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."
Thread beginning with comment 127668
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by segedunum on Thu 25th May 2006 11:59 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 Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Fri 26th May 2006 01:54 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by Tom Janowitz on Thu 25th May 2006 13:18 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: AMD'S in trouble
by Beresford on Fri 26th May 2006 02:05 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: AMD'S in trouble
by atomicplayboy on Thu 25th May 2006 16:28 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 Parent Score: 1