RSSAMD Finally Answers the Challenge with Phenom: Four Cores on One Die
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 14, 2007, 12:29 AM
(continued from previous page)
AMD needs to give its new performance customer the feeling of reliability from Phenom. To accomplish this, it's relying fairly heavily on Microsoft, whose software is probably more responsible for the "experience" factor than the CPU, and on ATI. For the first time, AMD is timing its Phenom launch to coincide with ATI's new Radeon HD 2000 graphics cards, and hoping performance customers will perceive them together as part of a collective platform...and that they won't mind the platform name "FASN8."
"We're bringing emotion to our products," AMD Phenom product manager Ian McNaughton told BetaNews. "When we were AMD traditionally, we've been a processor company. With the acquisition of ATI, now we're a platform company. We're an experience company. And that's something that we're wanting to get across with our processors: It's not just about doing subtraction, multiplication, and division quickly. It's about doing more with your PC. It's about the experience with your PC, and how a quad-core or a Phenom dual-core will help you with that experience."
If you've ever listened intently to a Microsoft presentation, you'll hear a lot about what "it's about" and what "it's not about." It's a very simple method for steering the viewer's mind toward the "takeaway points," and away from the unpleasant facts you don't want the viewer to recall.
Take, for instance, Intel's recent demonstration of the 80-core stack, as an example of the extrapolation of its current architecture. Isn't that a demonstration that Intel has a cohesive roadmap, and is well on its way to executing that plan?
"AMD is not about how many cores," answered McNaughton. "AMD, when you look at our future...the Fusion and Torrenza initiatives that we're doing, it's about heterogeneous cores. It's about having the right technology for the market. It's not about just throwing more cores [into the mix], because that doesn't do everything for everyone...You can throw more cylinders in a car. It doesn't necessarily make it better."
What about Intel's new "cadence," already moving to the 45 nm generation on the heels of just having successfully launched its 65 nm generation? Pay no attention to those nanometers behind the curtain, AMD tells us.
"No consumer buys nanometers," stated McNaughton flatly. "So whether we're at 90 nm or 45 nm or 32 nm, it doesn't make a difference. To the consumer, they're not buying nanometers. They're buying the performance and the experience of their whole platform.
"So what do nanometers do? Let's be frank. What do nanometers give you?" McNaughton went on, challenging us to explain the whole intrigue behind the need for things to get smaller. "It gives you a more efficient manufacturing process, which reduces power, increases yields, and reduces costs. As you move through the manufacturing steps...it's going to be cheaper for you to make those wafers, and you pass that on to your consumers and your OEMs. So it's good to get to 65 and 45 and what not, but now unnaturally you do things to get there, that's really what makes sense, right? Our customers are not banging down our door saying, 'You need to get to 32 nm tomorrow!' Because there's no benefit."
No benefit? What about the fact that smaller processors naturally consume less power - a fact AMD taunted Intel about all through the long summer of 2005? "Why don't you take that and look at current CPUs that are available in the market in the server space, where it really, really matters, and look at performance-per-watt leadership?" McNaughton challenged us. "And we have performance-per-watt leadership. That tells me that either our competitors have an incredibly inefficient architecture or manufacturing process, regardless of what nanometers, or we are very good at what we do."
Then we heard an argument we didn't expect: a contention that there's only so much of this shrinkage a company can do.
"There comes a point in time when there's diminishing returns," McNaughton told BetaNews. "I don't think we're there yet, and everyone's still keeping pace with Moore's Law...[but] I don't think you're going to see a big benefit to [Intel] to move to 45 [nm]."
He explained that Intel may perhaps need the continued die size reduction more than AMD, to compensate for Intel's other design inefficiencies, as well as in order to improve yields - implying they really needed to be improved. "We are focused on delivering the products to our customers that our customers are asking for, and we're committed to giving our customers the innovative products that we've traditionally always delivered."
The message we received from AMD this week was this: Do we really feel all that better about the performance improvements Intel claims to have delivered? Maybe we can see the difference in the benchmarks, but is it something we can truly appreciate? If not, perhaps there's something else that defines quality in the hearts of the performance buyer...if not yet their minds.
