On June 27, 2005, AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the United States
District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The complaint details how Intel has unlawfully
maintained its monopoly power in the market for x86 microprocessors by, among other things,:
• forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into
Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or
marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;
• forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial
exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development
funds (MDF) on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from
AMD;
• establishing a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered
by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the
freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
• threatening retaliation aga inst customers for introducing AMD computer
platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;
• establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and
Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel
computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;
• forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or
promotions;
• and abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and
products which have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
Intel’s economic coercion is pervasive and extends to customers at all levels of the x86
ecosystem – from large computer or original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) like Hewlett-
Packard, to small system-builders, to wholesale distributors, to retailers such as Circuit City. All
face the same choice: accept conditions that exclude AMD or suffer discriminatory pricing and
competitively crippling treatment. The Japanese Government recognized these competitive
harms on March 8, 2005, when its Federal Trade Commission (JFTC) recommended that Intel be
sanctioned for its exclusionary misconduct directed at AMD. Intel chose not to contest the
charges.
Through its exclusionary conduct, Intel has avoided competition on the merits and
deprived AMD of the opportunity to stake its prices and quality against Intel’s for potential
microprocessor sales. The absence of competition in this important industrycomes at a high cost:
artificial constraints on innovation, higher prices and the loss of the consumer’s right to choose
the products that best suit his or her needs. As such, Intel’s conduct violates the antimonopolization
provisions of Section 2 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as
California’s state law prohibitions against secret rebates and tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage. Accordingly, AMD seeks: 1) an injunction to stop Intel’s
anticompetitive conduct; 2) treble damages as provided for under the Sherman Act; and 3)
punitive damages as provided for under California law.
In 2003, AMD began to pull away from Intel technologically and now AMD’s
microprocessors are widely hailed as superior to Intel’s. AMD’s breakthrough came when it
introduced Opteron; the industry’s first x86 backward compatible 64-bit chip. The computing
industry hailed AMD’s introduction of backwards compatible 64-bit computing as an
engineering triumph. In April 2005, AMD was named “Processor Company of 2005” at an Intelsponsored
industry awards show. Bested in a technology duel over which it long claimed
leadership, Intel increased exploitation of its market power to pressure customers to refrain from
migrating to AMD’s superior, lower-cost microprocessors.
SUMMARY OF INTEL MISCONDUCT
The following describes only a sampling of Intel misconduct.
a. Exclusive and Near-Exclusive Deals with OEMs
Dell. Dell has never purchased an AMD microprocessor despite acknowledging Intel’s
shortcomings and its own customers’ clamor for AMD solutions. According to industry reports,
Intel has bought Dell’s exclusivity with outright payments and favorable discriminatory pricing
and service. Dell executives have conceded that they must financially account for Intel
retribution if they decide to launch even one AMD product.
Japan. In 1999, AMD began to make notable inroads into Intel’s sales to major Japanese OEMs,
which export PCs internationally including into the U.S. In 2002, Intel paid Sony, Toshiba and
Hitachi multimillion dollar sums, disguised as discounts and promotional support, in exchange
for worldwide exclusivity. Intel also paid multimillion dollar sums to NEC and Fujitsu to cap
AMD’s share of their business.
b. Product-Line, Channel or Geographic Restrictions
Intel has also bought more limited exclusivity from OEMs as a means of excluding AMD
from the most profitable lines or from channels of distribution best tailored to take advantage of
AMD’s price/performance advantage over Intel. For example, Intel has sabotaged AMD’s
attempts to create a successful commercial desktop product at both HP and IBM.
c. Exclusionary Rebates, Predatory Pricing
Intel has also imposed on OEMs a system of first-dollar rebates that create exclusivity or
near-exclusivity and artificially foreclose AMD from competing meaningfully. While in many
industries, a seller might offer “volume discounts,” Intel’s rebate schemes are quite different and
substantially more odious to competition. Intel’s “penetration” or “loyalty” rebates are not based
on efficiencies or cost savings, but instead are designed to avoid head-to-head price competition
with AMD and leverage Intel’s market position. Intel intentionally sets a customer rebate at a
level of purchases it knows to constitute a dominant percentage of a customer’s needs. Intel’s
retroactive discounts then operate to price additional microprocessors at or below cost so that
AMD cannot compete for this business.
d. Threats of Retaliation
Intel has also resorted to old- fashioned threats, intimidation and “k nee-capping” to deter
OEMs from dealing with AMD. For instance, in late 2000, Compaq’s CEO, Michael Capellas,
disclosed that because of the volume of business he had given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery
of server chips that Compaq desperately needed. Reporting that “he had a gun to his head,”
Capellas informed an AMD executive that he had to stop buying AMD processors. NEC’s
European subsidiary, NEC-CI, which operates NEC’s European and non-Japanese Asian
divisions, reported that Intel executives said they would “destroy” NEC-CI for engaging with
AMD in the commercial desktop segment. Intel told NEC-CI’s retailers that the company’s
AMD dealings could impair NEC-CI’s ability to supply products to its customers. When NECCI
resisted the pressure, Intel imposed a discriminatory price increase.
e. Interference with AMD Product Launches
A successful and impressive product launch is essential to generating confidence among
computer professionals, who will be the potential audience for a new microprocessor, and is key
to gaining market acceptance. Aware of the importance of product launches, Intel has done its
utmost to undermine AMD’s. For instance, in 2003, Intel’s CEO Craig Barrett went so far as to
travel to Taiwan to personally threaten Acer’s Chairman, President and CEO with “severe
consequences” for publicly supporting AMD’s product rollout of Athlon64. The Barrett visit
coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20 million in market development
funds owed to Acer. As a result, Acer withdrew from the launch in the U.S. and Taiwan, pulled
its promotional materials, banned AMD’s use of a video Acer had prepared, and delayed the
announcement of its Athlon64-powered computers.
f. Exclusionary Practices Directed At Retailers
In Germany, AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, which operates retail
stores throughout Europe and accounts for 35% of Germany’s retail sales. Intel provides Media
Markt between $15-20 million of MDF annually, and since 1997 Media Markt has carried Intel
computers exclusively. Similarly, in the U.S., Intel provides full MDF payments to retailers,
such as Best Buy and Circuit City, only if they agree to limit to 20%, not just the shelf space
devoted to AMD-based products, but also the share of revenues they generate from selling AMD
platforms. If AMD’s share exceeds 20%, the offending retailer’s marketing support from Intel is
cut by 33% across all products.
EFFECTS OF INTEL’S MISCONDUCT
Despite its technological leadership, AMD’s market share remains artificially stunted by
Intel’s exclusionary actions. Since 1999, AMD’s worldwide volume share has hovered at 15%,
while Intel has captured at least 80% of x86 microprocessor unit sales in seven of the last eight
years. By capping AMD’s market share, Intel has prevented AMD from expanding to reach the
size necessary to become a predominant supplier to major customers. As a result, those in the
microprocessor industry continue to be beholden to Intel, which requires them to pay monopoly
prices, to be exposed to Intel’s coercive tactics, and to submit to artificial limits on purchases
from AMD. Consumers ultimately foot the bill for Intel’s conduct, in the form of inflated PCprices and the loss of choice in computer products. Finally, society as a whole is worse off for
the lack of innovation that only a truly competitive market can drive.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Step 3: Navigating Between DDR and DDR-2
Here's a little secret, on the whole DDR-2 RAM has been a bit of bust. Touted as the memory of the future, able to leap small buildings in a single bound for everything from videocards to motherboards.
It promised a lot and delivered little in the real world. Yet since the entire computer industry is shifting towards DDR-2 RAM, we're all resigned to the fact that it's here to stay until FB-DIMM and DDR-3 RAM break out in 2007/2008.
Of course DDR-2 memory isn't all bad, it offers a greater level of bandwidth between memory and processor, and that's a good thing. It's just that single-core Intel systems (the current largest segment consuming DDR-2 RAM) aren't very inspiring, and the wonderfully low timings associated with DDR memory have been cast aside for a pointless frequency game. There's a difference between PC2-6400 with high lanencies, and PC2-6400 with low latencies when it comes the benchmarks, and so far the latter has been sadly overlooked for far too long.
By the end of May, AMD's Socket AM2 Athlon64 processor will be running along on DDR-2. The socket AM2 Athlon64 isn't expected to demand a ton of bandwidth from the get-go, but rather benefit more from DDR-2 memory with tighter CAS latency timings. Unfortunately at the moment these types of parts are missing from the DDR2 memory equation so it's hard to offer commentary on where this will all be headed.
It's very likely that initial Socket AM2 Athlon64's will perform no better, or no worse than equivalently paced Socket 939 counterparts. Between now and then, perhaps AMD will have tweaked the memory controller to utilize more memory bandwidth, or DDR-2 memory latencies will have dropped somewhat. Like you, I'm still waiting to see.
The saga isn't yet written, and pre-release glimpses of Socket AM2 performance by way of Engineering Sample CPUs are only telling half the story. It will be interesting to see what happens, but certainly the prevalence of DDR-2 RAM is unrelenting.
It promised a lot and delivered little in the real world. Yet since the entire computer industry is shifting towards DDR-2 RAM, we're all resigned to the fact that it's here to stay until FB-DIMM and DDR-3 RAM break out in 2007/2008.
Of course DDR-2 memory isn't all bad, it offers a greater level of bandwidth between memory and processor, and that's a good thing. It's just that single-core Intel systems (the current largest segment consuming DDR-2 RAM) aren't very inspiring, and the wonderfully low timings associated with DDR memory have been cast aside for a pointless frequency game. There's a difference between PC2-6400 with high lanencies, and PC2-6400 with low latencies when it comes the benchmarks, and so far the latter has been sadly overlooked for far too long.
By the end of May, AMD's Socket AM2 Athlon64 processor will be running along on DDR-2. The socket AM2 Athlon64 isn't expected to demand a ton of bandwidth from the get-go, but rather benefit more from DDR-2 memory with tighter CAS latency timings. Unfortunately at the moment these types of parts are missing from the DDR2 memory equation so it's hard to offer commentary on where this will all be headed.
It's very likely that initial Socket AM2 Athlon64's will perform no better, or no worse than equivalently paced Socket 939 counterparts. Between now and then, perhaps AMD will have tweaked the memory controller to utilize more memory bandwidth, or DDR-2 memory latencies will have dropped somewhat. Like you, I'm still waiting to see.
The saga isn't yet written, and pre-release glimpses of Socket AM2 performance by way of Engineering Sample CPUs are only telling half the story. It will be interesting to see what happens, but certainly the prevalence of DDR-2 RAM is unrelenting.
Step 2: Heat and Reliability
Cooling has always been the one major area where Intel processors were always considered to be far superior to AMD's offerings... remember the days of AthlonXP's going up in smoke? While the Socket 775 Pentium 4 heatsink architecture offers more room to grow, allows for larger heatsinks to be installed, and a bit more scalable in the long run, AMD's not totally out of step either. AMD has dramatically improved the shape, size and quality of heatsinks that it uses to keep Athlon64 processors running cool and quietly. With the de-emphasis of OEM processors, the company has better control over the retail heatsinks that come bundled with its Athlon64 processors, and hence the end user experience. So far, this generation of 'K8' heatsinks have been quiet running, and well designed so temperatures remain at acceptable levels.
To make things easier for the end user, heatsinks can be installed in any direction without damaging the processor. Back in the days of the socket A Athlon and AthlonXP CPU, if the heatsink was installed in the wrong direction you'd end up with a dead chip in under 4 seconds. In the unlikely event that the heatsink fan fails nowadays, that little tiny Athlon64 processor below will not cook itself to death. All current AMD processors employ thermal throttling which lowers the speed of the processor automatically should the CPU temperature rise too high.
On the whole, AMD and Intel are pretty even in thermal loads this year. From the consumers point of view it makes no difference if one processor or the other is used as both will operate reliably and quietly.
To make things easier for the end user, heatsinks can be installed in any direction without damaging the processor. Back in the days of the socket A Athlon and AthlonXP CPU, if the heatsink was installed in the wrong direction you'd end up with a dead chip in under 4 seconds. In the unlikely event that the heatsink fan fails nowadays, that little tiny Athlon64 processor below will not cook itself to death. All current AMD processors employ thermal throttling which lowers the speed of the processor automatically should the CPU temperature rise too high.
On the whole, AMD and Intel are pretty even in thermal loads this year. From the consumers point of view it makes no difference if one processor or the other is used as both will operate reliably and quietly.
Step 1: It's the Performance, Stupid!
There's little doubt that AMD's K8 Athlon64 processor is currently the fastest architecture available. The Athlon64 architecture is superior to Intel's Netburst (the architecture that drives the Pentium 4) in every which way, and Intel's band-aid fixes have not been enough to keep up with the perpetual underdog from Austin. It's true that Intel does have a real winner with its Pentium M and Pentium III pedigreed Core Duo, but these are primarily mobile CPUs, and consequently beyond the scope of what I'll be speaking on.
What was it that happened to so dramatically shift the position between Intel and AMD's processors?Why is Intel faltering on the desktop front and AMD winning the hearts and minds of geeks world wide? It certainly isn't for lack of advertising, but that's another story.
The real reason for all of this upheaval and change is Intel's Netburst architecture. It was supposed to last for 10 years when it was introduced in 2000, however that lifespan was cut short in 2003 when Intel struggled so publicly with the Prescott core. The initial product was full of kinks, its performance was lousy, it suffered from voltage leakage, and it was pretty obvious that many of its faults were due to the way Intel "improved" its processors from one speed generation to the next. The days of the good old die shrink and ramp up are certainly dead now.
