Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Elmer: Good catch...I used the PEAK score.
Really should compare the BASE, since that is more realistic... I gotta leave a LITTLE weasel room for DAN3 I guess:)
And your comments on 2 way are also dead on.
Peak
http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp?b=1&s=0&v=1&if=0&r1f=2&r2f=2&...
Base
http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp?b=1&s=0&v=1&if=0&r1f=2&r2f=2&...
WBMW: RE: SPECWEB 99-SSL and AMD
Scorecard for AMD Server Benchmarks on their page at Opteron Launch:
SPEC INT, SPEC FP: Intel Pentium 4 ahead of Opteron. Madison Ahead of Opeteron, 3.06GHZ XEON 1MB ahead...
TPC: AMD pulled the benchmark from their webpage, Intel win with XEON MP 2.8ghZ/Mckinley wins.
SpecjBB: Intel Xeon 2.8GHZ MP wins...
SpecWeb 99-SSL: Benchmarks pulled by spec. Retesting...
SpecWeb 99: Opteron win(didn't see madison results?)
Specrate Int,FP:
SPECRATE INT:Narrow Opteron win vs. Xeon MP, Madison destroys
SPECRATE FP: Madison destroys, Opteron beats Xeon MP by significant margin(4 way results for all)
MMBP: Intel Xeon MP win
These were the benchmarks that AMD claimed at launch...
Not a good day in AMD land.
PRESCOTT INFO UP ON INTEL.COM!
http://www.intel.com/labs/features/mi02031.htm?iid=ihc+cmt_fot_miniaturization&
Some of this is known, but some interesting bits...
Doing More, Faster
As processor components continue to get smaller, the challenges to improving performance grow. For instance, you either engineer the processor to handle more instructions per clock cycle (doing more work per cycle), increase frequency (the time it takes for a cycle to complete itself), or perform some combination of both.
Scaling theory — shrinking the dimensions and energy required by a processor's components — has been the primary performance-enhancing strategy for over 30 years. The result has been greater transistor density, faster transistors, and higher performance.
When Making it Smaller Is no Longer Enough
The challenge today is that scaling improvements have slowed from 30 percent to 15 percent. Intel is seeking new solutions, especially in architecture. These solutions have included:
Creating shorter interconnects (the layers of wiring used to connect a processor's transistors to each other).
Making more-efficient uses of memory structures with on-die caches instead of relying on logic alone.
Prescott, the next-generation IA-32 processor, uses these and other ideas to overcome many of the current issues in scaling. Prescott's innovations include:
An updated Intel NetBurst Microarchitecture yielding higher frequency and raw performance. This microarchitecture includes larger on-die caches. For instance, a 1MB Level 2 Advanced Transfer Cache allows the transfer of more data on each core clock, delivering a much higher data throughput channel. This is especially important in a HT Technology-enabled processor like Prescott. In these cases, two threads are running on one processor and consequently need more cache space.
Improved Hyper-Threading Technology, including important enhancements to this innovation that make a single processor act like multiple processors to the operating system.
13 new processor instructions designed to improve performance for special application areas such as media and gaming. These instructions are grouped into five areas: floating point to integer conversions, complex arithmetic, video encoding, SIMD floating point using AOS format and thread synchronization.
Better clock distribution up to four times better than the previous desktop platform based on the Intel NetBurst architecture. This in part helps Prescott scale to the 4-5GHz range.
A new 90nm process using strained silicon technology that enables faster gate length scaling as well as faster electron flow through the gates.
Seven layers of low-k copper interconnect, featuring a new carbon-doped oxide dielectric material that reduces wire-to-wire capacitance, enabling Intel to increase signal speed inside the chip and reduce chip power consumption.
AND at the end:
In summary, Prescott represents advancement in many ways. Furthermore, there are several new ideas Intel is exploring for the next generation to allow processors to reach 15-20 GHz by 2010.
Dew: Fair enough...
