Intel's Pretty Much Screwed.

[FinalFantasy]

For starters...I've always liked Intel, they're a good company...my first rig was had an Intel...But I think Intel is pretty much screwed from here on out, unless they can pull a rabbit out of their hat or they have some kind of Ace card. The P4EE's are way over priced and I bet the 90nm A64's will run just as fast, if not faster and for 1/4-1/3 of the price! 90nm A64 Review Intel's only chance is to beat AMD on the dual core front, but they can't even get the 90nm P4's right. Intel's 90nm run way too hot and can barely pull a 10-15% OC while the A64 90nm's are easily pulling 45-50% OC. I can't imagine what kind of FSB speeds we'll see with these chips on a water cooling system or phase change. The 90nm FX chips are going to be sick...if these chips are a preview of what's to come in Q2/Q3 '05 I can't wait to see.

I want to see some results/benchmarks from peoples 90nm 3500/3000+ OC's...I have a feeling with a good air cooling system these things are going to be monsters.

AMD is going to bite at the market share Intel holds for the next couple of years until even Dell is going to want to start putting AMD64's in their machines. This is all just my BRIEF opinion on the subject though...I'm about to head home from work.

 

[SneakyStuff]

2 words; DUAL-CORE. If Intel can make a nice dual core solution, they're back in the game faster than you could imagine.

 

[FinalFantasy]

I agree 100% AMD's dual core chip has to be a stand out compared to Intel's for them to keep this up. If AMD's and Intel's dual core solutions are comparable, of course a majority of the people out there are going to buy an Intel chip or Intel based system because of the name and AMD is going to be right back where they were.

It's like going to Best Buy and the sales people are telling customers to get the Intel systems because AMD chips aren't any good and you can't play games on the system...lol...yet 2 seconds later if the Intel system was too expensive they friggin recommended getting a system with a Celeron processor to play games and do video/picturing editing!!! ...wow...I know because I USED to work at BB and they try train you on crap like that...the Intel rep was in there every other week giving out gifts (bags, USB rechargeable flashlights etc) to everyone...LMAO...while the AMD rep came with stickers to pass out!!! It was a fun job watching my co-workers who knew crap about computers sell a system with a Celly processor to a person who want to play games, do video/picture editing etc and then watch the customer come back pissed as hell!!!

 

[KDKPSJ]

Well, first of all, when you compare Intel and AMD, you should never care about P4EE. They are just awful and worthless. You should think only normal P4Es for comparison. For example, 3.0E retail is $189 at newegg, while A64 3000+ 939 OEM is $194 at the same store. For high-end model, 560 (3.6E for 775) retail is $499 at newegg, while 3800+ retail is $630 at newegg.

Of course, AMD has more future with its 64 bit capability, but average price is higher than Intel for right now.

BTW, Intel will release E-0 Prescotts, those with EDB (Yah, yah, I know, Athlon64 has had it since beginning) at the same price with current models. Information Link And belive or not, Intel's official document says that E-0 step will incorporate power optimization. Information Here

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

i don't think that's a fair comparison between the 3800 and 3.6E try a s754 3400 or the 3500 against that 3.6E for a fair comparison on performance.

it's intel's falt that they haven't produced an upgrade that is readily availible since the start of the year

secondly intel is not screwed. they might loose a little marketshare if they continue to lag severely
(looks like they might not have another upgrade besides the 3.7EE until dual core) but they can cut prices to stay near amd, and most people will still buy intel.

if they make dual cores that perform in the same arena as amd, they will win back marketshare

i'm just wondering if they will still try to make dual presscotts or if they realize dothan is the way to go

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Intel hasn't released anything totally new for a fairly long time, its not like they're standing around admiting defeat, they just have to perfect what they are working on and get it to market. Its the same pattern that has always exsisted. Just wait and stop asuming.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel's announcement about not going for a 4ghz Prescott and diverting those people/resources to dual core chips probably means that they think their dual core processor is nearly ready for prime time, so they want to go ahead and get on with it.

It's a pretty good bet that they will have a dual core chip out fairly soon, hopefully for good prices it will be around the same time frame as AMD is ready with theirs.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel's 90nm run way too hot and can barely pull a 10-15% OC

Neither of those is even close to true, btw. No wonder you are down on Intel.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Never underestimate the power of the darkside!