After some initial questions to the necessity of a 64-bit processor in a 32-bit world, AMD's Athlon64 processor was well on its way to becoming the sweetheart of computer geeks. It's efficient core architecture allows the Athlon64 to handle more work per clock cycle than the Pentium 4/D (which was also the case with AMD's previous generation), so more gets done with less so to speak.
Intel's wildcard has always been its special CPU SSE series instructions, but that advantage has also dwindled away. While AMD's parts often do not support the latest Intel instructions at the time of introduction, the company does tend to integrate them in time to coincide with the release of software that uses these new features. In fact, if you look at the enhanced instruction sets in the latest AMD Athlon64 processors, you'll notice that it supports more instructions than an equivalent Intel Pentium 4 processor!
Perhaps Intel's one saving grace is that the Pentium 4/D can still overclock quite well, with a little inventive cooling it will achieve frequencies that AMD users can only reach with extreme cooling. Realistically though as nice as the round numbers are, these are empty goals. An Athlon64 may be clocked a whole gigahertz slower than a Pentium 4, but it still performs much better in benchmarks; the correlation between frequency and performance is pretty much dead.
On the horizon, Intel's upcoming 'Conroe' core is starting to look like it might give AMD a run for its money, but it's not available yet so comparing it with current technology is not appropriate.
What was it that happened to so dramatically shift the position between Intel and AMD's processors?Why is Intel faltering on the desktop front and AMD winning the hearts and minds of geeks world wide? It certainly isn't for lack of advertising, but that's another story.
The real reason for all of this upheaval and change is Intel's Netburst architecture. It was supposed to last for 10 years when it was introduced in 2000, however that lifespan was cut short in 2003 when Intel struggled so publicly with the Prescott core. The initial product was full of kinks, its performance was lousy, it suffered from voltage leakage, and it was pretty obvious that many of its faults were due to the way Intel "improved" its processors from one speed generation to the next. The days of the good old die shrink and ramp up are certainly dead now.
After some initial questions to the necessity of a 64-bit processor in a 32-bit world, AMD's Athlon64 processor was well on its way to becoming the sweetheart of computer geeks. It's efficient core architecture allows the Athlon64 to handle more work per clock cycle than the Pentium 4/D (which was also the case with AMD's previous generation), so more gets done with less so to speak.
Intel's wildcard has always been its special CPU SSE series instructions, but that advantage has also dwindled away. While AMD's parts often do not support the latest Intel instructions at the time of introduction, the company does tend to integrate them in time to coincide with the release of software that uses these new features. In fact, if you look at the enhanced instruction sets in the latest AMD Athlon64 processors, you'll notice that it supports more instructions than an equivalent Intel Pentium 4 processor!
Perhaps Intel's one saving grace is that the Pentium 4/D can still overclock quite well, with a little inventive cooling it will achieve frequencies that AMD users can only reach with extreme cooling. Realistically though as nice as the round numbers are, these are empty goals. An Athlon64 may be clocked a whole gigahertz slower than a Pentium 4, but it still performs much better in benchmarks; the correlation between frequency and performance is pretty much dead.
On the horizon, Intel's upcoming 'Conroe' core is starting to look like it might give AMD a run for its money, but it's not available yet so comparing it with current technology is not appropriate.
AMD VS INTEL
Once again it's time to get into the boxing ring for another battle of AMD vs. Intel! And despite the strong opinions this editorial is likely to stir up, I always appreciate hearing back from you. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with my take on the processor industry, but hey that's why I'm the tech analyst!
With that in mind, it's time for some up to the minute commentary on the state of the computer world. The AMD vs. Intel battlefront has changed dramatically over the last three years, and like you, I have gone the path that most enthusiasts have. I want the best performance for my hard earned cash, so I choose the fastest available hardware without really considering who manufacturers the parts... after all, does it really matter who makes the fastest CPU?
Age has mellowed my thirst for speed, and my upgrade schedule has slowed to a yearly pace, but that doesn't mean I'm settling for any less. To fit into this leisurely schedule I've had to focus a bit more on evolving technologies, and do my best to avoid the lemons (hello RDRAM!?) and technological evolutionary branches which aren't going anywhere... say for example ATI's Crossfire.
Here's how it all plays out in five easy steps.
With that in mind, it's time for some up to the minute commentary on the state of the computer world. The AMD vs. Intel battlefront has changed dramatically over the last three years, and like you, I have gone the path that most enthusiasts have. I want the best performance for my hard earned cash, so I choose the fastest available hardware without really considering who manufacturers the parts... after all, does it really matter who makes the fastest CPU?
Age has mellowed my thirst for speed, and my upgrade schedule has slowed to a yearly pace, but that doesn't mean I'm settling for any less. To fit into this leisurely schedule I've had to focus a bit more on evolving technologies, and do my best to avoid the lemons (hello RDRAM!?) and technological evolutionary branches which aren't going anywhere... say for example ATI's Crossfire.
Here's how it all plays out in five easy steps.
Time to set the record straight...
"Oh no, Colin has turned 180 degrees and is now a total Intel fanatic!!!" I'm sure that's what a lot of you will be saying after reading this. No, I'm not biased towards Intel, I'm simply trying to point out some facts. I don't love either company, Intel or AMD, but I do like them. They're good for each other. Just think about a world where only Intel or AMD exists. With a virtual monopoly on x86 processors, who's going to stop either company from charging you through the nose for processors? I actually like AMD more then Intel, AMD seems to listen to the public on what they want and in general they usually do try and deliver. Intel on the other hand seems a little more arrogant, pushing things down people's throat (RDRAM + P3...) instead of listening.
When people e-mail me asking about systems, I almost always tell them to go with an AMD based system. Why? AMD is, and probably always will be a better value then Intel. Value doesn't mean lousy performance either! AMD CPU's are damn fast and can give Pentium 4's a good run for its money but in the end P4's are faster!
In terms of CPU "care" Intel has this down. Their retail heatsinks are designed very well, not only to cool the CPU but the larger foot print of the socket 478 heatsinks helps shield against EMI. AMD has a lot of catching up to do. They're moving in the right direction in terms of heatsinks, the current ones bundled with the Thoroughbred XP2200+'s are a heck of a lot better in design and cooling capability then the ones that originally came with the AthlonXP (Palomino core). AMD CPU's still have severe heat issues to conquer; even the Thoroughbred (0.13 micron) runs extremely high. At those temperatures it takes only a few seconds before the little processor dies of over heating.
As an independent hardware tester and reviewer I'm quite offended when someone attacks my integrity. The benchmarks that are being used on the web are not biased towards Intel just because they use SSE2. if I wasn't allowed to test with SSE2 enabled benchmarks, it would be like testing a car's top speed without using the 5th or 6th gears.
I'm not biased towards Intel but since with all the crap floating around I just wanted to try and set the record straight. This is more of a personal rant then anything else, but hey, I'm also a consumer. If you want to flame me and my opinions you're more than welcome to e-mail me here.
Oh and just for the record, I went with a P4 1.8A which runs at 2.4 GHz on an Abit TH7II-RAID with 512MB PC1066 RDRAM and it's running faster (and quieter) then my AthlonXP 2000+ on an Abit KR7A-RAID with 512 PC2100 CL2 DDR.... for the moment that is.
Check out the most recent word on the street about processors right here, the latest memory technology here, motherboards at the end of this link, and heatsinks and cooling solutions at FrostyTech.
Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.
When people e-mail me asking about systems, I almost always tell them to go with an AMD based system. Why? AMD is, and probably always will be a better value then Intel. Value doesn't mean lousy performance either! AMD CPU's are damn fast and can give Pentium 4's a good run for its money but in the end P4's are faster!
In terms of CPU "care" Intel has this down. Their retail heatsinks are designed very well, not only to cool the CPU but the larger foot print of the socket 478 heatsinks helps shield against EMI. AMD has a lot of catching up to do. They're moving in the right direction in terms of heatsinks, the current ones bundled with the Thoroughbred XP2200+'s are a heck of a lot better in design and cooling capability then the ones that originally came with the AthlonXP (Palomino core). AMD CPU's still have severe heat issues to conquer; even the Thoroughbred (0.13 micron) runs extremely high. At those temperatures it takes only a few seconds before the little processor dies of over heating.
As an independent hardware tester and reviewer I'm quite offended when someone attacks my integrity. The benchmarks that are being used on the web are not biased towards Intel just because they use SSE2. if I wasn't allowed to test with SSE2 enabled benchmarks, it would be like testing a car's top speed without using the 5th or 6th gears.
I'm not biased towards Intel but since with all the crap floating around I just wanted to try and set the record straight. This is more of a personal rant then anything else, but hey, I'm also a consumer. If you want to flame me and my opinions you're more than welcome to e-mail me here.
Oh and just for the record, I went with a P4 1.8A which runs at 2.4 GHz on an Abit TH7II-RAID with 512MB PC1066 RDRAM and it's running faster (and quieter) then my AthlonXP 2000+ on an Abit KR7A-RAID with 512 PC2100 CL2 DDR.... for the moment that is.
Check out the most recent word on the street about processors right here, the latest memory technology here, motherboards at the end of this link, and heatsinks and cooling solutions at FrostyTech.
Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.
Hardware websites and benchmarks are cheating AMD...
I don't frequent forums much myself anymore but whenever I see people claiming that the benchmarks being used are skewed towards Intel, it really makes my blood boil. That has got to be the most uninformed thing I've ever heard. Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against AMD and all the hardware sites are secretly being paid off by Intel to run "Intel based benchmarks", that's the only reason why Intel beats AMD... ludicrous!
Most software like the MadOnion benchmarks (PCMark, 3DMark) have SSE2 optimization but is that cheating? They also have 3D Now! code written in them too! How about the notorious SysMark2001 with the Windows Media Encoder 7.0 not using AthlonXP's SSE? AMD themselves stated that SysMark 2001 is a valid benchmark, AMD did release a patch to allow Media Encoder 7.0 to use SSE but they liked the original SysMark 2001 because even without using SSE, the Athlon scored well and it showed off the mighty FPU of the Athlon.
Quake III Arena does love the bandwidth available to the Pentium 4, it always has, but that is something which is isolated to that one game. Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Jedi Knight II which use the Q3 engine don't show the same signs of loving the P4.
Like it or not SSE2 is here to stay, heck Intel even licensed SSE2 to AMD to run in their "Hammer" line of processors!
Most software like the MadOnion benchmarks (PCMark, 3DMark) have SSE2 optimization but is that cheating? They also have 3D Now! code written in them too! How about the notorious SysMark2001 with the Windows Media Encoder 7.0 not using AthlonXP's SSE? AMD themselves stated that SysMark 2001 is a valid benchmark, AMD did release a patch to allow Media Encoder 7.0 to use SSE but they liked the original SysMark 2001 because even without using SSE, the Athlon scored well and it showed off the mighty FPU of the Athlon.
Quake III Arena does love the bandwidth available to the Pentium 4, it always has, but that is something which is isolated to that one game. Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Jedi Knight II which use the Q3 engine don't show the same signs of loving the P4.
Like it or not SSE2 is here to stay, heck Intel even licensed SSE2 to AMD to run in their "Hammer" line of processors!
Cooling:
This is a place where Intel is far and away way superior to AMD. Of course, as they are a much larger company Intel can hire more dedicated engineers to design cooling solutions for their CPU's - but have you actually looked at the heatsink/fan's that come with retail boxed P4's and AMD processors?
The retail Intel heatsink is just designed so well. Not only does it have a massive amount of surface area to draw away the heat a P4 produces (highly clocked P4's can generate close to what high end AMD CPU's do), it also acts as a huge EMI shield! They're so good that even enthusiasts are using them to cool their overclocked processors! Another nice thing is just how quiet the fan is. In an enclosed case it's often almost impossible to hear it.
AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel on this, of course though I do understand that AMD is much smaller and cannot devote their engineer's time to designing better thermal solutions. They're moving in the right direction though, from those cheap generic heatsinks to Skive based models, to now requiring heatsinks to have a copper base in order to get AMD approval.
One problem AMD has is actually not their fault. If you go to your local "mom and pop" computer store look at the AMD based systems they have on sale. Often hidden away in the specifications is the CPU cooler. You're more likely to get an OEM AMD CPU rather then a retail one because OEM's are usually quite a bit cheaper so what they do is just slap on some generic cooler like the Thermaltake Volcano 6+ (I chose this cooler because a few of the local stores I frequent use this heatsink because of its low price). Most of these shops also include secondary fans to help keep things cool and again another fan add's to the decibel level.
Another point to keep in mind is how fragile the AMD CPU is. When's the last time you heard of someone that killed a P4 or P3 with heat? Or maybe having a heatsink crush the core? Now think about the horror stories you've heard about from AMD based processors... I know I remember !
The retail Intel heatsink is just designed so well. Not only does it have a massive amount of surface area to draw away the heat a P4 produces (highly clocked P4's can generate close to what high end AMD CPU's do), it also acts as a huge EMI shield! They're so good that even enthusiasts are using them to cool their overclocked processors! Another nice thing is just how quiet the fan is. In an enclosed case it's often almost impossible to hear it.
AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel on this, of course though I do understand that AMD is much smaller and cannot devote their engineer's time to designing better thermal solutions. They're moving in the right direction though, from those cheap generic heatsinks to Skive based models, to now requiring heatsinks to have a copper base in order to get AMD approval.
One problem AMD has is actually not their fault. If you go to your local "mom and pop" computer store look at the AMD based systems they have on sale. Often hidden away in the specifications is the CPU cooler. You're more likely to get an OEM AMD CPU rather then a retail one because OEM's are usually quite a bit cheaper so what they do is just slap on some generic cooler like the Thermaltake Volcano 6+ (I chose this cooler because a few of the local stores I frequent use this heatsink because of its low price). Most of these shops also include secondary fans to help keep things cool and again another fan add's to the decibel level.
Another point to keep in mind is how fragile the AMD CPU is. When's the last time you heard of someone that killed a P4 or P3 with heat? Or maybe having a heatsink crush the core? Now think about the horror stories you've heard about from AMD based processors... I know I remember !
AMD vs. Intel: It's An Eternal Struggle So Get Used To It
I find it very amusing when I get an email calling me an AMD zealot or saying that I am biased towards AMD. I have never considered myself "loyal" to either AMD or Intel, I simply go with whomever is faster.
Since I upgrade my motherboard and/or CPU pretty much every six months I have an interesting dilemma... Should I stick with an AMD setup and get a Thoroughbred processor or should I perhaps do something more radical and go with a Pentium 4? Here are a few of the things I contemplated while making my decision.
Performance:
Like many others I was caught up in the hype surrounding the "Thoroughbred" 0.13 micron AthlonXP based processor. I honestly thought it would bring AMD back into the spotlight and allow them to retake the performance crown from Intel. However, after playing with a Thoroughbred I was brought back down to reality. Why would a shrunken core (0.18 micron Palomino to 0.13 micron T-Bred) improve performance by leaps and bounds? It wouldn't since AMD didn't add any features to the core.
I was not a fan of Intel's Pentium 4 processor when it came out about 2 years ago. I didn't like the longer pipeline which resulted in lower IPC each MHz could handle. Because of this the P4 had a very rocky start, the 1.5 GHz Williamette (0.18 micron, 256 L2 cache) P4 could barely out perform Intel's own Pentium III 1 GHz!
Coming back to the present, now with lots of software supporting SSE2 and with the introduction of the Northwood (0.13 micron, 512KB L2 cache) Pentium 4, things are totally different. Clock for clock the P4 is still not as powerful as the Athlon but it's much closer. Also thanks to the new core's ability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown away from AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon. I know AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performance crown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's not fair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's not fai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need to run 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)? Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crown at the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to play with thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can also overclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz without even breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz!
With both processors overclocked, Intel still wins in terms of performance. Of course AMD's saving grace has always been price. AMD based systems and CPU's have always been a much better value, and they still are.
Since I upgrade my motherboard and/or CPU pretty much every six months I have an interesting dilemma... Should I stick with an AMD setup and get a Thoroughbred processor or should I perhaps do something more radical and go with a Pentium 4? Here are a few of the things I contemplated while making my decision.
Performance:
Like many others I was caught up in the hype surrounding the "Thoroughbred" 0.13 micron AthlonXP based processor. I honestly thought it would bring AMD back into the spotlight and allow them to retake the performance crown from Intel. However, after playing with a Thoroughbred I was brought back down to reality. Why would a shrunken core (0.18 micron Palomino to 0.13 micron T-Bred) improve performance by leaps and bounds? It wouldn't since AMD didn't add any features to the core.
I was not a fan of Intel's Pentium 4 processor when it came out about 2 years ago. I didn't like the longer pipeline which resulted in lower IPC each MHz could handle. Because of this the P4 had a very rocky start, the 1.5 GHz Williamette (0.18 micron, 256 L2 cache) P4 could barely out perform Intel's own Pentium III 1 GHz!
Coming back to the present, now with lots of software supporting SSE2 and with the introduction of the Northwood (0.13 micron, 512KB L2 cache) Pentium 4, things are totally different. Clock for clock the P4 is still not as powerful as the Athlon but it's much closer. Also thanks to the new core's ability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown away from AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon. I know AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performance crown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's not fair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's not fai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need to run 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)? Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crown at the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to play with thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can also overclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz without even breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz!
With both processors overclocked, Intel still wins in terms of performance. Of course AMD's saving grace has always been price. AMD based systems and CPU's have always been a much better value, and they still are.
Intel vs. AMD: Today's generation compared
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY we've conducted plenty of CPU reviews in our time, but we just can't bring ourselves to slow things down. The release of Windows Vista and a round of price cuts by AMD prompted us to hatch a devious plan involving Vista, a new test suite full of multithreaded and 64-bit applications, fifteen different CPU configurations, and countless hours of lab testing. That plan has come to fruition in the form of a broad-based comparison of the latest processors from AMD and Intel, ranging from well under $200 to a cool grand, from two slow CPU cores to four fast ones, from the lowly Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and Core 2 Duo E6300 to the astounding Athlon 64 FX-74 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700.
So, how do the latest processors stack up in Windows Vista? Will a sub-$200 CPU suffice for your needs? Have price cuts allowed the Athlon 64 to catch up to the Core 2 Duo in terms of price-performance? What about power consumption and energy efficiency? Can any of these processors stand up under the weight of killer new games like Supreme Commander? Can I possibly squeeze any more questions into one paragraph? Keep reading for answers to all of these questions and more.
The matchups
The setup for this one is fairly simple. We're directly comparing processors from Intel at AMD at a range of price points. Intel has had a lock on the overall performance lead since the Core 2 Duo first hit the scene, but AMD has made clear its intention to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. To do so, AMD will have to meet or beat each of the processors in Intel's current desktop lineup, which looks like so:
Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
Core 2 Duo E6300 1.83GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $183
Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $224
Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $316
Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $530
Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 2 4MB 65nm 75W $999
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 4 8MB 65nm 105W $851
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 4 8MB 65nm 130W $999
Intel does offer lower cost options like the Core 2 Duo E4300 and its Celeron value-oriented processors, but our list includes the meat of the lineup.
AMD, on the other hand, offers a dizzying array of Athlon 64 X2 models, from 3600+ to 6000+, generally in increments of 200 (or is it 200+?). Not only that, but AMD often sells multiple products under the same performance-related model number, just to keep smug members of the general public from becoming overconfident. For instance, the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ comes in a 90nm "Toledo" flavor that runs at 2.2GHz, has 1MB of L2 cache per core, and is intended for Socket 939 motherboards. The X2 4400+ also comes in the form of a 65nm chip code-named "Brisbane" that runs at 2.3GHz, has 512K of L2 per core, and slips into Socket AM2 mobos. Several of these features—fab process, clock frequency, cache size, and socket/memory type—may vary within the same model number.
With that said, we've chosen the following members of the Athlon 64 lineup as the most direct competitors to their Core 2 counterparts. Because we live in the now, all of these are newer-style Socket AM2 processors:
Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $170
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $222
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 2 2MB 90nm 89W $326
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz 2 2MB 90nm 125W $459
Athlon 64 FX-70 2.6GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $599
Athlon 64 FX-72 2.8GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $799
Athlon 64 FX-74 3.0GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $999
As you can see, AMD has a fairly direct answer for most members of the Core 2 range. Things start to get shaky at the high end, where the Athlon 64's lower performance takes its toll. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sells at a discount versus the Core 2 Duo E6700, and AMD has no answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel's fastest dual-core processor. If you match up the two product lines against one another, the results look something like this:
Model Price Model Price
Core 2 Duo E6300 $183 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $170
Core 2 Duo E6400 $224 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ $222
Core 2 Duo E6600 $316 Athlon 64 X2 5600+ $326
Core 2 Duo E6700 $530 Athlon 64 X2 6000+ $459
Core 2 Quad Q6600 $851 Athlon 64 FX-72 $799
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 $999 Athlon 64 FX-74 $999
So the comparisons are remarkably direct, by and large.
These things are never entirely simple, though, so we should roll out some caveats. One of the big ones involves those FX-series processors. You'll need two of them in order to populate a Quad FX motherboard, so they're priced (and listed above) in pairs. However, there's currently only one Quad FX motherboard available, and it costs about $350, which throws the value equation out of whack.
The value equation sometimes goes off-kilter the other way when AMD employs guerrilla price-war tactics like selling the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $125.99 on Newegg, well below the slower 4400+. AMD has several of these "Crazy Hector" deals going at Newegg right now, and none of them seem to involve the Athlon 64 models we've identified as direct competitors to specific Core 2 Duo models. That's probably an intentional facet of AMD's strategy. This practice throws a wrench in our nice, neat comparsion, but there's little we can do other than tell you about it.
One other thing we should tell you about is why we've included two versions of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in our testing. Regular readers may recall that we've already tested the 65nm version of the 5000+ against its 90nm predecessor and found that the 65nm one had lower power consumption. But the 65nm version also has a slower L2 cache, so we've tested the 65nm and 90nm chips head to head to see how the slower cache affects performance.
So, how do the latest processors stack up in Windows Vista? Will a sub-$200 CPU suffice for your needs? Have price cuts allowed the Athlon 64 to catch up to the Core 2 Duo in terms of price-performance? What about power consumption and energy efficiency? Can any of these processors stand up under the weight of killer new games like Supreme Commander? Can I possibly squeeze any more questions into one paragraph? Keep reading for answers to all of these questions and more.
The matchups
The setup for this one is fairly simple. We're directly comparing processors from Intel at AMD at a range of price points. Intel has had a lock on the overall performance lead since the Core 2 Duo first hit the scene, but AMD has made clear its intention to maintain a competitive price-performance ratio. To do so, AMD will have to meet or beat each of the processors in Intel's current desktop lineup, which looks like so:
Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
Core 2 Duo E6300 1.83GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $183
Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 2 2MB 65nm 65W $224
Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $316
Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 2 4MB 65nm 65W $530
Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 2 4MB 65nm 75W $999
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 4 8MB 65nm 105W $851
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 4 8MB 65nm 130W $999
Intel does offer lower cost options like the Core 2 Duo E4300 and its Celeron value-oriented processors, but our list includes the meat of the lineup.
AMD, on the other hand, offers a dizzying array of Athlon 64 X2 models, from 3600+ to 6000+, generally in increments of 200 (or is it 200+?). Not only that, but AMD often sells multiple products under the same performance-related model number, just to keep smug members of the general public from becoming overconfident. For instance, the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ comes in a 90nm "Toledo" flavor that runs at 2.2GHz, has 1MB of L2 cache per core, and is intended for Socket 939 motherboards. The X2 4400+ also comes in the form of a 65nm chip code-named "Brisbane" that runs at 2.3GHz, has 512K of L2 per core, and slips into Socket AM2 mobos. Several of these features—fab process, clock frequency, cache size, and socket/memory type—may vary within the same model number.
With that said, we've chosen the following members of the Athlon 64 lineup as the most direct competitors to their Core 2 counterparts. Because we live in the now, all of these are newer-style Socket AM2 processors:
Model Clock speed Cores L2 cache (total) Fab process TDP Price
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $170
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 2 1MB 65nm 65W $222
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 2 2MB 90nm 89W $326
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz 2 2MB 90nm 125W $459
Athlon 64 FX-70 2.6GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $599
Athlon 64 FX-72 2.8GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $799
Athlon 64 FX-74 3.0GHz 4 4MB 90nm 125W x 2 $999
As you can see, AMD has a fairly direct answer for most members of the Core 2 range. Things start to get shaky at the high end, where the Athlon 64's lower performance takes its toll. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sells at a discount versus the Core 2 Duo E6700, and AMD has no answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel's fastest dual-core processor. If you match up the two product lines against one another, the results look something like this:
Model Price Model Price
Core 2 Duo E6300 $183 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $170
Core 2 Duo E6400 $224 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ $222
Core 2 Duo E6600 $316 Athlon 64 X2 5600+ $326
Core 2 Duo E6700 $530 Athlon 64 X2 6000+ $459
Core 2 Quad Q6600 $851 Athlon 64 FX-72 $799
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 $999 Athlon 64 FX-74 $999
So the comparisons are remarkably direct, by and large.
These things are never entirely simple, though, so we should roll out some caveats. One of the big ones involves those FX-series processors. You'll need two of them in order to populate a Quad FX motherboard, so they're priced (and listed above) in pairs. However, there's currently only one Quad FX motherboard available, and it costs about $350, which throws the value equation out of whack.
The value equation sometimes goes off-kilter the other way when AMD employs guerrilla price-war tactics like selling the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ for $125.99 on Newegg, well below the slower 4400+. AMD has several of these "Crazy Hector" deals going at Newegg right now, and none of them seem to involve the Athlon 64 models we've identified as direct competitors to specific Core 2 Duo models. That's probably an intentional facet of AMD's strategy. This practice throws a wrench in our nice, neat comparsion, but there's little we can do other than tell you about it.
One other thing we should tell you about is why we've included two versions of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in our testing. Regular readers may recall that we've already tested the 65nm version of the 5000+ against its 90nm predecessor and found that the 65nm one had lower power consumption. But the 65nm version also has a slower L2 cache, so we've tested the 65nm and 90nm chips head to head to see how the slower cache affects performance.
The Ebb and Flow of CPU Architecture
Blind loyalty towards one brand precludes you from the decision making process. Is 'A' better than 'B,' or does 'B' have a better marketing program than 'A'? If you're not up on current CPU tech, this kind of decision making can quickly turn confusing.