I don't think everything they do is a ruse. Take the Van review with a big grain of salt. I found it humorous because it is pretty screwed up. In all fairness, Van WORKS for Centaur/VIA and is a rabid ANTI-INTEL guy so I was pretty suprised that he went after Transmeta. Frankly, I think he took some cheap shots. He has a tendency to be just technical enough to be believable to the uninformed but he tends to twist the truth quite a bit(he claimed p4 at 1.7GHZ was clock throttling based on extremely limited data, leaked AMDs anti-sysmark 2002 presentation etc.). So, take that review with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I do believe that Transmeta Vs. Celeron on content creation 2002 isn't pretty. But it isn't the right comparison.
Major Errors that Van made:
Celeron 1.7GHZ does not compete against Transmeta. The proper comparison would be ultra low voltage P3s and Centrinos or Ultra low voltage Celerons for ultra-lite notebooks and a VIA nehemiah core in a notebook configuration.
The Nehemiah configuration he used doesn't necessarily compete with Transmeta either. I wouldn't be suprised to find that he used a desktop configuration for that review, the Celeron was a Dell desktop. Unequal configurations did not especially favor Transmeta. And battery life was not measured, which is Transmetas area of strength.
Use of non-standard or obsolete benchmarks: Cosbi is not used by ANYBODY but VAN. CPUMARK 99 has been retired and its results are irrelevant for todays CPUs. Sysmark 2000 is obsoleted by two generations(sysmark 2002 is current).
Obviously this a VIA employee trying to drum up business...and he is definitely not an unbiased third party.
You can pick it apart yourself it you like...
http://216.194.77.198/articles/2003/07/030715_Transmeta/030715_Transmeta.htm
Chipguy: The funniest thing was VANS FUDWARE GUIDE publishing a review showing the latest VIA core beating up on Transmeta. YOU KNOW YOU SUCK when VIA is taking you out behind the wood shed and beating you down:) The sad thing was that a 1.7GHZ Celeron Chip won most of the benchmarks by quite a margin...and these include Van's special brand of obsolete misleading fudware marks(COSBI, CPU MARK 99, SYSMARK 2000 etc.)
This one is my favorite:
Content Creation 2002:
Transmeta 1GHZ: 8.3
VIA NEHEMIAH 1200: 10.80
VIA NEHMIAH 1533(OC): 12.60
Celeron 1.7GHZ(845G/Int. Graphics): 21.8
http://216.194.77.198/articles/2003/07/030715_Transmeta/030715_Transmeta.htm
Pretty Ugly...
Chipguy: CRUSOE ON SETI
Actually I searched both Google and Yahoo and was suprised that there really aren't many benchmarks of any kind.
The only reviews I came up with were at Vans Hardware Guide, Toms(link was broken) and ARS TECHNICA. I was hoping some of the smaller sites or asian(even RUSSIAN) sites might have run SETI benchmarks but I wasn't able to find them...
New Sony Centrino Notebook just shipped to Frys: TR1
Sony VAIO® PCG-TR1A Notebook
PCG-TR1A NEW
Only 3.11 lbs light!
• Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
• 10.6" widescreen XBRITE™ LCD display
• Intel® Centrino™ technology (Ultra Low Voltage Intel® Pentium® M Processor 900 MHz)
• Amazing battery life up to 7.0 hours
• Integrated 802.11b wireless LAN
• Integrated CD-RW/DVD combo drive
• Integrated swivel camera
It appears that TRANSMETA lost the design on the ultra lights at this account. I guess they may reconsider with Astro but this is more good news for Centrino! Also, this is the ultra-low voltage model(obviously).
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start;sid=Zl6...
DAN3: Agreed! Therefore, we also agree that AMD doesn't provide enough technical support to its Motherboard partners! At least, according to this CEO.
MAYBE this is an area where Intel is pretty good:) You know, years of experience and all that...
