
I am sure that most of you have been around the internet and back - checking out the latest from IDF on Conroe. I wrote up a simple counterpoint to offer other angles that would improve the results of AMD’s current technology. I have received over 200,000 visitors over the last couple of days and comments from both enthusiasts and investors alike. While enthusiasts seem to understand what’s happening – investors don’t seem to align with the concept of industry momentum, I hope this article will help you understand it more.
I must give credit to Intel, they allowed Anand to re-configure the AMD machine by updating the bios as per my recommendation, although he didn’t do any specific tweaks Anand assures us that the system was bone stock and pretty clean. Anand also corrected his mistakes on the FEAR benchmark – and ultimately concluded that Intel has a 20% lead over AMD’s current offerings.
I still stand by what I said – I do believe we could improve the performance of the AMD platform just by making the right hardware choices and installing software on the machine from scratch, after all this is what we do for a living. That does not mean an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 would be faster than the Conroe, that’s just ludicrous to assume. It just means that we could close the gap slightly. It’s simply not possible for AMD’s current generation to be faster than the processor Intel plans to launch 6 months from now.
Even though most of the reviewers weren’t able to open the machines or run their own time demos – there is hardly a conspiracy theory here. I keep getting emails from fans (one particular email was totally out of line) suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy – I don’t believe this is the case at all.
Does that mean that AMD’s next generation won’t keep up? Let’s look at it this way; Intel is currently behind on many fronts – not solely related to performance. They are behind in platform, power, thermals, and performance. They have a lot of ground to make up; this is why Conroe will be such an impressive piece of kit as it repositions Intel to a point where they have fixed all of their previous issues and now all we have to do is hope they follow through. At the moment I find it impossible to get any Core Duo parts, so I don't know what to expect down the road - let's hope they get the process right.
AMD at 90nm still does not face the same thermal, power, or platform issues that Intel faced for the last number of years. AMD will therefore release their new AM2 platform without any roadblocks to slow them down. The obvious challenge that AMD faces against Conroe is related to performance. One needs to understand that even if AMD is slightly behind in six months it’s nowhere near the same position that Intel is currently in at the moment. So basically Intel is doing whatever they can to draw pressure away from themselves over the next six months. Is six months a big deal?
In terms of industry momentum, six months is an eternity, allow me to explain.
You cannot stop a Peloton from driving forward. AMD has been winning in the high performance space for the last few years. It is because of this constant winning in the high end that their influence went mainstream in 2005 and they’re recently whistled past 80% retail market share in the U.S. That is an unbelievable feat, and it clearly explains Intel’s knee-jerk reaction to debut a technology that is 6 months away before it comes to fruition.
What this essentially means is AMD will have a couple of very strong quarters before mama gives birth to Conroe and as a result AMD’s momentum will carry them through to their next core (and following quarters). I imagine Conroe will do very well for Intel, but AMD will not stop chipping away at the various markets they have been hitting. They will continue to blow away Wall Street estimates as they continue to grow in desktop, server, workstation, and notebook. By the time Conroe comes out AMD will already have 95% of their market covered, and there’s no arguing the momentum. They will have already made huge headway with a number of new customers, and no amount of P.R. can detract from fantastic numbers.
I will also not be wearing a bunny suit; I am still quite sure about that.
Now when AM2(AMD's next generation) comes out - if the performance is better than expected - it still won’t change things significantly before their next core. AMD will still have the momentum no matter what happens.
Am I excited about Conroe? Damn rights I am, but I am equally excited about AM2 – I love what AMD is doing with this platform. AMD has held top to bottom technology leadership for the last few years on every category other than notebooks. When you think about the possibilities for new Turion platforms on next gen platforms you realize that their momentum is not only attached to desktops, workstations and servers.
One last point, there are people suggesting that AMD "needs to counter Intel quickly" by releasing their performance numbers on AM2. That's just crazy talk - AMD does NOT need to play this game. It should be obvious why they don't need to answer to anyone on future speculation. There is no doubt that Intel’s P.R. strategy to showcase Conroe in its first trimester was the only way they could contend with their upcoming quarterly results.
Competition is good for the industry. Fair competition is good, Intel coming out with improved products pushes AMD to be its best. When the market works openly and fairly, everyone wins. Either way we wish both AMD and Intel good luck with their new technologies – and as an enthusiast I would like to thank both of you for making our space so exciting.
31 blogger comments:
While AMD is taking market share, both desktop and server are "shrinkin"; and mobile is exploding.
If the TurionX2 can do to the DUO what the Turion did to the PentiumM, and I have no doubt, we are in for a very healthy 2006. The mobile space is where ASP really happens.
