added heat to your overall system increasing risk of failure and the increase in your power bill for your 200W+s you've added to your system.... this is fantastic!

the aforementioned benchmarks were all based on stock cpu's so it's not even taking in to the account that all of those processors can be overclocked 10-25% as well.

it's VERY impressive OC, i concur, but not realistic for an everyday desktop

200W = .2KW (9.53c/KWh * .2KW) = 1.9c/hr * 720hr/month = $13.72/month (assuming it's on 24/7)


[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 2:03:32 PM

Quote :

"it's VERY impressive OC, i concur, but not realistic for an everyday desktop"

nah that's only for e-penis enlargement purposes

5/19/2006 2:13:42 PM

i trust an oc'd intel over a stock amd

5/19/2006 2:25:58 PM

I like Intel processors because I know that no matter how far they're overclocked or undercooled they aren't just going to go up in a ball of flame

That said, my Prescott runs hot as fuck, but is bizarrely stable.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 2:36:03 PM

Quote :

"so for $400 you have a proc that beats out an $1000+ one. OC'ed to 3.32 it beats out the $300 AMD 64 X2 3800+. And 3.32 is done with a $60 zalmann cooler. "

Sooo much false logic. The EE P4 is a complete paper ghost. It has almost 0 market, no one actually buys that shit. So it's not really WORTH 1000 bucks.

So that 60 dollar heatsink puts you at 200 bucks.

For 140 bucks, you can get an Athlon 64 3200+ (2ghz) and overclock it with the STOCK cooler to 2.8ghz.

So for your 200 bucks you get a 25% overclock. For my 140 bucks I get a 40% overclock.

If you compare stock to stock, AMD wins.

If you compare overclocked to overclocked, AMD wins.

If you compare performance/dollar, AMD wins.

If you compare performance/watt (on the desktop), AMD wins.

If you compare performance/watt (on the server), AMD wins.

Think what you want, but realize you are throwing your money at a more expensive, lesser performing part and platform.

Quote :

"even in the non-laptop market...Intel is awesome. They design everything...everything works and performs correctly, and the performance/price is right."

What like the first rambus chipsets, like the first P4's which were slower than their P3 counterparts, like the numerous new sockets and form factors that take years to see any practical advantage?

I agree that Intel has gotten better with Centrino, The Pentium M and the BTX/DDR2 decisions. But they hardly have a flawless record. Look at the debacle that VIIV is becoming.

5/19/2006 2:45:41 PM

There's this thing in business. Leaders make mistakes. What Intel does is innovate. Innovation comes with risks and short term failures. What AMD does is pick up from established practices/technologies and develop from there. Hence, their track record when it comes to mistakes is neat. Sure, they're doing a lot of "new" technology development lately, but as of now, from an innovation point of view, AMD is years behind.

5/19/2006 3:03:17 PM

^ bullshit.

5/19/2006 3:06:40 PM

k

5/19/2006 3:07:38 PM

yeah, screw HyperTransport that's not innovation oh wait.. what do you call EM64T innovation? intel's been playing catchup for the last 3 years... where have you been?

5/19/2006 3:20:09 PM

no one said intel was playing catchup, either...but there sure isn't a 3-year gap between AMD performance and intel performance...if there is, by all means, give some examples with substance instead of just quoting "innovations" with no actual proof as to how they perform 3 years worth of technology better...because you're talking out of your ass

5/19/2006 4:22:51 PM

Are you talking to me?

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 4:33:55 PM

I've used every consumer processor and platform from the Odyssey 2 on up. coleco, Atari 2600/5200, C64, C128, Amiga, Tandy, Apple IIe, 8088, 286, 386, 486, PowerPC, G3, G4, G5, Pentium, AMD K5/k6, Pentium Pro, PII, PIII, Athlon, Athlon XP, P4, Athlon 64 etc.

And Intel is a lot of things, but they are not "innovative". Damn near all their "innovations" come from gobbling up other companies and refining the existing technology.

The Pentium M is still based on the original Pentium architecture. The P4 with it's "Netburst Architecture" was their attempt to move away from it, but it wasn't some new idea in computing. It just happens that, much like 64bit cpu's, common applications couldn't take advantage of it.

