Re: AnandTech likes the Mac Pro

Michelle Ronn wrote:
On 2006-08-24 13:24:31 -0700, TheLetterK <none@xxxxxxxx> said:

Michelle Ronn wrote:
On 2006-08-22 14:36:57 -0700, TheLetterK <none@xxxxxxxx> said:

Michelle Ronn wrote:
On 2006-08-18 07:33:22 -0700, "zara" <zspook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


"Michelle Ronn" <micron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2006081722323050073-micron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2006-08-17 17:03:44 -0700, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

In article <alangbaker-665AA5.10493917082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And they're not exactly an Apple fan site, are they?

"The Dell is clearly more expensive, although you can knock off $100 - $200 thanks to the bundled LCD (unfortunately Dell gives you $0 credit if you remove the monitor from your order). We're able to come close with our own configuration by shopping at Newegg and other vendors through our shopping partner, but note that the $2390 total does not include an OS, case or power supply.

If you're in the market for a dual socket dual core Xeon workstation, Apple's Mac Pro is definitely a bargain."

<URL:http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1>

Look at that, cheaper than home built.

Don't you understand how this works, Alan? Now that AnandTech has said something good about the Mac, anything they say doesn't count, because they're "Maccies". If they go back to saying bad things about Apple, then they'll be serious technical types whose opinions should be respected.

I have always found the folks at Anantech to be morons.

Morons or not, the Apple is cheaper than the Dell in identical configurations. This has to piss Dell off to no end. I priced out a 2 x Xeon 3 GHz with the 1 GHz FSB, 2 x 500 GB drives, 2GB of RAM. Apple was $1400 cheaper than Dell.

Almost enough to cover the 30" monitor!

Guess who Intel's golden child is now???

Guess who AMD's "golden child" is, now.

Sun. Dell went AMD because they had to, not because they wanted to.
AMD has a better chip for memory intensive SERVER applications. Intel has come on strong and is offering a fast chip for user level applications with better battery consumption.

AMD is playing catch up now, and this is a much larger market than the server market.

AMD was leading Intel in performance for quite some time. This is just another step in the perpetual game they play. IMO, AMD is gaining on Intel now that they acquired ATI. One of AMD's main problems was the lack of native mobo/integrated video solution (thus, no bundling). That made AMD a very unattractive option for OEMs.

With the new offerings from Intel, AMD is pushed into a niche of the server space for now.

Then explain why they've been gaining new desktop partners? Their offerings are *very* attractive for OEMs wanting to offer cheap desktops.

When the Opteron and Athlon 64 came out. AMD had two distinct advantages over Intel. The first one was power, and the second was memory performance. Intel has closed the gap on power, the new Core Duo offerings are MUCH better on power. Intel has had a better power design in the Pentium M, which AMD still has not caught up to.

As far as the new desktop partners, I assume that you are meaning Dell. If you notice, Dell is pushing the server and workstation products hard. They are still leaving the core desktop business to Intel.
It is subtle, but it is there in the marketing material.

AMD has also held a significant price advantage over Intel, and still offers better price/performance than Intel does. This is attractive for OEMs and system builders. More than power is, in many cases. I can get a low-end dual-core processor (with HSF) from AMD for $150, the same from Intel is over $350. There's a lot to be said for living in the low-end of the market.


Intel has always been the better choice for applications that play well in cache.

Intel has always been the better choice for applications that benefit from high clock speeds. In 'real world' use, the Athlon 64's were crushing the P4's in everything but encoding tasks.

This includes most end user applications. They have also improved their memory performance. Not to the point that AMD has, but good enough to get the job done. Tests that I have done on Windows 64 with Sandra Pro 2007 SP1 put single socket Intel at about the same memory bandwidth as single socket dual core Opteron. Going to 2 sockets, the Intel pushes about 6.5GB/sec, where the Opteron (dual core socket 940) is still pushing around 9GB/sec. Intel moved up from a pathetic 4 GB/sec from about a year ago.

Intel absolutely smokes AMD in synthetic processor benchmarks. Pick any of them.

This just demonstrates how inaccurate synthetic benchmarks really are.


Basically, Intel has the better performer in single socket, has closed the gap significantly in the two socket space. However, AMD absolutely walks all over Intel in the 4 socket space.

That is why I make the statement that for now, AMD is pushed into the niche.

They have been expanding their business and still offer competitive offerings in the relevant market segments. Hell, Intel probably won't even be able to maintain their technological lead for more than a year.

They are now starting to compete on price, just as Intel did when AMD was cleaning the floor with them.