Anonymous said...
While AMD is taking market share, both desktop and server are "shrinkin"; and mobile is exploding.
Desktop may be shrinking in the mature markets, but not in the emerging markets. Server isn't shrinking in any markets and I agree with you that mobile is exploding.
Hi Rahul,
Although there has been a lot of speculation regarding Intel's latest chip Conroe...The real money is made from the server and notebook space. Knowing what we know about Conroe today, can you say anything about how the Merom (notebook) and Woodcrest (server) chips will compare to Turion and Opteron, respectively?
BTW, your new notebook computer (ENVY u:909) looks kickass!!!
Regards,
Mike Lee
Nice analogy Rahul, If the names were reversed it would not matter to me, one company is actioning its plan the other is flailing around like a dying fish with a bad smell.
Lucky for Intel that memory prices have stayed high, I mean that 64bit computing, manipulating of video,sound large data sets which is being driven by digital media, would drive everyone to 64bit only if the memory prices were way lower.?
Let me borrow this space to add a link to a Register Rreport on IDF.
Congratulations again on your Blog, Mr. Sood.
Your analysis are very insightful. But I am sorry to tell you that I can imagine you wearing the bunny suit, good luck on that one.
My spirits to write this comment are that even though the platoon can't be stopped, Dell is getting out of the AMD dynamics for good.
I think that you may lose your bet not on making the wrong analysis, just an incomplete one: The issue in the picture you seem to have missed is the reliance of Dell on special deals from Intel.
Special deals hurt both; Intel cant afford to keep making special exceptions for Dell if its going to hurt their bottom line, whether it lets AMD in or not.
I think DELL may acquire INTEL in two years. Therefore, DELL won't use AMD. Rahul, what was the terms of your bet?
Who knows, AMD's next push could come on the mobile front, much as they wisely went dual core on the server side first.
And we still have to see whether Intel can deliver this in quantity to OEM's and the channel and on time too. I have yet to see a roadmap lately that actually was delivered on time and with full availability.
As I mentioned over on anandtech's write up on the revised benchmarks, I still would like to see the same chips in dual x16 SLI boards. I just don't have faith in ATI's RD480 implementation between the two chips/boards.
Anonymous said...
While AMD is taking market share, both desktop and server are "shrinkin"; and mobile is exploding.
Actually desktop is steady and both notebook and server are growing.
If the TurionX2 can do to the DUO what the Turion did to the PentiumM, and I have no doubt, we are in for a very healthy 2006. The mobile space is where ASP really happens.
AMD has nothing but upside on notebooks with their new platform strategy.
Fri Mar 10, 01:26:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Hi Rahul,
Although there has been a lot of speculation regarding Intel's latest chip Conroe...The real money is made from the server and notebook space. e
True, and the high end desktop space.
Knowing what we know about Conroe today, can you say anything about how the Merom (notebook) and Woodcrest (server) chips will compare to Turion and Opteron, respectively?
Well, next Turion is still pretty young - and it has much more potential with newer platforms. Intel's notebook platform business is strong, but it's hard to get parts. The way I see it the next generation Turion has huge growth ahead of it no matter how good Core Duo / Merom are. The notebook business is completely different from desktops - once ODMs start to adopt your technology the platforms keep rolling out. Turion is going to be amazing.
Regarding Woodcrest, Opteron penetration isn't going to change much for quite some time.
BTW, your new notebook computer (ENVY u:909) looks kickass!!!
Yes, it's very nice - thank you!
Fri Mar 10, 01:45:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Nice analogy Rahul, If the names were reversed it would not matter to me, one company is actioning its plan the other is flailing around like a dying fish with a bad smell.
I'm not sure which is which?
Lucky for Intel that memory prices have stayed high, I mean that 64bit computing, manipulating of video, sound large data sets which is being driven by digital media, would drive everyone to 64bit only if the memory prices were way lower.?
I don't think memory prices are affecting 64 bit availability. There's much more to it. The bottom line is there hasn't been a worthy operating system until Vista.
Fri Mar 10, 03:40:31 PM
Eddie said...
Congratulations again on your Blog, Mr. Sood.
Thank you Eddie.
Your analysis are very insightful. But I am sorry to tell you that I can imagine you wearing the bunny suit, good luck on that one.
Thanks again!
My spirits to write this comment are that even though the platoon can't be stopped, Dell is getting out of the AMD dynamics for good.
Dell isn't in the AMD dynamics yet.
I think that you may lose your bet not on making the wrong analysis, just an incomplete one: The issue in the picture you seem to have missed is the reliance of Dell on special deals from Intel.
