Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th May 2006 18:58 UTC
Intel "Earlier this month, Intel held a 'reviewer's workshop' event where they invited a number of representatives from hardware review sites to spend a few days benchmarking and learning about their new Core 2 microarchitecture. The star of the show was Woodcrest, which is the top end of the Core 2 lineup and will be replacing the last Netburst-based Xeon processor in June. The participating reviewers got to benchmark both Dempsey and Woodcrest, and the results of those benchmark runs are now available. In all, Woodcrest looks like a stellar performer that massively improves on its predecessors in both raw horsepower and power efficiency."
Order by: Score:
Cool
by shadow_x99 on Wed 24th May 2006 19:39 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

I'd like to have one of those 'Conroe' or 'Merom' beast in my Desktop Machine. How does the sound of 'quietness' sound compared to the air-plane reactor I got as a computer!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cool
by snowbender on Thu 25th May 2006 08:09 UTC in reply to "Cool"
snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

I have no idea why this was modded down. Some people should really read the rules about modding down comments.

I think shadow_x99 has a very good point. I've been using a laptop for several months now, a very silent laptop (iBook G4), which very rarely activates the fan. In fact, it makes no noise at all right now, except for the quiet whisper from its harddisk. Once you get used to that, you'll find that most desktops sound like a jet taking off.

When I buy a new desktop, I'll be looking for a silent computer, and such a Conroe or Merom cpu looks like a nice start for that. I think that at this time, even the slowest computers you can buy are more than fast enough for every day usage. (I know, for certain tasks (and gaming), more cpu speed is always welcome, but even the slower chips are reasonable) I've already wondered why you can't go out and buy a desktop pc built on laptop components, I really do think that there is a market for that. I also think that they'd be attractive in many work environments, because they are more silent and they consume less power.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cool
by segedunum on Thu 25th May 2006 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I have no idea why this was modded down. Some people should really read the rules about modding down comments.

You may well ask. There does seem to be quite a few enthusiastic Intel supporters around these days, proclaiming the return of Intel and the death of AMD. Worse, these Intel supporters have been amalgamating with Apple supporters as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cool
by snowbender on Thu 25th May 2006 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool"
snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

I don't need to ask, I don't need to know the reason. All I know, it's not a correct reason to mod a comment down.

this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language
Absolutely not the case.

this comment is off-topic
Absolutely not.

this comment is spam or includes advertisements
Absolutely not.

Since those are the only valid reasons to mod a comment down, it must have been an invalid reason.

There does seem to be quite a few enthusiastic Intel supporters around these days, proclaiming the return of Intel and the death of AMD. Worse, these Intel supporters have been amalgamating with Apple supporters as well.
So...? That's not a reason to mod someone down. Besides, the guy only says he'd like a "Conroe" or "Merom" chip in his desktop, does that make him some kind of zealot? Is he proclaiming the return of Intel and the death of AMD? Absolutely not.

Reply Score: 2

AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Wed 24th May 2006 21:07 UTC
Beresford
Member since:
2005-07-06

A few websites I've read seem to indicate the Intel has a winner on it's hand.
A recent review of the AM2 socket on Anadtech say's that AMD didn't want them to compare it to Intel's Core CPU (or whatever it's called) because AMD's chip was available and Intel's wasn't.
That's sound suspicious to me, more like they know the Athlon is going to get beaten. At the end of the Anandtech article they say that AMD has something up it's sleave. I hope this is the case, we don't need another Intel monopoly.

Reply Score: 3

RE: AMD'S in trouble
by jcinacio on Wed 24th May 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "AMD'S in trouble"
jcinacio Member since:
2006-03-12

IMHO AMD can't compete with the new intel CPU's before 2007.

Personally, i haven't owned an intel cpu after the pentium 3 but i think things are about to change.

The price/performance/watts ratio of the core 2 cpu's will imho win crouds back from AMD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMD'S in trouble
by Tom Janowitz on Thu 25th May 2006 06:23 UTC in reply to "AMD'S in trouble"
Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

Every website that I read indicate that AMD has better products for about 3 years (apart from mobile) - was Intel in trouble ? We'll soon see Core, but as soon as AMD goes 65nm (december 2006) they will claim best cpu crown once again - AMD says going to 65nm will give them some 40% improvement in speed of transistor switching - does it sound "good enough to beat a crap out of Intel" to you ?
In another news : DELL stated that will sell AMD based high end servers ... Guess what - it's Intel that's in trouble. And no one saw real benchamrks (when I say benchmarks I mean it - not this cheap PR crap that anand gave his a$$ to) of those new (non existant really) chips from Intel. Once they are available in quantity and in decent (for their performance) prizing, we will have some real life conversation about who really is in trouble. For now - there can be only one - wanna try and guess who is this one for now ?

