AMD: With Vista, Time to Re-evaluate Price/Performance

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

February 1, 2007, 6:40 PM

Since last July, when Intel introduced its Core 2 Duo processors and, perhaps more importantly, effectuated a complete U-turn in its microarchitecture, experts and enthusiasts in computing have judged Intel to have regained the performance lead from AMD in CPUs, which includes the lead in providing processor performance per dollar.

But in its multi-faceted campaign to wrest back the title of hero, if not yet leader, in consumers' minds, AMD is leveraging its fusion with ATI and ATI's cooperation with Microsoft to make a bold new case for itself: Now that the Windows Vista era is upon us, AMD's executives and managers believe the time has come to throw out the old XP-based benchmarks, and re-evaluate AMD's current line of processors using more updated metrics.

"Those tests absolutely have got to be redone. Anything that touches 3D or video needs to be redone," AMD Vice President for Global Marketing Pat Moorhead told BetaNews, responding to a question as to whether comprehensive performance comparisons like Tom's Hardware Guide CPU charts will remain valid, in the wake of performance improvements Moorhead claimed users will see when deploying Vista-ready drivers in Vista-based AMD- and Intel-based systems.

Such tests have been used to compile detailed price/performance evaluations across-the-board, which since July have graphically demonstrated Intel reclaiming the performance advantage.

Moorhead believes Vista will improve the performance of both existing and future AMD processors, as well as Intel, though not by the same margin. One advantage he says AMD has is with regards to Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA), which enables multiple cores to have simultaneous access to memory by zoning that memory such that such accesses don't collide.

"Specifically, we have an integrated memory controller, and therefore Vista actually does NUMA better," Moorhead told BetaNews. "So our multitasking performance actually will improve with Vista because of NUMA, and the more cores we have, the better that gets. For instance, our Quad FX product actually runs better on Vista than it does on XP because it has four cores, four memory controllers, and a crossbar to connect those [components] together."

But the bigger improvement will be in the graphics department, Moorhead said, where vastly improved driver architectures will drive a visibly noticeable wedge of difference between AMD/ATI and Intel in graphics-related functionality. Specifically, he likes to draw distinctions between AMD/ATI systems and Intel integrated graphics on Intel motherboards (nVidia remains an AMD partner in its Better By Design program).

"Hardware matters for Vista, but software obviously does as well, and drivers are part of that software," Moorhead remarked. "One of the built-in advantages that we have for mainstream graphics is the fact that we've got an entire team hammering out graphics at the high end. We can leverage that code on the integrated solution. So for instance, in The Sims 2, the water looks like water, has transparency, has translucency, you can see rainbows and the reflections of bridges; and on the Intel solution, you can't see any of that. The hardware might be capable, but the software isn't."

The whole concept of multi-core processing introduces the possibility of parallelism that doesn't incur noticeable performance hits. If parallelism is done right, AMD argues, users should be able to run multiple tasks simultaneously without the processor appearing to be burdened - and thus, without the user feeling like she's burdened.

To that end, AMD's argument continues, current performance benchmarks may be inadequate in addressing the advantages of one manufacturer's parallelism architecture over another's. For example, one benchmark used in determining relative performance is a transcoding test, where a movie in one format is translated into another format, with the system timed with a stopwatch. Transcoding is typically a background process - not something a real user would do under a watchful eye and a ticking stopwatch, unless he happens to be one of these benchmark testers himself.

Multicore processing for both brands, AMD argues, changes the whole nature of laborious tasks that real-world users would relegate to the background. If one brand of processor performs a typical background test in the foreground better than another brand, it doesn't mean that it will also be better if both processors were also playing a 3D game.

AMD product marketing manager David Schwarzbach argued this point with regard to how his company's newly released Quad FX platform, with motherboards that pair up dual-core Athlon FX processors, could provide performance advantages that linear benchmarking doesn't see.