..and you missed the deal with Intel and Apple and the ramifications it has on their relationship. Not to mention the performance lead that AMD will continue to have on the server space for much more time to come.
Fri Mar 10, 04:35:31 PM
RotoSequence said...
Special deals hurt both; Intel cant afford to keep making special exceptions for Dell if its going to hurt their bottom line, whether it lets AMD in or not.
True that.
Fri Mar 10, 04:40:31 PM
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
I think DELL may acquire INTEL in two years. Therefore, DELL won't use AMD. Rahul, what was the terms of your bet?
Huh? No, I think this is totally wrong. ...and I thought you were a finance guy?
Fri Mar 10, 05:41:42 PM
[[Rodney]] said...
Who knows, AMD's next push could come on the mobile front, much as they wisely went dual core on the server side first.
Yes true enough.
And we still have to see whether Intel can deliver this in quantity to OEM's and the channel and on time too. I have yet to see a roadmap lately that actually was delivered on time and with full availability.
Exactly.
As I mentioned over on anandtech's write up on the revised benchmarks, I still would like to see the same chips in dual x16 SLI boards. I just don't have faith in ATI's RD480 implementation between the two chips/boards.
Hah, you should start your own blog - good points! The RD580 rocks - the performance is amazing on RD580 - the RD480 just isn't the board of choice. I love the new ATi!
Does Intel have a solo-core version of Conroe for the low-end market?
First, congrats to Intel to finally releasing a new NGMA.
I was just re-reading old AMD64 architecture presentations, keep in mind the AMD64 architecture was shown at the 2001 Microprocessor Forum and finally launched in 2003.
For the past 3 years, AMD has kept the lead with a single processor architecture. Intel has had how many major revisions in that time? 3 or 4 (maybe not whole new architectures but significant changes compared to the AMD64 architecture changes).
I think history will look back at an incredible acheivement by AMD - Consider if AMD64 had failed to perform, AMD might even be out of business by now.
In any case, I'll admit I personally have an AMD bias, but am pretty positive the base architecture (Hypertransport, memory controller, etc) plus the next revision of AMD64 and the next core will keep them in the place they've enjoyed for the past 3 years.
Hello Rahul,
What do you think of the rumor going around that the delay with the Socket AM2 processors has to do with AMD making a last-minute engineering change? At first people were supposing it had to do with supporting 800Mhz DDR-II, however I never bought that because the only 660Mhz (I think) processors around for the AM2 were extremely early engineering samples. Turns out the latest rumor, originating from mobo-land, is that the delay is for 1066Mhz DDR-II. Any way you can confirm this?
Rookierookie said...
Does Intel have a solo-core version of Conroe for the low-end market?
Judging by what I've seen from Intel marketing I think Core Solo is "dead man walking".
Fri Mar 10, 10:01:41 PM
Anonymous said...
For the past 3 years, AMD has kept the lead with a single processor architecture. Intel has had how many major revisions in that time? 3 or 4 (maybe not whole new architectures but significant changes compared to the AMD64 architecture changes).
Pretty much, AMD has had one major revolutionary architecture, where Intel had a revolutionary architecture on notebooks - but on desktop they kept patching the old architecture. It wasn't pretty.
I think history will look back at an incredible acheivement by AMD - Consider if AMD64 had failed to perform, AMD might even be out of business by now.
Yes, absolutely true. The turnaround of AMD under Hector Ruiz, Dirk Meyer, and Henri Richard is unparalleled.
In any case, I'll admit I personally have an AMD bias, but am pretty positive the base architecture (Hypertransport, memory controller, etc) plus the next revision of AMD64 and the next core will keep them in the place they've enjoyed for the past 3 years.
Either way, competition is great, and hopefully Intel will come through on production.
Sat Mar 11, 02:09:29 PM
Anonymous said...
Hello Rahul,
What do you think of the rumor going around that the delay with the Socket AM2 processors has to do with AMD making a last-minute engineering change? At first people were supposing it had to do with supporting 800Mhz DDR-II, however I never bought that because the only 660Mhz (I think) processors around for the AM2 were extremely early engineering samples. Turns out the latest rumor, originating from mobo-land, is that the delay is for 1066Mhz DDR-II. Any way you can confirm this?
Sorry, I can't confirm anything. Although I'm sure there will be a few surprised from the green camp.
With a 4MB L2 cache, won't that increase the price of the Conroe part and lower yields?
Isn't it likely that we won't see volume production of the Conroe part for desktops in late 2006 due to the large cache and 65nm process?
