Intel to Kill off P5 / Tejas

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
yeah but if there was no competition why lower prices? why increase processor speed?

Why lower prices? why increase speed? Capitalism and anti-trust laws for starters. The Soviet car analogy doesn't work for that very simple fact. IBM, Via, Sun or another company would fill the gap left by AMD and in relatively short order challenge Intel if they didn't continue to innovate and improve on their products.

My point is AMD can go belly up, but Intel won't have a clear field for long because there's always someone looking to knock you off the top of the mountain and take your place. That's precisely what slacking off would get Intel in a capitlistic enviroment. Hence, I don't believe it's even remotely probable for a tech company to survive without continuous R&D and the fruits it bears. History is of little consequence in predicting anything about the dynamics of the contemporary tech industry as it has evolved to a point to where comparing how the industry was just a decade ago is irrelevant due to the vastly different enviroment that now exists. The world, and especially the business world, become more dependent on computer technology every day and if Intel was the only game in town and no longer pushing forward with great vigor, Another company like IBM would quickly be propped up that would deliver the technological innovations Intel wasn't 😉 Intel would be signing their death warrant to adopt such a terrible business model.

To conclude, Intel would be forced to continue to innovate because they would have to meet their customers changing needs and demands for products that can fulfill them, and on a cost effective basis or they would be trampled by those who would 😉

Everything you said is fine and dandy except......you brought up competition with IBM. Now can't you imagine a world without competition for 1 second? Imagine just Intel and no company ever having the resources any desire or power to compete with Intel on any level? (no you'll have no need to adjust prices or introduce new technology) Now that is a world of no competition. You are right in a capitalist world that will never happen because that is the emphasis of the system. However, Via, Sis and IBM are no competition for intel. Do you even know their market share in personal computers? The first 2 might have 5% together. If intel was 95%, you can consider the market a monopolistic market at this point. If it was that easy for IBM Sis or Via or any company out there to come and fill the gap or increase market share, then where are these companies right now? The fact of the matter is, on a serious basis, no company in the world can compete with Intel or AMD right now. And if you remove the closest strong competitor being AMD, it would not be a pretty sight and another company would not simply take its place that easily.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now my biggest question is, with intel introducing the dual-core processors, most of the programs will then have to be coded to support them. For instance games do not benefit whatsoever from running HT or barely from dual cpu setup. So in some situations, a 4.0ghz processor will be a lot faster than 2 2.0 ghz. I've never heard of any instance where a dual setup with equivalent total cpu speed (rating) is as fast as a single chip clocked at the same speed as the 2 cpus alone. Maybe someone can correct me on this, but shouldn't major changes in programming take place if intel intends to have dual-cores as competitive as the otherwise equivalently "fast" single chip?

 

[Eug]

However, Via, Sis and IBM are no competition for intel.

It should be noted that IBM beat out Intel for Xbox2, PlayStation 3, and GameCube 2. Furthermore, IBM is one of Intel's biggest competitors in big iron server CPUs. So while you're right for the personal desktop market, there are other large markets that cannot be ignored. The Xbox 2 win for IBM is especially biting for Intel, since Intel was in the original Xbox. What makes this IBM win even more of a surprise is that Microsoft is going to have to port it's game development environment to PowerPC to make this work, whereas an Intel (or AMD) based solution would have been a lot easier.

Maybe someone can correct me on this, but shouldn't major changes in programming take place if intel intends to have dual-cores as competitive as the otherwise equivalently "fast" single chip?

Yes, you are correct. Some apps are very SMP-aware, but many aren't. This seems especially true on Windows, I guess because x86 desktops have traditionally been single-CPU only, with only rare dual CPU systems. This is stark contrast to say on the Mac, where most of the higher end desktops are dual processor. This was necessitated by the fact that the single CPU machines were simply too slow, and dual CPU was needed just to get adequate performance. This seems curiously similar to where Intel may be headed. Prescott just wasn't cutting it, and Tejas was going to fall behind AMD's technology, so Intel decided to shift gears towards dual core. However, the end result now is that on Macs, the OS is very dual optimized, as are many of the apps. As for gaming, there is going to have to be a paradigm shift, because most don't utilize dual processors well it seems. Fortunately for Intel, if they say they're gonna shift to dual-core, I suspect a lot of the app developers are going to pay more attention to optimization for multiple CPUs, if speed matters in their apps. But yeah, even by the time dual-core Intel chips are out, a lot of apps are gonna run a lot faster on single high-GHz CPUs than dual-core but lower clocked CPUs.

 

[drag]

I'd like to point out that IBM is competing with Intel directly.