 

[LTC8K6]

:thumbsup:

 

[THUGSROOK]

intel is just a little confused right now.

intel does not like to undermine its server chips ($$$), but it looks like they will have to bring "server technology" to desktop sooner rather then later.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
i don't think that's a fair comparison between the 3800 and 3.6E try a s754 3400 or the 3500 against that 3.6E for a fair comparison on performance.

it's intel's falt that they haven't produced an upgrade that is readily availible since the start of the year

secondly intel is not screwed. they might loose a little marketshare if they continue to lag severely
(looks like they might not have another upgrade besides the 3.7EE until dual core) but they can cut prices to stay near amd, and most people will still buy intel.

if they make dual cores that perform in the same arena as amd, they will win back marketshare

i'm just wondering if they will still try to make dual presscotts or if they realize dothan is the way to go

http://arstechnica.com/article...a/cpu/pipelining-1.ars
http://arstechnica.com/article...a/cpu/pipelining-2.ars

some of the best stuff i've ever read on p4's and pipelining and why Intel is pushing Dual core ONLY for the P4 architecture and not the dothan.

they want to keep using the p4 core for dual (because of the deep pipeline a dual core can compensate for it better than a single core can (HT was the same idea) and the dothan will be their primary single core cpu.

 

[KDKPSJ]

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy
Intel's 90nm run way too hot and can barely pull a 10-15% OC

Dude, you should not pretend you are an Intel user.

XP-120 Review Well, it's XP-120 review, but sure you will get some *right* information. Even with noisy and useless stock HSF, it only goes 52 under load. Lanparty 875P-T Review It's LANParty 875P-T, the newest mobo from DFI with 875P and LGA775, review. The tester could pull up to FSB257 (4.1G) out of 3.2E with *stock HSF*. It's about 28% OC. Also, just search the forum. You will find pretty many people who could reach FSB250 (3.75G) out of 3.0E, which is 25% OC. Of course, not great as 90nm Athlon64 tested by Anand, but still pretty decent. And most of all, far away from your wrong belief.

 

[Keysplayr]

Prescott's are most likely a smoke screen. Intel ALWAYS has 8 other somethings in the works. Just something for them to sell at the moment.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Prescott's are most likely a smoke screen. Intel ALWAYS has 8 other somethings in the works. Just something for them to sell at the moment.

yes, hopefully they will drop the prescott.
(think northwood and galatin based cores)

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Prescott's are most likely a smoke screen. Intel ALWAYS has 8 other somethings in the works. Just something for them to sell at the moment.

yes, hopefully they will drop the prescott.
(think northwood and galatin based cores)

Yup, but I was thinking eastwood. "Do ya feel lucky punk?"

 

[SimsFreak]

Intel is also screwed becasue they hit the 4Ghz stopping point for now WAY too fast. They said screw it to the 4Ghz Processor, and will be focusing on doing more cache, 2MB cache now. AMD is taking there time and will slowly get to 3.8Ghz. They are not going to rush into it like intel did. Intel is very over rated anyway, AMD does'nt advertice with dell. Anyway Intel is screwed now since they have been caped till dual, triple, ec.. cores come out.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I would definately not count Intel out yet. It will take AMD years and years of producing a product like this to put a dent in Intel. Also AMD still has yet to put ads and market on TV, so they are not as well known as we would like to think.

Intel is no where near out.

-Kevin

 

[ponyo]

Intel keeps AMD around to avoid antitrust suit.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Intel keeps AMD around to avoid antitrust suit.

Actually, even though I am an AMD fan, this could be true, or have some truth in it .....

Na... They are just in a lull, and I hope they stay in it long enough for it to really become a two horse race...

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
2 words; DUAL-CORE. If Intel can make a nice dual core solution, they're back in the game faster than you could imagine.

I think this might be difficult for them to get rolling in time to get a product out the door in time to compete against the AMD dual core chips. It seems to me that the on-die memory controllers are key to getting dual core to succeed, because without this technology to keep both cores fed with data you are going to get seriously bottlenecked by the system FSB, more so than with a simple dual processor rig. Intel currently lacks this technology, so they are already starting from behind in this race.

The only dual core chip they have announced so far is the dual core Itanium, and it has 12MB of cache per core, 24MB total. I'm willing to bet that the reason for such a large cache is because of the FSB bottleneck. Unless they totally redo the dual core P4s to add a on-die controller (which would require yet ANOTHER P4 chipset), I forsee huge caches being put on the chips to keep them competitive with the dual core Opterons and Athlons. Big caches mean low yields and more heat, so it just exaberates the problems they already have with the P4 platform, which IMHO has always been more about brute force (more clockspeed, more cache, faster FSB) rather than elegant processor design (high IPC, reducing memory latency).

