Scully

3 Comments

    • Semiconductor Rankings: Roadmap to Investment Opportunities? [view article]
      Dude... AMD is dead... these fluctuations are simply the last guttaral rasps before the death knell Aug 05 06:57 PM
    • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
      "Disney's (DIS) Pixar unit still uses AMD chips. " ...

      Incorrect, Pixar is an Intel house. They switched from Sun to Intel based render/servers in 2003. Google is your friend.

      Intel was the driving force behind Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars and most recently Wall.E
      www.intel.com/pressroo...
      news.cnet.com/2100-100...       Jul 09 02:24 AM
    • AMD Needs a Multi-Core Killer App [view article]
      I agree with the first poster.... you give way to much credit for technical leadership.

      When I read an article as such, it is typically with a measured lack of detailed knowledge behind the computational inner workings of a CPU. Before going into detail on this topic, just a recount of history. In 2003, AMD released the K8 core which possessed two features -- an integrated memory controller to connect direct to memory and hypertransport, a serial connection technology to interconnect periphrial devices. Innovative as they were, they form only one part of the entire computational puzzle. Nonetheless, Intel's decision to continue pushing a clock-scalable architecture, Netburst, resulted in AMD holding a decisive performance lead for desktop and server (Intel pioneered a mobile architecutre, that at it's base was actually superior the K8 -- that data is, in scant quanity, available around the Net). It was the performance lead that AMD began gaining share, winning design wins, and become more successful. One may argue that AMD's success was more a poor decision of Intel, nonetheless... the interconnect technology was only on part of the equation.

      In July 2006, Intel released the Merom series processor -- spanning desktop, server, and mobile. This processor, even on the aging frontside bus and lacking an integrated memory controller proved far superior in performance to any AMD offering, where AMD only could win in the 4 socket server space (the area where their interconnect technology really, truly makes a substantial difference). As a result, of an agressive pricing of the new products, AMD had to adjust to be price/performance competitive with a computational inadequate performance curve. We now the result, almost 1.8 billion lost in the last three quarters.

      Why, then is it that an Intel architecture can out perform similarly clocked AMD processors 20-30%, and top bins are holding a commanding lead? AMD would have you believe that the IMC and HT inteconnect make the processor, something many, including the author of the article, have bought. Intel contains superior core architecture, a superior caching system that renders BW in most situations irrelevant.

      Alas, Intel produced a quad core part > 10 months ago, it prooved scaling was achieved in applications that could multithread, commensurate with the increased core count... why? Again, the bandwidth/IMC argument has been rendered irrelevant with a well designed caching technology and incremental increases in the performance of their own bussing technology. The sales pitch that 'native' is better is odd... intuitively it should be better, what AMD does not tell you is by how much. Say at a single core level Intel performance is 30% better at given clock speed, but in quad core performance that scaling achieves roughly 0.8x gain for Intel and 0.82x gain for AMD, that 'native' scaling gain will not be enough to overcome the raw performance over 4 threads no matter how native that product is....

      In short, there is no such thing as a needed killer app for AMD.... their killer apps are clear... HPC scientifically intensive programs that actually push the BW argument and, as the data, shows... is where they show a very competitive position. Unfortunately, this is not the volume market and, though the margins for this niche product is good... the volume will not be high enough to pay the bills.

      I would strongly, strongly encourage the author of the blog to rethink his position... and rather than take at truth the marketing hype from either company, take a moment to educate yourself on a) how a CPU actually works, the impacts of large vs small caching systems and b) simply study the emperical performance data.... it is quite telling and your faith in one company will most certainly be shaken.

      Sep 24 12:58 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»