Whatever that something else is, AMD may need to get a handle on it quite fast. As SVP Henri Richard told reporters two weeks ago, thanks in part to Intel, the CPU market doesn't work the same way in 2007 and into 2008 as it did in 2005.
"I think what you're going to see is really a change of the game where leadership position in the absolute benchmark that a lot of the enthusiasts are looking at, may change as quickly as every six months," Richard confessed.
"And that's good, frankly. That's good for the industry, that's good for the end user, competition is a great thing. Sure, if we can have leadership for a long period of time, that's something that's a position you enjoy. But I really think that the dynamic of the market has changed, and without wanting to take too much credit for it, I still think we can thank AMD for having changed that dynamic. And I think the end user will benefit from that."
I must admit when Core 2 duo came out I jumped Amd ship and went to Intel. That shows though that Intel finally got their act together. If Amd comes out with something better my next purchase will be with them.
I hope Amd doesn't go under. If they do that means ATI and Amd are gone, 2 birds with one stone. That leaves Intel with 100 percent market share in processors and Nvidia 100 percent in HIGH end graphics with Intel filling the rest with their low end crap Graphics adapters.
So Let's pray Amd comes out with new high performing processors soon and whip some you know what, and ATI come out with their new graphics.
I do feel for Amd they are a truth David and goliath scenario with Intel. At 10 percent of the total size and revenue of Intel its no wonder they can compete and even beat them. It is amazing. I do have no doubts though that Amd does have a case against them with the whole lawsuit thing. Let's hope they are not dead before that goes to trial.
I think what would be a very interesting scenario would be IBM buying out AMD/ATI. Think about what kind of situation that would create for Intel. The financial power, capacity and Marketing power of IBM with Amd's engineers and other assets.
Score: 0
|that's why i havent bought any processor since 2005...... i've been waiting for yah AMD AND INTEL!!!!!! yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wanna see this battle
Score: 0
|Gimmie some of that POWER!!!!!
ya da ya da ya...
:o)
Score: 0
|Neat........
Weeeeee
Score: 0
|The least you could have done was put some "secret message" at the end of that for the 1 or 2 people who might actually bother to scroll sideways. :p
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Agreed with "rsx508", weather you use AMD or not, having them around keeps the pressure on Intel and overall keeps the prices of Processor lower.
Overall, I use an AMD FX-55, I just built this PC a few months back. Granted, it is a generation behind, but for the cost that I got it for and with what I upgraded from, it is outstanding.
Bottom line, most of you do NOT need a Quad Core or a Dual Core. It is all about the biggest / best. Most of that processing power will go to waste, I mean seriously, do you really need a Dual Core to run your Fantasy League?
Photoshop / Media Editors / CAD users / High End Gamiers... By all means, get the Dual and Quad Core and do what you will. The rest of you, be glad that AMD is around!
Score: 0
|You are correct that most people don't need a quad core, but Windows Vista runs like molasses on a single core processor. I am running 64-bit Vista Home Premium on a computer with an AMD Opteron Model 240 running at 1.4GHz, Asus SK8N motherboard (nVidia nForce 3 Pro 150 chipset), 1GB DDR memory, and ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AGP 8x graphics. I'm running 64-bit Vista at a resolution of 1024x768 32-bit color. This computer is barely usable for anything other than simple productivity tasks (web browsing, e-mail, word processing, etc).
Score: 0
|That is more a Vista Issue then your PC's issue.
Like with the PS3 and the WII, the Software in the first year is not compatible with the Hardware. People who run Vista run it because:
1. It came with their new PC
2. They (YOU) choose to upgrade or you felt just having the latest and greatest was best.
Vista is a PAIN-IN-THE-A$$!!!
MS got tired of all the "My Software / Hardware" does not work calls after someone upgraded to Windows 9.x / 2K / XP. When you set up Vista, it tells you to take out / un-install things that it does not like, if you don't the other choice is that it will NOT install.