Unless they have a Frank-sized rabbit ready to pull out of their hat, Intel is indeed screwed. Not so much in the low margin home marketplace, where the Intel name still carries a lot of stock with consumers and can survive a lot of bad products without serious harm being done, bit rather in the server market. That is where the real profits are being made, and where the customers care more about overall performance than name. In this market, dual-core Opterons will probably wipe the floor with whatever Xeon is out there (dual core or not) if Intel can't keep ramping the clockspeed like they have been, and this could be the opening AMD needs to get seriously embedded into the corporate market.

The biggest threat AMD has right now is a sudden surge in demand for Athlon 64s and Opterons that overwhelms their ability to fab them, turning off a lot of potential customers just when they want to make the switch. That could do the worst damage to their reputation, especially if they can't come through if Dell suddenly wants a big order.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Alas, as grim as Intel's future outlook is right now, they still own 85% of the market, and AMD has gained no ground over the past year AFAIK.

I'm thinking that when AMD's dual core comes out, though, it will absolutely spank Intel's dual core. Prescott is a dead end; they just cancelled 4 Ghz after it was supposed to be out already earlier this year.

Intel needs to get off its a$$ and get those Pentium-M engineers over to main base to whip up some dual core low voltage Dothan-powered desktop bouillabaisse. From the looks of it, this ain't gonna happen though . Instead we get 2MB L2 cache for Presshott. Whoopee. Maybe they can add 50% more pipeline again to hit 4 GHz, lol.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
2 words; DUAL-CORE. If Intel can make a nice dual core solution, they're back in the game faster than you could imagine.

I think this might be difficult for them to get rolling in time to get a product out the door in time to compete against the AMD dual core chips. It seems to me that the on-die memory controllers are key to getting dual core to succeed, because without this technology to keep both cores fed with data you are going to get seriously bottlenecked by the system FSB, more so than with a simple dual processor rig. Intel currently lacks this technology, so they are already starting from behind in this race.

The only dual core chip they have announced so far is the dual core Itanium, and it has 12MB of cache per core, 24MB total. I'm willing to bet that the reason for such a large cache is because of the FSB bottleneck. Unless they totally redo the dual core P4s to add a on-die controller (which would require yet ANOTHER P4 chipset), I forsee huge caches being put on the chips to keep them competitive with the dual core Opterons and Athlons. Big caches mean low yields and more heat, so it just exaberates the problems they already have with the P4 platform, which IMHO has always been more about brute force (more clockspeed, more cache, faster FSB) rather than elegant processor design (high IPC, reducing memory latency).

Unless they have a Frank-sized rabbit ready to pull out of their hat, Intel is indeed screwed. Not so much in the low margin home marketplace, where the Intel name still carries a lot of stock with consumers and can survive a lot of bad products without serious harm being done, bit rather in the server market. That is where the real profits are being made, and where the customers care more about overall performance than name. In this market, dual-core Opterons will probably wipe the floor with whatever Xeon is out there (dual core or not) if Intel can't keep ramping the clockspeed like they have been, and this could be the opening AMD needs to get seriously embedded into the corporate market.

The biggest threat AMD has right now is a sudden surge in demand for Athlon 64s and Opterons that overwhelms their ability to fab them, turning off a lot of potential customers just when they want to make the switch. That could do the worst damage to their reputation, especially if they can't come through if Dell suddenly wants a big order.

i can say from much experience that P4 Xeons are the worst of the bunch. i mean, i loved the p3 based xeons, shoot, some of the best machines i administer are p3 xeons, 500 mhz with 1 mb cache. NOTHING in the p4 xeon comes close to those old machines. the p4 is HORRIBLE as a server, you can get away with brute force in the gaming pc or single pc market, but in a server where multi tasking is at a premium, the p4 xeon just stinks.

i know, i have a dual p4 xeon 2.8 ghz system with a compaq smart array 5300 128 mb cache scsi raid 5 with 3 36 gb 10k hd's 2 gb RDRam server sitting on next to my desk right now and it is horrible as a terminal services server.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
2 words; DUAL-CORE. If Intel can make a nice dual core solution, they're back in the game faster than you could imagine.

I think this might be difficult for them to get rolling in time to get a product out the door in time to compete against the AMD dual core chips. It seems to me that the on-die memory controllers are key to getting dual core to succeed, because without this technology to keep both cores fed with data you are going to get seriously bottlenecked by the system FSB, more so than with a simple dual processor rig. Intel currently lacks this technology, so they are already starting from behind in this race.

The only dual core chip they have announced so far is the dual core Itanium, and it has 12MB of cache per core, 24MB total. I'm willing to bet that the reason for such a large cache is because of the FSB bottleneck. Unless they totally redo the dual core P4s to add a on-die controller (which would require yet ANOTHER P4 chipset), I forsee huge caches being put on the chips to keep them competitive with the dual core Opterons and Athlons. Big caches mean low yields and more heat, so it just exaberates the problems they already have with the P4 platform, which IMHO has always been more about brute force (more clockspeed, more cache, faster FSB) rather than elegant processor design (high IPC, reducing memory latency).