Consider this; AMD and Intel are both corporations in the business of making microprocessors. The aim of a corporation is to make money, there's no hidden agenda to that. Intel has proven that in a short span of time, it can re-engineer a failing processor lineup and completely turn around its fortunes. AMD has shown us that in that same period of time a stagnant processor architecture can loose momentum because of a lack of innovation on a timely basis.
One CPU Core Against the Other
Having no preference to Intel, no preference to AMD, allows you to understand that as a consumer, hyper-competitive companies tend to trade market dominance from one season to the next. 'A' is not always going to be better than 'B', and vice versa.
It'd be nice to have a third option, a 'C' to choose from, but sadly all of Transmeta's best technological advances have come under the Intellectual Properly gavel. Still, the impact it had on energy efficient processing is due more credit than history has bestowed... but that's a story for another day.
As it stands right now, Intel dominates the processor market - in value, in performance, in inertia. I'd be remiss to count AMD out just yet though.
AMD has been delayed by technological kinks, missed release dates that may have kept it in lock step with its largest competitor, and for better or worse swallowed $5 Billion in debt for ATI at the beginning of this year. There are positive signs from AMD if you know where to look though...
The AMD 690G chipset is a resounding success for example, and if Intel has taught us anything, it's that chipsets pave the path to PC dominance.
AMD has not been asleep at the wheel on the processor front either. Much delayed perhaps, but not asleep. It is readying a new core, called 'K10', and a slew of intermediary processors based on 'Barcelona.' Not much is known about the performance of AMD's upcoming 'K10' Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 desktop processors right now, but we should find out very shortly if the 'Agena' and 'Kuma' chips will give Intel a run for its money.
While much of AMD's success the last few years can be traced to its partners, Intel has guaranteed the success of the Core 2 Duo processor with well designed chipsets. As they say, "it's the chipsets, stupid."
The Intel Core 2 Duo is a very efficient processor, its TDP values are roughly half of what the Pentium 4/D series use to be, and real world testing shows that complete computer systems equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo use considerably less power.
This is all well and good, but the real ace up Intel's sleeve is not that it has a processor which is faster by some percentage points, it's that the Core 2 Duo is faster and aggressively priced! I can't remember a time when you got so much value in a CPU for so little.
Mind you, Intel's Extreme Edition processors are still priced in the stratosphere, but its regular desktop CPU lines are very affordable. Compared to AMD processors in the same price bracket, Intel has the upper hand.
So as these things go, when it comes to AMD or Intel? Intel wins this round. The bottom line is simply CPUs for a double headed offshoot that rocks. The Core 2 Duo performs really well, so it's what I've been recommending.
But before we close up this debate, there's one more point you should consider. Along with casting away brand loyalty and judging CPUs based on cold hard benchmarks, there's another option we rarely see mentioned on sites set with deconstructing the latest and greatest technology. If the computer you have right now does what you need it to, you really don't have to choose between AMD or Intel's latest do you? ;-) that Intel has outmaneuvered AMD, scrapping an entire generational branch of
Don't Agree? Speak up.
What do you think of the current AMD vs. Intel situation? If your opinion differs from mine, feel free to press your case by using PCSTATS feedback page or proving your side in the PCSTATS Forums. Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.
Consider this; AMD and Intel are both corporations in the business of making microprocessors. The aim of a corporation is to make money, there's no hidden agenda to that. Intel has proven that in a short span of time, it can re-engineer a failing processor lineup and completely turn around its fortunes. AMD has shown us that in that same period of time a stagnant processor architecture can loose momentum because of a lack of innovation on a timely basis.
One CPU Core Against the Other
Having no preference to Intel, no preference to AMD, allows you to understand that as a consumer, hyper-competitive companies tend to trade market dominance from one season to the next. 'A' is not always going to be better than 'B', and vice versa.
It'd be nice to have a third option, a 'C' to choose from, but sadly all of Transmeta's best technological advances have come under the Intellectual Properly gavel. Still, the impact it had on energy efficient processing is due more credit than history has bestowed... but that's a story for another day.
As it stands right now, Intel dominates the processor market - in value, in performance, in inertia. I'd be remiss to count AMD out just yet though.
AMD has been delayed by technological kinks, missed release dates that may have kept it in lock step with its largest competitor, and for better or worse swallowed $5 Billion in debt for ATI at the beginning of this year. There are positive signs from AMD if you know where to look though...
The AMD 690G chipset is a resounding success for example, and if Intel has taught us anything, it's that chipsets pave the path to PC dominance.
AMD has not been asleep at the wheel on the processor front either. Much delayed perhaps, but not asleep. It is readying a new core, called 'K10', and a slew of intermediary processors based on 'Barcelona.' Not much is known about the performance of AMD's upcoming 'K10' Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 desktop processors right now, but we should find out very shortly if the 'Agena' and 'Kuma' chips will give Intel a run for its money.
While much of AMD's success the last few years can be traced to its partners, Intel has guaranteed the success of the Core 2 Duo processor with well designed chipsets. As they say, "it's the chipsets, stupid."
The Intel Core 2 Duo is a very efficient processor, its TDP values are roughly half of what the Pentium 4/D series use to be, and real world testing shows that complete computer systems equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo use considerably less power.
This is all well and good, but the real ace up Intel's sleeve is not that it has a processor which is faster by some percentage points, it's that the Core 2 Duo is faster and aggressively priced! I can't remember a time when you got so much value in a CPU for so little.
Mind you, Intel's Extreme Edition processors are still priced in the stratosphere, but its regular desktop CPU lines are very affordable. Compared to AMD processors in the same price bracket, Intel has the upper hand.
So as these things go, when it comes to AMD or Intel? Intel wins this round. The bottom line is simply CPUs for a double headed offshoot that rocks. The Core 2 Duo performs really well, so it's what I've been recommending.
But before we close up this debate, there's one more point you should consider. Along with casting away brand loyalty and judging CPUs based on cold hard benchmarks, there's another option we rarely see mentioned on sites set with deconstructing the latest and greatest technology. If the computer you have right now does what you need it to, you really don't have to choose between AMD or Intel's latest do you? ;-) that Intel has outmaneuvered AMD, scrapping an entire generational branch of
Don't Agree? Speak up.
What do you think of the current AMD vs. Intel situation? If your opinion differs from mine, feel free to press your case by using PCSTATS feedback page or proving your side in the PCSTATS Forums. Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.
Chipsets and Dual Videocard Support
The one thing that has propped up AMD for the longest time was wide support for dual videocard gaming - both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire technology. For Intel users who wanted to run dual videocards, there was no real option for the longest time.
That was eventually sorted out when Intel added support for dual videocards (ATI CrossFire) to its P965 Express chipset. A few Intel Edition nVIDIA nForce 590SLI motherboards also brought SLI to the Intel platform, but they weren't released in very significant volumes. That Intel Edition nVidia chipset seemed to be EOL'ed rather quickly too.
The situation is much better for gamers looking to run dual videocards with a Core 2 Duo processor nowadays. nVidia's nForce 680i/650i series motherboards are readily available, and Intel's P35 Express supports AMD CrossFire technology better than the P965 Express.
The upcoming Intel X38 Express chipset is rumored to support both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire! AMD has certainly lost its well deserved monopoly on multi-videocard gaming platforms. Which CPU will take the lead in quad videocard gaming platforms remains to be seen...
It's Always About The Price
Intel has been unusually aggressive with the pricing of its Core 2 Duo/Quad processors this year. Consumers have benefitted surely, but what cost us nearly $800 last CPU generation entered the market at just $300!? I don't know how they do it.
Still, I have to tip my hat towards Intel, not only are its emerging CPUs fast, they're just such a bargain. As of this writing, $120 US will get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 processor which is perfectly adequate for a workstation or home PC. A year ago, an equivalent class of processor would have been 2-3 times as much.
If you're building a new computer or buying a mainstream PC, a very nice Intel processor will only set you back $150-200US. For that, what you'll get will be faster than the AMD equivalent at that price. Factor in the cost of the other computer components, the fact that going AMD is no longer 'the cheaper option', and it really just makes sense to build Intel this time around.
When it comes to budget computing, the lines become blurry. Intel's budget Celeron D processor is still based on the Pentium 4 architecture, so there are those downsides when held up to the light of the current Core 2 Duo architecture.
It's a tough call. I suppose if I were putting together a budget PC right now I might just opt for a Celeron D instead of an AMD Sempron, mainly because of the flexibility of upgrading that LGA775 socket to a Core 2 Duo CPU at a later date. Now the socket AM2 AMD Semperon is a better budget processor all around than the Celeron D, but the upgrade path for AM2 just isn't as alluring right now. Like I said it's a tough one. The choice seems to be sacrifice a little performance now for better upgradability down the road, or benefit from entry level performance now and sacrifice upgrade performance later on.
That was eventually sorted out when Intel added support for dual videocards (ATI CrossFire) to its P965 Express chipset. A few Intel Edition nVIDIA nForce 590SLI motherboards also brought SLI to the Intel platform, but they weren't released in very significant volumes. That Intel Edition nVidia chipset seemed to be EOL'ed rather quickly too.
The situation is much better for gamers looking to run dual videocards with a Core 2 Duo processor nowadays. nVidia's nForce 680i/650i series motherboards are readily available, and Intel's P35 Express supports AMD CrossFire technology better than the P965 Express.
The upcoming Intel X38 Express chipset is rumored to support both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire! AMD has certainly lost its well deserved monopoly on multi-videocard gaming platforms. Which CPU will take the lead in quad videocard gaming platforms remains to be seen...
It's Always About The Price
Intel has been unusually aggressive with the pricing of its Core 2 Duo/Quad processors this year. Consumers have benefitted surely, but what cost us nearly $800 last CPU generation entered the market at just $300!? I don't know how they do it.
Still, I have to tip my hat towards Intel, not only are its emerging CPUs fast, they're just such a bargain. As of this writing, $120 US will get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 processor which is perfectly adequate for a workstation or home PC. A year ago, an equivalent class of processor would have been 2-3 times as much.
If you're building a new computer or buying a mainstream PC, a very nice Intel processor will only set you back $150-200US. For that, what you'll get will be faster than the AMD equivalent at that price. Factor in the cost of the other computer components, the fact that going AMD is no longer 'the cheaper option', and it really just makes sense to build Intel this time around.
When it comes to budget computing, the lines become blurry. Intel's budget Celeron D processor is still based on the Pentium 4 architecture, so there are those downsides when held up to the light of the current Core 2 Duo architecture.
It's a tough call. I suppose if I were putting together a budget PC right now I might just opt for a Celeron D instead of an AMD Sempron, mainly because of the flexibility of upgrading that LGA775 socket to a Core 2 Duo CPU at a later date. Now the socket AM2 AMD Semperon is a better budget processor all around than the Celeron D, but the upgrade path for AM2 just isn't as alluring right now. Like I said it's a tough one. The choice seems to be sacrifice a little performance now for better upgradability down the road, or benefit from entry level performance now and sacrifice upgrade performance later on.
Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel
You may recall a few months back when AMD took out full-page newspaper ads to challenge Intel to a dual-core server duel. Intel declined to take up AMD on its offer, but the challenge got us thinking: what would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion.
To answer the question once and for all, we circled up a bunch of cars in an abandoned parking garage and set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.
To answer the question once and for all, we circled up a bunch of cars in an abandoned parking garage and set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting.
Intel Climbs Back To The Top
For its efforts, Intel has undergone more than a few self-evaluations. It had to deal with a "Prescott" Pentium 4 voltage leak issue, it stopped pushing GHz as the singular processor metric and adopted the same kind of rating system AMD had been using for years. Then, Intel abandoned Netburst and modernized the P6 core into what we now know as the Core Solo and Core 2 Duo processor.
The Core Solo was nice, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is the real beauty. The CPU was an immediate hit among gamers from the time of its release, and it continues to out pace comparable Athlon64 processors.
Intel's previous NetBurst architecture had de-emphasized FPU power in favor of special instructions (SSE, 2, 3). This is partly the reason so many gamers ditched their Pentium 4/D computers in favor of AMD Athlon64 processors and it's more powerful FPU.
With the Intel Core processor architecture, the company finally addressed the FPU issue. Intel's "Conroe" CPU core has a very powerful FPU, and that has guaranteed a very welcome reception by gamers ever since.
As it stands in the fall of 2007, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is generally more powerful than AMD's Athlon64 X2/FX series in games, and all around.
Whether you're working on multimedia tasks, workstation or just need raw data crunching power, the Core 2 Duo trounces AMD's best almost every time.
It's also proved its mettle as an excellent overclocker!
Early stepping Intel Core 2 Duo processors could overclock to 3.2 GHz+ on air cooling, and the recent 'G0' stepping can go even further. I've overclocked to the region of 3.8 GHz with the stock heatsink in fact.
By comparison, AMD's 90nm Athlon64 X2/FX processors have difficulty overclocking much past 3 GHz.... Make no mistake about it, clock for clock Intel's Core 2 Duo is currently faster than AMD's Athlon64 X2 and FX processors.
Thermal Output Improving
The Intel Pentium 4 and D processor series were notorious for consuming a lot of power, and consequently running quite hot. The architecture Intel based the Core 2 Duo processors on is much better in this regard. While Pentium 4 architecture was at one time headed towards 150W TDP (Typical Design power), many of its current processors are now pushing 85W or less. One generation before, Intel Pentium D CPUs hovered around the 125W TDP range, late model Core 2 Duo processors (like the E6750 ) have a 65W TDP!
