How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
I've been finding it amusing that we see a role reversal here. I don't know if it hit you, but now intel's chips are running at a much lower speed than are AMD's. Yet, they are better. AMD has got problems. And Sandy Bridge will have desktop chis running at 35 watts, the same as current mobile models. Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
I've been finding it amusing that we see a role reversal here. I don't know if it hit you, but now intel's chips are running at a much lower speed than are AMD's. Yet, they are better. AMD has got problems. And Sandy Bridge will have desktop chis running at 35 watts, the same as current mobile models. Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
Those are all valid points.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
4 cores x 1 thread/core = 4 threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
Forget price. Too many people here are talking price. Apple's machines cost more for various reasons. The cost of the cu is just one of them The most Apple could do would be to cut 10% off the price with a significantly cheaper chip. Would that be worth it? I don't think so.
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
I do think that Apple might seriously consider using the latest AMD Phenom II X4 quad-core CPU's for a couple of reasons:
1) AMD might have developed a full motherboard chipset--including an advanced ATI GPU--that combined with the Phenom II X4 CPU runs MacOS X 10.6.3 at surprisingly fast speeds but at lower power consumption. That makes them really viable for the iMac.
2) AMD could offer large-scale discounts that Intel could not offer, especially for the iMac.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
Time will tell.
Considering how Apple has managed with Intel's i5 and i7 in the MacBook Pro line, I would have to say there's no problem with that.
All of this could be about ATI, not AMD. We don't know what's being said.
It could also be AMD saying; "Plueese use our chips."
[QUOTE=bitemymac;1617782]This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
QUOTE]
Please try to break the images up so they don't stretch across the page next time.
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine. But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP. AMD is relying on the GPU for most of that, and right now, that could lead to problems. One is that they can't control which gpu is being used. So FP will vary.
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
And let's not forget that Intel has 6 core chips, all with hyperthreading.
Of course, this also depends on AMD not screwing up as they did.
Mostly a mixed bag, but a little better overall, but at a high power cost. 87 watts for intel vs 125 for AMD. Sucking a lot of power for that bit of speed.
Quote:
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
You're forgetting about that test you sent me to. Intel won on graphics performance.
Quote:
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
Those are higher end chips.
Quote:
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Don't, its lower performance.
Quote:
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
I do think that Apple might seriously consider using the latest AMD Phenom II X4 quad-core CPU's for a couple of reasons:
1) AMD might have developed a full motherboard chipset--including an advanced ATI GPU--that combined with the Phenom II X4 CPU runs MacOS X 10.6.3 at surprisingly fast speeds but at lower power consumption. That makes them really viable for the iMac.
2) AMD could offer large-scale discounts that Intel could not offer, especially for the iMac.
Right now, they are higher power consumption.
Intel can offer any discount AMD can. And they can afford it better.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
Time will tell.
I've actually fallen a little behind in just where AMD stands relative to Intel, but I really thought they had gotten a grasp on their power issues. Frankly some of the chips they are proposing require far more power efficiency than is seen in older AMD chips.
Even if they haven't lets say Apple is pissed off with Intels dicking around with Arrandale which is pretty much a slut of a processor. Almost all of that badness coming from the included GPU, that many customers simply don't want. So Apple looks to the alternatives and at the same time what it currently owns technology wise. They call a pow wow with AMD and offer to jump start their lagging low power technology, with tech from Intrinsity or PA Semi.
In any event if one looks at what AMD/ATI have accomplished with low power GPU's I'm fairly certain that they can also lower the power of their new chips.
More importantly SMT still has problems with many apps that you don't see with real cores. Intel has made great strides but that doesn't mean a 4T/2C machine will always perform as well as one of AMDs 4C chips.
Quote:
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
I think the most important thing here has nothing to do with AMD, rather it is the issue of deal with a business that can't meet customer needs. That is Intel is basically forcing its GPU upon customers that have no need for it, don't want it and see Intels attitude as problem.
In any event, you are right, for many of Apples machines absolute CPU performance means very little.
Quote:
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
This is exactly what the Mini needs. Arrandale would have been good in this platform but Apple really doesn't need to cram a full blown GPU into this machine. Well not the base model anyways.
In any event much of the negativity with respect to AMD processors seems to be based on old issues that they have worked past. Beyond that everyone seems to have forgotten that Apple used AMD technology for years in its PPC machines. It was good tech back then and it has gotten a lot better over the years.
Intel can offer any discount AMD can. And they can afford it better.
Intel may be able to do that I can't really say for sure. The problem as I see it is that discounts are pretty useless if they don't have a chip tech you want. Arrandale has to be a real irritation to Apple right now as it has so much potential saddled with so much crap.