Unless they have a Frank-sized rabbit ready to pull out of their hat, Intel is indeed screwed. Not so much in the low margin home marketplace, where the Intel name still carries a lot of stock with consumers and can survive a lot of bad products without serious harm being done, bit rather in the server market. That is where the real profits are being made, and where the customers care more about overall performance than name. In this market, dual-core Opterons will probably wipe the floor with whatever Xeon is out there (dual core or not) if Intel can't keep ramping the clockspeed like they have been, and this could be the opening AMD needs to get seriously embedded into the corporate market.

The biggest threat AMD has right now is a sudden surge in demand for Athlon 64s and Opterons that overwhelms their ability to fab them, turning off a lot of potential customers just when they want to make the switch. That could do the worst damage to their reputation, especially if they can't come through if Dell suddenly wants a big order.

i can say from much experience that P4 Xeons are the worst of the bunch. i mean, i loved the p3 based xeons, shoot, some of the best machines i administer are p3 xeons, 500 mhz with 1 mb cache. NOTHING in the p4 xeon comes close to those old machines. the p4 is HORRIBLE as a server, you can get away with brute force in the gaming pc or single pc market, but in a server where multi tasking is at a premium, the p4 xeon just stinks.

i know, i have a dual p4 xeon 2.8 ghz system with a compaq smart array 5300 128 mb cache scsi raid 5 with 3 36 gb 10k hd's 2 gb RDRam server sitting on next to my desk right now and it is horrible as a terminal services server.

2GB RDRAM? They actually still put RDRAM support in their server boards? Yikes!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
2 words; DUAL-CORE. If Intel can make a nice dual core solution, they're back in the game faster than you could imagine.

I think this might be difficult for them to get rolling in time to get a product out the door in time to compete against the AMD dual core chips. It seems to me that the on-die memory controllers are key to getting dual core to succeed, because without this technology to keep both cores fed with data you are going to get seriously bottlenecked by the system FSB, more so than with a simple dual processor rig. Intel currently lacks this technology, so they are already starting from behind in this race.

The only dual core chip they have announced so far is the dual core Itanium, and it has 12MB of cache per core, 24MB total. I'm willing to bet that the reason for such a large cache is because of the FSB bottleneck. Unless they totally redo the dual core P4s to add a on-die controller (which would require yet ANOTHER P4 chipset), I forsee huge caches being put on the chips to keep them competitive with the dual core Opterons and Athlons. Big caches mean low yields and more heat, so it just exaberates the problems they already have with the P4 platform, which IMHO has always been more about brute force (more clockspeed, more cache, faster FSB) rather than elegant processor design (high IPC, reducing memory latency).

Unless they have a Frank-sized rabbit ready to pull out of their hat, Intel is indeed screwed. Not so much in the low margin home marketplace, where the Intel name still carries a lot of stock with consumers and can survive a lot of bad products without serious harm being done, bit rather in the server market. That is where the real profits are being made, and where the customers care more about overall performance than name. In this market, dual-core Opterons will probably wipe the floor with whatever Xeon is out there (dual core or not) if Intel can't keep ramping the clockspeed like they have been, and this could be the opening AMD needs to get seriously embedded into the corporate market.

The biggest threat AMD has right now is a sudden surge in demand for Athlon 64s and Opterons that overwhelms their ability to fab them, turning off a lot of potential customers just when they want to make the switch. That could do the worst damage to their reputation, especially if they can't come through if Dell suddenly wants a big order.

i can say from much experience that P4 Xeons are the worst of the bunch. i mean, i loved the p3 based xeons, shoot, some of the best machines i administer are p3 xeons, 500 mhz with 1 mb cache. NOTHING in the p4 xeon comes close to those old machines. the p4 is HORRIBLE as a server, you can get away with brute force in the gaming pc or single pc market, but in a server where multi tasking is at a premium, the p4 xeon just stinks.

i know, i have a dual p4 xeon 2.8 ghz system with a compaq smart array 5300 128 mb cache scsi raid 5 with 3 36 gb 10k hd's 2 gb RDRam server sitting on next to my desk right now and it is horrible as a terminal services server.

2GB RDRAM? They actually still put RDRAM support in their server boards? Yikes!

it's an older board, but what am i gonna do, i have a lot invested in this and i can't just go out and buy all new ecc ram (ecc rdram is what i have btw) and a new dual xeon board.