If that happens, won't this be like the many paper launches of a high performance product (ATI Crossfire, Nvidia in the past) that doesn't mean much because the vast majority of us can't even buy the CPU?
I mean we aren't exactly swimming in Core Duo parts (65nm) right now, other than Apple.
20% advantage from a pre-production processor sample with a HUGE 4MB cache that won't be out for 6 months, isn't that impressive.
Can Intel actually produce it in volume at a competitive price (with the large cache) in 6 months, is the key question?
And like you said, AMD won't be standing still in the next 6 months.
Anonymous said...
With a 4MB L2 cache, won't that increase the price of the Conroe part and lower yields?
It means way more silicon, which means higher pricing and lower yields.
Isn't it likely that we won't see volume production of the Conroe part for desktops in late 2006 due to the large cache and 65nm process?
It's certainly possible. I believe Conroe will be no more than 20% of Intel's high end by the end of the year.
If that happens, won't this be like the many paper launches of a high performance product (ATI Crossfire, Nvidia in the past) that doesn't mean much because the vast majority of us can't even buy the CPU?
It's certainly possible, and likely to occur at first. Look at Core Duo - It's been out since January and we haven't been able to buy them up until now - finally we're starting to see them trickle in. This may change when Conroe comes, let's hope it does.
I mean we aren't exactly swimming in Core Duo parts (65nm) right now, other than Apple.
Apple isn't even swimming in them.
20% advantage from a pre-production processor sample with a HUGE 4MB cache that won't be out for 6 months, isn't that impressive.
I agree - although if you compare where Intel is NOW compared to where they will be, it's pretty darn impressive from a technology point of view.
Can Intel actually produce it in volume at a competitive price (with the large cache) in 6 months, is the key question?
That is certainly one question.
And like you said, AMD won't be standing still in the next 6 months.
Nope, they aren't standing still now that's for sure.
What makes me wonder:
The Conroe core has a 4MB L2 cache which indeed is huge. But this cache is shared. And when data is needed by both cores, this data has to be shared too, as this data is not replicated in the cache for each core. The AMD X2 cores each have its own L2 caches.
But in what kind of situations would we see this kind of sharing?
What makes me wonder:
The Conroe core has a 4MB L2 cache which indeed is huge. But this cache is shared. And when data is needed by both cores, this data has to be shared too, as this data is not replicated in the cache for each core. The AMD X2 cores each have its own L2 caches.
But in what kind of situations would we see this kind of sharing?
Anonymous said...
What makes me wonder:
The Conroe core has a 4MB L2 cache which indeed is huge. But this cache is shared. And when data is needed by both cores, this data has to be shared too, as this data is not replicated in the cache for each core. The AMD X2 cores each have its own L2 caches.
I personally prefer the idea of shared cache because when the processor can utilize all of the cache it will.
But in what kind of situations would we see this kind of sharing?
Pretty much all single threaded applications will take advantage of the extra cache, though there are diminishing returns there are a few apps which love the extra cache memory.
The only drawback with 4mb of cache is the amount of silicon it takes to make it work - and likely the yields will be low unless Intel masters the process by the time it launches. There is also likelihood for data errors so these chips really have to go through hellish quality control.
something is wrong with intels idf conroe setup:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5191
ok, that's a hardcore amd fansite, but the point is a valid one, unless this here isn't faked:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/02/ati_crossfire_xpress_3200_chipset_takes_off/page19.html
Among the advantages of Conroe was that it is capable of 4 ipc. If the benchmarks are correct, then it is getting about 2.5 ipc if the fx60 is getting 2 ipc. Conroe still not performing at its fullest capabilities at 1066 fsb. This arch would rock if only it had a decent mem latency. Also, I wonder if the 4 ipc extends to the EM64T instructions, which is important on the server side.
Q. If you had to choose between a duo 3.2ghz Conroe and a quad core 2.4ghz Amd64 (after the 65 shrink), which would you buy?
Amd still has very good latency between caches of different cores, it's glueless MP design makes it very flexible when it comes to adding more cores to the processor.
Anonymous said...
something is wrong with intels idf conroe setup:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5191
ok, that's a hardcore amd fansite, but the point is a valid one, unless this here isn't faked:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/02/ati_crossfire_xpress_3200_chipset_takes_off/page19.html
It's not valid - simply because we're talking about lower end cards which used software enhancements before now with RD580 they use hardware Crossfire. In this case, the R580 or X1900XTX already uses hardware Crossfire regardless of chipset. Where we'll notice the difference is in TRUE high resolution gaming performance or Windows Media Encoding due to enhancements on the chipset. Like I said before, we can close the gap - but not enough to make the FX-60 beat a technology that's 6 months out.