1. PowerPC proccessors are very good in the embedded market due to the high performance per watt that they are able to produce. Geode proccessors are AMD's stuff they bought out from another company, and Intel's offering is Xscale, which is pretty nice.

There are many more embedded proccessors sold everyday then there are Desktop CPU's. I don't know who is winning in this market, there aren't much statistics aviable.

2. On the desktop. IBM is competing inderectly thru AMD. Most of AMD's new features were developed long ago in IBM's high end proccessors, and IBM lent lots of technology to AMD thru partnerships.

Ever heard of SOI or Silicon-on-insulator?

It's one of the major technology pieces that makes opterons possible. 100% IBM technology. It's used in Power970(Apple's G5).

Actually the AMD64 cpus have lots and lots in common with the technology used in PowerPC. Most of what makes AMD64 special come directly from IBM's research on designing it's high-end chips, the Power proccessors. (I am sure that IBM got a lot of information back from AMD, too.)

Also I like to have you know that I am sitting about 15 feet from a dual core cpu that's more then FIVE years old. Been running 24/7 since it was installed. And when I say 24/7, I don't mean the pussy footing desktop/server 24/7, I mean at a average of 80% max capacity 24/7 usage, only downtime happens during power outages.

Of course on the S/390 the dual core isn't used for SMP proccessing. It has a second cpu core to compare the results of the calculations from the first cpu core to insure absolutely no errors occured.

3. IBM Power line of proccessors completely owns Intel's Itanium in terms of price to performance, reliability, and sales.


So if you want, you can look at Intels 3 closest rivals as:
1. AMD/IBM
2. Apple/IBM
3. IBM

In that order (oh, and Sun, Motorola, and VIA goes in there somewere, too) 😛

Of course Intel is still king of the cpu hill by a long shot, so don't read me wrong and think that I am saying that IBM is bigger then Intel in CPU sales. Intel sells many many more CPU's then IBM.

Just keep in mind that cpu sales is just part of IBM's business. Intel is pretty much only about cpu sales. IBM has a hand in most EVERYTHING.

To keep things in perspective:

Intel's 2003 revenue: $30,141,000,000
IBM's 2003 revenue: $89,131,000,000
AMD's 2003 revenue: $3,519,168,000

And some others:
Microsoft 2003's revenue: $32,187,000,000
Redhat's 2003 revenue: $90,926,000
SCO's 2003 revenue: $79,254,000
Wallmart's 2003 revenue: $258,681,000,000


That stuff is so completely nuts, and IBM seems like a bit player, but they just play it low-key. IBM is a
monster...


BTW:

Intels hyperthreading is actually inferior implimentation of IBM's SMT implimentation (simultaneous multi-threading), which could another technology incorporated into AMD's dual core setup.

(I could be definately wrong) then maybe intel did most of the hardwork for AMD by getting Hyperthreading support into lots of software and OSes, if AMD gets SMT going well on it's dual core setup the advantages of hyperthreading could be amplified on that setup compared to Intel's hyperthreading...

Pure speculation of course. There isn't anywere I read about AMD saying anything about SMT on the opterons.

Do you think that intel will benifit from hyperthreading on dual-core Pentium-Ms more so then on the Pentium 4's. Is that what they are aiming at?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Motorola scrapped the desktop/general purpose CPU thing and went basically 100% embedded. I think.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Motorola scrapped the desktop/general purpose CPU thing and went basically 100% embedded. I think.

Well they are still making the g4's for the powerbooks and stuff, right? So they haven't completely given up, didn't they revise the G4 just a little while ago for less wattage more cpu power?

Although I do seem to remember hearing them selling off it's PowerPC g4 line up...

Who knows.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Motorola scrapped the desktop/general purpose CPU thing and went basically 100% embedded. I think.

Well they are still making the g4's for the powerbooks and stuff, right? So they haven't completely given up, didn't they revise the G4 just a little while ago for less wattage more cpu power?

Although I do seem to remember hearing them selling off it's PowerPC g4 line up...

Who knows.

They stopped making G3s a long time ago. IBM just put out better g3 chips. I think everything 600+ g3 is IBM. I figured the same thing happened with the g4. Not sure though.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkeyMotorola scrapped the desktop/general purpose CPU thing and went basically 100% embedded. I think.

Well they are still making the g4's for the powerbooks and stuff, right? So they haven't completely given up, didn't they revise the G4 just a little while ago for less wattage more cpu power?

Although I do seem to remember hearing them selling off it's PowerPC g4 line up...

Who knows.

They stopped making G3s a long time ago. IBM just put out better g3 chips. I think everything 600+ g3 is IBM. I figured the same thing happened with the g4. Not sure though.