They aren't even close. AMD slashed their prices by up to 40% when Intel released their new line. Intel still isn't offering Core 2's at less than $300.


I expect the tables to turn again when AMD ships quad core. Better design, if they can get it out the door. I don't know how popular quad core is going to be in the mainstream for a while. I guess we will wait and see.

With the recent trend towards multithreading, I suspect that it will be adopted relatively quickly.



The only reason to go AMD today is if you have apps that can use the memory bandwidth.

Or if you don't have the money to throw at a Core 2 chip. Or if you don't need the raw CPU performance and would rather spend that money on other things (like a better video card). AMD still competes very well in terms of price/performance (due to the price slashing), they just don't offer anything comparable to Intel's high-end line right now.

Agreed. AMD is competitive now due to price cuts. However, I don't see anything stopping Intel from following in this regard.

I doubt Intel will be willing to sacrifice their margins until they have to. Right now they're probably happy sitting in the position they're accustomed to. AMD has to keep prices low in order to maintain their market share until they get a Core 2 killer out the door.




Dual cores has supplanted two socket single core systems.

Huh? Did you miss the release of the X2 line or something? I can get a dual-core Athlon 64 X2 $3800 for $150 (retail)--Intel's low-end dual-core Core 2 offering is over $350. Certainly, the Intel chip is more powerful, but it's also more than twice the price.

We also haven't seen what AMD has up their sleeves to counter this. I wouldn't bet on Intel maintaining their lead for more than 12 months. I'd be surprised if it lasted 8.

I think you missed my point here.

I did. I didn't correctly interpret what you wrote.

I have had an X2 for a while, and I am quite aware of them. My point was that you are seeing dual core systems on single socket main boards, where you used to see a single socket chip in a single socket, but two sockets on a main board. With AMD, when you cut the sockets down (we are talking sockets, not cores!), you cut your memory bandwidth. With the current shape of things, AMD and Intel are on par in single socket, AMD squeeks out a little bit with two sockets, and AMD clearly wins in 4 sockets. With dual core, single socket servers are becoming an even larger part of the market. Four sockets is a small part of the market, and getting smaller. AMD is a great performer, but the niche is shrinking.

I think you'll start to see more sockets become popular again when software gets developed to actually make use of it. You won't see this with dual-cores, but you will when you start seeing 4 or 8 cores per socket.


As far as what AMD has up its sleeve, we have Socket F. That will allow DDR2 memory. As I stated earlier, AMD has a memory advantage in 4 sockets, and not enough of a big one below that.
AMD will have 4 cores next year. We will see how that design shakes out. Intel is said to be moving its 4 core design up to the end of this year. We will see if that happens.

We have AMD to thank for getting Intel to get realistic on power consumption and price. Where AMD is a perfomance advantage is getting to be a smaller segment of the market. The desktop performance is owned by Intel, for now. As far as most users are concerned, AMD does not bring anything to the table that matters.

Nothing but *price*. This is a more potent advantage than raw performance, IMO. Especially today, where raw CPU performance really isn't that important for many people (particularly on the desktop).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 64-bit Workstation Configuration Help Needed
    ... SATA Raptors with hardware controller) environment. ... The algorithm relies heavily on level 3 BLAS CGEMM for complex matrix-matrix mults and on out of core scratch disk IO for storing the compressed LU factored blocks. ... MKL on an Intel Xeon 5100 series should out-perform any CGEMM for current AMD, even if you change to double precision. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Nero 7 vs 6.6 and DualCore use?
    ... Trying to decide if it is worth while to upgrade to Nero 7. ... Nero 7 is dual-core aware (assuming you mean AMD and not the ... Intel dual-core wanna-be). ... AMD X2 and Intel Core Duo are *significantly* different from each ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: 64-bit Workstation Configuration Help Needed
    ... AMD Opteron vs INTEL; ... You will find motherboards with up to 16 memory slots for dual socket Opterons, both Socket 940 and Socket F. ... SATA I Western Digital Raptors, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Nero 7 vs 6.6 and DualCore use?
    ... Nero 7 is dual-core aware (assuming you mean AMD and not the Intel ... AMD X2 and Intel Core Duo are *significantly* different from each ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Nero 7 vs 6.6 and DualCore use?
    ... Trying to decide if it is worth while to upgrade to Nero 7. ... Nero 7 is dual-core aware (assuming you mean AMD and not the ... Intel dual-core wanna-be). ... AMD X2 and Intel Core Duo are *significantly* different from each ...
    (rec.video.desktop)