Posted on 06/05/2006 9:53:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
EETimes has reported that an Intel price war has been planned. Armed with a bandoleer full of Dual Core Smithfield and Presler based chips for ammunition. The company has taken another road to challenge their rival, AMD.
“We expect another profit warning from Intel, guiding Q2 sales to $7.9 billion versus a consensus of $8.4 billion,” Diesen said in a note to clients. “After Intel stuffed the channels with chips in February and March, the floor fell out in April, and [PC processor] sales dropped 52 percent year-on-year,” he added.Also stating;
"Intel has obviously given up on making any money on their current generation of processors and has started a price war with AMD,” concluded Diesen.While Intel has seen a slide of profits this quarter as opposed to the same quarter of the previous year of this time. The price war will serve positive to the consumer who seeks out a Dual Core processor such as,Pentium-D 805 at an atomic bomb low of $93. A challenge that, AMD has yet respond to with their Dual Core product line.
More here.
Printed from 2CPU.com (http://www.2cpu.com/story.php?id=4145)
Watch for the deals coming soon!
Duo Cores for everyone!!!
If I had a picture of someone quietly cheering from inside a foxhole... I'd post it.
The best thing to happen to Intel was for AMD to show up on the market. PPC chips from the IBM, Apple, Motorola alliance stopped being a factor in pushing performance limits when Motorola and IBM lost interest in pushing the envelope for personal computing.
Competition is good.
AMD no longer needs to compete on price. Certain apps, namely games, simply run faster on AMD. That and Recent AMD chips run cooler. And, of course, Intel had to swallow AMDs implementation of 64 bit instructions.
My understanding, and I am not an expert, is that the Opteron scales better when you have many CPUs. I've seen a server actually for sale with 16 dual core Opterons.
Intel looks to be ahead in performance for a few months, but I doubt if it will last to the end of the year.
I been watchin that stock price slip lower and lower on a steady decline!!! It just won't decline fast enough to let me make money on quicky "Put" options!!!
That's true. In a Xeon system all processors get memory through the northbridge, while the Opterons get it directly. Also, the communications between the Opterons is faster and more efficient, since each has a HyperTransport link to its memory and two to other processors.
The downside of the memory design is that AMD has to release entirely new chips in order to take advantage of newer memory technology, so they'll usually be behind Intel in the memory offerings. Intel's dual-core and cache design is also superior, so individual processors may be more efficient, although they'll always starve for memory in places where the Opteron won't.
So a wise purchaser will evaluate chips based on the application rather than price alone, or horsepower.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the Intel dual core design is superior?
Frankly, I think things are looking pretty grim for both the financial AND the political scenarios today with the market down another triple didgets already again today!!! Bummer...
Mainly the cache it uses. It's L1 cache is 8-way associative vs. AMD's 2-way, and it's twice as fast. It's L2 cache is bigger and dynamically shared between the cores (each core can have more or less data for itself as it needs, and they can both work on the same cached data) and is over twice as fast. It also has eight powerful prefetchers.
Tests so far show that cutting the on-die memory controller's advantage way down. AMD is countering in the future by tacking on a shared L3 cache, but I'm not too sure about that idea.
As usual, we are the winners. But I think Intel will have the performance/power crown until next year.
OK everyone,
SOMEONplease find me the $95 dollar Pentium D 805 Dual Core Processor. $95 dollars!
I can't find it for less than $120.
The point of the article is that bargains are coming!
Yea. AMD's Athlon CPU sure gave Intel a run for the money as you described. During that time period I was working with a small computer VAR. And we told customers they could save money buy purchasing computers from us with AMD's CPUs, and not worry in most cases if any that they would not get equal performance. Quite frankly I forgot about the NexGen deal. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.