IBM makes the G3 and the G5. Motorola's semiconductor business is now Freescale and it makes the G3 and G4.

IBM has the better G3, but of course it has no Altivec. The G5 does have Altivec but it's not as good as the one on Freescale's G4. However, it's not bad, and overall the G5 is much better than the G4 obviously, except in certain low power applications. And actually, the new 90 nm 970FX G5 is damn good in low power applications too.

Freescale is good at making low power embedded chips. The G4 in the current PowerBook is basically an embedded chip, just a fast one. IBM is good at making everything, from embedded chips to desktop chips to blade server chips to big iron multi-core enterprise server chips.

So yeah, Intel has got a huge lead in the desktop CPU business, but all is not all rosy. We all know about AMD's continued success (partially with the help of IBM) at Intel's expense, and in some ways right now IBM has the most advanced 90 nm process (even though they're having trouble at 90 nm too). And with Intel having to use AMD's 64-bit instruction set, Prescott not ramping forcing them to switch to a new chip architecture with dual-core, and Xbox 2 going to IBM, Intel is definitely feeling the heat.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Everything you said is fine and dandy except......you brought up competition with IBM. Now can't you imagine a world without competition for 1 second

At 37 I'm old enough to remember such a time, good old Ma Bell 😉 What they chrged for a rotary phone was highway robbery and you had to buy it from them. The other points of your post were effectively covered by other posters, and support my statements concerning IBM. I agree completely that competition is a great thing, I just don't think it matters in the long term if it's AMD or not that's providing it, that's all. 🙂 BTW, I greatly enjoy discussing issues with you because you are mature and don't flame those who disagree with you :beer:

 

[thatsright]

Jesus Christ guys, why does every simple thread with update info from either Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI seem to always just degenerate into a fanboi flamefest??


I am a Intel 'fan' because it's the choice by default. When I built my new rig, I definitely would of gotten a AMD 64 CPU, had the WinXP 64Bit O/S been out by now. I'm seriously rooting for AMD's 64Bit line, but until Microsoft gets off there asses, there just isn't any compelling reason to switch now. (And I'm sure that when XP 64 does come out, it would be at least 2 years after the fact that we could buy 64Bit apps/games for the new 64Bit O/S/)

Well anyway, just thought I'd post another of my rambling ramblings!

Pimpin Alert: But just remember who you heard the Tejas news from first............Thatsright

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: thatsright
Jesus Christ guys, why does every simple thread with update info from either Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI seem to always just degenerate into a fanboi flamefest??

What fanboy, what flamefest? Just because we realise that Intel's ia32e cpus are going to suck because they lack the security features that the AMD64 uses then we are anti-intel fanboys?

I am a Intel 'fan' because it's the choice by default. When I built my new rig, I definitely would of gotten a AMD 64 CPU, had the WinXP 64Bit O/S been out by now. I'm seriously rooting for AMD's 64Bit line, but until Microsoft gets off there asses, there just isn't any compelling reason to switch now. (And I'm sure that when XP 64 does come out, it would be at least 2 years after the fact that we could buy 64Bit apps/games for the new 64Bit O/S/)

Whatever floats your boat, luckly for me I don't have to wait for Microsoft to do anything. I can have a full fledged natively running AMD64 system right now if I had the inclination, but my current computer is good enough for now. If I was in the market for a new cpu, I wouldn't considure anything other then a 64bit cpu.

I use AMD 32bit proccessors because they are cheaper without sacrificing quality and I bought what was aviable at the time I built my computer.

I have a Intel in my notebook because Intel is much better at making mobile proccessors (being able to manually set the cpu speed is nice feature) then AMD is right now. Whoopie.

Well anyway, just thought I'd post another of my rambling ramblings!

Pimpin Alert: But just remember who you heard the Tejas news from first............Thatsright

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Will the current opteron dual cpu boards support these dual core chips or are we gonna just have to buy new boards anyways???


I am going dual xeons cuase I can get 2x 2.66ghz Xeons and spend 200 bucks get an Asus PC-DL and clock the chips to 3.33ghz and a 666fsb bus and I will outscore a top opteron in the apps I run plus I get it with over 1000 dollars in savings....

I would so be buying an opteron if they had some boards that could OC better...The cost of 242's would be equal to the 2.66's but it is doubtful I get much more the 244 speeds, and I will beat that easy with xeons at 3.33ghz....

The apps I run are multithreaded (not 64bit), and HT enabled, so I may get recognized as 4 virtual cpus....

