RSSAMD Salvages Low-power Argument with New Opteron CPUs
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 7, 2007, 5:30 PM
In the fourth calendar quarter of last year, Intel made the most headway against arch-rival AMD in the server CPU market in several years, surging ahead in shipments and reportedly taking back a few points of market share. Now, AMD is working to take those points back and then some, and to do so, it's working hurriedly to seize the low-power, high-performance advantage that the company is perceived to have lost in the wake of Intel's Woodcrest introduction.
Two of AMD's introductions today include "high-efficiency" versions of its high-performance line. Whereas the Opteron 8220 and 2220 models for dual-processor systems, introduced today, are both rated for a thermal design point (TDP) of 95 watts, their 8218 HE and 2218 HE counterparts are rated for 68 W TDP, and five other single-processor HE models introduced today are rated for 65 W TDP.
Intel might be the first to point out that these numbers don't seem good enough, with its recently introduced 2P model Xeon 5160 rated for 80 W TDP and its 5150 rated for 65 W TDP. In previous years, AMD deflected Intel's claims of power advantages by saying they were using a skewed metric, describing average power dissipation instead of maximum, implying that Intel server chips could easily run hotter.
And as engineers there have also pointed out in the past, TDP is a measure of how hot a chip might run - specifically, a relative measure of the maximum wattage a CPU could run and still be cooled to nominal levels by its on-board fan.
So now that Intel appears to have adopted AMD's metric for TDP, AMD today is working a little harder to attempt to prove that TDP is not proportionate to power draw. In internal test results the company released today, AMD says its new Opteron 2218 HE draws 141 watts of power on average while idle, and has a maximum power draw of 245 W ("at load"). By comparison, Intel's Xeon 5150 draws, under AMD tests, 231 W of power while idle and 311 W at load.
AMD then calculated the potential cost savings for servers, in locations where utility companies charge 10¢ per kilowatt-hour. (A December 2006 IBM study showed New York City utility companies charging data centers as much as 15¢/KWh.) The savings costs for using an Opteron 2218 HE instead of a Xeon 5150 were calculated to be $93 per server per year, or as much as $46,253 per year for a server farm with 500 processors.
The message from AMD: Although it may appear on the surface (and surfaces do tend to get hot) that Intel has the efficiency advantage, carefully studied measurements should indicate otherwise.
The company also resumed its ongoing message that Intel chooses skewed metrics when convenient. Today, AMD cited an Intel benchmark showing a Xeon 5160 scoring a 123 in the SPECint_rate2000 benchmark - a rating of relative performance in integer operations - versus a rating for the existing Opteron 2220 SE of 78.3.
As AMD has been telling BetaNews repeatedly in recent days, where Intel appears to hold the lead in a particular test, a modernization of the test procedures will prove otherwise. In tests using the updated SPECint_rate2006 benchmark, compiled by the authors of the benchmark itself, an Opteron 2220 SE server scored a 51.7, whereas a Xeon 5160-based server scored a 50.3.
BetaNews confirmed those figures today with the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation database, and learned these were peak performance figures that pitted a Tyan Thunder server tested by AMD against a Fujitsu Siemens Celsius server with a 5160 on board, tested by the manufacturer.
In terms of base performance (the type of figure AMD would prefer to cite if we were talking about heat dissipation), the AMD-based Tyan server scored a 46.1, while the Intel-based Fujitsu Siemens server scored a 48.8. AMD submitted to SPEC its own test figures for an Intel 5160-based Supermicro server with a lower base score of 45.2, though it did not provide a peak score for that server.
So AMD continues its incremental improvements to its Opteron product line, and in so doing, tactfully steers customers' attention toward the bright spots while avoiding the not-so-bright. Last year, that was an easier job for AMD. But this year, until the company can implement its next wave of efficiency-improving advances, it will be a far tougher sale to make.
Its painfully obvious that none of you have a clue as to the economics of the business market relationship between the 2 companies.
