AMD who
I wanted to write this because, expecially lately I have been asked numerous times about computers. Coming from a small town and a group of people not known for their computer literacy I kinda expected it. They ask if I could build them a computer (usually because my mother coaxes me into it) I agree to help. Then I am usually asked about some specifics of the computer I spec out and why an AMD and not an Intel processor. So, in short I say its cheaper but operates the same and start to move on. Then they say they want a good computer so don't worry about a price difference get 'the good stuff'. They don't understand the jargon and technical stuff so I lay it out simply Intel, in my opinion, is not the best solution. So, with the news of a new architecture release coming soon from Intel I wanted to get some of my speculation out there and lay out why, currently, AMD is on top.
I am a big AMD fan, I admit it and its not something about rooting for the little guy to triumph over the giant. I just haven't liked Intels practices much less their latest tactics in processor design. In computer architecture you learn, or at least you should, that an easy way to boost higher clock speeds is to increase the length of the pipeline. Lets face it a majority of the public is not educated in computer architecture and can only go by the 'MHz to MHz' or now the 'GHz to GHz' comparison which is basically null and void. That is why AMD started using a new naming scheme for their processors to kinda debunk this and stay in the market with Intel tauting MHz and GHz. In addition, even though AMD has become a major player in the microprocessor market they are far from the sheer size and pockets of Intel and this new naming scheme keeps them in the running with inexperience users.
The last new architecture that Intel introduced was the IA64 or Itanium processor (some call it the Itanic for obvious reasons). This was a totally new 64bit architecture that was not based on x86, some thought this was a godsend, but those who like the x86 architecture pointed out how it had to run x86-32 code via emulation (which we all should know as a very bad word in computing). Before the Itanium, Intel had the P6 architecture, which was preceded by P5 (Pentium), 486, 386, etc. all the way back to the first parts Intel made. At present there are three major architectures that are all in production at Intel: P6 (Pentium Pro/II/III now evolved to Pentium M), NetBurst (Pentium 4 and derivatives), and IA-64/EPIC used in Itanium processors (we don't actually know what the name for the Pentium-M is because they have never released its name). But we do know that it does use some extensions of the P6 (later cores change this but i'll leave that to you to find out).
One of the latest Pentium 4 cores is the Prescott which uses a 31 stage pipeline (called NetBurst) coupled with an 8 stage fetch/decode frontend for a total of 39 stages. That is more than twice the length of the AMD K8 (Athlon64) pipeline. The next closest pipeline length to that aren't even out yet being the Cell and Xenon processors at around 21 stages. A longer pipeline only benefits in raw clock speed which explains why the Pentiums are the only processors above 3GHz on the market.
Going back to architecture class, while you get raw speed from a lengthy pipeline you also get inefficiencies in cases where branch prediction misses (IE flushing the pipeline) which in the case of the Prescott can be up to 30 cycles down the toilet (I guess I should mention the heat issue too, DANG man up to 150Watts for some of the latest processors, my Athlon64 runs around 84 degrees F under decent load). Then if you have a cache miss, oh my god it could be even longer than that by quite a bit because you have to access main memory (you should have bells ringing in your head "Von Neumann bottleneck"). There is a very good article on anandtech which is more in depth here.
So, soon Intel is supposed to be introducing a new architecture some are calling Conroe. While we know nothing about it yet it will be interesting to see what they stuff into it. I suspect it will have a shorter pipeline than the netburst, yet still longer than the AMD K8, probably around the length of the Cell and Xenon processors (so they can still claim to be faster than AMD in the GHz department). Also, after reading the article at anandtech I wouldn't be surprise to see the Front Side Bus integrated into the processor similar to the K8. That would help scaling multicore processors because the current Pentium design for multicore is fairly rough and doesn't even compare to the AMD solution.
Is Intel losing in the desktop 64-bit computing field? Definitely so, their IA64 was all but a total flop. It was expensive and the backwards compatability issue with the multitude of x86 code doomed it from the start. AMD's development of AMD64 (aka x86-64 or x64 but now AMD64 is the official name) which was a 64-bit extension to the IA32 architecture created a fully backwards compatible operating evironment with old x86 code. Intel's EM64T architecture is simply their implementation of AMD64. It was obvious that they wanted to keep it on the down low that AMD kicked their butt and they must play 'catch up' with the desktop 64-bit computing.
