Intel’s next generation

[Sledgehammer70]

Intel has been working very hard to trounce the life out of the AMD Athlon architecture, and over the past 9 months it has done just that. With Intel’s 65nm processors pushing upward of a 30% performance increase over AMD, one has to wonder if AMD can make a comeback with its industry named K8L architecture. We know one thing: Intel is not going to make it easy.

Before the end of 2007, Intel is setup to push out its new 45nm Hi-k process technology. Hi-k stands for hafnium-based high-K + metal gate transistor design, which results in higher performance and more energy-efficient processors. With Intel’s steps forward with a 45nm shrink, not only will they be able to make even more power efficient CPUs, but cooler running ones, which will benefit the entire industry.

The new 45nm technology dubbed "Penryn" will come in dual and quad core designs, sporting a massive 820 million transistors per core. It will be contained in a package that is a quarter the size of a U.S. postage stamp, which is about 107mm2. Intel plans on having 15 different chips under the Penryn release and is sure that the 45nm release will close the gap AMD is advertising with its new Barcelona 65nm chip.

Intel’s Penryn is not just the average new processor to hit the market. Intel has been slaving away at many new improvements over the current Core 2 Duo architecture and is driving performance per watt into the sky.

Mobile technology will benefit greatly from Intel’s new Penryn because Intel has built in what they are calling Deep Power Down, which will significantly reduce the power of the processor during idle periods. This helps extend battery life in laptops. Along with the Deep Power Down, Intel has increased L2 cache sizes allowing dual cores to come equipped with 6MB L2 cache and quad cores to come with 12MB L2 cache. Cache is a memory reservoir where frequently accessed data can be stored for more rapid access. It also looks like the Penryn will kick off the GHz race once again as chips will be shipped with 3GHz stock clock speeds.

Overall, Intel is poised high on their horse and AMD hasn’t done much to dismount them. With Intel’s push to further technology to 45nm (and even 32nm) processes we can assume we will have a generation of faster and more efficient CPUs very soon.

[Leonardo]

Not just based on this article but quite a few others I've read:

1) AMD needs, really needs a rabbit to pull out of a hat.
2) I think Barcelona will be excellent, but based on AMD's lack of PR excitement, I'm thinking the Barcelona will merely bring AMD closer to standing level with Intel, but will not position AMD as a performance leader.
3) AMD may have another couple years ahead where they have to sacrifice price for volume. Unfortunately, I just don't see them having the margins for the R&D necessary to meet Intel head on.

I hope I'm wrong.

[mirage]

AMD's position is even more difficult now than past. In the recent 4-5 years they exceeded Intel in performance and gained a considerable market share. As a result, they started huge investments to increase the production capacity and keep up with the projected growth while increasing the corporate debt. Now, Intel recovered from its problems; leading the performance again and gaining back the market share. AMD is not the underdog anymore but could not become the equal competitor of Intel either. With the huge new investments already underway and shrinking revenues, if their fast growth becomes a failed attempt, the consequences will be disastrous, I am afraid. We will see.

[Sledgehammer70]

Actually AMD has not lost any market share as of last quarter. The lower prices have kept market share on their side. But as Leo said, if they don't pull some triple lazer beamed 10 Billion Ghz chip out of their pocket... they are in for a rough ride.

[mirage]

Actually AMD has not lost any market share as of last quarter. The lower prices have kept market share on their side. But as Leo said, if they don't pull some triple lazer beamed 10 Billion Ghz chip out of their pocket... they are in for a rough ride.

The earnings announcement is close, we will see their market share ;)

[Leonardo]

as Leo said, if they don't pull some triple lazer beamed 10 Billion Ghz chip out of their pocket... they are in for a rough ride.That salvation may turn out to be their acquisition of ATI.

No, not because of ATI's video card business, but because of the chipsets, discrete graphics chips, and integrated platforms that may result from the pooled technology of the two companies.

OEMs love all-in-one solutions. It keeps their R&D budgets down and greatly simplifies their supply chain operations. Look at the runaway success of Intel's Centrino platform. Within just one year of it's availability to the branded computer manufacturers, Centrino was found in every major manufacturers' laptops. AMD has a good chance of becoming a platform solutions provider.

[GooD]

In the last year i feared that AMD might became the new leader and push up their price as if AMD would become the new 'Intel'.

What i love from AMD is their low price/performance rate (well, they have been going down on that rate recently but they're still cheaper than what Intel was offering)

What i want is clearly a never-ending war : one compagny comes up then goes down and so on... This kind of war has keep thing in evolution at a pace i've never seen before, and that's good, for us, customers.

Now it seems like it will be Intel in the near futur but AMD might as well come back sooner than we could think they would... Well i hope so, cuz if any of those compagny go out of the competition for a long while, it will be very very BAD for us, and for the industry.

My .02

[Qeldroma]

That salvation may turn out to be their acquisition of ATI.


If they can get their DX10 solution out the door. However, being mostly an ATI user, I agree and generally find their products better thought out and more robust.

While Barcelona may gain the performance crown for a while, Intel may short-sheet AMD here with big price slashings on their own quads (by coincidence ... of course?).

[mirage]

The earnings announcement is close, we will see their market share ;)
Just a follow up.

Here are two recent links about AMD's loss of market share.

AMD may have lost almost one third of its market share in Q1, says iSuppli (http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31666&Itemid=118)

Analysis: AMD loses dominance in U.S. retail channel to Intel (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31562/137/)

AMD's earnings announcement is on Thursday. I am afraid it will be close to a disaster.

[mmonnin]

/scratches head....Micron has been using Hafnium for the dielectric since well before I was an employee. Must have learned (stole) something from the IMFT formation.

[Leonardo]

Really, REALLY bad! AMD has not only lost profit margins due to the price war with Intel, but now also revenue and that very precious market share. They need that rabbit and the black hat very, very badly. AMD woke up the sleeping giant, Intel a couple years ago and the giant has kicked AMD brutally.

[Thrax]

We've requested a Penryn-based review sample for an upcoming article. Cross your fingers, boys and girls.

[a2jfreak]

Requested from Intel, Dell?

[Leonardo]

The grim forecasts were....actually optimistic. oh boy...sadCHIP MAKER, AMD said it would make a loss this quarter and it kept its word. The loss, however, was bigger than it had predicted, at a net figure of $611 million.The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39049)

AMD had estimated losing USD 250 Million. Over twice that, it turns out. Wow. This is not good.

[mirage]

They are also out of cash and looking for raising some capital. Layoffs will follow I guess. :(

[RADA]

Being 100% of the "I want the best chip at the time I'm building my latest machine" crowd, I really haven't followed much of this Intel vs. AMD conflict...

I will say having 2 companies is better than 1 for us consumers....

...having said that, the stuff I'm now reading (both historical and current info) I 'm a little confused at what AMD was trying to do a year or so ago..

We know AMD had the fastest proc on the market for quite a while. And when Intel's NetBurst ideas flopped AMD became a bit greedy with their price structure, thinking that Intel was in trouble... Incedently: NetBurst was a precursor to Core Duo.....

..it also appears that they kind of let their R&D peeps go into cruise control mode, only coming out with minor changes to their latest chips, while still keeping the prices rather high... Then they got caught with their pants down when Intel dropped their Dual and Quad core procs into the mix which lead to AMD's current state...

Am I off track with any of this thinking, again, I never really paid attention to all this before...

[mmonnin]

Yeah basically AMD hasnt released anything new in 2.5-3 years.

[Leonardo]

AMD became a bit greedy with their price structureThat has nothing to do with their current problems. They were GAINING market share even when their prices were high. When they held the high ground in performance people were willing to pay the high prices. Now, they are losing market share which they fought very hard for, even as their prices are rock bottom. That's the huge problem - losing money AND loss of technology lead. Their processors have been at value prices for a year now. They really can't sell for lower without bumping up against actual per unit losses on technology sales.

[muddocktor]

Being 100% of the "I want the best chip at the time I'm building my latest machine" crowd, I really haven't followed much of this Intel vs. AMD conflict...

I will say having 2 companies is better than 1 for us consumers....

...having said that, the stuff I'm now reading (both historical and current info) I 'm a little confused at what AMD was trying to do a year or so ago..

We know AMD had the fastest proc on the market for quite a while. And when Intel's NetBurst ideas flopped AMD became a bit greedy with their price structure, thinking that Intel was in trouble... Incedently: NetBurst was a precursor to Core Duo.....

..it also appears that they kind of let their R&D peeps go into cruise control mode, only coming out with minor changes to their latest chips, while still keeping the prices rather high... Then they got caught with their pants down when Intel dropped their Dual and Quad core procs into the mix which lead to AMD's current state...

Am I off track with any of this thinking, again, I never really paid attention to all this before...

Yeah, sounds pretty much like the condensed version in a nutshell, RADA. I hope they can pull a rabbit out of their hat or someone with really deep pockets can bankroll them so we can keep 2 processor manufacturers around.

[Leonardo]

AMD, er, "DAAMIT" is not in risk of going under any time soon. But yeah, I sure hope they can be competitive again in the CPU arena. I just don't want to be held hostage to near monopoly prices and stagnant progress like we had with Intel for so many years. The ONLY reason Intel is so brilliant now is because of AMD's competition between 2002 and 2005. Intel is a huge corporation that only turns as fast as a cruise ship, unless they feel threatened. AMD must continue to be that threat. Right now, AMD just threatens themselves.

AMD/ATI has the potential for capital accumulation and revived R&D through their chipset and graphics programs. I hope they innovate so well that their products command good prices and they can resume pumping money into CPU R&D.

[GooD]

On a side note : Leo, you did 2 of your greatest reply ever (to what i've read since im here) in that thread :) You know how to chose the right words to explain a situation man ! :bigggrin:

But... that's the only good thing about that thread, everything else makes me fear for us, customers. I don't think AMD will go down very fast but in the medium/long run they'll really need something new and competitive, or they'll bite the dust :sad2:

[mmonnin]

AMD isnt going anywhere in the near or long term future.