It's true enough that the power values AMD and Intel specify are not entirely comparable with each other, but total system power measurements give a good basis for comparison. I've conducted some power draw measurements recently, and those tests showed that Intel is genuinely kicking high power habit. An average Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 based computer system draws about 7W more power than a budget AMD Sempron 3600+ based PC system with its single CPU core running at idle. You'd think the lower power budget AMD chip would be significantly easier on the juice than the fairly high end E6750 Core 2 Duo, but the difference is pretty small.
With an Intel Core 2 Duo system under load, total power draw results are impressive. For instance, a Core 2 Duo E6750 system consumes 163W of power (total PC power draw) when running with both CPU cores under load.
A comparable Intel Pentium D 940 system consumes 253W of power with both processing CPU cores stressed, and an AMD Athlon64 FX-62 power system consumes upwards of 235W! It's clear you can save a lot on the utility bills by switching to a CPU that sips electricity. Intel offers this, with great performance. (Please keep in mind that these are total system power draw values, not just the processor.)
I've often thought that Intel is the more innovative of the two companies when it comes to designing heatsinks for its processors. The current Core 2 Duo bifurcated radial fin heatsinks are remarkably good, and very quiet.
Gone are the days of throwing out the stock heatsink for an after market cooler the second the box is opened... For good all around CPU cooling, it's tough to beat Intel in terms of noise level. The stock heatsinks are just so quiet, thanks in large part to 90mm fans and Pulse Width Modulation which allows the rotational speed to vary based on moment to moment thermal output.
Of course, these aren't the only reasons Intel is leading with the Core 2 Duo, as we'll talk about next, chipsets play a big role....
The Core Solo was nice, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is the real beauty. The CPU was an immediate hit among gamers from the time of its release, and it continues to out pace comparable Athlon64 processors.
Intel's previous NetBurst architecture had de-emphasized FPU power in favor of special instructions (SSE, 2, 3). This is partly the reason so many gamers ditched their Pentium 4/D computers in favor of AMD Athlon64 processors and it's more powerful FPU.
With the Intel Core processor architecture, the company finally addressed the FPU issue. Intel's "Conroe" CPU core has a very powerful FPU, and that has guaranteed a very welcome reception by gamers ever since.
As it stands in the fall of 2007, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is generally more powerful than AMD's Athlon64 X2/FX series in games, and all around.
Whether you're working on multimedia tasks, workstation or just need raw data crunching power, the Core 2 Duo trounces AMD's best almost every time.
It's also proved its mettle as an excellent overclocker!
Early stepping Intel Core 2 Duo processors could overclock to 3.2 GHz+ on air cooling, and the recent 'G0' stepping can go even further. I've overclocked to the region of 3.8 GHz with the stock heatsink in fact.
By comparison, AMD's 90nm Athlon64 X2/FX processors have difficulty overclocking much past 3 GHz.... Make no mistake about it, clock for clock Intel's Core 2 Duo is currently faster than AMD's Athlon64 X2 and FX processors.
Thermal Output Improving
The Intel Pentium 4 and D processor series were notorious for consuming a lot of power, and consequently running quite hot. The architecture Intel based the Core 2 Duo processors on is much better in this regard. While Pentium 4 architecture was at one time headed towards 150W TDP (Typical Design power), many of its current processors are now pushing 85W or less. One generation before, Intel Pentium D CPUs hovered around the 125W TDP range, late model Core 2 Duo processors (like the E6750 ) have a 65W TDP!
It's true enough that the power values AMD and Intel specify are not entirely comparable with each other, but total system power measurements give a good basis for comparison. I've conducted some power draw measurements recently, and those tests showed that Intel is genuinely kicking high power habit. An average Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 based computer system draws about 7W more power than a budget AMD Sempron 3600+ based PC system with its single CPU core running at idle. You'd think the lower power budget AMD chip would be significantly easier on the juice than the fairly high end E6750 Core 2 Duo, but the difference is pretty small.
With an Intel Core 2 Duo system under load, total power draw results are impressive. For instance, a Core 2 Duo E6750 system consumes 163W of power (total PC power draw) when running with both CPU cores under load.
A comparable Intel Pentium D 940 system consumes 253W of power with both processing CPU cores stressed, and an AMD Athlon64 FX-62 power system consumes upwards of 235W! It's clear you can save a lot on the utility bills by switching to a CPU that sips electricity. Intel offers this, with great performance. (Please keep in mind that these are total system power draw values, not just the processor.)
I've often thought that Intel is the more innovative of the two companies when it comes to designing heatsinks for its processors. The current Core 2 Duo bifurcated radial fin heatsinks are remarkably good, and very quiet.
Gone are the days of throwing out the stock heatsink for an after market cooler the second the box is opened... For good all around CPU cooling, it's tough to beat Intel in terms of noise level. The stock heatsinks are just so quiet, thanks in large part to 90mm fans and Pulse Width Modulation which allows the rotational speed to vary based on moment to moment thermal output.
Of course, these aren't the only reasons Intel is leading with the Core 2 Duo, as we'll talk about next, chipsets play a big role....
AMD VS INTEL
there are countless companies in the computer industry but there is only one battle that counts... AMD vs. Intel. This is a favorite topic in the forums, yet instead of blindly pledging allegiance to one CPU or the other, let's take a look behind the scenes and find out which companies processor is the best bet.
Now I should say that I'm a hardware enthusiast at heart, so for me CPU performance matters the most. I stick with gear only as long as it keeps my PC at the front of the performance curve. After that, I drop it like a rock and move onto greener pastures, regardless if it's the same brand or not. After all, what's the point of brand loyalty? AMD and Intel don't love you back, no matter how much you might sing their praises. Put another way, it's not like AMD only sells to you, or Intel has a smiling shot of your mug on every pay stub as a testament to your past processor purchases now is it?
The nice thing about being computer enthusiast is that right now both AMD and Intel platforms support a lot of cross compatible hardware. Sure the CPU and motherboards are platform specific, but you can share DDR2 memory, videocards and other peripherals easily enough. If PC speed is what you crave, you can jump from one processor platform to the next ever couple months, taking your memory, videocards, hard drives and everything else along with you.
Anyway, the point I'm trying make is this. As a hardware enthusiast you have the pick of some of the fastest computer hardware on the planet. Ignore the urge to stick with AMD or Intel out of tradition, go out there and find the best gear based on benchmarks!
So, who offers the best performance - is it AMD or Intel? I'm glad you asked, the answer is....
...Intel. For the moment anyway, Intel's dual and quad core processors are the king of the heap. In particular, the companies Core 2 Duo/Quad processor lineup is out-pacing AMDs current Athlon64 X2/FX processor families. That may indeed change by the end of Q4'07, or it may not.
AMD is partly to blame for its current situation. Big green has not refreshed its CPU lineup since the last time PCSTATS dished the dirt on the AMD vs. Intel slugfest. AMD won the battle back then, but relying on the now somewhat dated K8 Athlon64 processor has left AMD without a good competing CPU for Intel's "Conroe". Intel published performance results on "Conroe" for quite some time before it was officially released, so it's not like AMD was blindsided by it either.
Now I should say that I'm a hardware enthusiast at heart, so for me CPU performance matters the most. I stick with gear only as long as it keeps my PC at the front of the performance curve. After that, I drop it like a rock and move onto greener pastures, regardless if it's the same brand or not. After all, what's the point of brand loyalty? AMD and Intel don't love you back, no matter how much you might sing their praises. Put another way, it's not like AMD only sells to you, or Intel has a smiling shot of your mug on every pay stub as a testament to your past processor purchases now is it?
The nice thing about being computer enthusiast is that right now both AMD and Intel platforms support a lot of cross compatible hardware. Sure the CPU and motherboards are platform specific, but you can share DDR2 memory, videocards and other peripherals easily enough. If PC speed is what you crave, you can jump from one processor platform to the next ever couple months, taking your memory, videocards, hard drives and everything else along with you.
Anyway, the point I'm trying make is this. As a hardware enthusiast you have the pick of some of the fastest computer hardware on the planet. Ignore the urge to stick with AMD or Intel out of tradition, go out there and find the best gear based on benchmarks!
So, who offers the best performance - is it AMD or Intel? I'm glad you asked, the answer is....
...Intel. For the moment anyway, Intel's dual and quad core processors are the king of the heap. In particular, the companies Core 2 Duo/Quad processor lineup is out-pacing AMDs current Athlon64 X2/FX processor families. That may indeed change by the end of Q4'07, or it may not.
AMD is partly to blame for its current situation. Big green has not refreshed its CPU lineup since the last time PCSTATS dished the dirt on the AMD vs. Intel slugfest. AMD won the battle back then, but relying on the now somewhat dated K8 Athlon64 processor has left AMD without a good competing CPU for Intel's "Conroe". Intel published performance results on "Conroe" for quite some time before it was officially released, so it's not like AMD was blindsided by it either.
Litigation with Intel
AMD has a long history of litigation with former partner and x86 creator Intel.[30][31][32]
• In 1986 Intel broke an agreement it had with AMD to allow them to produce Intel's micro-chips for IBM; AMD filed for arbitration in 1987 and the arbitrator decided in AMD's favor in 1992. Intel disputed this, and the case ended up in the Supreme Court of California. In 1994, that court upheld the arbitrator's decision and awarded damages for breach of contract.
• In 1990, Intel brought a copyright infringement action alleging illegal use of its 287 microcode. The case ended in 1994 with a jury finding for AMD and its right to use Intel's microcode in its microprocessors through the 486 generation.
• In 1997, Intel filed suit against AMD and Cyrix Corp. for misuse of the term MMX. AMD and Intel settled, with AMD acknowledging MMX as a trademark owned by Intel, and with Intel granting AMD rights to market the AMD K6 MMX processor.
• In 2005, following an investigation, the Japan Federal Trade Commission found Intel guilty on a number of violations. On June 27, 2005, AMD won an antitrust suit against Intel in Japan, and on the same day, AMD filed a broad antitrust complaint against Intel in the U.S. Federal District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleges systematic use of secret rebates, special discounts, threats, and other means used by Intel to lock AMD processors out of the global market. Since the start of this action, The Court has issued subpoenas to major computer manufacturers including Dell, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Sony, and Toshiba.
Events and publications
Although AMD has frequently stated the inability of providing information about upcoming products and plans, AMD holds Technology Analyst Days (which often shorten as simply "Analyst Day") annually or semi-annually to reveal and explain key future technologies, as well as official technology roadmaps. While the event held in mid-year is named as "Technology Analyst Day" with main focus on upcoming technologies and trends[33] and the end-of-year event is named "Financial Analyst Day" and focused on the financial performance of the company during the previous quarters of the year[34]
AMD also publishes printed media. Publications include the AMD Accelerate and the discontinued AMDEdge. The AMD Accelerate magazine, published through Ziff Davis Media, puts focus on SME and business applications while AMD Edge focused on overall technologies from AMD. After Ziff Davis Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the AMD Accelerate magazine is published through IDG. AMD also has electronic newsletters to promote server Opteron processors and related business solutions.
• In 1986 Intel broke an agreement it had with AMD to allow them to produce Intel's micro-chips for IBM; AMD filed for arbitration in 1987 and the arbitrator decided in AMD's favor in 1992. Intel disputed this, and the case ended up in the Supreme Court of California. In 1994, that court upheld the arbitrator's decision and awarded damages for breach of contract.
• In 1990, Intel brought a copyright infringement action alleging illegal use of its 287 microcode. The case ended in 1994 with a jury finding for AMD and its right to use Intel's microcode in its microprocessors through the 486 generation.
• In 1997, Intel filed suit against AMD and Cyrix Corp. for misuse of the term MMX. AMD and Intel settled, with AMD acknowledging MMX as a trademark owned by Intel, and with Intel granting AMD rights to market the AMD K6 MMX processor.
• In 2005, following an investigation, the Japan Federal Trade Commission found Intel guilty on a number of violations. On June 27, 2005, AMD won an antitrust suit against Intel in Japan, and on the same day, AMD filed a broad antitrust complaint against Intel in the U.S. Federal District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleges systematic use of secret rebates, special discounts, threats, and other means used by Intel to lock AMD processors out of the global market. Since the start of this action, The Court has issued subpoenas to major computer manufacturers including Dell, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Sony, and Toshiba.
Events and publications
Although AMD has frequently stated the inability of providing information about upcoming products and plans, AMD holds Technology Analyst Days (which often shorten as simply "Analyst Day") annually or semi-annually to reveal and explain key future technologies, as well as official technology roadmaps. While the event held in mid-year is named as "Technology Analyst Day" with main focus on upcoming technologies and trends[33] and the end-of-year event is named "Financial Analyst Day" and focused on the financial performance of the company during the previous quarters of the year[34]
AMD also publishes printed media. Publications include the AMD Accelerate and the discontinued AMDEdge. The AMD Accelerate magazine, published through Ziff Davis Media, puts focus on SME and business applications while AMD Edge focused on overall technologies from AMD. After Ziff Davis Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the AMD Accelerate magazine is published through IDG. AMD also has electronic newsletters to promote server Opteron processors and related business solutions.
Production and fabrication
AMD produces their own processors in wholly owned semiconductor Fabrication Plants, called "FABs". AMD uses a "FAB x" naming convention for their production facilities, where "x" is the number of years that have passed between the founding of AMD and the date the FAB opened.