Did Intel drop the ball when it comes to multicore? I would venture to say most definitely. The K8 was designed from the beginning to scale up in the number of cores on a single chip, they are already working on the quad core K8. You may ask how would multicore processors help me, a lowly desktop user. Well, thats a bit complex. This processor is able to process more software threads at the same time, this is called Thread Level Parallelism (TLP). The need for TLP processing capability is very dependent on the situation. Certain applications are only written with one thread and can't make use of the second core. But there are many who can such as audio, video, and rendering applications. With more and more people doing these kind of things then the more advantageous it will be to have an Athlon64 X2 (the name for the multicore Athlon64's) system or the ability to simply drop in the X2 processor, update the BIOS and be ready to rock and roll.
So, what have we learned today: 1) I remember architecture class, 2) AMD Athlon64's rock (from experience no less), 4) At minimum, Pentium III and up suck. If you find any omissions or anything wrong, post comments or email me. I try to do as much research as I can on things like this but to be human is screw up.
I am a big AMD fan, I admit it and its not something about rooting for the little guy to triumph over the giant. I just haven't liked Intels practices much less their latest tactics in processor design. In computer architecture you learn, or at least you should, that an easy way to boost higher clock speeds is to increase the length of the pipeline. Lets face it a majority of the public is not educated in computer architecture and can only go by the 'MHz to MHz' or now the 'GHz to GHz' comparison which is basically null and void. That is why AMD started using a new naming scheme for their processors to kinda debunk this and stay in the market with Intel tauting MHz and GHz. In addition, even though AMD has become a major player in the microprocessor market they are far from the sheer size and pockets of Intel and this new naming scheme keeps them in the running with inexperience users.
The last new architecture that Intel introduced was the IA64 or Itanium processor (some call it the Itanic for obvious reasons). This was a totally new 64bit architecture that was not based on x86, some thought this was a godsend, but those who like the x86 architecture pointed out how it had to run x86-32 code via emulation (which we all should know as a very bad word in computing). Before the Itanium, Intel had the P6 architecture, which was preceded by P5 (Pentium), 486, 386, etc. all the way back to the first parts Intel made. At present there are three major architectures that are all in production at Intel: P6 (Pentium Pro/II/III now evolved to Pentium M), NetBurst (Pentium 4 and derivatives), and IA-64/EPIC used in Itanium processors (we don't actually know what the name for the Pentium-M is because they have never released its name). But we do know that it does use some extensions of the P6 (later cores change this but i'll leave that to you to find out).
One of the latest Pentium 4 cores is the Prescott which uses a 31 stage pipeline (called NetBurst) coupled with an 8 stage fetch/decode frontend for a total of 39 stages. That is more than twice the length of the AMD K8 (Athlon64) pipeline. The next closest pipeline length to that aren't even out yet being the Cell and Xenon processors at around 21 stages. A longer pipeline only benefits in raw clock speed which explains why the Pentiums are the only processors above 3GHz on the market.
Going back to architecture class, while you get raw speed from a lengthy pipeline you also get inefficiencies in cases where branch prediction misses (IE flushing the pipeline) which in the case of the Prescott can be up to 30 cycles down the toilet (I guess I should mention the heat issue too, DANG man up to 150Watts for some of the latest processors, my Athlon64 runs around 84 degrees F under decent load). Then if you have a cache miss, oh my god it could be even longer than that by quite a bit because you have to access main memory (you should have bells ringing in your head "Von Neumann bottleneck"). There is a very good article on anandtech which is more in depth here.
So, soon Intel is supposed to be introducing a new architecture some are calling Conroe. While we know nothing about it yet it will be interesting to see what they stuff into it. I suspect it will have a shorter pipeline than the netburst, yet still longer than the AMD K8, probably around the length of the Cell and Xenon processors (so they can still claim to be faster than AMD in the GHz department). Also, after reading the article at anandtech I wouldn't be surprise to see the Front Side Bus integrated into the processor similar to the K8. That would help scaling multicore processors because the current Pentium design for multicore is fairly rough and doesn't even compare to the AMD solution.