AMD fanboy - yeah - seriously - what were you thinking ? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Thu 25th May 2006 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE: AMD'S in trouble"
Beresford Member since:
2005-07-06

AMD's problem in the beginning of the release of the Athlon64 and Opteron CPU's was that they didn't have the corporate market trust. Once the major hardware providers to the corporate world started adopting the Opteron (which let's face it, took them a while. Even though the rest of us people on the ground knew that the Opteron is superior to the Xeon) AMD's fortune's started looking better. So, yes, Intel will never regain the strong position that they once had, but I wouldn't say they are in trouble.

AMD says going to 65nm will give them some 40% improvement in speed of transistor switching
I didn't know about this, maybe they have a chance to reclaim the power/performance crown but like you said. We will just have to wait and see. What I was concerned about for AMD's part is that the AM2 socket change has brought no performance improvements but they waited so long to introduce it.

And there is no need to insult someone (Anand) unless you have actually had dealing's with him.

PS. I'm not for or against Intel / AMD, I'm for the consumer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by segedunum on Thu 25th May 2006 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: AMD'S in trouble"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

AMD's problem in the beginning of the release of the Athlon64 and Opteron CPU's was that they didn't have the corporate market trust.

Ahhh. Corporate market trust. You can smell BS as soon as you read a phrase like that. Intel has traditionally had a monopoly on corporate and business sales, but AMD's growing reputation has been changing that quite significantly. This, and the marketing and benchmarks behind it, is a badly needed knee-jerk reaction.

I didn't know about this, maybe they have a chance to reclaim the power/performance crown but like you said.

I don't know whether you've been reading any of the recent articles, but they still have it - today. Depending on what article you read, a high end AMD 64 either beats or is on a par with Yonah. Some of those benchmarks are highly dubious as well, because you need to read between the lines as to what they're doing with some overclocking. Intel doesn't even have a new 64 bit chip yet either.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Fri 26th May 2006 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble"
Beresford Member since:
2005-07-06

A quote from Hexus.net
It's abundantly clear that Conroe will be the fastest CPU in town when it hits in a few weeks' time.
The article is about next gen CPU's from Intel remember, and what's going to be happening soon. Not Yonah.

Ahhh. Corporate market trust. You can smell BS as soon as you read a phrase like that
Not sure what to make of this comment, insult or agreement since you do both in the paragraph.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by Tom Janowitz on Thu 25th May 2006 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: AMD'S in trouble"
Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

>"So, yes, Intel will never regain the strong position that they once had, but I wouldn't say they are in trouble."

Considering that AMD has circa 50% of multi-processor server market in US and the fact, that server market is the most lucrative I really think, that this is at leat embarassing situation for Intel. I think shrinking income (becouse of hard competition) is trouble no matter how you look at it.

>"What I was concerned about for AMD's part is that the AM2 socket change has brought no performance improvements but they waited so long to introduce it."

I really don't get it why people whine, that there is no performacne improvement. Nobody said there will be (it's 1-5% - the upper limit is for games). Why expect it, when the god damn company executive says there won't be any. What's dissapointing in launching more futureproof platform for already successfull line of cpu's ? Remember, that they ARE still the best. And making only one socket for lowend/midrange/highend is more than good news IMO.

>"And there is no need to insult someone (Anand) unless you have actually had dealing's with him."

So I can't make my own judgement without meeting him in person ? You are not trying to boast yourself having the chance to meet him ? If someone of such unspoiled reputation suddenly gives faith to benchmarks set up by the company, which cpu is being benchmarked, I say it's unprofessional. To make things clear - I'm regular anandtech reader, I think they are one of the best, but this doesn't prevent them from making mistakes.

Apart from these - I agree ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Fri 26th May 2006 02:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble"
Beresford Member since:
2005-07-06

when I say benchmarks I mean it - not this cheap PR crap that anand gave his a$$ to
I didn't say meet him in person. And one mistake and you start insulting them that badly, eek, wouldn't want to meet you real life.