I've never had 'issues' with AMD products. They are often thrown in budget PCs with, eg: crap power supplies that give up, but I've never had problems with their CPUs or chipsets.
Intel may be able to do that I can't really say for sure. The problem as I see it is that discounts are pretty useless if they don't have a chip tech you want. Arrandale has to be a real irritation to Apple right now as it has so much potential saddled with so much crap.
Dave
I don't agree. Arrandale is a great chip. Apple has found the best way to deal with both graphics IPs. When you don't need it, the gpu is idle. When you don't need it, you REALLY don't need it. The quality of Arrandale's graphics is irrelevant.
I obviously wasn't talking about one thread per core. I don;t know why you would think i do. Obviously I was talking about hyperthreading.
You said, "AMD has no multithreaded chips," with the implication that Intel does because their CPUs have Hyper-Threading. That's irrelevant because Intel's Clarkdale/Arrandale has 2 cores, 4 threads, while AMD's Phenom X4 has 4 cores, 4 threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You're forgetting about that test you sent me to. Intel won on graphics performance.
I'm talking Llano's graphics here, as well as their Fusion strategy in the future, which Intel doesn't have an answer to now and won't for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Those are higher end chips.
So are the 125/140 W AMD ones you said (compared to the rest of their line).
"AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!)."
Guess you forgot about your previous post.
Also, there won't be any 140 W Thubans, but there will be 95 W Thubans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Don't, its lower performance.
Like the Clarkdale vs. Phenom test, it's mostly mixed. But this time, AMD doesn't have that power consumption disadvantage and they beat the Gulftowns on price.
Comments
How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
I've been finding it amusing that we see a role reversal here. I don't know if it hit you, but now intel's chips are running at a much lower speed than are AMD's. Yet, they are better. AMD has got problems. And Sandy Bridge will have desktop chis running at 35 watts, the same as current mobile models. Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
I've been finding it amusing that we see a role reversal here. I don't know if it hit you, but now intel's chips are running at a much lower speed than are AMD's. Yet, they are better. AMD has got problems. And Sandy Bridge will have desktop chis running at 35 watts, the same as current mobile models. Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
Those are all valid points.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
Time will tell.
AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.
Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.
This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
The Tegra is a good chip, but no better than anything else in its class.
At any rate, we're not talking about phone ARM chips, but x86 chips.
I don't think Nvidia is making Tegra II for the cell phones. If you're right, it will be one hell of a cell phone.
How can you say that when so far, AMD has no multithreaded chips as far as I can recall?
4 cores x 1 thread/core = 4 threads.
I haven't seen a single AMD 4 core design, that when tested, had beaten an Intel 2 core design. This has been considered to be an embarrassment for AMD.
Look harder.
Forget price. Too many people here are talking price. Apple's machines cost more for various reasons. The cost of the cu is just one of them The most Apple could do would be to cut 10% off the price with a significantly cheaper chip. Would that be worth it? I don't think so.
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
1) AMD might have developed a full motherboard chipset--including an advanced ATI GPU--that combined with the Phenom II X4 CPU runs MacOS X 10.6.3 at surprisingly fast speeds but at lower power consumption. That makes them really viable for the iMac.
2) AMD could offer large-scale discounts that Intel could not offer, especially for the iMac.
Those are all valid points.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
Time will tell.
Considering how Apple has managed with Intel's i5 and i7 in the MacBook Pro line, I would have to say there's no problem with that.
All of this could be about ATI, not AMD. We don't know what's being said.
It could also be AMD saying; "Plueese use our chips."
QUOTE]
Please try to break the images up so they don't stretch across the page next time.
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine. But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP. AMD is relying on the GPU for most of that, and right now, that could lead to problems. One is that they can't control which gpu is being used. So FP will vary.
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
And let's not forget that Intel has 6 core chips, all with hyperthreading.
Of course, this also depends on AMD not screwing up as they did.
4 cores x 1 thread/core = 4 threads.
I obviously wasn't talking about one thread per core. I don;t know why you would think i do. Obviously I was talking about hyperthreading.
Look harder.
Mostly a mixed bag, but a little better overall, but at a high power cost. 87 watts for intel vs 125 for AMD. Sucking a lot of power for that bit of speed.
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
You're forgetting about that test you sent me to. Intel won on graphics performance.
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
Those are higher end chips.
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Don't, its lower performance.
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust AMD.
