Registered in the newspaper as a post office
|
|
|
Preview of 2010 desktop PC CPU futures
THE YEAR about to end was a more or less uneventful one from the processor competitive standpoint - after all, Intel just continued its performance leadership across ever more price points. It started the year with the top desktop, server and workstation Core i7 and Xeon LGA1366 parts at the uni- and dual-processor high-ends, and expanded into the second half of 2009 launching the mainstream LGA1156 socket Core i5 and i7 - yes, naming confusion included - quad core chippery at prices as low as $200 apiece.
As the year ends, we have the $1,000-plus parts, the Core i7 975XE, Xeon W3580 and Xeon W5590 for uni- and dual-CPU machines, all 3.33GHz three-channel memory LGA1366 parts, firmly ruling the performance realm in the PC space. In the mid-to-high range, the 2.93GHz Core i7 870 in LGA1156 has no competitor in the $500 space, while the $200-plus realm is guarded by the low-end 2.66GHz Core i5 750, holding out well against the newest stepping of the AMD Phenom II 965BE at somewhat lower power consumption. And then, the just introduced Core i3 low-end dual-core processors mop up the sub-$100 price class as well, at a very low power budget too.
In this situation, as a short term measure, AMD might want to consider further slight downward price adjustments for its otherwise pretty good Athlon II 620 and 630 quad-core CPUs that - officially at least - have no L3 cache, but do manage decent performance and some overclocking up to roughly 3.4GHz just on 'autopilot' with good boards, and more if you're willing to tinker around. At around $100, these CPUs can still be quite competitive against Intel's, say, dual-core 3.46GHz Core i5 670, offering equal or better performance - but still at over half more power budget needed.
Put aside the little performance comparing nitty-gritties, the key problem is that, in the 2009 PC arena, Intel completely pushed AMD away from all the high margin, above $200 each, processor market segments. To keep its PC CPU business more profitable, and enhance the 'brand performance image', AMD needs competitive high-end entries above the Phenom II 965BE. Yes, the extreme high-end quad-core eight socket servers are, until the Nehalem-EX arrives, still an AMD stronghold, but their quantities aren't large, and there are only two months or so of that 'advantage' left.
And this is all before 2010 starts.
Intel is expected to unleash a barrage of 32nm "Westmere" class chips across many market segments in the first quarter of the coming year. You'll already be seeing the entry level Core i3 and i5 parts, including some with an integrated - supposedly very decent this time - GPU, in the Socket LGA1156, in early January. A month later, it will be followed by the - not Core i9, mind you - but Core i7 980X six-core Gulftown processor with 12MB cache and the same 3.33GHz clock and TDP as the current cream-of-the crop, the Core i7 975XE. The processor, which we covered and saw in action over the past few months, overclocks at least as well as the current 975XE, but with 50 per cent more cores and L3 cache. Its equivalent on the Xeon DP front will do the same for the dual socket workstations, servers and extreme desktops.
Interestingly, if you look at the 2010 Intel roadmaps circulating on the websites, the high-end will stay pretty monotonous, with the Core i7 980X taking the top, and the current Core i7 960 LGA1366 and Core i7 870 LGA1156, both 45nm quad core parts, sharing the step below the top. In fact, there will be no mainstream 32nm quad-core Westmere shrink at all, as that will only appear in the high-end six-core and low-end dual-core parts. And that won't even happen until 2010 year-end, when Sandy Bridge is supposed to start surfacing. Now you see what lack of competition can do.
Why do we say so? Well, now it is clear that Bulldozer, the next major AMD processor core, will surely not surface in any way, shape or form in 2010. It will have to face Sandy Bridge from Intel's Israeli labs in early 2011 at best, it seems. Therefore, all that faces the new Gulftowns is the current AMD core in the Phenom II parts, at most maybe in a Phenom II X6 'desktop Istanbul' but at a reduced clock to manage the heat.
And, there is no indication that AMD is doing what it should have done in the first place - tweak the current core to extract another 10 per cent at least extra performance per clock, coupled with increasing the L3 cache size and lowering the L3 cache latency, as well as improving the DDR3 memory controller a bit to support the currently quite common DDR3-2000 RAM. Too much to ask? No. Look at the six-core Istanbul example, where the same old 6MB cache as on the four-core Shanghai has to feed all the cores. Contention is bound to happen. AMD does have those eDRAM dense cell capabilities, why not use them and make the L3 cache eDRAM based? The current latency is bad already, and can't get much worse, but doubling the capacity to 12MB with similar transistor count, and tuning up the rest to reduce the controller latency, would help a lot.
Right now, across two dozen top benchmarks, the AMD cores lose out to the Intel ones by between 10 per cent and 25 per cent clock for clock, and that is without multithreading, Turbo Boost and such stuff turned on. Even if Intel did 'optimise' for some benchmark, it couldn't do that for like twenty or thirty very different tests as some netizens claim. Simply put, its cores are faster. If AMD did as suggested above and, while we wait for the Bulldozer to appear more than a year from now, tuned up its current core and uncore to get a total of 20-plus per cent extra oomph clock for clock, it would be quite a different outlook.
In absence of that, on the desktop, AMD probably can still work out another stepping upgrade in the current 45nm process to propel the Phenom II X4 to 3.6GHz, and possibly a six-core Phenom II X6 to 3GHz. Still, this would only keep things alive for it in the $200 price segment, nothing above. And, Intel can continue to charge a grand a piece for the Core i7 980X throughout 2010, and half that for chips like the Core i7 960 or Core i7 870. No competition, what to do?