And no, I'm not interested in meeting him, it's like wanting to meet someone that's writes for a newspaper. I don't see the appeal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by atomicplayboy on Thu 25th May 2006 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: AMD'S in trouble"
atomicplayboy Member since:
2006-04-28

The lack of performance improvements in the new socket are just the reason to wait so long to release it. For the corporate customers who would rather rely on a stable platform, switching to the new socket without good reason would be a turn off. The whole purpose of the new socket isn't about current performance gain. It's about support for DDR2 and DDR3 memory, which will, in the long run, offer huge performance gains. The current problem, is that the low latency DDR2 memory is really expensive, and just not worth the slight performance gains that it provides. The memory that was used in most of these recent benchmarks, I believe, indeed has a faster bus speed than DDR, but also has a higher latency, basicly eliminating any performance gain. As DDR2 memory gets cheaper, you'll start to see some benefit in the new socket.

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMD'S in trouble
by segedunum on Thu 25th May 2006 11:49 UTC in reply to "AMD'S in trouble"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

A few websites I've read seem to indicate the Intel has a winner on it's hand.

Well of course they would. This is a big thing for Intel, and from what I've seen the sites that have ran benchmarks are giving more than a helping hand to Intel. The Intel processors are not as great as are being portrayed, and a high-end AMD 64 has been comparable in many cases. Intel don't even have a new 64 bit chip yet either. It also shows how fundamentally good AMD's architectures are that they have been able to extend them so far.

What's clear at the moment is that Intel have been moving to a 65nm process, and along with focusing on things that matter, that has helped them greatly. Thank God something somewhere close to half-decent has come out of Intel recently, and that is completely down to AMD and competition. AMD are just about keeping pace with the high end stuff they have now on a 90nm process. When AMD moves to a 65nm process and we can compare, then I believe the pendulum will swing again.

In short, what you are seeing here is Intel pulling out all the stops, marketing wise that is, because they know they're still behind on what is going on in the real world today.

Reply Score: 1

I think it's best to wait and see
by atomicplayboy on Thu 25th May 2006 03:38 UTC
atomicplayboy
Member since:
2006-04-28

Now admittedly, I'm a bit of an AMD fanboy, but I like to think that's for good reason. The problem here, as I see it, is that Intel simply does not have these fabled processors out and about. It seems to me, that everyone is heralding these new processors that will be released in the forseeable future, but no one has any proof that they will be as good as Intel is hyping them up to be. Yes, conroe, merom, and dempsey sound like impressive processors on paper, but until they are actually released, there's no real way to compare them to AMD. Woodcrest is supposed to bridge the gap a bit, but from what I've been hearing, it's simply not that impressive. I am indeed anxious to see the next gen processors from Intel, but I cannot bring myself to condemn AMD over yet to be released technology.

Reply Score: 5

Trouble?
by klynch on Thu 25th May 2006 07:20 UTC
klynch
Member since:
2005-07-06

What's all of this talk about trouble for? Just because a company's current product performs slightly better than the competition does not mean all of its competitors are in trouble...

Reply Score: 2

lol
by Duffman on Thu 25th May 2006 09:08 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

6 months ago, AMD wanted a public benchmark with Intel: Intel didn't answer.

It seems today AMD won't answer anymore to Intel's benchmark.

Reply Score: 1

AMD is 1337!
by sc3252 on Thu 25th May 2006 11:34 UTC
sc3252
Member since:
2005-09-06

Anyone who says different I delcalare a thumb war!

Not really, I personally cant wait untill intel's new cpu comes out. For AMD it mean they will have to get off their butts and make a better cpu. I dont plan on making a new computer untill the beggining of next year or later, so who ever has the best cpu by then will win my money!

Reply Score: 1

Why does one have to win
by Seth Quarrier on Thu 25th May 2006 12:49 UTC
Seth Quarrier
Member since:
2005-11-13

Having two chip companies competing is good for everyone, either AMD or Intel winning out in the processor wars would be a terrible thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why does one have to win
by PunchCardGuy on Thu 25th May 2006 15:21 UTC in reply to "Why does one have to win"
PunchCardGuy Member since:
2006-04-14

I would guess that most posters here are like me - we are users of computers, and we want to have the best bang for the buck. That also means that most of us are not gamers primarily and therefore don't normally consider spending the big bucks to buy bleeding-edge hardware. So, having said that, I would say that for "us", having both INTEL and AMD remaining viable companies for the long term, and constantly competing to keep and gain marketshare is a very good thing. I for one welcome new higher-performing INTEL CPUs hitting the market, because I am hoping that this will drive down the price of the AMD solution I expect to buy soon.