"The scalability of the Quad FX platform - the fact that you can plug in quad-core processors into each of two sockets when they're available from AMD for an eight-core solution - is certainly going to be another very important milestone leap for AMD in overall performance," Schwarzbach told BetaNews. "So it's really dependent upon the nature of the apps that are being deployed, how many of them run simultaneously, and really today's benchmarks don't do a good job of reflecting the complex user environment. They're more linear, they're more sequential in the way they measure performance, rather than running in high-parallelism environments."

Schwarzbach said if it were up to him, he'd have performance laboratories concentrate on tests that replicate environments where real-world users perform what AMD is now calling mega-tasking: a type of multitasking where the user isn't just running multiple tasks on his computer (which now takes place 100% of the time, on the granular level) but is actually doing more than one thing with the computer simultaneously. If laboratories could devise such tests, and devise them for Vista, then Schwarzbach believes the performance gap between Intel and AMD processors on XP might be closed, if not reversed.

But don't credit AMD, said Pat Moorhead. It's Vista that changes the game. "The ability to multitask, to do things at the same time, is fundamentally, architecturally better on Vista," he told us. "It's smoother, it feels better. When you're doing multiple things at the same time, it is smoother. I actually like the presentation of pictures in My Pictures better [in Vista] than XP, and I don't know what it is exactly that makes that feat happen, but it's fundamentally better."

Everyday users will notice such differences with everyday tasks, Moorhead said, like flipping through a folder of digital photos. Meanwhile, enthusiasts and system builders will be the ones with the stopwatches and the Excel spreadsheets, and for them, the metrics may be a little skewed.

"We are certainly in a neck-and-neck race with our competitors for the performance crown," David Schwarzbach reminded us. However, he believes, "the absolute performance crown seems to be an obsession on the part of analysts and the press, that represents a very attractive part of the market, and certainly one that we embrace with both arms, but it doesn't tell the full story of the business."

Next: AMD gambles on the enthusiast segment, and the "halo effect."

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (11 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ce la vie

posted Feb 5, 2007 - 12:28 AM

from the jargon in the above article, i can say that amd has intentions of cost cutting in instruction set. that whould mean that we can expect different versions of the same chip for different vista sys. that also means that amd would be laughing all the way to the bank while the ordinary consumer gets the middle finger. oh boy... are there any honesty management classes for amd? it's just a question because everyone in the high tech needs to attend that. so if you are the consumer, please read before you buy and trust no one at best buy, or wall mart, or compusa... i never trust any texas company or politician... so do your homework before you charge your credit card.

Score: 0

By domino360

posted Feb 4, 2007 - 4:29 PM

If you are a chip company (CPUs), and your chips are not compatible with current Operating System then may be you shouldn't be in business.
This article is an oxymoron statement from AMDs marketing department.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 7:22 PM

this is not a surprise for me guys, i've been using Intel processors since i was 8 years old, and i've never had any troubles, now im a owner of a Pentium D 820 running @ 3.06GHz and it works pretty well with my windows vista ultimate, and by the way, you just have to double the amount of memory ram (to 2.0GB) and Mac OS X runs pretty good as well, i can't wait to buy the 45nm processors which they say they would consume less energy while increasing perfomance but i admire the work that Toshiba, Sony, and IBM did with the Cell Processor but neither IBM nor AMD has a great deal to offer, so you just decide whatever you want, it's your choise guys, not mine, if you like AMD processors then buy them, and if you like Intel's then buy them

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 12:49 PM

It is about changing perceptions.

So, which environment do we emulate in order to 'properly' evaluate hardware? And which variant, environment, customer use, etc. etc. etc. is correct?

And why stop at several multi-threaded applications running simultaneously?

I mean, if we do that, someone else will say, yeah, but that doesn't address My (fill in the blank) processes running on (random/designated-pinned) cores in some (fill in the blank) manner that emphasizes (fill in the blank) utilization of (fill in the blank) resources.

The fact is, AMD doesn't control the software environment. But they are trying to define their hardware in terms of the software environment.

And there are no 'monolithic' defined software environments.

If AMD is so concerned with this, all they need do is to have a independent lab identically configure the various hardware platforms and run identical tasks and measure the response times and resource utilization for a simple comparison of what they think might be representative of the user environment.

