Intel Quietly Starts to Offer 64-bit Pentium 4 Processors

[Frew]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
They're just scrabbling to make up ground after they realized how badly AMD's "Budget Line" of chips bitchify their most expensive silicon in Doom3.

- M4H

That sums it up. And I like your usage of the word "bitchify".

 

[BoomAM]

Are these new "64bit Intel processors" actually 64bit?
Because all the descrptions of them say "64bit enhansed memory controller has been enabled on prescott".
Which leads me to belive that they arnt actually 64bit processors, but have the ability to go beyond the memory constraints of a 32bit system?
Ideas?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: LeadFrog

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
They're just scrabbling to make up ground after they realized how badly AMD's "Budget Line" of chips bitchify their most expensive silicon in Doom3.

- M4H

That sums it up. And I like your usage of the word "bitchify".

Hehe...same here; that word pwns.


Seriously though, this is good news for those of us with A64s waiting for Longhorn 64 (i know that's not what it's called).

I hope this means Microsuck will get their butts in gear & drop out a new OS for us

I have a feeling too that one of the reasons this is so quietly announced is that these 64-bit Preshotts don't perform that well compared to their 32-bit counterparts.

 

[jhu]

p4: the processor driven by marketing. first it's clockspeed, now it's 64-bit

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
They're just scrabbling to make up ground after they realized how badly AMD's "Budget Line" of chips bitchify their most expensive silicon in Doom3.

- M4H

"Intel Corporation today announced second-quarter revenue of $8.05 billion, approximately flat sequentially and up 18 percent year-over-year. Second-quarter net income was $1.8 billion, flat sequentially and up 96 percent year-over-year."

"AMD (NYSE: AMD) today reported sales of $1.262 billion and net income of $32 million for the quarter ended June 27, 2004. Net income amounted to $0.09 per diluted share."



Given the choice of being the "bitchified" Intel, or the "bitchifying" AMD, I think I would prefer being Intel. Based on the most important category of money making, one side most definitely is kicking the crap out of the other, and the winning side isn't AMD. Intel pulled in more profits every 2 days than AMD did the entire quarter. The enthusiasts' perspective of who is dominating the market is extremely limited in scope, and is not really echoed by any market that actually really matters to a company's bottom line.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
They're just scrabbling to make up ground after they realized how badly AMD's "Budget Line" of chips bitchify their most expensive silicon in Doom3.

- M4H

"Intel Corporation today announced second-quarter revenue of $8.05 billion, approximately flat sequentially and up 18 percent year-over-year. Second-quarter net income was $1.8 billion, flat sequentially and up 96 percent year-over-year."

"AMD (NYSE: AMD) today reported sales of $1.262 billion and net income of $32 million for the quarter ended June 27, 2004. Net income amounted to $0.09 per diluted share."



Given the choice of being the "bitchified" Intel, or the "bitchifying" AMD, I think I would prefer being Intel. Based on the most important category of money making, one side most definitely is kicking the crap out of the other, and the winning side isn't AMD. Intel pulled in more profits every 2 days than AMD did the entire quarter. The enthusiasts' perspective of who is dominating the market is extremely limited in scope, and is not really echoed by any market that actually really matters to a company's bottom line.

Reality check . . . ouch!

:roll:

 

[zainali]

intel has better marketing. people think that a celeron 2.53 is better than any amd processor.

now they are shifting marketing with the 5xx line and making people think that the ghz in the speed are not that important. believe me. in the end its all about marketing. ever wonder why dell sells so many pcs?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
They're just scrabbling to make up ground after they realized how badly AMD's "Budget Line" of chips bitchify their most expensive silicon in Doom3.

- M4H

"Intel Corporation today announced second-quarter revenue of $8.05 billion, approximately flat sequentially and up 18 percent year-over-year. Second-quarter net income was $1.8 billion, flat sequentially and up 96 percent year-over-year."

"AMD (NYSE: AMD) today reported sales of $1.262 billion and net income of $32 million for the quarter ended June 27, 2004. Net income amounted to $0.09 per diluted share."