As all of you debate on the basis of some particular technological development you COMPLETELY miss the dynamics of the business and economic paradigm that is the value pricing economic model which is an implementation of Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" concept.
Rant on fools.
Score: 0
|Feeling a tad pompous this morning, are we?
Score: 0
|;-)
Just damned tired of the same insipid rant that goes on day after day, thread after thread, with no one gaining any insight into anything.
If someone seriously wants to understand the relationship of the two players in this effective duopoly, read a bit about the economic model.
It is played (despite Intel's recent marketing error in trying to dictate to the market when they should 'go' 64 bit - which was the real issue that gave AMD a chance to appear equal for a bit with their hybrid 32/64 bit chips) to perfection by Intel.
The attempt by some to simply focus on some trivial technical advance de jour misses the point completely!
But I guess that happens when some are So myopic as to totally ignore the business and the economic model which is driving the ships.
Score: 0
|While I think we all realize, at least to some degree, the economic play between the two, this is *not* forbes-online. this is a beta site, visted not by business/econ majors, but technophiles.
Sure, some of us may have *taken* some business/econ, but when it comes down to it, when we visit Betanews, we're a bunch of kids looking for the scoop on the latest toys.
...*not* a lecture on business and economics.
Just sayin'...
Score: 0
|Then it would be nice for those who are clueless about business to stop trying to define their (AMD's & Intel's) businesses in terms of lame technology models and simply showing their ignorance. Its amazing that for those who plead ignorance of such things, they keep right on going!
Yep, we techies are one dimensional idiots devoid of any understanding of the role of technology in the real world - which unfortunately is transacted in the BUSINESS REALM. And AMD and INTEL are BUSINESSES...technology BIDNESSES.
We ignorant techies are a very blissful lot.
What a lame excuse for being idiots. Whatever you do, don't learn a little about both aspects of the enterprise that compliment each other.
Score: 0
|lmao.
Someone needs to chill...
Foxy, this is a tech forum. Not a business forum. We like to talk abotu the gadgetry and technological aspects of the newest tech here.
If we want to talk about the business aspects, we'll, rightly, take it elsewhere.
I never said anyone was ignorant. That's your claim. I simply stated that this is not the place where most of us would consider discussing the applied business aspects of technology.
You sure do hang around a lot for someone who thinks we're all morons. Is it an Ego thing?
Score: 0
|Nope, just a fleeting hope that some of those who are not able to understand both the 'gadgetry' and the means to bring it to market might give way to some who do understand that the gadgetry is brought to market under the guise of 'doing business'.
And as far as your being ignorant of anything either than the 'gadgetry', you are indeed ignore-ant of technology as a business.
Funny how you flaunt the fact that you haven't a clue and then seem upset that others recognize the fact.
Especially as that the vast majority of threads here are about the marketing and business of bringing technology to market. Few articles are active discussions regarding the technological internals of any product!
So just why do techies who's conception of a high end computing environment is a core duo processor with striping across 2 drives hang around when most of the threads concern enterprise topics?
Its been awhile since any thread dealt with game hints.
Score: 0
|lmao.
Sorry, didn't mean to ruin on your Holier than thou parade.
please feel free to continue, but you'll have to do it without me. It's only 9Am and I've already had my fill of pompous twats today.
Score: 0
|Give yourself more credit.
Shaving alone must present you with a days worth of looking at ignorant pompous twats.
Score: 0
|the hell are you guys talking about? just pulling things right out of your a$$e$
Score: 0
|AMD doesn't do s**t! It's IBM that keeps AMD afloat because they hate Intel as much as anybody!
Score: 0
|Low-power Opteron?
It's interesting to see who (?) runs the AMD show - IBM.
I think that IBM has a grudge against Intel because of Apple. So why did Apple dump IBM? It's simple... IBM & Motorola were fighting over patents while Apple was put aside. I don't blame Steve Jobs for giving the finger to IBM.