Up until the P3 period, Intel was extremely IBM-like, they did very little innovation wise because they didn't have any mass market competition. When AMD launched the K5 and later K6 processors, it really shook shit up (though not really in terms of big market share).

I love Intel as a company in a lot of ways, but they are not in any way inherently "better" than AMD. They are much less nimble in the marketplace, they have a rediculous amount of overhead and structure that limits their own innovation, they have constantly shifted their market focuses and core businesses over the year and they have yet to come out with ANY marketable innovations that are original or new to the marketplace.

Great example: VIIV and Centrino. They take existing, enthusiast and fringe market elements, bundle them in a package and give them some support software and a fancy name, and call it a new product.

5/19/2006 4:48:55 PM

Until lately Intel has dominated AMD in every PROFESSIONAL benchmark or benchmark that business are likely to use. IT IS NOT ACCIDENTAL that Dell, Gateway, IBM and so on use Intel processors. It is not accidental that most business rely on desktops and laptops powered by Intel processors. AMD had a slight advantage over Intel in ONLY gaming area. Granted since 64s came out that difference closed off somewhat, but it is completely retarded to bash Intel in regards they are not innovative or how they function as a company. This is exacly like the fight between ATI and Nvidia, one month ATI is better, the other month Nvidia. Intel is just temporarily in the mid-step and of course AMD took the advantage. No surprise.

5/19/2006 7:32:57 PM

Plain and simply that is not true.

The Athlon XP beat the P4 in every benchmark outside of a few specialized video and audio encoding applications.

The Athlon MP dominated the 2P Xeons in every aspect as well.

The REASON Dell, Gateway, IBM and so on used Intel processors is because of two factors. One was garaunteed volume. The second is because Intel provides full board solutions, while AMD only provides reference designs for it's chipsets. THAT is what matters to OEM's, a full solution and garaunteed cheap volume.

This is absolutely nothing like ATI versus Nvidia. Every tier1 system builder in the US uses primarily AMD server solutions, damn near all of China uses AMD solutions. AMD has bigger marketshare in the retail sales market.

There's a reason Intel is slipping. AMD found the missing link with nVidia. A top tier hardware partner who could design reliable board solutions and provide them in VOLUME for the desktop. They've forged relationships with several partners to allow this in enterprise solutions. It's been years in the making and they are now reaping the benefits.

Intel has been so focused on Mobile the past couple of years, their other core businesses have slipped bigtime. The Itanium was a disaster, so was the P4EE, so has been the P4D. Thank god they are finally bringing the Core Duo to desktops, but they need to play catch up big time.

They are now a generation behind in Enterprise, and nearly that in the desktop market. AMD's Sempron line has been HUGE and has virtually eliminated the Celeron market position.

5/19/2006 7:53:56 PM

The retail market is miniscule

really

5/19/2006 8:09:40 PM

The retail market generally reflects the value lines (aka Sempron vs. Celeron)

OEM/Direct Sales reflect the desktop lines (A64 vs. P4D/P-M)

Server market reflects enterprise lines (Opteron vs. Xeon)

And right now, AMD is better on all three fronts. They are still waaaay behind in mobile though. Frankly I think Intel is making a good decision in pursuing the mobile market first and filtering to the desktop, but it's costing them marketshare in gobs.

5/19/2006 8:14:08 PM

you forgot the notebook line where Intel is killing AMD.

unless by mobile you mean notebook.

to be mobile is cellphones, and intel leads in that.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 8:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 8:15:31 PM

so what exactly is intel's plan to get back in the game? this new processor i'm hearing about is suppose to be all big and bad. have they completely re-designed the way they make them or what. as i've said in many threads, i've been a fan of intel all my life, and i've gotten enough criticizm for it, so dont even start. in any case, what does intel need to do to catch up in desktop market and how?

5/19/2006 8:59:38 PM

Quote :

"The deal is a major win for AMD, which had little presence in the server market until it released its Opteron processor in 2003. The critically acclaimed chip put Intel in the rare position of having to play catch-up with its smaller rival."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060519/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_dell;_ylt=AkBHljJJvctEeGqwph6il_QjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 9:03 PM. Reason : yeah i know its about servers, i'm just starting to like amd more and more than intel lately]

5/19/2006 9:03:21 PM

Noen, I'm too lazy to look, can you post some benchmark links on each of the three lines you mentioned? I'm interested in the enterprise line the most.

