By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), January 15, 2011 12:17 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/14/11 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>AMD's Bulldozer Microprocessors Expected to Offer 50% Higher Performance than Core i7, Phenom II Chips.
>>>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html
>>
>>
>>An eight core Bulldozer is expected to offer 50% higher performance than a quad-core
>>i7? Which side are you arguing here?
>
>A eight core Bulldozer is the same die size as a quad-core i7.
>
>Adding Hypethreading to i7 add ~5% to die size.
>Adding a second integer unit to each Bulldozer compute engine adds ~17%.
>
>A eight core Bulldozer can be looked at as 4 cores with 8 threads.
>
>Intel will try and use a die shrink 8 core to compare to AMD, but the thermal limits
>may make it no faster than Bulldozer.
>
>AMD will dominate compute per die area, compute per thermals, compute per cost.
Based on what? Care to share your calculations?
These were rendering and gaming numbers, apparently, which seems a bit strange to me. If this is Bulldozer taking advantage of AVX versus a non-AVX Intel CPU, then it's not such positive news.
>AMD has an overwhelming advantage for the first time, AMD needs to grab market
>share while they can. In two to four years Intel will copy this and be back to
>having a volume advantage, and be able to squeeze AMD again, unless AMD has grabbed
>enough more market share to negate that advantage.
>
>The next two years decides AMDs survival.
I doubt it, it is in Intel's interest to keep AMD on life support.
>And whether Intel is the next International Harvester.
I don't know how this has much bearing on manufacturing technology, which is where Intel dominates. Competitors (IBM, AMD) have numerous times designed cores as good or better than Intel, but they can't compete on manufacturing and economy of scale advantages that Intel has.
I think more fundamental competition to Intel might come from foundries and process alliances.
---------------------------
>rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/14/11 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>AMD's Bulldozer Microprocessors Expected to Offer 50% Higher Performance than Core i7, Phenom II Chips.
>>>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html
>>
>>
>>An eight core Bulldozer is expected to offer 50% higher performance than a quad-core
>>i7? Which side are you arguing here?
>
>A eight core Bulldozer is the same die size as a quad-core i7.
>
>Adding Hypethreading to i7 add ~5% to die size.
>Adding a second integer unit to each Bulldozer compute engine adds ~17%.
>
>A eight core Bulldozer can be looked at as 4 cores with 8 threads.
>
>Intel will try and use a die shrink 8 core to compare to AMD, but the thermal limits
>may make it no faster than Bulldozer.
>
>AMD will dominate compute per die area, compute per thermals, compute per cost.
Based on what? Care to share your calculations?
These were rendering and gaming numbers, apparently, which seems a bit strange to me. If this is Bulldozer taking advantage of AVX versus a non-AVX Intel CPU, then it's not such positive news.
>AMD has an overwhelming advantage for the first time, AMD needs to grab market
>share while they can. In two to four years Intel will copy this and be back to
>having a volume advantage, and be able to squeeze AMD again, unless AMD has grabbed
>enough more market share to negate that advantage.
>
>The next two years decides AMDs survival.
I doubt it, it is in Intel's interest to keep AMD on life support.
>And whether Intel is the next International Harvester.
I don't know how this has much bearing on manufacturing technology, which is where Intel dominates. Competitors (IBM, AMD) have numerous times designed cores as good or better than Intel, but they can't compete on manufacturing and economy of scale advantages that Intel has.
I think more fundamental competition to Intel might come from foundries and process alliances.