Is Intel losing in the desktop 64-bit computing field? Definitely so, their IA64 was all but a total flop. It was expensive and the backwards compatability issue with the multitude of x86 code doomed it from the start. AMD's development of AMD64 (aka x86-64 or x64 but now AMD64 is the official name) which was a 64-bit extension to the IA32 architecture created a fully backwards compatible operating evironment with old x86 code. Intel's EM64T architecture is simply their implementation of AMD64. It was obvious that they wanted to keep it on the down low that AMD kicked their butt and they must play 'catch up' with the desktop 64-bit computing.
Did Intel drop the ball when it comes to multicore? I would venture to say most definitely. The K8 was designed from the beginning to scale up in the number of cores on a single chip, they are already working on the quad core K8. You may ask how would multicore processors help me, a lowly desktop user. Well, thats a bit complex. This processor is able to process more software threads at the same time, this is called Thread Level Parallelism (TLP). The need for TLP processing capability is very dependent on the situation. Certain applications are only written with one thread and can't make use of the second core. But there are many who can such as audio, video, and rendering applications. With more and more people doing these kind of things then the more advantageous it will be to have an Athlon64 X2 (the name for the multicore Athlon64's) system or the ability to simply drop in the X2 processor, update the BIOS and be ready to rock and roll.
So, what have we learned today: 1) I remember architecture class, 2) AMD Athlon64's rock (from experience no less), 4) At minimum, Pentium III and up suck. If you find any omissions or anything wrong, post comments or email me. I try to do as much research as I can on things like this but to be human is screw up.
posted by Brian Wright at 10:20 PM
4 Comments:
Grabbing the Grapico and going to think about this one. Well for one you got to remember the P-M is built on the P3. So alittle bit more low speed more work. IA64 was suck. There is no compilers worth a shit for it. In the circles that use it there is software but not for general use. I think intel went wrong when it did not divide the FSB on the P3. Like on a dual proc AMD there is dual FSB to memory. Where as on my lovely VP6 dual p3 I got to share the 133FSB with both procs. And it gets even worse on intel's quad boxen. But look at AMD got more pipes per proc. Looking at bank account I can't afford anything new so I got to get by with the P3. I got to agree here that AMD is the current champ. I would like to have a dual op box to play with. Well the grapico is empty. I have learned 1 P3 don't suck P4 do. 2 I still won't have a mclaren but got to start saving for Dual 248 op. 3 Dual Dualcore would be sweet but I am thinking only from AMD.
Lord Panzer
I am running an AMD on the computer I built (all the ones I have bought, mostly laptops, have Intel). I tend to like AMD for the price to preformance ratio. And somehow I will be gettings me their 64-bit setup sometime before I grad.
MadDogGTO
I have an athlon64 notebook and now an athlon64 desktop they both perform stupendously. The notebook has a battery life of 2-3 hrs. If I had the original OS setup on it, it may last a little longer with the tweaks they may have. It does't run too awefully hot.
The desktop runs nice and cool with lots of power although i'm not running a 64bit OS since i didnt feel the drivers and apps weren't mature enough yet.
A long time ago (1999 i think) i predicted Nvidia and the Geforce was going to be a product to reckon with and I felt that 3dfx was going to have a hard time (I didnt see them folding to nvidia though) and AMD with their new processor called the athlon was going to seriously compete with Intel. I had also said i wish i had some money to invest in their stocks, today as i look back damnit i wish i would have come up with the money some how.
What about SSE3? Maybe something in the newer amd64 and op stuff. Well no more grapicos so time for the store. But check this what I would liek to have is maybe slower procs and computer hw that produces less heat to do simple things. I don't need the latest to chat, check email, and ftp. What I do like is that AMD is there to make Intel say hey someone might produce better stuff then us. Imagine what the world is going to look like when M$ dies or when Apple has the great idea of just selling its OS standalone. Look around people more and more are trying to see what is out there other then M$. Umm how much is it now to write a .doc or a .xls last time I checked 400$. Openoffice is free. I need a ftp server. Well either I spend 1000$ or more or just go DL a copy of some Linux iso. And guess what. That 2K$ investment in a P3 450 can still be put to good use. Again I don't need no nasty fast workstation to do most of the things I do. Well looking at the grapico can. What did I relearn. 1 Computers are a good tool to visit the world with. 2 I got to start learning something else since M$ is going to die. Maybe gunsmith? 3 I am the shortest person in the group with the oldest hw.
LP
Post a Comment
<< Home