At their Fabrication facilities, AMD utilizes a system called Automated Precision Manufacturing (APM). APM is a collection of manufacturing technologies AMD has developed over their history (many of which AMD holds patents for), which are designed to enhance the microprocessor production process, primarily in terms of yield. Much of APM is related to removing the "human equation" from the manufacturing process by isolating in-process wafers in containers that are only exposed to clean room facilities. AMD claims that the technologies that combine to make APM are unique to the industry and make it the foremost semiconductor manufacturer in the world - a fact which is lent some credence by their current agreement with Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing based in Singapore. India's first Fab City, a silicon chip manufacturing facility at Hyderabad, being setup with an investment of $3 billion by the AMD-SemIndia consortium.
AMD currently has a production agreement with foundry Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing which allows Chartered access to AMD Automated Precision Manufacturing (APM) process technology, in exchange for which Chartered will act as extra production capacity for AMD.
Through the acquisition of ATI, AMD also has manufacturing agreements with TSMC to produce ATI's lines of graphics and chipset processors. It is currently unclear how much of ATI's manufacturing needs will be moved to AMD's own fabs and how much will remain outsourced to other foundry companies, but AMD has announced plans for future processors to be outsourced to TSMC, while coincidently TSMC had announced it had received orders to fabricate x86 processors.
AMD Saxony in Dresden, Germany is the major wafer production site.
AMD's main microprocessor manufacturing and design facilities are located in Dresden, Germany. Additionally, highly integrated microprocessors are manufactured in Taiwan made by third-party manufacturers under strict license from AMD. Between 2003 and 2005, they constructed a second manufacturing plant (300 mm 90 nm process SOI) in the same complex in order to increase the number of chips they can produce, thus becoming more competitive with Intel. The new plant has been named "Fab 36", in recognition of AMD's 36 years of operation, and is expected to reach full production in mid-2007. AMD recently announced that they have just completed the conversion of Fab 36 from 90 nm to 65 nm and have now shifted their focus to the 45 nm conversion.[25]
AMD has planned expansions in their production capacity. In addition to the completion of Fab 36 in Dresden, AMD is planning to upgrade Fab 30 (adjacent to Fab 36) in Dresden from 200 mm 90 nm process SOI to a 300 mm 65 nm process SOI facility and rename it Fab 38. Originally, Fab 30 was supposed to begin 65 nm production in late 2007 but AMD recently announced they would slow down the upgrade to reduce capital expenditures.[26]
Packaging and testing facilities for its microprocessor products are located in Singapore, Malaysia and China.
Furthermore, AMD announced plans to open a new $3.2 billion facility at the Luther Forest Technology Campus across the towns of Malta and Stillwater in Saratoga County, New York. This new Fab 4x will likely produce 300 mm 32 nm process SOI production, with construction taking place from 2009 to 2010. Some speculation exists as to whether this facility will use high-K/metal gate technology that AMD obtained from IBM.[27]
AMD has also invested $3billion to build a chip fabrication plant in India. Currently, AMD is manufacturing chips in India as a result of their partnership with SemIndia, a group of investors aiming at building a wafer fab, as well as assembly and test operation centers. "AMD ponders over new chip plant in India"
In June 2006, Chartered Semiconductor began shipments of manufactured AMD microprocessors, many of which are shipped from Singapore to Taiwanese and Chinese OEM/ODM manufacturing companies that build computers for companies like Lenovo and Dell.[28]
AMD maintains major design facilities in Fort Collins, CO, Sunnyvale, CA, Austin, TX, Boxborough, MA, Bangalore, India, and Hyderabad, India. With the acquisition of ATI Technologies, the company gained ownership over major design facilities in Markham, ON and Santa Clara, CA.
At their Fabrication facilities, AMD utilizes a system called Automated Precision Manufacturing (APM). APM is a collection of manufacturing technologies AMD has developed over their history (many of which AMD holds patents for), which are designed to enhance the microprocessor production process, primarily in terms of yield. Much of APM is related to removing the "human equation" from the manufacturing process by isolating in-process wafers in containers that are only exposed to clean room facilities. AMD claims that the technologies that combine to make APM are unique to the industry and make it the foremost semiconductor manufacturer in the world - a fact which is lent some credence by their current agreement with Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing based in Singapore. India's first Fab City, a silicon chip manufacturing facility at Hyderabad, being setup with an investment of $3 billion by the AMD-SemIndia consortium.
AMD currently has a production agreement with foundry Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing which allows Chartered access to AMD Automated Precision Manufacturing (APM) process technology, in exchange for which Chartered will act as extra production capacity for AMD.
Through the acquisition of ATI, AMD also has manufacturing agreements with TSMC to produce ATI's lines of graphics and chipset processors. It is currently unclear how much of ATI's manufacturing needs will be moved to AMD's own fabs and how much will remain outsourced to other foundry companies, but AMD has announced plans for future processors to be outsourced to TSMC, while coincidently TSMC had announced it had received orders to fabricate x86 processors.
AMD Saxony in Dresden, Germany is the major wafer production site.
AMD's main microprocessor manufacturing and design facilities are located in Dresden, Germany. Additionally, highly integrated microprocessors are manufactured in Taiwan made by third-party manufacturers under strict license from AMD. Between 2003 and 2005, they constructed a second manufacturing plant (300 mm 90 nm process SOI) in the same complex in order to increase the number of chips they can produce, thus becoming more competitive with Intel. The new plant has been named "Fab 36", in recognition of AMD's 36 years of operation, and is expected to reach full production in mid-2007. AMD recently announced that they have just completed the conversion of Fab 36 from 90 nm to 65 nm and have now shifted their focus to the 45 nm conversion.[25]
AMD has planned expansions in their production capacity. In addition to the completion of Fab 36 in Dresden, AMD is planning to upgrade Fab 30 (adjacent to Fab 36) in Dresden from 200 mm 90 nm process SOI to a 300 mm 65 nm process SOI facility and rename it Fab 38. Originally, Fab 30 was supposed to begin 65 nm production in late 2007 but AMD recently announced they would slow down the upgrade to reduce capital expenditures.[26]
Packaging and testing facilities for its microprocessor products are located in Singapore, Malaysia and China.
Furthermore, AMD announced plans to open a new $3.2 billion facility at the Luther Forest Technology Campus across the towns of Malta and Stillwater in Saratoga County, New York. This new Fab 4x will likely produce 300 mm 32 nm process SOI production, with construction taking place from 2009 to 2010. Some speculation exists as to whether this facility will use high-K/metal gate technology that AMD obtained from IBM.[27]
AMD has also invested $3billion to build a chip fabrication plant in India. Currently, AMD is manufacturing chips in India as a result of their partnership with SemIndia, a group of investors aiming at building a wafer fab, as well as assembly and test operation centers. "AMD ponders over new chip plant in India"
In June 2006, Chartered Semiconductor began shipments of manufactured AMD microprocessors, many of which are shipped from Singapore to Taiwanese and Chinese OEM/ODM manufacturing companies that build computers for companies like Lenovo and Dell.[28]
AMD maintains major design facilities in Fort Collins, CO, Sunnyvale, CA, Austin, TX, Boxborough, MA, Bangalore, India, and Hyderabad, India. With the acquisition of ATI Technologies, the company gained ownership over major design facilities in Markham, ON and Santa Clara, CA.
technology
Flash technology
While less visible to the general public than its CPU business, AMD is also a global leader in flash memory. In 1993, AMD established a 50-50 partnership with Fujitsu called FASL, and merged into a new company called FASL LLC in 2003. The joint venture firm went public under ticker symbol SPSN in December 2005, with AMD shares drop to 37%.
AMD no longer directly participates in the Flash memory devices market now as AMD entered into a non-competition agreement, as of December 21, 2005, with Fujitsu and Spansion, pursuant to which it agreed not to directly or indirectly engage in a business that manufactures or supplies standalone semiconductor devices (including single chip, multiple chip or system devices) containing only Flash memory.[21]
Mobile platforms
AMD started a platform in 2003 aimed at mobile computing, but, with fewer advertisements and promotional schemes, very little was known about the platform. The platform used mobile Athlon 64 or mobile Sempron processors.
As part of the "Better by design" initiative, the open mobile platform, announced February 2007 with announcement of general availability in May 2007, comes together with 65 nm fabrication process Turion 64 X2, and consists of three major components: an AMD processor, graphics from either Nvidia or ATI Technologies which also includes integrated graphics (IGP), and wireless connectivity solutions from Atheros, Broadcom, Marvell, Qualcomm or Realtek.
The Puma platform and Turion Ultra processor was released on June 4, 2008. In the future, AMD plans quad-core processors with 3D graphics capabilities (Fusion) to be launched in 2009 as the Eagle platform.
Other initiatives
• 50x15, digital inclusion, with targeted 50% of world population to be connected through Internet via affordable computers by the year of 2015.
• The Green Grid,[22] founded by AMD together with other founders, such as IBM, Sun and Microsoft, to seek lower power consumption for grids. Intel was notably absent from the consortium when it was founded, and finally joined in early 2007.[23]
• Codenamed SIMFIRE interoperability testing tool for the Desktop and mobile Architecture for System Hardware (DASH) open architecture.
Software
• Extensions for software parallelism (xSP), aimed at speeding up programs to enable multi-threaded and multi-core processing, announced in Technology Analyst Day 2007. One of the initiative being discussed since August 2007 is the Light Weight Profiling (LWP), providing internal hardware monitor with runtimes, to observe information about executing process and help the re-design of software to be optimized with multi-core and even multi-threaded programs. Another one is the extension of Streaming SIMD Extension (SSE) instruction set, the SSE5.
Technologies from ATI
After the takeover of ATI, AMD restructured some of the product lineups from both companies. Some products were being rebranded under the AMD brand, including the Imageon for mobile phones and handheld devices, the Xilleon for consumer electronics (digital TV sets), ATI Xpress chipsets (to AMD chipsets) for AMD processors platform and GPGPU computing line-up FireStream, previously known as AMD Stream Processor. Some others retained the use of ATI branding, including the Radeon line of graphics, and chipsets for Intel processors.
While less visible to the general public than its CPU business, AMD is also a global leader in flash memory. In 1993, AMD established a 50-50 partnership with Fujitsu called FASL, and merged into a new company called FASL LLC in 2003. The joint venture firm went public under ticker symbol SPSN in December 2005, with AMD shares drop to 37%.
AMD no longer directly participates in the Flash memory devices market now as AMD entered into a non-competition agreement, as of December 21, 2005, with Fujitsu and Spansion, pursuant to which it agreed not to directly or indirectly engage in a business that manufactures or supplies standalone semiconductor devices (including single chip, multiple chip or system devices) containing only Flash memory.[21]
Mobile platforms
AMD started a platform in 2003 aimed at mobile computing, but, with fewer advertisements and promotional schemes, very little was known about the platform. The platform used mobile Athlon 64 or mobile Sempron processors.
As part of the "Better by design" initiative, the open mobile platform, announced February 2007 with announcement of general availability in May 2007, comes together with 65 nm fabrication process Turion 64 X2, and consists of three major components: an AMD processor, graphics from either Nvidia or ATI Technologies which also includes integrated graphics (IGP), and wireless connectivity solutions from Atheros, Broadcom, Marvell, Qualcomm or Realtek.
The Puma platform and Turion Ultra processor was released on June 4, 2008. In the future, AMD plans quad-core processors with 3D graphics capabilities (Fusion) to be launched in 2009 as the Eagle platform.
Other initiatives
• 50x15, digital inclusion, with targeted 50% of world population to be connected through Internet via affordable computers by the year of 2015.
• The Green Grid,[22] founded by AMD together with other founders, such as IBM, Sun and Microsoft, to seek lower power consumption for grids. Intel was notably absent from the consortium when it was founded, and finally joined in early 2007.[23]
• Codenamed SIMFIRE interoperability testing tool for the Desktop and mobile Architecture for System Hardware (DASH) open architecture.
Software
• Extensions for software parallelism (xSP), aimed at speeding up programs to enable multi-threaded and multi-core processing, announced in Technology Analyst Day 2007. One of the initiative being discussed since August 2007 is the Light Weight Profiling (LWP), providing internal hardware monitor with runtimes, to observe information about executing process and help the re-design of software to be optimized with multi-core and even multi-threaded programs. Another one is the extension of Streaming SIMD Extension (SSE) instruction set, the SSE5.
Technologies from ATI
After the takeover of ATI, AMD restructured some of the product lineups from both companies. Some products were being rebranded under the AMD brand, including the Imageon for mobile phones and handheld devices, the Xilleon for consumer electronics (digital TV sets), ATI Xpress chipsets (to AMD chipsets) for AMD processors platform and GPGPU computing line-up FireStream, previously known as AMD Stream Processor. Some others retained the use of ATI branding, including the Radeon line of graphics, and chipsets for Intel processors.
Embedded systems
In February 2002, AMD acquired Alchemy Semiconductor and continued its line of processor in MIPS architecture processors, targets the hand-held and Portable media player markets. On 13 June 2006, AMD officially announced that the Alchemy processor line was transferred to Raza Microelectronics Inc.[20]
In August 2003, AMD also purchased the Geode business which was originally the Cyrix MediaGX from National Semiconductor to augment its existing line of embedded x86 processor products. During the second quarter of 2004, it launched new low-power Geode NX processors based on the K7 Thoroughbred architecture with speeds of fanless processors 667 MHz and 1 GHz, and 1.4 GHz processor with fan, of TDP 25 W. This technology is used in a variety of embedded systems (Casino slot machines and customer kiosks for instance), several UMPC designs in Asia markets, as well as the OLPC XO-1 computer, an inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to children in developing countries around the world.
