RSSAMD Finally Answers the Challenge with Phenom: Four Cores on One Die
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 14, 2007, 12:29 AM
After about ten months of watching somebody else marching ahead as the all-around leader in both price and performance, AMD this morning stopped making purely defensive plays, and at last launched its counter-offensive. It will be introducing a new CPU architecture for the second half of this year, aimed at performance-hungry customers perhaps willing to pay a premium.
With the Phenom processor series, which will include a single-die quad-core and a double-quad-core package, AMD will soon be managing three consumer desktop CPU lines, as Athlon moves into the midrange, mainstream space, and Phenom assumes the company's high-performance mantle from Athlon FX.
It is perhaps the last trump card in AMD's hand, and the company may have no choice but to play it now: Since its earliest entry into the multicore space, AMD has used an architecture which moved the memory controller onto the die itself, eliminating the need for a front-side bus architecture, simplifying the chipset, reducing power consumption, and expediting memory transfer through the HyperTransport bus.
Up to now, AMD has delivered so-called "quad core" by way of a dual-socket design for Athlon FX dual-cores. But with the new Phenom architecture in place, AMD can pull four cores into the same die, letting them share a memory controller and an L3 cache while delegating separate L2s and L1s for each core. It's AMD's on-die memory controller design which has been the company's hallmark for the last three years, and it will rely on that design yet again to pull it through.
But as Phenom comes into being, AMD will be a whole manufacturing process generation behind Intel, which came from behind last year in stunning fashion to wrest back not only the price/performance crown but huge chunks of both market share and consumer confidence.
As AMD is just now moving into the 65 nm generation beginning in the second half of this year, Intel is gearing up for 45 nm retooling in the same timeframe, and appears further along in the adoption of breakthrough HK+MG transistor technology - an advance which AMD partner IBM claimed to have discovered on exactly the same day, though which may not be ready for AMD until later next year.
So the challenge before AMD will be to win back the hearts of the enthusiasts, the performance buyers, and the system builders and OEMs, while at the same time keeping their minds from getting too curious about the massive missing performance margin that used to distinguish it from its chief competitor. As BetaNews learned from AMD in recent days, the Phenom campaign this time will be less about statistics and proof points, and more about feeling - about whether the product is marketed well enough for users to feel satisfied, even if it turns out the performance edge over Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad is negligible.
"You're going to see more consumer-like marketing come from us than you've traditionally seen in the past," stated Ian McNaughton, Phenom's senior product manager, in an interview with BetaNews. "You're going to hear us talking about our products in a different way than we traditionally have, and it's not going to be, we're sending a data sheet. It's going to be more terms like, 'Exquisitely powerful, intensely visual."'
Indeed, that's the new slogan for Phenom technology that AMD will begin "beta-testing," if you will, today. "When we look at our architecture as it stands today, with four cores, it starts to really shine," McNaughton continued. "The actual benefit of having our architecture versus our competitor's architecture starts to really become apparent."
This is the endgame AMD wants to see, at least for this round: It wants its new Phenom processor line to feel right, to give the appearance of smoothness and sure-footedness, in an everyday work setting or in a hard-driving gaming environment. Maybe it won't win every benchmark - at least not any more, not in the competitive market AMD helped catalyze. But AMD wants it to have that "certain something." And if it tries too hard to quantify it, to measure it, to pronounce it 2% or 12% better than Intel in some obscure contest, it could just lose it anyway.
"When you look at the R&D budgets of the three players in the industry - Intel, nVidia, and AMD - it's unrealistic for anyone to believe that any of the companies are going to be in a leadership position from an absolute performance perspective for a very long period of time," admitted Henri Richard, AMD's senior vice president for sales and marketing, in a webcast a few weeks ago.
"I think that the game has changed when AMD came out with AMD64 architecture, and launched Opteron. Until then, Intel had this almost undisputed monopolistic position. It was challenged in 2000 by Athlon, then they came back with Pentium, and then when we came with AMD64 and the Opteron processor, people thought, 'Well, this is just a repeat of the same game.' And I'm telling you, the game has changed a lot. It changed a lot because we merged with ATI, and so we now have a complete platform."
Next: Making the case for superiority in a neck-and-neck race
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
|