Given the choice of being the "bitchified" Intel, or the "bitchifying" AMD, I think I would prefer being Intel. Based on the most important category of money making, one side most definitely is kicking the crap out of the other, and the winning side isn't AMD. Intel pulled in more profits every 2 days than AMD did the entire quarter. The enthusiasts' perspective of who is dominating the market is extremely limited in scope, and is not really echoed by any market that actually really matters to a company's bottom line.

I have a feeling M4H meant AMD bitchified Intel in terms of computing performance, not business performance.

By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

 

[Yanagi]

We can always hope that will change once AMD gets its second fab up. The more market share AMD steals the more competitive will the prices be. CPU wars will be like GPU wars was in the GF1-GF4 Days. remember?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Yanagi
We can always hope that will change once AMD gets its second fab up. The more market share AMD steals the more competitive will the prices be. CPU wars will be like GPU wars was in the GF1-GF4 Days. remember?

Seems as though competition in the video arena is currently as tight as it's ever been... Yet the prices aren't exactly going down.

 

[Ryoga]

Originally posted by: Sunner
By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

Wow, up to a whopping 0.6%. Does that mean they sold a second one?

 

[caz67]

It should be an interesting match up between the processors.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Ryoga

Originally posted by: Sunner
By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

Wow, up to a whopping 0.6%. Does that mean they sold a second one?

Heh, yeah the number is less than impressive by itself, the increase in sales is pretty impressive though.
"Virtually nothing" in Q4-2003, 0.23 percent in Q1-2004, and 0.45 percent in Q2, with a 0.62 percent peak.

 

[NFS4]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2152

 

[Macro2]

RE:"Given the choice of being the "bitchified" Intel, or the "bitchifying" AMD, I think I would prefer being Intel. Based on the most important category of money making, one side most definitely is kicking the crap out of the other, and the winning side isn't AMD. Intel pulled in more profits every 2 days than AMD did the entire quarter. The enthusiasts' perspective of who is dominating the market is extremely limited in scope, and is not really echoed by any market that actually really matters to a company's bottom line."

You forgot the "not speaking for Intel thing" again.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Sunner

I have a feeling M4H meant AMD bitchified Intel in terms of computing performance, not business performance.

By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

His post certainly implied that Intel was running scared, and was scrambling to release this 64bit variant because it got "bitchified" in Doom3 benchmarks. This is comically wrong from so many angles that is not even worth going into them. When did Doom3 become a 64bit application?

0.6%? Was that a serious point, or were you being sarcastic? The Opteron has been out for over a year, and AMD has managed to "capture" 0.6% of the market? That would appear to be a pretty significant failure, not something to be bragging about.

I don't work for Intel, nor have I ever, and my main machine is an AMD system. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy, just the cold reality that AMD is not an immediate threat to Intel whether they beat Intel in every benchmark known to man or not, and that if Intel really wanted to, they could put AMD out of business in a month or 2 though the gov't would have something to say about that.

 

[Macro2]

If you don't think Intel is scared of AMD you're wrong.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Sunner

I have a feeling M4H meant AMD bitchified Intel in terms of computing performance, not business performance.

By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

His post certainly implied that Intel was running scared, and was scrambling to release this 64bit variant because it got "bitchified" in Doom3 benchmarks. This is comically wrong from so many angles that is not even worth going into them. When did Doom3 become a 64bit application?

0.6%? Was that a serious point, or were you being sarcastic? The Opteron has been out for over a year, and AMD has managed to "capture" 0.6% of the market? That would appear to be a pretty significant failure, not something to be bragging about.

I don't work for Intel, nor have I ever, and my main machine is an AMD system. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy, just the cold reality that AMD is not an immediate threat to Intel whether they beat Intel in every benchmark known to man or not, and that if Intel really wanted to, they could put AMD out of business in a month or 2 though the gov't would have something to say about that.

If you don't believe the 64-bit P4 release was due to Intel's desire to compete with AMD in the 64-bit desktop market, then I'd be interested to hear your theory about what did motivate it. Are you saying Intel has realized there are valid reasons to want 64-bit desktops in the near future, then? And they are doing this mainly for that reason?

If I were Intel, and saw that my puny competitor has now gotten onboard with IBM, HP and Sun, who are marketing the Opteron on its performance advantage*, and these upstarts are building a new fab and have started making a profit, and are building market share in MY pet market, quarter-by-quarter... well, I'd at least put a sticky note on my monitor about it


*(Sun's banner ads, HP's marketing brochures claiming up to 57% better performance than equivalent Xeon-powered 2P HP's in webserver performance)

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Macro2
If you don't think Intel is scared of AMD you're wrong.