For the past couple of years AMD has been introducing 64-bit processors into its embedded product line starting with the AMD Opteron processor. Leveraging the high throughput enabled through HyperTransport and the Direct Connect Architecture these server class processors have been targeted at high end telecom and storage applications. In 2006 AMD added the AMD Athlon, AMD Turion and Mobile AMD Sempron processors to its embedded product line. Leveraging the same 64-bit instruction set and Direct Connect Architecture as the AMD Opteron but at lower power levels and in smaller footprint packages[citation needed], these processors were well suited to a variety of traditional embedded applications. Throughout 2007 and into 2008 AMD has continued to add both single-core Mobile AMD Sempron and AMD Athlon processors and dual-core AMD Athlon X2 and AMD Turion processors to its embedded product line and now offers embedded 64-bit solutions starting with 8W TDP Mobile AMD Sempron and AMD Athlon processors for fan-less designs up to multi-processor systems leveraging multi-core AMD Opteron processors all supporting longer than standard availability.
In April 2007, AMD announced the release of the M690T integrated graphics chipset for embedded designs. This enabled AMD to offer complete processor and chipset solutions targeted at embedded applications requiring high performance 3D and video such as emerging digital signage, kiosk and Point of Sale applications. The M690T was followed by the M690E specifically for embedded applications which removed the TV output, which required Macrovision licensing for OEMs, and enabled native support for dual TMDS outputs, enabling dual independent DVI interfaces.
In August 2003, AMD also purchased the Geode business which was originally the Cyrix MediaGX from National Semiconductor to augment its existing line of embedded x86 processor products. During the second quarter of 2004, it launched new low-power Geode NX processors based on the K7 Thoroughbred architecture with speeds of fanless processors 667 MHz and 1 GHz, and 1.4 GHz processor with fan, of TDP 25 W. This technology is used in a variety of embedded systems (Casino slot machines and customer kiosks for instance), several UMPC designs in Asia markets, as well as the OLPC XO-1 computer, an inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to children in developing countries around the world.
For the past couple of years AMD has been introducing 64-bit processors into its embedded product line starting with the AMD Opteron processor. Leveraging the high throughput enabled through HyperTransport and the Direct Connect Architecture these server class processors have been targeted at high end telecom and storage applications. In 2006 AMD added the AMD Athlon, AMD Turion and Mobile AMD Sempron processors to its embedded product line. Leveraging the same 64-bit instruction set and Direct Connect Architecture as the AMD Opteron but at lower power levels and in smaller footprint packages[citation needed], these processors were well suited to a variety of traditional embedded applications. Throughout 2007 and into 2008 AMD has continued to add both single-core Mobile AMD Sempron and AMD Athlon processors and dual-core AMD Athlon X2 and AMD Turion processors to its embedded product line and now offers embedded 64-bit solutions starting with 8W TDP Mobile AMD Sempron and AMD Athlon processors for fan-less designs up to multi-processor systems leveraging multi-core AMD Opteron processors all supporting longer than standard availability.
In April 2007, AMD announced the release of the M690T integrated graphics chipset for embedded designs. This enabled AMD to offer complete processor and chipset solutions targeted at embedded applications requiring high performance 3D and video such as emerging digital signage, kiosk and Point of Sale applications. The M690T was followed by the M690E specifically for embedded applications which removed the TV output, which required Macrovision licensing for OEMs, and enabled native support for dual TMDS outputs, enabling dual independent DVI interfaces.
Commercial platform
The first AMD server/workstation platform after ATI acquisition is scheduled to be released on 2009 timeframe. Codenamed Piranha, the server platform consists of AMD 870S/890S + SB700S server chipsets, supporting Socket G3 processors starting from 45 nm processors codenamed Montreal, with the implementation of G3MX memory buffering technology.
AMD's virtualization extension to the 64-bit x86 architecture is named AMD Virtualization, also known by the abbreviation AMD-V, and is sometimes referred to by the code name "Pacifica". AMD processors using Socket AM2, Socket S1, and Socket F include AMD Virtualization support. AMD Virtualization is also supported by release two (8200, 2200 and 1200 series) of the Opteron processors. The third generation (8300 and 2300 series) of Opteron processors will see an update in virtualization technology, specifically the Rapid Virtualization Indexing (also known by the development name Nested Page Tables), alongside the Tagged TLB and Device Exclusion Vector (DEV).
AMD also promotes the "AMD I/O Virtualization Technology" (also known as IOMMU) for I/O virtualization.[14] The AMD IOMMU specification has been updated to version 1.2.[15] The specification describes the use of a HyperTransport architecture.
AMD's commercial initiatives include the following:
• AMD Trinity, provides support for virtualization, security and management. Key features include AMD-V technology, codenamed Presidio trusted computing platform technology, I/O Virtualization and Open Management Partition.[16]
• AMD Raiden, future clients similar to the Jack PC[17] to be connected through network to a blade server for central management, to reduce client form factor sizes with AMD Trinity features.
• Torrenza, coprocessors support through interconnects such as HyperTransport as PCI Express (though more focus was at HyperTransport enabled coprocessors), also opening processor socket architecture to other manufacturers, Sun and IBM are among the supporting consortium, with rumoured POWER7 processors would be socket-compatible to future Opteron processors. The move made rival Intel responded with the open of Front Side Bus (FSB) architecture as well as Geneseo,[18] a collaboration project with IBM for coprocessors connected through PCI Express. Note that AMD positioned Torrenza for commercial segment, whilst Intel positioned Geneseo for all segments including consumer desktop segments[citation needed].
• Various certified systems programs and platforms: AMD Commercial Stable Image Platform (CSIP), together with AMD Validated Server program, AMD True Server Solutions, AMD Thermally Tested Barebones Platforms and AMD Validated Server Program, providing certified systems for business from AMD.
Desktop platforms
Starting in 2007, AMD, following Intel, began using codenames for its desktop platforms. The platforms, unlike Intel's approach, will refresh every year, putting focus on platform specialization. The platform includes components as AMD processors, chipsets, ATI graphics and other features, but continued to the open platform approach, and welcome components from other vendors such as VIA, SiS, and Nvidia, as well as wireless product vendors.
Updates to the platform includes the implemtation of IOMMU I/O Virtualization with 45 nm generation of processors, and the AMD 800 chipset series in 2009.[19]
AMD's virtualization extension to the 64-bit x86 architecture is named AMD Virtualization, also known by the abbreviation AMD-V, and is sometimes referred to by the code name "Pacifica". AMD processors using Socket AM2, Socket S1, and Socket F include AMD Virtualization support. AMD Virtualization is also supported by release two (8200, 2200 and 1200 series) of the Opteron processors. The third generation (8300 and 2300 series) of Opteron processors will see an update in virtualization technology, specifically the Rapid Virtualization Indexing (also known by the development name Nested Page Tables), alongside the Tagged TLB and Device Exclusion Vector (DEV).
AMD also promotes the "AMD I/O Virtualization Technology" (also known as IOMMU) for I/O virtualization.[14] The AMD IOMMU specification has been updated to version 1.2.[15] The specification describes the use of a HyperTransport architecture.
AMD's commercial initiatives include the following:
• AMD Trinity, provides support for virtualization, security and management. Key features include AMD-V technology, codenamed Presidio trusted computing platform technology, I/O Virtualization and Open Management Partition.[16]
• AMD Raiden, future clients similar to the Jack PC[17] to be connected through network to a blade server for central management, to reduce client form factor sizes with AMD Trinity features.
• Torrenza, coprocessors support through interconnects such as HyperTransport as PCI Express (though more focus was at HyperTransport enabled coprocessors), also opening processor socket architecture to other manufacturers, Sun and IBM are among the supporting consortium, with rumoured POWER7 processors would be socket-compatible to future Opteron processors. The move made rival Intel responded with the open of Front Side Bus (FSB) architecture as well as Geneseo,[18] a collaboration project with IBM for coprocessors connected through PCI Express. Note that AMD positioned Torrenza for commercial segment, whilst Intel positioned Geneseo for all segments including consumer desktop segments[citation needed].
• Various certified systems programs and platforms: AMD Commercial Stable Image Platform (CSIP), together with AMD Validated Server program, AMD True Server Solutions, AMD Thermally Tested Barebones Platforms and AMD Validated Server Program, providing certified systems for business from AMD.
Desktop platforms
Starting in 2007, AMD, following Intel, began using codenames for its desktop platforms. The platforms, unlike Intel's approach, will refresh every year, putting focus on platform specialization. The platform includes components as AMD processors, chipsets, ATI graphics and other features, but continued to the open platform approach, and welcome components from other vendors such as VIA, SiS, and Nvidia, as well as wireless product vendors.
Updates to the platform includes the implemtation of IOMMU I/O Virtualization with 45 nm generation of processors, and the AMD 800 chipset series in 2009.[19]
Other platforms and technologies
AMD chipsets
Before the launch of Athlon 64 processors in 2003, AMD designed chipsets for their processors spanning the K6 and K7 processor generations. The chipsets include the AMD-640, AMD-751 and the AMD-761 chipsets. The situation changed in 2003 with the release of Athlon 64 processors, and AMD chose not to further design its own chipsets for its desktop processors while opening the desktop platform to allow other firms to design chipsets. This is the "Open Platform Initiative". The initiative was proven to be a success, with many firms such as Nvidia, ATI, VIA and SiS developing their own chipset for Athlon 64 processors and later Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 FX processors, including the Quad FX platform chipset from Nvidia.
The initiative went further with the release of Opteron server processors as AMD stopped the design of server chipsets in 2004 after releasing the AMD-8111 chipset, and again opened the server platform for firms to develop chipsets for Opteron processors. As of today, Nvidia and Broadcom are the sole designing firms of server chipsets for Opteron processors.
As the company completed the acquisition of ATI Technologies in 2006, the firm gained the ATI design team for chipsets which previously designed the Radeon Xpress 200 and the Radeon Xpress 3200 chipsets. AMD then renamed the chipsets for AMD processors under AMD branding (for instance, the CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset was renamed as AMD 580X CrossFire chipset). In February 2007, AMD announced the first AMD-branded chipset since 2004 with the release of the AMD 690G chipset (previously under the development codename RS690), targeted at mainstream IGP computing. It was the industry's first to implement a HDMI 1.2 port on motherboards, shipping for more than a million units. While ATI had aimed at releasing an Intel IGP chipset, the plan was scrapped and the inventories of Radeon Xpress 1250 (codenamed RS600, sold under ATI brand) was sold to two OEMs, Abit and AsRock. Although AMD states the firm will still produce Intel chipsets, Intel had not granted the license of 1333 MHz FSB to ATI. Considering the rivalry between AMD and Intel, AMD is less likely to release more Intel chipset designs in the foreseeable future.
On November 15, 2007, AMD has announced a new chipset series portfolio, the AMD 7-Series chipsets, covering from enthusiast multi-graphics segment to value IGP segment, to replace the AMD 480/570/580 chipsets and AMD 690 series chipsets. Marking AMD's first enthusiast multi-graphics chipset. Discrete graphics chipsets were launched on November 15, 2007 as part of the codenamed Spider desktop platform, and IGP chipsets were launched at a later time in Spring 2008 as part of the codenamed Cartwheel platform.
AMD will also return to the server chipsets market with the next-generation AMD 800S series server chipsets, scheduled to be released in 2009 timeframe.
AMD Live!
AMD LIVE! is a platform marketing initiative focusing the consumer electronics segment, with a recently announced Active TV initiative for streaming Internet videos from web video services such as YouTube, into AMD Live! PC as well as connected digital TVs, together with a scheme for an ecosystem of certified peripherals for the ease of customers to identify peripherals for AMD Live! systems for digital home experience, called "AMD Live! Ready".[12]
AMD Quad FX platform
The AMD Quad FX platform, being an extreme enthusiast platform, allows two processors to connect through HyperTransport, which is a similar setup to dual-processor (2P) servers, excluding the use of buffered memory/registered memory DIMM modules, and a server motherboard, the current setup includes two Athlon 64 FX FX-70 series processors and a special motherboard. AMD pushed the platform for the surging demands for what AMD calls "megatasking" for true enthusiasts,[13] the ability to do more tasks on one single system. The platform refreshes with the introduction of Phenom FX processors and the next-generation RD790 chipset, codenamed "FASN8".
Before the launch of Athlon 64 processors in 2003, AMD designed chipsets for their processors spanning the K6 and K7 processor generations. The chipsets include the AMD-640, AMD-751 and the AMD-761 chipsets. The situation changed in 2003 with the release of Athlon 64 processors, and AMD chose not to further design its own chipsets for its desktop processors while opening the desktop platform to allow other firms to design chipsets. This is the "Open Platform Initiative". The initiative was proven to be a success, with many firms such as Nvidia, ATI, VIA and SiS developing their own chipset for Athlon 64 processors and later Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 FX processors, including the Quad FX platform chipset from Nvidia.
The initiative went further with the release of Opteron server processors as AMD stopped the design of server chipsets in 2004 after releasing the AMD-8111 chipset, and again opened the server platform for firms to develop chipsets for Opteron processors. As of today, Nvidia and Broadcom are the sole designing firms of server chipsets for Opteron processors.