I do think that Apple might seriously consider using the latest AMD Phenom II X4 quad-core CPU's for a couple of reasons:
1) AMD might have developed a full motherboard chipset--including an advanced ATI GPU--that combined with the Phenom II X4 CPU runs MacOS X 10.6.3 at surprisingly fast speeds but at lower power consumption. That makes them really viable for the iMac.
2) AMD could offer large-scale discounts that Intel could not offer, especially for the iMac.
Right now, they are higher power consumption.
Intel can offer any discount AMD can. And they can afford it better.
Those are all valid points.
As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.
Time will tell.
I've actually fallen a little behind in just where AMD stands relative to Intel, but I really thought they had gotten a grasp on their power issues. Frankly some of the chips they are proposing require far more power efficiency than is seen in older AMD chips.
Even if they haven't lets say Apple is pissed off with Intels dicking around with Arrandale which is pretty much a slut of a processor. Almost all of that badness coming from the included GPU, that many customers simply don't want. So Apple looks to the alternatives and at the same time what it currently owns technology wise. They call a pow wow with AMD and offer to jump start their lagging low power technology, with tech from Intrinsity or PA Semi.
In any event if one looks at what AMD/ATI have accomplished with low power GPU's I'm fairly certain that they can also lower the power of their new chips.
Dave
4 cores x 1 thread/core = 4 threads.
More importantly SMT still has problems with many apps that you don't see with real cores. Intel has made great strides but that doesn't mean a 4T/2C machine will always perform as well as one of AMDs 4C chips.
The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.
I think the most important thing here has nothing to do with AMD, rather it is the issue of deal with a business that can't meet customer needs. That is Intel is basically forcing its GPU upon customers that have no need for it, don't want it and see Intels attitude as problem.
In any event, you are right, for many of Apples machines absolute CPU performance means very little.
And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.
I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.
Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.
This is exactly what the Mini needs. Arrandale would have been good in this platform but Apple really doesn't need to cram a full blown GPU into this machine. Well not the base model anyways.
In any event much of the negativity with respect to AMD processors seems to be based on old issues that they have worked past. Beyond that everyone seems to have forgotten that Apple used AMD technology for years in its PPC machines. It was good tech back then and it has gotten a lot better over the years.
Dave
Right now, they are higher power consumption.
Intel can offer any discount AMD can. And they can afford it better.
Intel may be able to do that I can't really say for sure. The problem as I see it is that discounts are pretty useless if they don't have a chip tech you want. Arrandale has to be a real irritation to Apple right now as it has so much potential saddled with so much crap.
Dave
Considering how Apple has managed with Intel's i5 and i7 in the MacBook Pro line, I would have to say there's no problem with that.
What about the 13" MBP?
Intel may be able to do that I can't really say for sure. The problem as I see it is that discounts are pretty useless if they don't have a chip tech you want. Arrandale has to be a real irritation to Apple right now as it has so much potential saddled with so much crap.
Dave
I don't agree. Arrandale is a great chip. Apple has found the best way to deal with both graphics IPs. When you don't need it, the gpu is idle. When you don't need it, you REALLY don't need it. The quality of Arrandale's graphics is irrelevant.
What about the 13" MBP?
It's the cheapest and smallest machine in the line. What about it?
Core 2 seems to be fine for it right now. Later in the year they will be refreshed.
I obviously wasn't talking about one thread per core. I don;t know why you would think i do. Obviously I was talking about hyperthreading.
You said, "AMD has no multithreaded chips," with the implication that Intel does because their CPUs have Hyper-Threading. That's irrelevant because Intel's Clarkdale/Arrandale has 2 cores, 4 threads, while AMD's Phenom X4 has 4 cores, 4 threads.
You're forgetting about that test you sent me to. Intel won on graphics performance.
I'm talking Llano's graphics here, as well as their Fusion strategy in the future, which Intel doesn't have an answer to now and won't for a while.
Those are higher end chips.
So are the 125/140 W AMD ones you said (compared to the rest of their line).
"AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!)."
Guess you forgot about your previous post.
Also, there won't be any 140 W Thubans, but there will be 95 W Thubans.
Don't, its lower performance.
Like the Clarkdale vs. Phenom test, it's mostly mixed. But this time, AMD doesn't have that power consumption disadvantage and they beat the Gulftowns on price.
Magny-Cours is also ahead on Spec Int and FP.
It's the cheapest and smallest machine in the line. What about it?
Core 2 seems to be fine for it right now. Later in the year they will be refreshed.
Ars has an article that contends that their isn't room for a an iWhatever, the Intel HD and dedicated graphics (on the13" MBP).
That's the rub. With Intel packaging the integrated graphics with the cpu they've actually weakened the platform.