Why would they be "scared" of AMD? They have a cross-licensing agreement and despite AMD proving to be a very effective innovator, Intel is the one that benefits the most by the time their marketing divison, along with Dell's, is finished. So what is there to fear?

As Pariah alluded to, Intel could bury AMD. They could pull AMD into a war of attrition and price them right out of business because they could sustain themselves despite the enormous losses they would suffer while AMD could not. As stated though, anti-trust laws would doubtless be brought to bear.

While Intel is suffering from a series of set backs AMD has done little to exploit the situation to their advantage. AMD has an inept and underfunded marketing divison that doesn't understand the effect of TV advertising on the masses, and until/unless they overcome this huge crutch they are doomed to be a distant 2nd in the microprocessor market despite performance and innovation leads. I do have to give them huge props for the thus far, stunning success, of their Flash division though

 

[soulflyfan]

why in gods name isnt it called a pentium V?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Sunner

I have a feeling M4H meant AMD bitchified Intel in terms of computing performance, not business performance.

By the way, supposedly the Opteron is picking up some steam in the EU server market, capturing around 0.6 percent of the x86 server market.

His post certainly implied that Intel was running scared, and was scrambling to release this 64bit variant because it got "bitchified" in Doom3 benchmarks. This is comically wrong from so many angles that is not even worth going into them. When did Doom3 become a 64bit application?

0.6%? Was that a serious point, or were you being sarcastic? The Opteron has been out for over a year, and AMD has managed to "capture" 0.6% of the market? That would appear to be a pretty significant failure, not something to be bragging about.

I don't work for Intel, nor have I ever, and my main machine is an AMD system. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy, just the cold reality that AMD is not an immediate threat to Intel whether they beat Intel in every benchmark known to man or not, and that if Intel really wanted to, they could put AMD out of business in a month or 2 though the gov't would have something to say about that.

Nope, nothing sarcastic about it, see my other post further down for exact numbers.
The number had two purposes actually.

For one to show some people who seem to think AMD owns the world because they beat Intel in terms of performance(most of the time) that AMD is actually pretty insignificant in the big picture.

And two, to show that they are, despite #1, making progress, 0.62 percent might not be significant in any way, but a ~75 percent improvement in one quarter is pretty damn impressive.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Are these new "64bit Intel processors" actually 64bit?
Because all the descrptions of them say "64bit enhansed memory controller has been enabled on prescott".
Which leads me to belive that they arnt actually 64bit processors, but have the ability to go beyond the memory constraints of a 32bit system?
Ideas?

No-one have any idea then?

 

[Pariah]

http://eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631

"Intel has quietly released a Pentium 4 Prescott processor equipped with 64-bit instruction-set extensions."

Also, further down in the article:

"Now, in the wake of the release of the IBM blade servers, an Intel spokesman says it is not releasing the 64-bit enabled Prescott as a retail processor. Instead, it is offered as an OEM part intended for use in servers, not desktops."

So this does not conflict with Intel's old stance that 64bit is still not needed on the desktop. These products are only intended to be sold to large OEM's like IBM for their servers and workstations. There also wasn't any mention of Doom 3 benchmarks in the article as a reason for these being released either.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Macro2
As Pariah alluded to, Intel could bury AMD. They could pull AMD into a war of attrition and price them right out of business because they could sustain themselves despite the enormous losses they would suffer while AMD could not. As stated though, anti-trust laws would doubtless be brought to bear.

Actually this is called dumping and is illegal. It's unlikely a company could actually get away with selling at a loss to bury a competitor in a high-visibility market like this one. Intel doesn't have the same ability to perform 'tricks' that let MS bury Netscape before regulators caught up; they can't exactly give the processor away as part of the, um, processor... Even if they sold motherboard + CPU for the cost of a CPU right now, they would still lose to AMD on price in the value segment, though not on the higher-end parts. And the chipset manufacturers would rightly scream bloody murder.

If they want to crush AMD, they have to do it the old-fashioned way: massive misinformation campaigns to convince clueless users that only Intel can ever fill their computing needs. Ever.