MB EXECUTIVE TO AMD:
"CEO #8: The server market is a difficult one to jump into and has different demands on CPU makers. AMD has made a good start with Opteron but not a strong one in terms of sales. They have many issues to still work out, and their limited tech support is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed if they are to be taken seriously by the server market. AMD will not be a dominate player in this market at least over the next few years, but have a good chance at occupying a niche segment."
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1837&p=4
Hmmmm. If AMD had better quality than Intel as someone has suggested, why would a CEO of a motherboard company say this:)
Dan: RE: Quality
Nice try. AMD doesn't do near the quality assurance Intel does. Just look at their budgets. I would trust my life to Intel's Q and A becaue I have known some of the engineers who worked on the line. Frankly, AMD isn't all that bad anymore but it simply is not in the same league as Intel. And AMD does use its erratum list as a marketing tool. It also has FAR fewer products. Nevertheless, Intel fully discloses EVERYTHING to the public since FDIV. AMD has a limited list publicly...
Reseller Mike: The fact is that AMD processors are dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced end user. You can easily crack the die or attach the heat sink wrong and fry the chip.
In the hands of an experienced assembler I think that most processors these issues can be avoided and that would support your basic statement.
However, the large variety of chipsets for AMD(SIS, VIA, NVIDIA, ALI, AMD etc.) can cause other issues and configuration problems. Via's driver of the week program, reports of Nvidia issues with IDE drivers etc. make life more difficult. If you stick with Intel processors and intel chipsets its definitely simpler. That's why most businesses choose Intel.
My guess is that your choice of AMD for roughly half your systems is mostly on price. I would be curious to know what kind of return rates you got based on other criteria than just processor failure since this is basically a non-issue for you and most experienced assemblers. Overall Intel platforms are more reliable above and beyond just CPU failure(and in some scenarios including). Intel really does do the most compatibility, reliability testing of any CPU vendor.
Tenchu: Thanks. Good links.
Thats a pretty significant drop though. We'll never know but I wonder if AMD cut them a deal on the processors or did they just bleed margin or both.
AMD Pulled their TPC Benchmarks and Racksaver resubmitted...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800,00.html
They are currently just listing, Email, Java, Processor and Web serving benchmarks.
But here they list TPC in the ABOUT THE BENCHMARKS section.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8801,00.html
AND the Racksaver results are back on TPC but no longer are number 1 in Price/Performance and are now dated 7/8/2003. They obviously resubmitted. Anyone figure out what changed?
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=103071002
Very curious what is going on with this!
Bonefish: Mobilemark 2002 is one of the best Mobile benchmarks...
Heres why. It is VERY different than sysmark 2002. It will not run on system without a battery. It runs script based off of the productivity part of sysmark 2002 but also includes some content creation. It runs this until the battery dies and then provides 2 scores: a performance score and a battery life score. The interesting thing is that Centrino will typically lose to a Pentium(R) 4 on Sysmark 2002 Content creation but beat it in Mobilemark. So it doesn't favor frequency particularly.
The only way to get a realistic battery score AND performance score is to measure both at the same time.
AMD has never complained about mobilemark 2002. It is a really good mobile benchmark. I would challenge you to provide any benchmarks that show that either of the previous scores were incorrect...
Also, if you FEEL that AMD is competitive in Mobile, show me why. I don't believe it but it will make your comments more credible.
DAN3: RE: The Fujitsu S2000
Actually according to this review a DELL CELERON is more notebook than either the EMACHINES or FUJITSU AMD notebooks...
http://reviews.cnet.com/eMachines_M5305/4505-3122_7-21183515-4.html?tag=review
Mobilemark 2002 scores:
Dell Celeron 2GHZ: 103
Fujitsu 1700+: 94
Emachines 2200+: 86
AND The DELL CELERON wins in battery life as well:
http://reviews.cnet.com/eMachines_M5305/4505-3122_7-21183515-5.html?tag=subnav
DELL 2GHZ CELERON: 240 minutes
Emachines AMD 2200+: 190
Fujitsu 1700+: 170
CONCLUSION: AMDs chips have NO HOPE of competing with Centrino and barely compete against the low end Celeron products in MOBILE.