5/20/2006 10:43:33 AM

Wasn't conroe benchmarked as being faster then AMD's current line up by a significant amount?

More importantly, who the fuck cares.

5/20/2006 11:30:27 AM

gargamesh got owned hardcore in this thread

5/20/2006 11:37:46 AM

Quote :

"you forgot the notebook line where Intel is killing AMD. unless by mobile you mean notebook. to be mobile is cellphones, and intel leads in that."

Mobile includes everything Mobile. Laptops, PDA's, Cell Phones, Gaming systems etc. And yes Intel is absolutely dominant in their markets.

5/20/2006 11:43:46 AM

Woodcrest - the intel comeback story

5/20/2006 12:10:54 PM

Sempron Vs. Celeron:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron_7.html

The Sempron 3100+ is the one that matters, because it's the only 754 socket chip in there. Gives you a good idea of the differences. As usual the Intel chip dominates with video encoding thanks to SSE3, and falls behind everywhere else.

Here's the REAL DEAL though, Enterprise

http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/04/22/duel_of_the_titans/page18.html
Keep going on the rest of the pages to see more tests.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p=6
More of the same, but with 4way configurations as well

8way (4x dual core) is even more retarded swayed to Opterons
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745&p=4

5/20/2006 12:35:03 PM

I am unsatisfied with my nVidia nForce 4 Ultra chipset. I plan on going back to what I've seen as the more reliable platform, Intel.

5/20/2006 12:55:35 PM

Quote :

"Up until the P3 period, Intel was extremely IBM-like, they did very little innovation wise because they didn't have any mass market competition. "

Umm, IBM has actually done quite a lot of innovating... just never at the right time and rarely for consumer products.

5/20/2006 1:53:42 PM

^^In the desktop market, there really isnt any difference between the A64 and the P4D, other than a slight price premium for Intel.

^Eh, they are a big lumbering giant too.

5/20/2006 4:24:15 PM

Yeah, but I'm not arguing intel doesn't innovate either. I mean there's certain things you have to give IBM credit for, like SMT. I mean they were researching that in the late 60's even. They're a lumbering giant in their buisness practices, but some of their teams have come up with some pretty cool stuff way before anyone was ready to implement it. I mean SMT wasn't even implemented till DEC released that failed chip of theirs.

I do beleive IBM's power5 series was the first dual core chip out there right?

Likewise you have to give intel credit for most of what happened with desktop processors from the 8086 through the pentium 4.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 5:06:16 PM

Innovation is not JUST coming up with a new technological or application. That's just research, which both Intel and IBM do incredibly well.

The definition of innovation is coming up with a new idea, good, practice or service and APPLYING it in a commercially successful way. IBM has come up with thousands of new ideas, goods and services. As has Intel. But they have rarely brought them to market first, or best.

SAS is a good example of an innovative company, AMD is as well. ATI/nVidia/3dfx are and were innovative companies. When your businesses success depends on bringing constant innovation to market, there's no other way about it. Giants like IBM/Intel/Microsoft put themselves at considerable risk by being self innovators.

5/21/2006 12:53:51 AM

amd sucks everyone knows that

Quote :

"I am unsatisfied with my nVidia nForce 4 Ultra chipset. I plan on going back to what I've seen as the more reliable platform, Intel."

Its statements like these that matter more than page 24 of 45 tomshardware "i can use excel" bar charts.

[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

5/21/2006 9:35:47 AM

How come no one's mentioned sun hardware?

Are strictly talking windows/linux here?

5/21/2006 9:48:53 AM

there's a reason sun went to x86

5/21/2006 11:55:14 AM

Probably because Sun uses AMD Opterons in nearly all of their servers now. They also give the option of Solaris/Linux OR Windows on most of their servers.

Gone are the days of Sun's own architectures.

5/21/2006 11:56:23 AM

4^ I think it's the chipset. If AMD had control of its own chipsets, they would be just as reliable probably. The processor is excellent, but the chipset has issues. I love AMD because of K8 whopped P4, but once they ship larger volumes, they should invest in making their own chipsets so that stability is not even an issue.

5/22/2006 2:46:21 PM