Posted on 02/24/2005 7:05:22 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
AMD Challenges Intel to a Dual
By Michael Singer
AMD has challenged Intel to a dual ... as in dual-core processor.
The No. 2 chipmaker drew first blood earlier this week at the company's Sunnyvale, Calif., facilities with a demonstration of a new dual-core AMD Athlon 64 processor, manufactured on 90-nanometer technology. The presentation follows last week's display of AMD's multi-core Opteron server and workstation chips at LinuxWorld.
Intel's (Quote, Chart) chance to shine won't come till next week's Intel Developers Forum, where it is expected to demonstrate its dual-core Pentium 4, code-named Smithfield, and its Pentium M dual-core mobile processor, code-named Yonah. Both chips are on tap for launch before summer.
AMD demonstrated its first x86 dual-core processor in August 2004, showing an HP ProLiant DL585 server powered by four dual-core AMD Opteron chips. Intel first demonstrated its IA64 dual-core Itanium Montecito in September 2004.
Dual-core processors, which consist of two cores on one chip, are widely seen as a promising way to boost computing power, allowing servers, workstations and PCs to perform more functions simultaneously. AMD and Intel say they expect massive volume shipments of the dual-core chips in 2006.
Software vendors like Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat and Sun are very supportive of dual-core technologies. Each of the companies support Intel and AMD's recommendation to the ISV community to license their software applications by processor.
"The shift to dual-core comes from the problems it encountered increasing performance on a single core," IDC analyst Roger Kay told internetnews.com. "Essentially, power consumption and heat generation were unacceptable at higher clock rates. So, now these companies are pursuing a distributed computing strategy. Of course, AMD and Intel are engaged in a bragging-rights contest on all fronts -- highest clock rate, register size, bus speed, and anything else that can be measured -- but I think competitive concerns are not the principle drivers of their architectural considerations."
AMD said it has been shipping production samples of dual-core AMD Opteron processors to partners since January. The company plans to introduce a dual-core processor line-up for the one- to eight-socket server and workstation markets in mid-2005 based on the existing 940-pin socket. AMD64 dual-core processors for the client market are expected to follow in the second half of 2005.
"Dual-core technology is advancing the levels of performance and multi-tasking that can benefit businesses and consumers as soon as those processors become available," Kevin Krewell, an industry analyst with In-Stat said. "Multi-core technology is the next frontier in microprocessor design, and AMD is clearly positioned as a company that will enable it to become pervasive."
In addition, AMD said it plans to continue to improve single-core AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Athlon 64 FX processors.
Intel is not giving up on single-core architectures, either. The company said it has been encouraged by the number of "*T family" of technologies like HyperThreading and EM64T enhancements. Intel is also expected to introduce chips base on 65nm technology by the end of the year.
Competition is good, keeps both companies on their toes.
You get what you pay for. I like the Intel chips because alot of the software is made for it. I don't do AMD because programs weren't always compatible. My brother at the time had a Intel chipset, i had AMD, he could play games i couldn't run on my AMD processor. it was fustrating, now i just stick with Intel and it speaks for itself.
What game can't you run on an AMD ? You must be talking about the 1990's. My AMD has been running smooth for over a year overclocked bigtime.
AMD has been compatible for years. I have had an AMD machine for 3 years now-no issues. Old stereotypes die hard.
agreed.
All this stuff is going to be antiquated, shortly. Look into a still-small company called Natero.
I have an AMD 64 bit 3400 notebook, and love it. I haven't seen anything I cannot run perfectly.
Make that NANTERO.
It was in the early 00's. But i guess stereotypes do diehard! hehehe.
Both chips are good, I had a PIII before the AMD. AMD got the jump on Intel with the backwards compatible 64/32. I'm almost ready to get a new MB and CPU. I look for the ones you can overclock the most.
So if you enable hyperthreading on a dual core CPU, it should appear as four processors on you computer. On a dual processor machine, they should appear as eight processors
AMD is more secure with the no execute bit ( prevents buffer overflow attacks). Also hit 64 bits faster. Also the new chips tend to run with less power dissipation and heat.
Plus the intel 64t is a kludge. You may want to wait for dual and the new dual Nividia GPUs.
Ummm... about the only thing $ticking with Intel $peak$ i$ higner co$t for an equivalent or even less productive proce$$or. Unle$$ the majority of mag$ are $peaking Clintone$e (i.e. lying) the gamer$ choice right now in an AMD A-64 machine with maxed out memory and a bazillion dollar video board, all overclocked...
(Of course, you are free to $pend your dollar$ on Intel if you wi$h... I'm $ure they appreciate the $upport...)
I might possibly be biased however, since I have been running AMD processors in all my machines since the K6 and have not come across anything I could not run due to my choice of processor... Stuff my video board couldn't handle, yes, but not processor.
Oh, and the gamer in the family (that would be my Son, who also lurks this board - more often than I as a mater of fact...) spent his hard earned bucks on an AMD MoBo and processor also...
You say 1990s like it was the dark ages. I feel ancient now.
Not as ancient as those of us who remember the Lone Ranger on radio, how our parents thought Truman was a louse for not letting MacArthur clean up on those ChiComs, and butch wax...
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21078912
Good board for info on the endless AMD/Intel debate.
Interesting enough, most of the AMD people are libs and most of the intel people are conservative.
I have had NOTHING but AMD processors on my computer since I first got one in 1998. My first one had a K6-2 350mhz, which I upgraded to a K6-2 500mhz. Currently, I have a 1.3ghz Athlon, which has been in service for 3 years now....
I like chips that overclock from the cmos. Using solder and pencils gets tricky and you can blow up the chip real fast. Intel cracked down on overclocking which I think was a mistake.
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.