[Komete]

The reason AMD's current offerings are lacking is because off DDR2's high latencies. They need those tight timings. They thought by the time the industry would be switching to ddr2 lower timings would be there. But it never happened. This isn't the first time AMD has had losses. Almost every other year for most of their history they have loosed money.

One more thing, if you look at the patents you will see AMD has played a game where intel introduces new technologies, like dual channel etc, and then AMD has came behind them and perfected it. I have to give them credit in the 64bit area, they made it happen.

I think AMD will take a small lead for a short while in the coming year. Then it'll be 2 or more years of Intel leading and AMD will come back hard and take the crown for a couple more years.

[Thrax]

It has nothing to do with DDR2 latencies. Memory bandwidth changes very little with 6/6/6 or 3/4/4 on the A64 platform.

AMD is suffering from sloth.

[Qeldroma]

I can't do "The sky is falling!" gig here either. And actually, I remember the last time Intel OVER-engineered something (remember Netbust?).

I think this is AMD basically being overwhelmed with many changes and trying to figure out how best to deal with it all. But they should get some newer innovation out the door soon or ....

[mmonnin]

It is nearly out the door. With it being nearly out the door now they have long been manufacturing the chip and much longer engineering it.

[profdlp]

Where AMD really screwed themselves was in the move to AM2. There are millions of people like me with a ~3500+ CPU who would like to upgrade, but with a Socket 939 system and AGP I'm really not in the mood to buy a new MB, Video card, RAM, and CPU just for another couple of GHz. :(

[Keebler]

There are millions of people like me with a ~3500+ CPU who would like to upgrade, but with a Socket 939 system and AGP I'm really not in the mood to buy a new MB, Video card, RAM, and CPU just for another couple of GHz. :(
/me looks at his 3200+

Yup. :(

[RADA]

*RADA looks at his P4 3.0 & his 6800 Ultra......

Yup (x2)

[shwaip]

Barton XP 2500+ and x800? Do I win yet?

[Leonardo]

Where AMD really screwed themselves was in the move to AM2.Is that really that much different than Intel in the last couple years? Socket 478 was the mainstay for P4, then LGA 775 came out for Prescott P4, Smithfield dual core, and also Presler dual core. Everyone who upgraded to C2D had to upgrade motherboards as well. The C2D board are backwards compatible to pre-Core 2 Duo, but the first series of 775 will not accept C2D. In other words, the original C2D boards did not have an upgrade path much more flexible than did Socket 939. When I upgraded from P4 Northwood to Smithfield (Intel's first consumer dual core) I had to change motherboards. When I go Core 2 (probably will go directly to Quad core), I'll have to upgrade again.

But....maybe that upgrade will be to AMD. AMD has stated that Barcelona is up to 50% faster than Xeon Cloverton...at today's performance level. This ought to be very interesting!

[profdlp]

Is that really that much different than Intel in the last couple years?...
Very good points.

I do think part of Intel's struggles in the couple of years before their latest resurgence may well have been tied to the socket shifts you describe. The chief difference I see is that AMD users tend to be more budget-conscious. Intel had their built-in advantage with the large brand name manufacturers to tide them over. AMD is finding out the hard way that without strong support from individual enthusiasts they are in trouble. The current upgrade options are simply not too appealing (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001028+40000343+1051707439&name=Socket+939) for many of us with what was a great system just a year or two ago. :-/

[Leonardo]

Good point. Socket 939 is DDR and AGP, is that correct? If so, that would be a very big difference when comparing the transition of Intel 478-LGA775-newer LGA775 to AMD Socket A-939-AM2. Intel went from AGP and DDR to PCIe and DDR2 when Socket 478 ended. Those upgrading from first edition LGA775 to the newer version don't need to acquire new video cards and memory.

[mmonnin]

939 has PCI-E, at least my NF4 does.

The early Socket 775 boards not being able to support C2D has to just be voltages/chipset upgrades. I have 939 and I have to upgrade the core of my system minus the video card. Socket A lasted forever....I upgraded a part at a time in those days.

I finally have a C2D System on order and it wont be long before DDR3 starts rolling out and I will only be able to make minor CPU upgrades and some GPU upgrades. Motherboard and RAM will have to be done together. Who knows, probably a PSU for ATX3.0 or something....

[profdlp]

939 has PCI-E, at least my NF4 does...
The later Socket 939 boards mostly had PCI-E, but the early and mid boards didn't. I'm on the "didn't" side, myself. :(

...Socket A lasted forever....I upgraded a part at a time in those days...
Exactly. They could have milked Socket 939 the same way and sold a heck of a lot more CPU's.

[mmonnin]

AM2 has how many pins? 939 in just a different configuration? Its been awhile.....

[a2jfreak]

Yep. DDR2 rather than DDR, so some of the pin mappings changed. Still 939 though.

AM2 has how many pins? 939 in just a different configuration? Its been awhile.....

[RyderOCZ]

AM2 is 940 like the older server CPU's

[a2jfreak]

You're correct. I mistakenly thought AM2 had 939 pins.
AM2 is 940 like the older server CPU's

[mmonnin]

Eh...make em the same.... wire 2 grounds together and you have yourself DDR2 with s939. :)