As for discussions about how much better Woodcrest will be than what AMD currently offers, this is pointless until we see some comprehensive benchmarks from known objective sources.

A final point: a poster here wished out loud for a desktop solution that would allow use of some of the recent interesting mobile CPU offerings. While this would be acedemically interesting, such solutions would fall into the realm of the esoteric, and therefore defeat the best bang for the buck arguement.

Reply Score: 1

How long will it last?
by Jody on Thu 25th May 2006 13:29 UTC
Jody
Member since:
2005-06-30

Conroe and Woodcrest are faster than AMD's current lineup, but they are also not yet available.

From the information I have read so far I think AMD's K8 is going to be faster, so Intel's lead is only going to be temporary.

Reply Score: 2

AMD & Intel
by poohgee on Thu 25th May 2006 14:37 UTC
poohgee
Member since:
2005-08-13

Nobody is in trouble .

They are both making profits Id guess.

So stop it .

This Intel ship is not mainstream available yet & AMD still have to release all their new CPU versions which still have to come according to the AMD roadmap.

How about wait a year & see what around.

BTW were not the benchmarks suppossed to be against Opterons & not Athlons ?

Woodchrest is the Xeon reploacement therefore its a server chip & therefore the results of a benchmark against an Opteron would seem more appropiate.

The clock difference in the one mentioned Opteron test was 400 MHz & that is still with the current version of Opteron not the upcoming newyfied .

Just IMO ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMD & Intel
by Luis on Thu 25th May 2006 15:34 UTC in reply to "AMD & Intel"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

I agree. Both companies do quite well ;)

However, the new Intel Core is the substitute of Pentium 4 (they should have called it Pentium 5, by the way). It will be their processor for the next 4 years or so. It's normal it's faster than Athlon/Opteron (which were the competitiors of Pentium 4). We'll have to wait until next year to see AMD's competitor against Core. Seeing how good Opteron (3 years old?) does against Core, I think we can expect next generation AMD's to be faster again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: AMD & Intel
by shadow_x99 on Thu 25th May 2006 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE: AMD & Intel"
shadow_x99 Member since:
2006-05-12

The Athlon K7 was the competition to the P4, and it was a glorious fight! K7 & P4 were great competitionner

The Athlon K8 doesn't have competition yet. The Core 2 Duo is supposed to be this competition. K8 has a huge headstart in reliability, scability and marketshare

If you ask me, the Netbust Architecture Processor ( P4 ) are on emergency life-support (because Merom & Conroe aren't ready yet) and is no match for the K8 product line. Feature-wise similar, but those features were hacks to just to match AMD features.

Reply Score: 1

shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

I think that both AMD & Intel Processor are interresting components. Depending on your mission, you might need either an AMD or an Intel.

I have personnally witnessed an iMac with a Core Duo, and I can't hear them at all... That's good for me, but it is good for everyone? Probably not, but can't blame me to like quietness (See my first post 'Cool')

Reply Score: 1

Actualy...
by somebody on Thu 25th May 2006 16:07 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

it is more like F1.

AMD is now changing tires (waiting for 0.65) for the race finals while Intel already changed tires for this race and they will be more worn out until end of this race (or at least nothing special they can do about it). Wouldn't it be better to wait until end of this race? The 0.65 race I mean?

I mean, like F1. Prospect of loosing race sometimes forces some racer to change tires too soon and they are often not enough until the end of the race, since opponents advantage was more than enough. These results will just be temporary until the end.

Reply Score: 1

AMD in trouble at least until 2007
by markus on Thu 25th May 2006 16:46 UTC
markus
Member since:
2006-01-14

Looking at the currently known timelines from AMD and Intel it looks that AMD is in trouble until they release their 65nm chips in volume in 2007 and possibly their next-gen processors later on.

With Woodcrest (06/2006), Conroe (07/2006) and Merom (08/2006) Intel will take the lead for 2-4 core servers, workstations and 2 core laptops.

Reply Score: 1