WBMW: I didn't know that. Good info. Thanks...
WBMW: After further review, AMD Opteron bechmarketing...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~69562,00.html
Notice how this graph makes a 20% gain look like 400%? Would be curious to review other Specweb99 scores on windows server 2003.
And this one is the graph on SPecjbb:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~69560,00.html
This one uses a 1.6 GHZ Xeon MP in an unusual dual CPU configuration but leaves out the 2.8 and 3.06GHZ/512k Xeons(which were available then) giving an impression of 2x performance. As we see today a 3.06GHZ/512 is essentially equal to Opteron 1.8GHZ and the XEON/1MB part beats the Opteron handily.
This one is interesting:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~69693,00.html
Again the graph doesn't start at 0 and makes a 50% gain look like 500%. However, it uses ZEUS which Dan3 has been crowing about. I would be curious to see competitive software products and windows server 2003 here. This feels a bit fishy...especially given the above.
I have to admit the initial Opteron scores LOOKED impressive but after seeing the new scores for Intel products, it is clear that AMD has used its BENCHMARKETING skills extensively in its graphs vs. the XEON product line.
Elmer: RE: 2x vs. 3x cache marketing...
Maybe they were trying to simplify the marketing(1MB vs. 512K even though they are different levels). Also, since it is an inclusive design, perhaps they wanted to avoid legal issues since technically the L2 512k would be copied to the L3. Still, impressive gains overall. It appears that more than a few opteron benchmarks were significantly affected by cache size...
New HP/COMPAQ Centrino in Retail...
It was in the Compusa. Best Buy and local Frys Circular:
1.3 GHZ, 512MB, 15.4 inch WIDE SCREEN, 60GB HD, CDRW/DVD combo drive, 6.5 Lbs., 1.25" thinck(a little on the big side but still pretty close to thin and light). $1599 after rebate...saw it in the stores too. Looks pretty good...nice wide screen.
This is their first Consumer entry, IIRC
WBMW: Good catch. Most of the notebooks in the CNET article are ultra portables except for the 17" screen Toshiba.
I should have made that clearer...
Flood of new Centrino Notebooks starting...
The $2,199 Portege M100 includes a 1.2GHz Pentium M processor, a 12.1-inch display, 256MB of RAM, a 40GB hard drive, an Intel 802.11b module and a DVD-ROM drive.
The $2,299 Portege R100 includes a 12.1-inch display, along with a 1GHz Pentium M and a 40GB hard drive. The drive is an updated version of Toshiba's 1.8-inch mobile hard drive, the smallest such drive currently on the market. The new notebook also comes with an Intel 802.11b wireless module and 256MB of RAM. It does not include a built-in floppy or an optical drive, though the drives can be purchased separately and attached via a USB (universal serial bus) port
Top manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, Dell Computer and IBM, have recently released a number of new ultraportable notebook models based on the Pentium M.
Among them are Dell's 3.7-pound Latitude D400, Hewlett-Packard's 3.5-pound HP Compaq Business Notebook nc4000 and IBM's 3.6-pound ThinkPad X31. All three notebooks, sold in the United States, have 12.1-inch screens and Pentium M processors, but no built-in optical drive bay.
http://news.com.com/2100-1005_3-1023678.html?tag=fd_top
Additionally I just saw the full sized 17" widescreen notebook from Toshiba at COSTCO(Pentium 4 based). VERY nice screen but damn that thing is big...
WBMW: DAN3 is confusing himself...
He is referring to the inquirer article by Mario Rodrigues here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10275
Not only is this initially third hand information and pure speculation but it even admits that HP is shipping in Mid July. Intel confirmed no availability issues IN THE SAME ARTICLE. And I posted a link to DELL's site that indicates it is shipping(not sure about the lead time). Also, the submission he refers to is not a SPEC submission but a TPC submission(there is a link at the above).
