On CBS MoneyWatch: Which Credit Cards are Best?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 34 of 35:
Next »
« Previous
IDF shows INTEL is far far behind
Currently, AMD's dual core Opteron 865HE runs at 55 watts. That's 27 watts per core. Rackable showed a server with 4 Opteron cores, 8GB of ram, 1TB of harddrive, total max power consumption 145 watts. see http://issj.sys-con.com/read/117897.htm


INTEL won't be able to do this next year, as its 64 bit capable dual core server chip will consume 80 watts.

----------

1) AMD has designed x86_64 in 1999 and INTEL was denying the need for it. Now INTEL copied x86_64 from AMD on some but not all of their chips. INTEL's copy of x86_64 will be complete in 2H 2006.

2) Multi-core, AMD designed Opteron to be multicore in 1999, and INTEL only started in 2004. INTEL admitted its work was a kludge, see "Intel's dual-core Pentium 4 a rush job": http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php

3) Focus on performance not frequency. AMD has been doing this since 1999. INTEL moved from 12 pipe stages of P3 to 22 stages on P4 and 38 stages to Prescott, to bump up frequency (not performance), INTEL was talking about 20 GHZ in 2003 based on the Netburst. Now, INTEl moves back to P3 and 12 pipe stages and 2 GHZ.

4) Performance-per-watt. AMD and SUN brought up this concept and measure in 2004. See my previous post and http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~92637,00.html . INTEL has a 300% disadvantage to overcome.

5) Direct Connect Architecture. AMD has done away with the obsolete FSB design and use direct links between CPU and CPU, CPU and I/O, CPU and Memory. INTEL won't have this until 2008.

6) Embedded memory controller. AMD has this designed into every opteron and athlon64 and sempron64. INTEL needs a separate chip for memory controller. INTEL is rumored to copy this AMD idea in 2007.
Posted by: sharikou   Posted on: 08/26/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

The speed race is over. The power race is on.  DonnieBoy | 08/23/05
don't we all wish that...  ctk76 | 08/23/05
At last Intel started catching up  michael_t | 08/23/05
Overheating  dch48 | 08/23/05
Old Story  in-DUH-vidual | 08/23/05
Its true i reheated chineese food with it  BuckRogers_z | 08/24/05
RE: That's nice; now for speed?  Krazyken39 | 08/23/05
now for speed  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Power consumption is of little interest to me  stan@... | 08/23/05
Re Power Consumption  joedokes | 08/23/05
Oh Really?  panzrwagn | 08/23/05
Really  stan@... | 08/24/05
The market's going away from your preference...  kjartan93 | 08/24/05
It usually does  stan@... | 08/24/05
Low power? So what  Raed009 | 08/23/05
what you think is speed may not be  deymious@... | 08/23/05
nice work...  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Here Here  bka1959 | 08/23/05
Re: nice work  Ande_z | 08/24/05
It gets worse  CobraA1 | 08/23/05
Power vs Actual Work Done (i.e.SpecInt)  usr001 | 08/24/05
actually...  deymious@... | 09/18/05
Thank you  G Fedorchuk | 08/25/05
Intel: more power less enrgy  chanhqvo | 08/23/05
Roadmap and Apple  Mr_Dave | 08/23/05
I'll be Watching...  Jkirk3279 | 08/23/05
On sharing IBM technology...  flatliner | 08/23/05
Torvolds strikes again  Roger Ramjet | 08/24/05
New Architecture  Old Guy_z | 08/24/05
I agree speed race over  kokuryu | 08/24/05
RE: "I agree speed race over"  ajapierce | 08/24/05
Parasite-ware... good one  Mr_Dave | 08/24/05
Great for the Road... not so good for the ....  BuckRogers_z | 08/24/05
IDF shows INTEL is far far behind  sharikou | 08/26/05
Who cares?  Thore | 02/07/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement