Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?

[blckgrffn]

Nope. Intel actually had one way back in the 386 days.



You mean the design that AMD's CEO said that in hindsight was a better decision?



What benefits will these features bring?

So much hate.

I think they'll be adding SSE42 and delivering the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything in a special instruction set.

Only on the FX line, though, so be prepared to pony up.

 

[bryanW1995]

Intels top end performance is better than AMDs top end performance.... however thats how Intel makes billions of $, those top of the line chips dont come cheap.

You get alot of value typically with AMD... which is probably why they dont make billions, and why intel leaves the low end market to AMD.

IF your a normal person and on a budget.... AMD gets you alot of cpu/$.

really? what about when athlon x2 was faster than p4? Intel was kicking amd's butt in profits then as well, but street prices on the high end cpus were very similar. ultra high end 6 core cpus make up a tiny portion of intel's sales and profits. If bulldozer comes out and wipes the floor with everything intel has, amd will still be the little guy and intel will still be killing them, the only difference will be that more power users will actually choose to buy amd b/c it's the best instead of b/c it's the best per watt, per $$$, etc.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Intel was kicking amd's butt in profits then as well, but street prices on the high end cpus were very similar. ultra high end 6 core cpus make up a tiny portion of intel's sales and profits.

I'm not sure if higher-end chips make up a tiny portion of either chip maker's profits. IIRC the margins on the low-end cpus are razor thin but start to become nice and fat up at the top. (One reason Intel hasn't invested much into the Atom architecture.)

 

[IntelUser2000]

I would say calling it "rampant speculation" without knowing their sources is "rampant speculation". Intel tends to hold their cards close their vest, so having little information on the subject is par for the course.

I've seen two other sites by a poster saying the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that was you.

Of course on-package RAM isn't a new thing, neither is the integrated memory controller. Server chips have done that for YEARS and even the smartphone chips. What makes Athlon 64's IMC or Ivy Bridge's speculated on-package DRAM important is that it'll be the first high-performance and/or mass volume version. Sure, you can hand build super-high quality components, doesn't really matter when you can't mass manufacture them.

That said, the Ivy Bridge having on-package DRAM for graphics purposes has to be taken with a massive amount of salt, since it makes far more sense in servers that need the bandwidth rather than relegating it futile by making it work with the on-chip graphics, that may only gain 30-40% from doing that.

 

[wuliheron]

I've seen two other sites by a poster saying the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that was you.

Of course on-package RAM isn't a new thing, neither is the integrated memory controller. Server chips have done that for YEARS and even the smartphone chips. What makes Athlon 64's IMC or Ivy Bridge's speculated on-package DRAM important is that it'll be the first high-performance and/or mass volume version. Sure, you can hand build super-high quality components, doesn't really matter when you can't mass manufacture them.

That said, the Ivy Bridge having on-package DRAM for graphics purposes has to be taken with a massive amount of salt, since it makes far more sense in servers that need the bandwidth rather than relegating it futile by making it work with the on-chip graphics, that may only gain 30-40% from doing that.

In other words, its basically a question of whether they can do it economically, and the article indicated that they have figured out exactly how to do that. Whether or not it is economical enough for high end light weight portables remains to be seen, but no doubt the cost will come down.

 

[tweakboy]

Very simple. Intel has more money!

 

[IntelUser2000]

In other words, its basically a question of whether they can do it economically, and the article indicated that they have figured out exactly how to do that. Whether or not it is economical enough for high end light weight portables remains to be seen, but no doubt the cost will come down.

I guess you can say that, I'm still expecting Haswell to be the mainstream on-package one.

 

[wuliheron]

I guess you can say that, I'm still expecting Haswell to be the mainstream on-package one.

When it comes to the new 22nm process and architectures all bets are off. Intel isn't talking and there is too little information to make that specific a prediction.

 

[Skurge]

1gb of vram on the CPU huh, that would produce quite a bit of heat and use more power, depending on whether it will be DDR5 or not. A 2gb 5870 used 20-30W more power than a 1gb 5870. Just saying.

 

[exdeath]

Because they sat on their ass after Athlon 64, during which time they spanked Intel because Intel previously sucked ass for the same reason.

 

[bigbillybear]

Bros,

Like I said in another thread, we as the buyers need them both... Having AMD keeps intel on its toes and vice versa... AMD has always been known as the budget chips however intel has really done a fair job with its SB prices and its ability... AMD should produce its next grade of chip soon and the fight will continue and we the buyers should benefit from it all... I have bought both, AMD and Intel over the years and see a world in need of both chip makers and will continue to purchase from both as well... Well it appears the tarheels are going to loose with less then a min to go so Im off here and not happy lmao...

BBB

 

[Idontcare]

1gb of vram on the CPU huh, that would produce quite a bit of heat and use more power, depending on whether it will be DDR5 or not. A 2gb 5870 used 20-30W more power than a 1gb 5870. Just saying.

1GB of GDDR5 should only use about 4-5W.

 

[pm]

I would say calling it "rampant speculation" without knowing their sources is "rampant speculation". Intel tends to hold their cards close their vest, so having little information on the subject is par for the course.

At any rate, the trend for many years now has been to move everything but system ram and storage onto a single chip (Duh!) Vram merely represents the last big hurdle for seriously reducing costs and energy requirements for portable systems. If Intel doesn't do it, others will.

When you say "VRAM", you are referring to the old dual-port DRAM memory used back on video cards in the 80's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRAM)? Or something else?

 

[Maximilian]

Don't forget that AMD was also the first to integrate the memory controller on the CPU, so they are not without their own innovations..Intel make billions of the chip but i preferred AMD than intel... Waterless Car Wash no water no mess saves time for cars and bikes,etc.

Is the waterless car wash another AMD innovation



Please don't quote spam.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The biggest stockholders are actualy at Microsoft.

What is your problem?

I'm telling you that Microsoft is raping people, and you are saying it is only the board of directors that are raping people?

-John

Dont have a problem lol

Bill Gates can rape me anyday for a million. I wish michael was still alive i would be first in the line bending over for a million......

Back to topic

FRANCIOS PIEDNOEL

 

[wuliheron]

When you say "VRAM", you are referring to the old dual-port DRAM memory used back on video cards in the 80's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRAM)? Or something else?

Vram is merely short for "video ram" and, in this case, they are using LPddr2 which is commonly used in mobile devices today. There are better alternatives available, but supposedly they are using this because it is cheap and compensating with a 512 bit bus.

 

[nix253]

as far as i've observed through reviews n the way they price their products, amd targets users who are on a budget but know exactly wat kind of hardware they need n how to use it to get the best out of it.... u can say professionals on budget.....

like i've core i7 lynfield processor but i can personally tell you that except gaming i don't know what else it is good at too.. because my main objective here is just gaming n i luckily had enough money too get this processor.....

for example if there's a buyer out there who uses applications that work well when maximum multiple threads are present but he's also on tight budget then definitely amd phenom II x6 processors are all go for him as they're budget heavy computing processors..... but if budget is not a problem n all you want is performance at it's best then you definitely don't even have to bother looking at anything lower than intel's six core i7s.....

 

[AtenRa]

I've been skimming through Anandtechs CPU benchmarks and Intel really just BLOWS away AMD.

Intel has low-end dual core processors that can outperform AMD's high end quad (and even hex) cores in a variety of tests; why is this?

The answer is easy,

Unfortunately AMD is always one year behind in Micro Architecture design and Manufacturing process as well.

Lets take an example,

Intel Core i7 Nehalem was introduced in November 2008, it was a new Micro Architecture (Tock) on a mature one year old 45nm manufacturing process.
731 million transistors and 263mm2 die size.

AMD Phenom II (Deneb) was introduced on January 2009, it was an update Micro Architecture (Stars) from Phenom on a new manufacturing process at 45nm.
758 million transistors and 258mm2 die size.

AMD's Bulldozer Micro Architecture at 32nm could put AMD in the front again vs Intel's 4 core SandyBridge CPUs and it could be very competitive against 6 Core SandyBridge.

But Intel will introduce the Ivy Bridge Micro Architecture at 22nm manufacturing process in Q1 2012 and the circle will go on again.

I would say that Intel is in the front row mostly because of the one year+ lead in manufacturing process than Micro Architecture design. The combination of both gives
an even grater performance difference as we have now with the SandyBridge vs Phenom CPUs.

 

[IntelUser2000]

When it comes to the new 22nm process and architectures all bets are off. Intel isn't talking and there is too little information to make that specific a prediction.

Oh yes there is, the general expectation is that DDR clock speed scaling will drastically slow down(it already has, look how long we have been stuck with DDR3), and you can't keep increasing channels, and by 2012-2013 server chips at least will have to resort to some form of on-package memory.

 

[wuliheron]

Oh yes there is, the general expectation is that DDR clock speed scaling will drastically slow down(it already has, look how long we have been stuck with DDR3), and you can't keep increasing channels, and by 2012-2013 server chips at least will have to resort to some form of on-package memory.

Inteluser already mentioned that server chips exist with onboard memory, but we were talking about consumer electronics.

 

[f4phantom2500]

This. Instead of asking "Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?" I'd ask "Given that Intel's market cap is more than 20 times greater than AMD's, why is Intel ahead by such a narrow margin?"

it's like approaching the speed of light; the more extreme you get, it takes exponentially more resources to go just a little faster. this is especially true with something as intricate, complex, and high tech as CPU development. plus, intel's fabrication facilities are developed, owned, and operated by intel, whereas amd outsources this to tsmc.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

it's like approaching the speed of light; the more extreme you get, it takes exponentially more resources to go just a little faster. this is especially true with something as intricate, complex, and high tech as CPU development. plus, intel's fabrication facilities are developed, owned, and operated by intel, whereas amd outsources this to tsmc.

Your latter point about the fabs is good, and I neglected to consider the value of these plants. I think the former point, however, is entirely invalid. Neither Intel nor AMD are approaching a theoretical limit to processor power; Moore's Law is alive and well.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Your latter point about the fabs is good, and I neglected to consider the value of these plants. I think the former point, however, is entirely invalid. Neither Intel nor AMD are approaching a theoretical limit to processor power; Moore's Law is alive and well.

you misunderstood me, then again my analogy wasn't perfect. i'm not saying they're approaching a hard limit, if anything more of a soft limit (what is reasonably possible *today* with the resources, technology, and funds available to these companies; as time and technology progress, so does this soft limit), i'm saying that the relationship between the advancement in technology and the increases in costs are not linear; the more advanced these chips get, it costs tons more money to continue. i think this is the main reason why amd outsources to tsmc.

as an aside, i think that quantum computing will start showing up on the scene before we hit any real limits related to the processing power of classical computers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090628171949.htm

 

[Idontcare]

Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?

$$

 

[pm]

Vram is merely short for "video ram" and, in this case, they are using LPddr2 which is commonly used in mobile devices today. There are better alternatives available, but supposedly they are using this because it is cheap and compensating with a 512 bit bus.

Thanks for the clarification. If I google lpddr2 I can see the rumors now. When I did it with VRAM, I found links back to Anandtech.