And now, AMD is being used by IBM. It's all high-tech politics.
Score: 0
|If you ever actually used a AMD processor you would know how much better it is then intels garbage
Jay
http://jayed.us/
Score: 0
|Typical Fanboy!!! I didn't say anything good or bad about the processors. I only stated that it was IBM that developed the technology, not AMD.
Score: 0
|AMD doesn't do s**t! It's IBM that keeps AMD afloat because they hate Intel as much as anybody!"
These are giant corporation, looking to gain as much market share and profit as possible in order to keep their share holders and investors happy. IBM didn't partner up with AMD because they "like" AMD and "hate" Intel. Believe it or not, both AMD and IBM (as well as Intel) care about one thing only; money.
Score: 0
|Apple 'dumping' IBM is like me dumping Ferrari because they will not build a car to my specs...
Score: 0
|moved
Score: 0
|AMD is getting lazy. Intel knew that the future is 65nm and 45nm processes, AMD knows this to. But while AMD was watching Intel's NASDAQ ticker drop, and theirs rise, Intel was spending some cash on new manufacturing and development and it's paid off (somewhat). So poor little AMD, take it in the a** and realize that abandoning the high performance/low cost business model was your death sentence. I used to buy AMD because they were cheap and fast. Now I don't buy AMD because their sinking and nobody wants to throw them a paddle.
Score: 0
|AMD wasn't just watching the ticker, my friend. They were building and converting fabs as fast as they could...and still are.
See, it's just not quite so easy as one might think to stay on top of a giant that's been around *far* longer than you have.
Intel had more fabs to begin with. Intel has more capital. is it *any* surprise to anyone that they've crawled out from under AMD again?
Shouldn't be.
The main reason I'm a fan of AMD is not because they lead. It's because the make Intel worry. And when Intel worries, they actually do some pretty decent sh1t. :p
Score: 0
|Honestly, I doubt AMD did EVERYTHING they could in preparation for Intel's resurgence. This is a company whose trade show representatives claimed that they weren't worried about the Core chip because they believed their available-at-the-time technology was more than enough.
AMD got caught sleeping, an unusual position for a company not leading the market.
Score: 0
|That does sound like typical rep speak, so I barely think you can discern anything from that.
Score: 0
|With a Tenth of the available cash, I think amd has done as well as they could. sure they had 2 good years of performance crown, but with just a few computer manufacturers using them from 2003 and barely getting to 50% of the desktop market in 05-06 and maybe 20-30% of the laptop, it isn't like they have been in the black the whole time (like intel has) Intel has more than 10X the cash amd does, so before you go spouting off about how AMD sunk their ship by being Idle, you should actually read the news, look at their corporate profile, to find out how much they are spending on R&D.
Score: 0
|Everything?
You're right, of course. I doubt they sacrificed enough chickens.
Still, given their vastly limited capital and fab capavity vs their only competitior, I cannot honestly seriously discuss the topic with anyone who thinks they just aren't doing enough.
Considering the the challenges laid out to them, they've done more than anyone ever expected.
So long as they keep Intel on their toes, I really don't care who's got the best CPU....just that they both keep pushing eachother.
Score: 0
|"I cannot honestly seriously discuss the topic with anyone who thinks they just aren't doing enough."
That wasn't my point, and you know it.
Score: 0
|AMD got caught sleeping
...must have thrown me off.
Score: 0
|It must have, because you still don't get it.
There is a difference between doing everything, something, and nothing.
Score: 0
|Is it the same as the difference between doing all, enough, not enough?
lmao...
Sorry, man. You whined that they "got caught sleeping" (how can that mean anything other than "didn't do enough"?). I claimed that based on their standing fiscally (capital) as whell as cronologically (time on the market) compared to Intel showed they were doing phenominally.
Then you turn around and try and say you never said it.
Whatever.
Have a great day!
Score: 0
|