You can have the latest and greatest of everything, but it does not mean it will work / work right.
Vista will go down as the "Windows ME" of its day. When Windows Vienna (2009) comes out, it will be what they intended Vita to be.
Likewise with the PS3 and WII, last XMAS was really bad for both (No Hardware of Software), this holiday season, they will BOTH flourish simply because the Developers will not have compatible products out for it.
Score: 0
|Based on your above logic, why not just throw Vista in with the:
"Photoshop / Media Editors / CAD users / High End Gamers" who need to upgrade their hardware?
For those who want its benefits, they will need a pretty new machine. End of story. Your hate for Vista kinda leaves you hangin. It is what it is - you don't have to use it.
Score: 0
|Other then looking "Pretty" what Benefit/s does Vista have over XP?
Most Software needs a Fix for it to work properly.
Most Games do not support Direct X 10 which most video cards do not either.
I have no Hate of Vista, but to most people it will not solve a problem, nor is it an answer.
If you run Vista and you are happy, great. I am an MS Beta Tester as a lot of people were, and it ran form e, but being a PC Analyst for 12+ years now, I find allot of people simply want the newest thing because it is the newest thing.
If MS was so confident in it, then why is Vienna scheduled for release in 2009? That is a short time frame between OS's considering they have worked on Vista for close to 6 years.
Score: 0
|SInce when has MS been able to meet a release date. Don't count on it till way after that. Seems to me that Vista was also delayed many times. Once SP1 comes out I am sure that Vista will be a fine OS. Wait until games require Vista, DX10. Sounds more like you hate MS than anything else.
Score: 0
|If MS was so confident in it, then why is Vienna scheduled for release in 2009?
Because, all of those moron's out there now crying that we should all stick with XP were the very same morons decrying MS for taking so long to produce Vista.
Seriously, though, I really don't think they care much about those folks. Can't please 'em, why bother?
Score: 0
|That first question of yours says plenty. Vista is no doubt the heaviest OS yet, but it does have plenty of enhancements over XP. Look into it.
Score: 0
|So, "Looks Pretty" is so worth $200 - $400?
Enhancement and Benefits are two very different words.
And Enhancement is nothing more that Polishing a known feature.
A Benefit is something that a previous version did not offer.
"Pretty" is an Enhancement, not a Feature / Benefit.
Until more Software and Hardware manufactures can produce working products under Vista, it will not be taken seriously. Most OS's have gone though this stage, but Vista having it's own set of Hardware and Software rules makes if difficult for the average "Joe User" to install or upgrade to it.
Again, I am not a Vista or MS hater, but Vista in it's current state needs a lot of work to convince me. My Vista from my MSDN Subscription sits right over there, but until it makes some strides it won't go on my know working and functional PC which according to the MS Compatibility test is fully Vista compatible. I would rather wait a year after release and see what happens.
Score: 0
|Duel boot ?? Just an idea.
I like the idea of Vista, specifically 64 bit, and feel the security and push to give 64bit developers a chance to cater for the more powerful processors is much needed. If it could have been done with a SP3 style update for XP then this would have been perfect, but MS choose this route and the choice is yours.
Runs very well on my modest PC, which i duel boot with Server2003 and XP.
I remember the same with 98se and XP, most gamers were adamant that XP sucked, and yet here we are. At this time £1000 got you allot less than it does now.
Score: 0
|You can Dual Boot any OS. In the early days of Windows 9.x, sure you needed a 3rd Party utility to help you (System Commander for instance) but since Windows 2000 Dual Booting has always been an option. The only trick was to install what would be your main OS first.
With 64-Bit, there still is not enough support from Hardware and Software makers. The Chips / Chipset may be 64-Bit, but there is a lot of catching up to do.
Plus, 64-Bit tests really do not show any type of dramatic improvement over 32-Bit as far as speed. Granted, they are running 32-Bit apps for the most part on a 64-Bit OS, but that just kicks back to my point about not having enough Software and Hardware products to actually use.