Sun Mar 12, 06:30:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Q. If you had to choose between a duo 3.2ghz Conroe and a quad core 2.4ghz Amd64 (after the 65 shrink), which would you buy?
That's a good question, I think based on the fact that games are starting to thread a quad core makes more sense to me.
Amd still has very good latency between caches of different cores, it's glueless MP design makes it very flexible when it comes to adding more cores to the processor.
Interesting point, thank you.
How is a pre-production processor beating the pants off of AMD's top end solution with a 200 mhz speed bump, not impressive? I fail to see that. As big of a fan of AMD I am, I still can't quite fathom that. When was the last time you saw a 20% increase in speed all across the board? Well not entirely across the board but you get my point.
AMD has tricks up their sleeves I am sure...they did not get to where they are by sticking their heads in the sand after all, but to underestimate Intel, which it seems a lot of people are doing is the worst possible idea. They are the proverbial 800 or 900 pound gorilla I forget which and once they start moving their considerable bulk around the results are devastating. So their revenues are going to drop from 9.1 Bn USD to 8.7 bn USD...I doubt they are worried.
A 400 million dollar drop in revenue is something youre going to worry about, no matter what. That is a very significant chunk of money that their stockholders wont be able to enjoy - and the reality is that its all about keeping them happy.
Wouldn't it be great if at Computex, AMD released KL8 with HyperTransport 3.0? There's also a rummor that AM2 will support DDR3 memory, which in early samples, has proven to have very agressive timings all ready. Can't wait for June to come.
There is a lot of room for improvement in the new AM2 architecture.
- Only AMD knows what the K8L core and DDR2 will do with CPU performance.
- PCI-E perfomance will improve with a HT 3.0.
- If really fast DDR2 RAM is used system performance will increase. (Both Motherboard & RAM makers would probably like to sell more of their "overclockable" gear)
- TurionX2 really needs DDR2 and a further shrink of the core to become a hit in the mobile market. And much better mobile chipsets.
Conroe may become the best CPU, but I my opinion the rest of the system may change so much the world may never notice.
While AMD has performed exceedingly well in the server market, and nearly as well in the desktop market (at least that's the impression that I get,) I didn't even consider a Turion processor when I bought my last notebook. Market perception (and possibly technical reality) is still that intel leads in the mobile PC space.
An improved chipset and higher performance / higher performance per watt would certainly help, but I think theres still a large marketing gap to overcome as well. It doesn't help that Dell, an exclusively intel vendor, has such a large share in the mobile space, when there is no retail/DIY segment in the mobile space to counteract this.
The retail buying of components to build your own notebook is still a very small niche, one reason AMD hurts in this area. The ODMs who could help AMD expand a DIY mobile market don't design much for AMD either and when they do its in the desktop replacement form factor, which is not my personal favorite.
AMD needs:
A. A new core.
B. Quad channel memory.
Tweaks like bigger caches lengthens a core's lifespan, and AMD is close. DDR2 isn't a big deal. Quad channel memory would be. Still Geritol for an old core, but buys time for a new one and lengthy validation. BTW the Alpha was to have 8 memory channels, and many enthusiasts would buy 4x512 CL2 DDR sticks today.
Intel's last good server chip was the PIII-S. Interrupts, context switches, and locks are plain slow on Xeons (what servers do mostly). Woodcrest can only be an enormous improvement.
Quad-channel doesn't fly on notebooks, so AMD will simply lag until a new core.
MarkK
It seems that AM2 with DDR2 800 may only bring between a 3-5% increase in performance over the current S939 generation. Even AMD has confirmed that these are final revisions so performance won't be changing much for the final product. If Intel actually pulls through with Conroe, it looks to have as much as a 15% advantage over AM2. I wonder how this would affect AMD's positioning? Certainly their momentum could carry them through to K8L next year, but the performance gap seems pretty substantial. That's assuming Intel can have sufficient yields of course. I'd love to know what the Extreme Edition is going to be.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30290
I think Intel has AMD pummeled into the ground this round.
As I mentioned over on anandtech's write up on the revised benchmarks, I still would like to see the same chips in dual x16 SLI boards. I just don't have faith in ATI's RD480 implementation between the two chips/boards.
Hah, you should start your own blog - good points! The RD580 rocks - the performance is amazing on RD580 - the RD480 just isn't the board of choice. I love the new ATi!
Actually I have several, just the tech related one is relatively new. Stop by if you're not too busy playing with the latest Quad SLI, Crossfire, etc. like most of us would like to be doing...
http://channelcritic.blogspot.com
Post a Comment