As the company completed the acquisition of ATI Technologies in 2006, the firm gained the ATI design team for chipsets which previously designed the Radeon Xpress 200 and the Radeon Xpress 3200 chipsets. AMD then renamed the chipsets for AMD processors under AMD branding (for instance, the CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset was renamed as AMD 580X CrossFire chipset). In February 2007, AMD announced the first AMD-branded chipset since 2004 with the release of the AMD 690G chipset (previously under the development codename RS690), targeted at mainstream IGP computing. It was the industry's first to implement a HDMI 1.2 port on motherboards, shipping for more than a million units. While ATI had aimed at releasing an Intel IGP chipset, the plan was scrapped and the inventories of Radeon Xpress 1250 (codenamed RS600, sold under ATI brand) was sold to two OEMs, Abit and AsRock. Although AMD states the firm will still produce Intel chipsets, Intel had not granted the license of 1333 MHz FSB to ATI. Considering the rivalry between AMD and Intel, AMD is less likely to release more Intel chipset designs in the foreseeable future.
On November 15, 2007, AMD has announced a new chipset series portfolio, the AMD 7-Series chipsets, covering from enthusiast multi-graphics segment to value IGP segment, to replace the AMD 480/570/580 chipsets and AMD 690 series chipsets. Marking AMD's first enthusiast multi-graphics chipset. Discrete graphics chipsets were launched on November 15, 2007 as part of the codenamed Spider desktop platform, and IGP chipsets were launched at a later time in Spring 2008 as part of the codenamed Cartwheel platform.
AMD will also return to the server chipsets market with the next-generation AMD 800S series server chipsets, scheduled to be released in 2009 timeframe.
AMD Live!
AMD LIVE! is a platform marketing initiative focusing the consumer electronics segment, with a recently announced Active TV initiative for streaming Internet videos from web video services such as YouTube, into AMD Live! PC as well as connected digital TVs, together with a scheme for an ecosystem of certified peripherals for the ease of customers to identify peripherals for AMD Live! systems for digital home experience, called "AMD Live! Ready".[12]
AMD Quad FX platform
The AMD Quad FX platform, being an extreme enthusiast platform, allows two processors to connect through HyperTransport, which is a similar setup to dual-processor (2P) servers, excluding the use of buffered memory/registered memory DIMM modules, and a server motherboard, the current setup includes two Athlon 64 FX FX-70 series processors and a special motherboard. AMD pushed the platform for the surging demands for what AMD calls "megatasking" for true enthusiasts,[13] the ability to do more tasks on one single system. The platform refreshes with the introduction of Phenom FX processors and the next-generation RD790 chipset, codenamed "FASN8".
Processor market history
IBM PC and the x86 architecture
In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement, but Intel canceled the agreement in 1986 and refused to convey technical details of the i386 part. AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration, but Intel disputed this decision. A long legal dispute followed, ending in 1994 when the Supreme Court of California sided with AMD. Subsequent legal disputes centered on whether AMD had legal rights to use derivatives of Intel's microcode. In the face of uncertainty, AMD was forced to develop "clean room" versions of Intel code.
In 1991, AMD released the Am386, its clone of the Intel 386 processor. It took less than a year for the company to sell a million units. Later, the Am486 was used by a number of large original equipment manufacturers, including Compaq, and proved popular. Another Am486-based product, the Am5x86, continued AMD's success as a low-price alternative. However, as product cycles shortened in the PC industry, the process of reverse engineering Intel's products became an ever less viable strategy for AMD.
K5, K6 and Athlon
AMD's first completely in-house x86 processor was the K5 which was launched in 1996.[4] The "K" was a reference to "Kryptonite", which from comic book lore, was the only substance that could harm Superman, with a clear reference to Intel, which dominated in the market at the time, as "Superman".[5]
In 1996, AMD purchased NexGen specifically for the rights to their Nx series of x86-compatible processors. AMD gave the NexGen design team their own building, left them alone, and gave them time and money to rework the Nx686. The result was the K6 processor, introduced in 1997.
The K7 was AMD's seventh generation x86 processor, making its debut on June 23, 1999, under the brand name Athlon. On October 9, 2001 the Athlon XP was released, followed by the Athlon XP with 512KB L2 Cache on February 10, 2003.[6]
Athlon 64, Opteron and Phenom
The K8 was a major revision of the K7 architecture, with the most notable features being the addition of a 64-bit extension to the x86 instruction set (officially called AMD64), the incorporation of an on-chip memory controller, and the implementation of an extremely high performance point-to-point interconnect called HyperTransport, as part of the Direct Connect Architecture. The technology was initially launched as the Opteron server-oriented processor.[7] Shortly thereafter it was incorporated into a product for desktop PCs, branded Athlon 64.[8]
AMD released the first dual core Opteron, an x86-based server CPU, on April 21, 2005.[9] The first desktop-based dual core processor family — the Athlon 64 X2 — came a month later.[10] In early May 2007, AMD had abandoned the string "64" in its dual-core desktop product branding, becoming Athlon X2, downplaying the significance of 64-bit computing in its processors while upcoming updates involves some of the improvements to the microarchitecture, and a shift of target market from mainstream desktop systems to value dual-core desktop systems. AMD has also started to release dual-core Sempron processors in early 2008 exclusively in China, branded as Sempron 2000 series, with lower HyperTransport speed and smaller L2 cache, thus the firm completes its dual-core product portfolio for each market segment.
The latest AMD microprocessor architecture, known as K10, became the successor to the K8 microarchitecture. The first processors released on this architecture were introduced on September 10, 2007 consisting of nine quad-core Third Generation Opteron processors. This was followed by the Phenom processor for desktop. K10 processors will come in dual, triple-core,[11] and quad-core versions with all cores on one single die.
Fusion
After the merger between AMD and ATI, an initiative codenamed Fusion was announced that merges a CPU and GPU on one chip, including a minimum 16 lane PCI Express link to accommodate external PCI Express peripherals, thereby eliminating the requirement of a northbridge chip completely from the motherboard. AMD will move to a modular design methodology named "M-SPACE", where two new processor cores, codenamed "Bulldozer" and "Bobcat" will be released in the 2009 timeframe.
While very little preliminary information exists even in AMD's Technology Analyst Day 2007, both cores are to be built from the ground up. The Bulldozer core focused on 10 watt to 100 watt products, with optimizations for performance-per-watt ratios and HPC applications and includes newly announced SSE5 instructions, while the Bobcat core will focus on 1 watt to 10 watt products, given that the core is a simplified x86 core to reduce power draw. Both of the cores will be able to incorporate full DirectX compatible GPU core(s) under the Fusion label, or as standalone products as a general purpose CPU.
In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement, but Intel canceled the agreement in 1986 and refused to convey technical details of the i386 part. AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration, but Intel disputed this decision. A long legal dispute followed, ending in 1994 when the Supreme Court of California sided with AMD. Subsequent legal disputes centered on whether AMD had legal rights to use derivatives of Intel's microcode. In the face of uncertainty, AMD was forced to develop "clean room" versions of Intel code.
In 1991, AMD released the Am386, its clone of the Intel 386 processor. It took less than a year for the company to sell a million units. Later, the Am486 was used by a number of large original equipment manufacturers, including Compaq, and proved popular. Another Am486-based product, the Am5x86, continued AMD's success as a low-price alternative. However, as product cycles shortened in the PC industry, the process of reverse engineering Intel's products became an ever less viable strategy for AMD.
K5, K6 and Athlon
AMD's first completely in-house x86 processor was the K5 which was launched in 1996.[4] The "K" was a reference to "Kryptonite", which from comic book lore, was the only substance that could harm Superman, with a clear reference to Intel, which dominated in the market at the time, as "Superman".[5]
In 1996, AMD purchased NexGen specifically for the rights to their Nx series of x86-compatible processors. AMD gave the NexGen design team their own building, left them alone, and gave them time and money to rework the Nx686. The result was the K6 processor, introduced in 1997.
The K7 was AMD's seventh generation x86 processor, making its debut on June 23, 1999, under the brand name Athlon. On October 9, 2001 the Athlon XP was released, followed by the Athlon XP with 512KB L2 Cache on February 10, 2003.[6]
Athlon 64, Opteron and Phenom
The K8 was a major revision of the K7 architecture, with the most notable features being the addition of a 64-bit extension to the x86 instruction set (officially called AMD64), the incorporation of an on-chip memory controller, and the implementation of an extremely high performance point-to-point interconnect called HyperTransport, as part of the Direct Connect Architecture. The technology was initially launched as the Opteron server-oriented processor.[7] Shortly thereafter it was incorporated into a product for desktop PCs, branded Athlon 64.[8]
AMD released the first dual core Opteron, an x86-based server CPU, on April 21, 2005.[9] The first desktop-based dual core processor family — the Athlon 64 X2 — came a month later.[10] In early May 2007, AMD had abandoned the string "64" in its dual-core desktop product branding, becoming Athlon X2, downplaying the significance of 64-bit computing in its processors while upcoming updates involves some of the improvements to the microarchitecture, and a shift of target market from mainstream desktop systems to value dual-core desktop systems. AMD has also started to release dual-core Sempron processors in early 2008 exclusively in China, branded as Sempron 2000 series, with lower HyperTransport speed and smaller L2 cache, thus the firm completes its dual-core product portfolio for each market segment.
The latest AMD microprocessor architecture, known as K10, became the successor to the K8 microarchitecture. The first processors released on this architecture were introduced on September 10, 2007 consisting of nine quad-core Third Generation Opteron processors. This was followed by the Phenom processor for desktop. K10 processors will come in dual, triple-core,[11] and quad-core versions with all cores on one single die.
Fusion
After the merger between AMD and ATI, an initiative codenamed Fusion was announced that merges a CPU and GPU on one chip, including a minimum 16 lane PCI Express link to accommodate external PCI Express peripherals, thereby eliminating the requirement of a northbridge chip completely from the motherboard. AMD will move to a modular design methodology named "M-SPACE", where two new processor cores, codenamed "Bulldozer" and "Bobcat" will be released in the 2009 timeframe.
While very little preliminary information exists even in AMD's Technology Analyst Day 2007, both cores are to be built from the ground up. The Bulldozer core focused on 10 watt to 100 watt products, with optimizations for performance-per-watt ratios and HPC applications and includes newly announced SSE5 instructions, while the Bobcat core will focus on 1 watt to 10 watt products, given that the core is a simplified x86 core to reduce power draw. Both of the cores will be able to incorporate full DirectX compatible GPU core(s) under the Fusion label, or as standalone products as a general purpose CPU.
Corporate history
Advanced Micro Devices was founded on May 1, 1969, by a group of former executives from Fairchild Semiconductor, including Jerry Sanders, III, Ed Turney, John Carey, Sven Simonsen, Jack Gifford and three members from Gifford's team, Frank Botte, Jim Giles, and Larry Stenger. The company began as a producer of logic chips, then entered the RAM chip business in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor. During this period, AMD also designed and produced a series of bit-slice processor elements (Am2900, Am29116, Am293xx) which were used in various minicomputer designs.
During this time, AMD attempted to embrace the perceived shift towards RISC with their own AMD 29K processor, and they attempted to diversify into graphics and audio devices as well as EPROM memory. It had some success in the mid-80s with the AMD7910 and AMD7911 "World Chip" FSK modem, one of the first multistandard devices that covered both Bell and CCITT tones at up to 1200 baud half duplex or 300/300 full duplex. While the AMD 29K survived as an embedded processor and AMD spinoff Spansion continues to make industry leading flash memory, AMD was not as successful with its other endeavors. AMD decided to switch gears and concentrate solely on Intel-compatible microprocessors and flash memory. This put them in direct competition with Intel for x86 compatible processors and their flash memory secondary markets.
It has been reported in December 2006 that AMD along with its main rival in the graphics industry nVidia, received subpoenas from the Justice Department regarding possible antitrust violations in the graphics card industry, including the act of fixing prices.[2]
AMD announced a merger with ATI Technologies on July 24, 2006. AMD paid $4.3 billion in cash and 58 million shares of its stock for a total of US$5.4 billion. The merger completed on October 25, 2006[3] and ATI is now part of AMD.
During this time, AMD attempted to embrace the perceived shift towards RISC with their own AMD 29K processor, and they attempted to diversify into graphics and audio devices as well as EPROM memory. It had some success in the mid-80s with the AMD7910 and AMD7911 "World Chip" FSK modem, one of the first multistandard devices that covered both Bell and CCITT tones at up to 1200 baud half duplex or 300/300 full duplex. While the AMD 29K survived as an embedded processor and AMD spinoff Spansion continues to make industry leading flash memory, AMD was not as successful with its other endeavors. AMD decided to switch gears and concentrate solely on Intel-compatible microprocessors and flash memory. This put them in direct competition with Intel for x86 compatible processors and their flash memory secondary markets.
It has been reported in December 2006 that AMD along with its main rival in the graphics industry nVidia, received subpoenas from the Justice Department regarding possible antitrust violations in the graphics card industry, including the act of fixing prices.[2]
AMD announced a merger with ATI Technologies on July 24, 2006. AMD paid $4.3 billion in cash and 58 million shares of its stock for a total of US$5.4 billion. The merger completed on October 25, 2006[3] and ATI is now part of AMD.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)