Windows 98 was OK with Game, but when NT4 and 2000 hit was when MS said that Windows was a Business Operating System and game support went out the Window (LITERALLY). When XP came out it combined the best of the worlds and even though after 2 Major Service Packs and 100+ patches later, we have a pretty stable OS.
Most people I talk to (Non-Technical People) who have Vista because it came with their new PC simply tell me that they want to downgrade the License to XP which if you did not know CAN BE DONE!
Score: 0
|Vista runs fine on a dual core processor (such as an AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core 2). Besides, if you STILL use an obsolete single core CPU you're going to have slow performance on anything but basic productivity tasks like word processing, e-mail or web browsing.
Score: 0
|I run a Single Core AMD FX-55 (2.6GHz - 2GB RAM) and I have had the BETA Version of Vista and Beta's have much more code then the final release and it ran fine.
In fact it also ran fine on the Single Core AMD XP2600+ as one of my other test subjects.
If your logic is that unless you run a Dual Core Processor you can't do anything but word processing, then do use all a favor, stay out of PC sales or fixing them because you are going to rip a lot of people off.
Score: 0
|I don't care if AMD makes decent products or totally sucks. As long as they stick around to keep pressure on Intel to (a) innovate and (b) maintain lower prices, I'm happy. We all win.
Score: 0
|So you DO care if they make decent product(s) or not. Im not seeing any other way of "keeping the pressure" on Intel.
Score: 0
|For their sake I hope this works. I am running an AMD X2 right now, but if they don't step it up my next processor is going to be a Core 2 Duo. I am for AMD all the way, but I am still going to take the fastest one.
Score: 0
|AMD is still far behind Intel at this point. They are trying to catch up with Intel's nearly 1 year old processor at this point. By the time they drop the Phenom proc Intel will have already moved on to better and faster processors...either way AMD is screwed.
Score: 0
|Yah I am afraid you are probably right. For our sake though I hope you are wrong.
Score: 0
|See this is the thing...
Intel was 3 years behind when they released the Core 2s, AMD is one. The difference, AMD doesn't as much cash as Intel does to sit on.
Score: 0
|AMD will be back on top in this battle again.
Score: 0
|AMD just doesnt stand up in the end. they never actually come out and say it but everybody knows that they're on their last legs. thier products steadily decline yet they still blame other people...... i have a feeling though that they are going to pull around (plus i still run AMD so i hope they do)
Score: 0
|You better hope that AMD does not go out of busniess. If they do your next computer will cost you a hell of a lot more. Amd has been very competitive with Intel the last couple of cpu generations. AMD's answer to the quad core is the right way to go. Intel isn't a true quad because of the cores are not tied together internally. The bottom line is competition is good for the industry.
Score: 0
|"Quad core" doesn't mean 4 cores that are tied together internally, no matter how much AMD or it's fanboys try. "Quad core" means 4 cores (not that hard, really). There are 4 cores in Intel's quad core offerings, it just isn't done the way AMD does.
Score: 0
|So with your definition of quad core, this means the AMD 4x4 platform is as much of a quad core system as an Intel Core 2 quad core system.
Score: 0
|there u go again... AMD is fighting with words instead of actions....
when will amd ever accept the facts?
losing in sales, they sue intel...
losing in smaller processors size now told consumers the size doesnt mean anything...
lame way to fight... = = *shakes head...*
sorry amd fans... i'm juz being honest...
Score: 0
|Go AMD.............
Score: 0
|Agreed, LL. As much I love the bleeding edge, the prices have become way too absurd to play in that sandbox. Then there's the inevitable bugs than may leave you with a very pricey and sub-standard piece of hardware, while you watch everyone else buy the "1.5 version" that is cheaper and better. I think 90% of us would probably be of this mindset.
Score: 0
|I hope it works out for them. I use an AMD now, but I also use Intel. Id love to see AMD integrate their video card line with these quad cores. I hear its a ways off though...
I hope AMD hasnt been out of the "offensive" game to hurt sales on this new chip.
No matter what company - Intel, AMD or even Cyrix (back in the day) - I always wait a bit before buying.. let everyone else work out the bugs. hehe
Score: 0
|