But you're an enthusiast. And one that uses a dually. AND one who overclocks a dually. You are a truly rare beast, and Intel nor AMD care about you, because you are not making them money. They are only just starting to care about the single-CPU overclockers. Motherboard manufacturers are another story. Right now they are settling with FX for OCing, but I have a feeling when the 90nm ones start coming out, there will be some odd dually boards. Current A64s just don't OC well.
I personally hope both AMD and Intel's solutions only require BIOS updates, or at worst, certain new mobos due to operating voltage differences.
Opterons put on a good showing even now, but with all of the P4 optomized software, it's an uphill battle running Windows.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: drag

ia32e doesn't even have the segmented memory protection that ia32 has. It's ridiculous. No point in buying Intel unless you are buying a notebook.

on the i32e vs x86-64 (that's what I'll use to refer to AMD's 64bit cpu specificly, even if incorrectly, for now) front, can a program be compiled to use both x86-64's memory/NX protection AND ia32e's inferior design at the same time?

Or does all this stuff happen at a lower level, or maybe ia32e will just ignore the AMD extesions without error?

I am curious because if i32e and x86-64 are both compatable on the execution instruction level then it's unlikely that most linux distros and windows are going to manage seperate ports for the specific to utilize AMD and Intel features and just default down to the lowest common demoninator (kinda like most people still compile for 486's or 586's to maintain backward compatability to the people still using pentium 1's).

Then the only people that would be able to utilize the AMD specific goodness would be OpenBSD, Gentoo, and other compile from source distros that be customized to use this stuff.

Could this be a way by Intel to prevent normal people from using AMD's security goodness to it's fullest potential?

...not when there are already x86-64 distros out. Right now.
A large part of it also depends on how it all must be emplimented, which I know little about. If it can be done with a few simple tricks and kind of porting rules (like how they have a few different files telling the compiler what to do for certain ports), it will get quick, wide-spread support.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: drag
(snip)
Do you think that intel will benifit from hyperthreading on dual-core Pentium-Ms more so then on the Pentium 4's. Is that what they are aiming at?

Why would they need HT on dual-core Pentium Ms? The point of going dual-core is having two processors in a single socket. Also, Pentium Ms have good enough IPC already that they shouldn't need HT.

on IBM: IBM will do well not to repeat their historical endeavors and screw over AMD. IBM has an insanely small stake in desktops, and gave up direct competition with Intel ages ago. AMD would still be good competition w/o them, but help with the smaller processes and such should be a boon. A few royalty payments here and there, or big lump sums, and they should be well. Also, while I don't think IBM and AMD have been conspiring like you've said 🙂, they definitely have tech AMD could use well w/o eating into any IBM market share, and given how small (compared to IBM and Intel) AMD is, and that they've stayed competitive as they have, there must be something about the people working in that company. They simply must have some good execs and awesome engineers to survive like they have with such drained funds.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: drag
(snip)
Do you think that intel will benifit from hyperthreading on dual-core Pentium-Ms more so then on the Pentium 4's. Is that what they are aiming at?

Why would they need HT on dual-core Pentium Ms? The point of going dual-core is having two processors in a single socket. Also, Pentium Ms have good enough IPC already that they shouldn't need HT.

I think that SMT has some benifits over SMP for single threaded stuff.

For instance only one thread can be proccessed per cpu, but with SMT doesn't it reduce the chance of a having to fetch out of cache, or allows for better prediction to compinsate for the bad features of having extremely long pipelines?

Anyways, why it is possible in my mind is that to port programs to multiple threads from single threads is extremely difficult, but many programs and windows XP OS especially already has lots of hyperthreading opmizations built in. Something like that seems a waste to just through away.

on IBM: IBM will do well not to repeat their historical endeavors and screw over AMD. IBM has an insanely small stake in desktops, and gave up direct competition with Intel ages ago. AMD would still be good competition w/o them, but help with the smaller processes and such should be a boon. A few royalty payments here and there, or big lump sums, and they should be well. Also, while I don't think IBM and AMD have been conspiring like you've said 🙂, they definitely have tech AMD could use well w/o eating into any IBM market share, and given how small (compared to IBM and Intel) AMD is, and that they've stayed competitive as they have, there must be something about the people working in that company. They simply must have some good execs and awesome engineers to survive like they have with such drained funds.

So far all signs point to "no" for bad IBM behavior so far. I think they moved beyond that for now.

As far as AMD and IBM conspiringing? I don't know if it would be called conspirering. AMD has stuff IBM wants and IBM has stuff that AMD wants. IBM for a long time is the most innovative company in existance, and makes MS's patent grabbing trends of late look pale in comparision.

They drop more money into R&D then most 3rd word countries have in their entire GNP. That's a lot of technology to throw around...

And definately if you look at the Power3/4/4+ features and technology and AMD's features and technology in the Opteron, then you will see lots of very similar stuff going on.

IBM's business isnt' producing CPU's, or even computers. It's providing full featured business solutions for corporations.

If you want linux they give you linux. If you want MS they give you MS. IF you want AMD they give you AMD. If you want Itanium/Intel they have that. If you want databases they have that. If you want blade servers they have that. If you want old school Unix they have that. If you want Mainframes they have that. If you want Super computers they have that. If you want embedded cpus they have that. Sans, Nas, Lans, Wans, routers blah blah blah blah etc etc etc etc etc etc.

What ever you want they have it. All it takes is gobs and gobs of $ and it's yours.

I don't love IBM or anything, but when you see a company with around 33 billion dollars in profits to burn and they seem bent only only dominating the entire planet, but in a low key way. It's scary.

edit:
just a FYI:
In 2002, IBM was awarded 3,288 patents...

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: drag
(snip)
Do you think that intel will benifit from hyperthreading on dual-core Pentium-Ms more so then on the Pentium 4's. Is that what they are aiming at?

Why would they need HT on dual-core Pentium Ms? The point of going dual-core is having two processors in a single socket. Also, Pentium Ms have good enough IPC already that they shouldn't need HT.

I think that SMT has some benifits over SMP for single threaded stuff.

For instance only one thread can be proccessed per cpu, but with SMT doesn't it reduce the chance of a having to fetch out of cache, or allows for better prediction to compinsate for the bad features of having extremely long pipelines?

No better prediction, but while it's going out and getting stuff from the RAM, it can process other tasks, rather than just waiting.

Anyways, why it is possible in my mind is that to port programs to multiple threads from single threads is extremely difficult, but many programs and windows XP OS especially already has lots of hyperthreading opmizations built in. Something like that seems a waste to just through away.

It's not being thrown away. The P4 and Xeon are not dead. Doubling pipelines and cache on a dual-core CPU, where they are shared, makes sense, and wouldn't be as separate as what AMD is (currently) appearing to do. However, part of using HT well was to not bog the CPU down like a true dually would be, and if you made something that had all the capabilities of two CPUs, that's really what you want.

With the shorter pipelines, you'd get less HT benefit, as the waits are much shorter. Making a CPU that basically does SMT and SMP would be a good solution, allowing the CPU to have more control of tasks going through it, with the CPU # more as a tag to keep track of the instructions than a physical unit to be sent to, but where un-aware apps would see it as a normal dual-CPU configuration, like HT appears to Win2k and NT4, but where an app aware of what's going on sees that there's one big bank of cache, one memory controller, one actual CPU, it just has double the normal power. HT has at least shown that this sort of thing can work to good advantage in many areas. IIRC, this has been done for a good while in big iron systems, though to more of a degree, as they could build the instruction set up from the floor.

on IBM: IBM will do well not to repeat their historical endeavors and screw over AMD. IBM has an insanely small stake in desktops, and gave up direct competition with Intel ages ago. AMD would still be good competition w/o them, but help with the smaller processes and such should be a boon. A few royalty payments here and there, or big lump sums, and they should be well. Also, while I don't think IBM and AMD have been conspiring like you've said 🙂, they definitely have tech AMD could use well w/o eating into any IBM market share, and given how small (compared to IBM and Intel) AMD is, and that they've stayed competitive as they have, there must be something about the people working in that company. They simply must have some good execs and awesome engineers to survive like they have with such drained funds.

So far all signs point to "no" for bad IBM behavior so far. I think they moved beyond that for now.

As far as AMD and IBM conspiringing? I don't know if it would be called conspirering. AMD has stuff IBM wants and IBM has stuff that AMD wants. IBM for a long time is the most innovative company in existance, and makes MS's patent grabbing trends of late look pale in comparision.

They drop more money into R&D then most 3rd word countries have in their entire GNP. That's a lot of technology to throw around...

And definately if you look at the Power3/4/4+ features and technology and AMD's features and technology in the Opteron, then you will see lots of very similar stuff going on.

Yes. With the Tbird, I think AMD got the hint that Intel is just now getting about power and speed.

IBM's business isnt' producing CPU's, or even computers. It's providing full featured business solutions for corporations.

...which includes CPUs in almost everything but PCs.

If you want linux they give you linux. If you want MS they give you MS. IF you want AMD they give you AMD. If you want Itanium/Intel they have that. If you want databases they have that. If you want blade servers they have that. If you want old school Unix they have that. If you want Mainframes they have that. If you want Super computers they have that. If you want embedded cpus they have that. Sans, Nas, Lans, Wans, routers blah blah blah blah etc etc etc etc etc etc.

What ever you want they have it. All it takes is gobs and gobs of $ and it's yours.

I don't love IBM or anything, but when you see a company with around 33 billion dollars in profits to burn and they seem bent only only dominating the entire planet, but in a low key way. It's scary.

IBM isn't bent on domination as much as it is and has been run by some obviously conservative business types, who want people and businesses to want them badly, instead of having to be a strong-arm monopoly. As such, they have their hands in everything, are constant innovators, yet still have the ability to hit startups with a big stick. It's just a stick of value and efficiency to clients instead of hostile actions.

edit:
just a FYI:
In 2002, IBM was awarded 3,288 patents...

 

[drag]

It's not being thrown away. The P4 and Xeon are not dead. Doubling pipelines and cache on a dual-core CPU, where they are shared, makes sense, and wouldn't be as separate as what AMD is (currently) appearing to do. However, part of using HT well was to not bog the CPU down like a true dually would be, and if you made something that had all the capabilities of two CPUs, that's really what you want.

I never said that it would be thrown away, just that it would be stupid for intel to dump HT features. (as in I beleive that they will keep hyperthreading.)

like HT appears to Win2k and NT4, but where an app aware of what's going on sees that there's one big bank of cache, one memory controller, one actual CPU, it just has double the normal power.

I think thats a vast overstatement of the benifits of HT. I've never seen any benchmarks were ht-aware programs ran anywere close to twice as fast on a HT P4 vs a non-HT cpu

Maybe a 10-15% improvement at most...

Yes. With the Tbird, I think AMD got the hint that Intel is just now getting about power and speed.

?
(no clue)

...which includes CPUs in almost everything but PCs.

whatever, the vast majority of CPUs never go to desktop, embedded platforms make up much more sales. Which Intel does very good at, but keep in mind that all the Pentium3/4/M's and AlthonsXP/64 are the minority of CPUs that are sold.

But just because IBM doesn't sell as many CPU's as intel doesn't mean that they are not a competitor, if that's the point your aiming at, because I am not sure what you mean otherwise.

Anyways the compitition between IBM and Intel is indirect.

If you need evidence, it's not hidden. Just google for stuff like SOI and SMT sort of things.

for instance I pulled up this

update IBM will help Advanced Micro Devices develop future chip technologies, the companies announced Wednesday, an alliance that will better insulate AMD from the growing risks of making processors.

and from the same article:

The IBM-AMD alliance will specifically concentrate on how to better incorporate energy-saving technologies, such as silicon-on-insulator (SOI) and "low-k dielectrics," into chips.

and agian:

IBM, of course, will also benefit. The company rivals Intel in semiconductor research, but its chip sales are only one-eighth as large. Licensing its technology, and manufacturing chips for other companies, opens revenue streams for Big Blue. Late last year, IBM signed a joint manufacturing and technology licensing deal with Chartered Semiconductor, a foundry that makes chips for others.

IBM's services and technology don't come cheap, though. Companies typically hand over several million dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the deal--to IBM under these alliances, according to sources.

This stuff isn't a secret.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: drag

It's not being thrown away. The P4 and Xeon are not dead. Doubling pipelines and cache on a dual-core CPU, where they are shared, makes sense, and wouldn't be as separate as what AMD is (currently) appearing to do. However, part of using HT well was to not bog the CPU down like a true dually would be, and if you made something that had all the capabilities of two CPUs, that's really what you want.

I never said that it would be thrown away, just that it would be stupid for intel to dump HT features. (as in I beleive that they will keep hyperthreading.)

like HT appears to Win2k and NT4, but where an app aware of what's going on sees that there's one big bank of cache, one memory controller, one actual CPU, it just has double the normal power.

I think thats a vast overstatement of the benifits of HT. I've never seen any benchmarks were ht-aware programs ran anywere close to twice as fast on a HT P4 vs a non-HT cpu

Maybe a 10-15% improvement at most...

Actually around 30% at most. But anyway, I wasn't saying it ran twice as fast. I was saying that Win2k and NT4 see it as two CPUs, and bog it down with tasks, reducing performance, as they think it's really two CPUs, where XP (and above) actually see it as a HT-enabled CPU and do scheduling accordingly.

Yes. With the Tbird, I think AMD got the hint that Intel is just now getting about power and speed.

?
(no clue)

The Thunderbird Athlons ran HOT, and burned up often. The P4s finally overtook the TBird in heat production around 2.8GHz or so...that's what, three years? Since then, every AMD CPU revision has consumed less power for the performance it offers.

...which includes CPUs in almost everything but PCs. (emphassis added)

whatever, the vast majority of CPUs never go to desktop, embedded platforms make up much more sales. Which Intel does very good at, but keep in mind that all the Pentium3/4/M's and AlthonsXP/64 are the minority of CPUs that are sold.

But just because IBM doesn't sell as many CPU's as intel doesn't mean that they are not a competitor, if that's the point your aiming at, because I am not sure what you mean otherwise.

Anyways the compitition between IBM and Intel is indirect.

I'm sure Intel has no desire to get as wide=spread in embedded devices, do they? 🙂

If you need evidence, it's not hidden. Just google for stuff like SOI and SMT sort of things.

for instance I pulled up this

update IBM will help Advanced Micro Devices develop future chip technologies, the companies announced Wednesday, an alliance that will better insulate AMD from the growing risks of making processors.

and from the same article:

The IBM-AMD alliance will specifically concentrate on how to better incorporate energy-saving technologies, such as silicon-on-insulator (SOI) and "low-k dielectrics," into chips.

and agian:

IBM, of course, will also benefit. The company rivals Intel in semiconductor research, but its chip sales are only one-eighth as large. Licensing its technology, and manufacturing chips for other companies, opens revenue streams for Big Blue. Late last year, IBM signed a joint manufacturing and technology licensing deal with Chartered Semiconductor, a foundry that makes chips for others.

IBM's services and technology don't come cheap, though. Companies typically hand over several million dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the deal--to IBM under these alliances, according to sources.

This stuff isn't a secret.

 

[drag]

I'm sure Intel has no desire to get as wide=spread in embedded devices, do they?

Mmm. That reminds me. Xscale goodness....

If you want to see something else that Intel is good at check out these things

The future is low power devices, like these. With a decent small form factor USB keyboard you can have a nice little psuedo-laptop device that will last 12 hours on batteries. The Xscale proccessor is some great stuff. Blows AMD's Geode away. The closest things to it are IBM's low power powerpcs, but I think the Xscale owns them.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Everything you said is fine and dandy except......you brought up competition with IBM. Now can't you imagine a world without competition for 1 second

At 37 I'm old enough to remember such a time, good old Ma Bell 😉 What they chrged for a rotary phone was highway robbery and you had to buy it from them. The other points of your post were effectively covered by other posters, and support my statements concerning IBM. I agree completely that competition is a great thing, I just don't think it matters in the long term if it's AMD or not that's providing it, that's all. 🙂 BTW, I greatly enjoy discussing issues with you because you are mature and don't flame those who disagree with you :beer:

I used to love those phones. Heavy duty, could drop them off a roof top and they'd still work. I still have a push button model in my garage still works since the early 80's.🙂

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: drag
To keep things in perspective:

Intel's 2003 revenue: $30,141,000,000
IBM's 2003 revenue: $89,131,000,000
AMD's 2003 revenue: $3,519,168,000

And some others:
Microsoft 2003's revenue: $32,187,000,000
Redhat's 2003 revenue: $90,926,000
SCO's 2003 revenue: $79,254,000
Wallmart's 2003 revenue: $258,681,000,000

If you wanted to keep things in perspective you should have listed income figures not revenue. Revenue does you squat if you're not making a profit. Technically you can have the world's highest revenue year after year and still go bankrupt. Here are the income figures for the past 12 months (numbers obtained from Forbes.com):

Intel: $4.517B
IBM: $5.892B
Walmart: $8.654B
Microsoft: $9.881B

So while IBM has 3x the revenue of Intel, it only has 30% more income. And on a side, but interesting, note Walmart has 8x the revenue of Microsoft but has 87% of the income.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: OddTSi

Originally posted by: drag
To keep things in perspective:

Intel's 2003 revenue: $30,141,000,000
IBM's 2003 revenue: $89,131,000,000
AMD's 2003 revenue: $3,519,168,000

And some others:
Microsoft 2003's revenue: $32,187,000,000
Redhat's 2003 revenue: $90,926,000
SCO's 2003 revenue: $79,254,000
Wallmart's 2003 revenue: $258,681,000,000

If you wanted to keep things in perspective you should have listed income figures not revenue. Revenue does you squat if you're not making a profit. Technically you can have the world's highest revenue year after year and still go bankrupt. Here are the income figures for the past 12 months (numbers obtained from Forbes.com):

Intel: $4.517B
IBM: $5.892B
Walmart: $8.654B
Microsoft: $9.881B

So while IBM has 3x the revenue of Intel, it only has 30% more income. And on a side, but interesting, note Walmart has 8x the revenue of Microsoft but has 87% of the income.