And I can already predict the results.
Performance can be seen to vary depending upon the particular configuration. Duh. And each platform will attempt to manipulate the perception to favor their particular configuration. I wish that this exercise would prove to be more useful.

But if AMD is so concerned about perception, then they had best address the results of their continuing complaints about Intel, metrics, and so many other issues that belie the perception of a company who is putting more effort into complaining about the rules of the game than they are in putting those same resources into building a more innovative product.

Score: 0

By divinelogic

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 2:19 AM

You guys are missing the point.
I've been building servers, workstations, and PCs for 13 years, and I've been testing both hardware and software configurations for almost as long. But that's irrelavant.
What I do on my own computer is.
I'm doing several different things at the same time, usually from the same computer. This means if the multitasking is smoother and more efficient with AMD processors than with Intel, then I personally would choose to use AMD processors, because it helps my production.

That's what AMD is trying to say. They are saying it's not about the actual numbers so much as it is about which processor better handles the tasks that everyday users throw at it.

Personally, I don't even want to hype up Vista, because Microsoft is charging way too much for it. I'd much rather stay with my bootlegged, pirated, cracked copy of XP 64, because Microsoft doesn't deserve to make any money from me. The way I see it, they owe me! If it wasn't for people like me, they wouldn't even be in business!

Besides that, why spend more than $100 on an operating system when you can download one for free? I know, most PC games and software are designed for the Windows platform, but that's because Microsoft has such a strong hold on the industry. That will soon change. Statistically, more and more people are starting to use some flavor of Linux. Fedora has the strongest base.

Speaking of which, Fedora, Solaris, and Ubuntu all run better on the AMD platform than Intel. That's another factor I think both AMD and Intel should consider. Don't count Open Source out just yet!

Score: 0

By steve17

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 3:50 AM

"Personally, I don't even want to hype up Vista, because Microsoft is charging way too much for it. I'd much rather stay with my bootlegged, pirated, cracked copy of XP 64, because Microsoft doesn't deserve to make any money from me. The way I see it, they owe me! If it wasn't for people like me, they wouldn't even be in business!"

"Besides that, why spend more than $100 on an operating system when you can download one for free?"

hhmmm...thats interesting. do u mind explaining exactly what u have done that makes u think microsoft owes u money???

and i dont want to stirr up a fight here but the fact that u go around flaunting u have a pirated copy of windows and u think ur all cool pisses me off! why spend 100 bucks when u can steal it?? well if everyone did that then microsoft and every single software company wouldnt be around anymore and u wouldnt have an OS to put on ur computer. if everyone pirated windows the software indusrty would be no more.

microsoft wouldnt have to charge $100+ if enough people just bought it and didnt steal it. and with that i will personally thank you. because us honest consumers have to absorb the lost profits because u think ur too good to pay for windows. f*ck you!!

Score: 0

By dozier

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 7:32 PM

If you had a lick of common sense you'd know he was referring to Linux as a freely downloadable operating system. read the whole post idiot.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 6:29 AM

""microsoft wouldnt have to charge $100+ if enough people just bought it and didnt steal it.""

You're obviously 100% delusional, and judging by your next comment (if any) we will determine if you are brainwashed as well.

Score: 0

By Dev3Iop3

posted Feb 1, 2007 - 7:24 PM

LOL, now that they are no longer in the lead they want a new measurement system. I've always liked AMD but things like this and their other recent whining has really lowered my respect for them.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Feb 1, 2007 - 7:20 PM

""One of the built-in advantages that we have for mainstream graphics is the fact that we've got an entire team hammering out graphics at the high end. We can leverage that code on the integrated solution. So for instance, in The Sims 2, the water looks like water, has transparency, has translucency, you can see rainbows and the reflections of bridges; and on the Intel solution, you can't see any of that. The hardware might be capable, but the software isn't.""

And I'm sure the hordes of teenage girls who play Sims 2 are DYING for that little graphical touch.

Score: 0

By ravemanson

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 8:36 PM

LoL, well said.

Score: 0