FYI: Mario Rodrigues is also the offer of many innacurate anti-Intel pieces for Van's hardware guide and has proved to have a poor understanding of IT in many of his pro AMD propaganda pieces. Maybe Dan3 really is MARIO!!!!
DAN3: XEON MP available today at Dell...
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?CS=04&kc=6W300&oc=PE6650
Dell seems to have them today. What makes you think these are 4 months out? Oh yeah...Mario Rodriques of the Inquirer/Van's propaganda guide. Who based that off of a TPC entry where most companies use the max availability time to cover themselves legally regardless of shipdate.
Opteron at 2GHZ might be competitive if they have availability. But it won't be much faster.
What makes you think a version of 64 bit exchange is imminent? And if it is, why wouldn't it be available for Itanium first? Will AMD even have a full version of 64 bit windows Server before the end of the year? A lot of ifs , ands, and buts in your "analysis" to call anything a dead end.
Nicely too. By around a thousand points. I think this will still be competitive with the Opteron 2GHZ part as well. 200mhz is worth about 10% max scaling isn't it? Looks like that won't be out till august now...but in the mean time, things have changed.
Official XEON MP 2.8GHZ scores for MMBP...
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/techinfo/planning/2000/perfscal.asp
Fujitsu Primergy tx600 has taken the overall lead. I was a little dissapointed with the HP 2.8 GHZ score but then I realized this might be a blade server? Anyone know about the HP Proliant BL40P? Impressive if it is a blade...
I was also curious as to why the configurations were all using Windows 2000 advanced server? Wouldn't Windows Server 2003 offer improved performance? Doesn't Hyperthreading have much better support in that OS.
Integrated audio getting better...
Interesting review at Extremetech. Looks like Creative is still leading the pack but isn't really that far ahead anymore. The Soundmax solution that Intel implements in its boards seems very capable. Is creative heading for the High End only gaming niche???
Ironically the vaunted NFORCE sound solution didn't do all that well and even lost to the Soundmax solution in some tests. I was under the impression that this was a lot better than these results. The author seemed to blame a bad implementation but I wonder about that.
"In our close listening tests, SoundMAX fared very well, as did C-Media oddly enough. Despite some of the terrible numbers we saw in our RMAA testing, C-Media was pretty clean during these subjective tests. nForce doesn't do especially well here, but by far the noisiest part in these listening tests was the AOpen TubeSound. Appreciate that with these tests we're doing close listening at all volume ranges, including some fairly extreme ones that are rarely used. However, the goal is to ferret out whatever noise may be lurking in the sonic shadows, since the goal here is to have as clean a system as possible. "
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1167241,00.asp
The whole article can be read here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1167232,00.asp
DAN RE: PAE/Xeon beating OPTERON at MMB2
Oh yes. Mario Rodrigues of Van's Hardware Guide is a reliable source. If you read the the RACKSAVER Opteron entry for TPC before it was pulled it had very long lead times as well. This is very common with TPC entries. Of course that entry is no longer there...wonder why? And of course XEON will keep improving.
Actually I double checked. ONLY the 4 Processor 1.6GHZ Xeon had 8GB of memory. So the XEON won with an IDENTICAL 4GB of memory. SO I guess the Xeon is just plain faster at MMB2 and Java script. Oh well.
AND: Intel's site works quickly for me. Perhaps it's a client issue? I am running a 2.53 GHZ Pentium 4. Maybe you should think about upgrading:)
Well how about taking on just a regular 32 bit processor:
http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/products/server/processor/xeon_mp/index.htm
Click compare performance on the right side of the screen and check out the score for a 4 processor Xeon MP server at 2.8GHZ with 8GB of ram.
SPECJBB SCORE: 94405
Opteron 844 SPECJBB score from AMD website: 90737
I guess PAE does work!
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~69561,00.html
Well there's always MMB2 right?
XEON MP 2.8GHZ 4 way score: 16528
Go to the same link above and click the Enterprise Email radio button...
Opteron 844 4 way score: 15520
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~69694,00.html
Hmmm...that doesn't work either.