That's beside the point.

I wasn't talking about weither or not I plan on investing in IBM or speculating on it's long term survival (I beleive definately that IBM isn't going anywere soon). I am talking about the magnitude of IBM business and it's penetration not only in the semiconductor industry, but it's continued mega-presence in all aspects of computer technology.

For Instance:
Out of the 80-odd billion dollars that IBM earns every year, were does a large hunk of it go?

Into research and developement.

In 2002 IBM spent about 4.7+ billion dollars on R&D. The only company that comes close is Microsoft. MS may actually spend quiet a bit more on it (at least they claim too), but a large hunk of what IBM does is pure scientific research. And they are actually pretty good at it. Out of all that money the spend on R&D their research department has been able to pull a 1 billion dollar profit from liscencing deals (like to AMD). Just the research department and that's based on research that is mostly suppose to benifit other parts of their business. So theoreticly they could completely drop all other aspects of their business, lay off 95% of their workforce and still be able to make a decent profit just from being a pure research firm.

 

[Maximilian]

Have to say good for intel! Its about time they trashed any further plans to beef up the P4 more. Prescott tells them that, i think we'll be seeing intel exiting the mhz bandwagon too as they make the next gen P4 OR the P5 like the Pentium M which apparently is a great processor, so well done intel :beer:

PS To those predicting the death of intel please explain why canning a project that was probably a bad idea can cause its death? They arent going to lose their 80% market share for binning Tejas.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Have to say good for intel! Its about time they trashed any further plans to beef up the P4 more. Prescott tells them that, i think we'll be seeing intel exiting the mhz bandwagon too as they make the next gen P4 OR the P5 like the Pentium M which apparently is a great processor, so well done intel :beer:

PS To those predicting the death of intel please explain why canning a project that was probably a bad idea can cause its death? They arent going to lose their 80% market share for binning Tejas.

Nobody is predicting Intel's death. The only person who said anything about death and intel was n0cmonkey and he is terminally sarcastic.

Intel only mistake was it's ia32e. Which is their version of the AMD64 proccessor.

Most high end cpus have some extra security features. AMD decided to incorporate a couple of them into it's AMD64 design, specificly NX execution protection and memory segmentation protection.

These things help prevent stuff like buffer overflows and executing supposedly non-executable code (like used in viruses to exploit weakness in software design).

Thus if you have a choice never ever choose ia32e over AMD64 if you have a choice in the matter (and your OS support the security extensions) and care even a wit about security.

When n0c said he thought Intel was dying is because they did something as stupid as that. Sarcasm.

He was refering to the fact that you can't make lots of bad choices like that and expect to stay competative. Good for intel they don't many big mistakes.

Otherwise other Intel designs like Pentium M or Xscale are great.

Itanium other the other hand could be nice or not. It's not like anybody is going to know because almost nobody is buying them. (more sarcasm) 😛

 

[Maximilian]

Ahha being sarcy are we then 😛 thats good as if people started predicting intels downfall i would be worried.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Everything you said is fine and dandy except......you brought up competition with IBM. Now can't you imagine a world without competition for 1 second

At 37 I'm old enough to remember such a time, good old Ma Bell 😉 What they chrged for a rotary phone was highway robbery and you had to buy it from them. The other points of your post were effectively covered by other posters, and support my statements concerning IBM. I agree completely that competition is a great thing, I just don't think it matters in the long term if it's AMD or not that's providing it, that's all. 🙂 BTW, I greatly enjoy discussing issues with you because you are mature and don't flame those who disagree with you :beer:

Thank you very much DAPUNISHER. I realize that I make mistakes and sometimes my opinion is unjustified or is wrong altogether. Afterall, Drag and Eug both provided a great insight at how IBM is able to be very competitive "indirectly" or otherwise, which escaped my mind. The reason why I like discussing things on these forums is because there are a lot of intelligent people from whom I can learn. I do not mind being wrong or being corrected, not at all. Yes, you are right there are cases when people will call each other fanboys, and will completely stray off the argument and start bashing each other on a personal level. But I don't usually take these things seriously as they do not add any value to the conversation. At the same time, I cannot blame anyone for having a bad day or be in the wrong mood; and I am sure some people do relieve their frustration by arguying on these forums. It is difficult to tell what the person is actually thinking on the internet and the way they come off might oftentimes be much different than it would be in real life. For these reasons, many of the arguments that arise are just minor interruptions of the otherwise smooth and oftentimes interesting "hardware/software speak." Of course there is no need for me to tell you this as you are a veteran. 😀