In summary, the desktop PC CPU 2010 futures aren't bleak, but aren't that exciting either. Intel will execute its 32nm migration at both the high and low ends as planned, on time, but the mainstream will continue to run off the current 45nm fab lines, and create steady profit as there is no need for new entries until early 2011 Sandy Bridge chips with integrated quad-core CPUs and GPUs on one die. No competitive threat means no need to act fast. If AMD did something to be more competitive, I am sure Intel would have to accelerate its rollout, but then....
So, if you've got money to burn, and want the best, look forward to the Core i7 980X or whatever Intel decides to call it at the launch. Or, even better, get two of them under the Xeon 5600 moniker and run 12 cores with six DDR3-1600++ memory channels. At the $200 level, you'll still have a two vendor choice, though. Anything more? It's really AMD's call this time - we need it up and running to keep up the speed of PC processor development. µ
Share this:
Share
Typo
P.S Longevity of the socket and forward compatibility on new CPU's with AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3r2 = AM3+ is the path of AMD.
AMD is to launches a Phenom 2 X4 975 3.6 Ghz 140 TDP AM3 in Q1 2010 probably end of January - Middle of February. As Intel had in the past increased the CPU in steps by 200 MHz e.g Prescott CPU, AMD is doing the same until Q1 2011 Bulldozer.
Further steeping will trickle down from Opterons to improve Phenom 2 X2, X3 and X4 CPU's. This improvements may reduce TDP and allow further increases probably in 200 MHz steps. The Phenom 2 X2 allow for further increases because the the TDP is only 80 allowing to increases to 140 TDP around another 800 MHz = four steps of 200 MHz e.g X2 565 3.4 Ghz 575, 585 AND 595 around 3.9 - 4 Ghz + one or more additional CPU stepping from Opteron. The AMD is following this path E.G X2 555 3.2 Ghz 80 TDP, X4 975 3.6 Ghz 140 TDP.
The Thurban X6 2.8 Ghz cpu brings HT at 2.4 and with further Opteron improvements - stepping the CPU will increase in steps of 200 MHz.
AMD will hold on with Deneb and Thurban until the Q1 2011 Bulldozer.
P.S Longevity of the socket and backward compatibility AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3r2 = AM3+ is the path of AMD.
Regards
Aleksa
First off, I admit that I’m no industry expert, just a longtime hardware enthusiast turned casual observer for some years now, but decided to comment on this article (which I found to be a decent summary and thought provoking speculation—in short, better than the average Inquirer article. Thumbs up Nebosja!) I came to this article via http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567196/intel-readies-westmere-chips
Intel is more or less following it's own game plan (ticktock) and somewhat ignoring AMD just like Intel has for most of the past 40 years. It's my impression that most of Intel's revenue is from big contracts anyway (e.g. Dell, Apple and other such PC and notebook vendors and in turn governments, school boards and Universities, corporations etc.), not from selling retail to individual end users building their own systems. Only when those contracts are up for grabs due to a combination of perceived weakness, contract renewals, poor performance relative to the competition (like a few years ago when Pentium4's were on their last legs and AMD was the reigning champion of most benchmarks and reviews) etc. will Intel panic. Intel has always been it's own biggest competition--competing with their co-founder Gordon Moore's "Law" (which is really just an observation anyway and not a scientific law). Moore's Law isn't about doubling CPU speed (as many people mistake it to be—but perhaps I am preaching to the converted), but in doubling transistor counts (usually by reducing process size). Intel ran into trouble with P4 heat and speed issues, and got around Moore's law by going multicore (i.e. a way to double transistor count without worrying as much about processor speed (which was a 180 degree turn in their marketing)—hence midrange notebooks have been in the 1.6-2.2Ghz for more than 5 years even if cores have doubled). The competition AMD currently (and typically) offers is value (performance/dollar) although Intel reluctantly (and eventually) copies/integrates AMD innovations from time to time with Intel’s typically justification (sometimes legitimate) being that it was thinking of doing those things anyway, but the timing wasn’t yet right (e.g. the move to 64 bit computing, multicores, imbedded memory controllers, and faster interconnects). I believe that if AMD were to go bankrupt, they would be bought out by another corporation e.g. IBM, Sony, Toshiba, etc.) and competition would continue one way or another. It’s just the nature of a free market when there is money to be made. There is always someone who thinks they can run your business better than you can, so competition perpetuates itself.
As far as the rollout is concerned, remember that Intel wanted to rollout i7 in the fall, but vendors asked them to hold off so that they could sell off core2 inventories? Lack of vendor sales is what is slowing down product rollouts, not so much Intel’s unwillingless to push ahead with technology. In the end, no matter what the Intel CFO’s say, Intel’s R&D department is comprised of geeks who enthusiastically want to push the envelope of technology and that’s a good thing for all of us.
Netbooks have fundamentally changed the game and slowed the trend of falling laptop prices for at least two key reasons: 1) they fill the need for mobile emachines at a price point acceptable to the public; and 2) because of their overwhelming acceptance, fewer chips of relatively greater power are manufactured, so a lack of economies of scale keeps other laptop chips more expensive to manufacture than they otherwise would be if netbooks didn’t exist. i7 notebooks are vastly over priced because (as with every CPU product cycle, Intel wants a return on investment and will also not hit economies of scale and full production with i7’s until the demand is there), netbooks have the low end of the market and core2's are still sitting in the midrange along with AMD notebooks.
Personally, I would love to buy one of these new i7 or i5 notebooks, but I probably won't because they are just too expensive (the cheapest I’ve seen in Canada so far is well north of $1000, pardon the pun, and usually over $1500--bells and whistles notwithstanding--while core2 systems can be seen for half that). A core2 computer can handle most of my needs (but a netbook can't). And personally, I'm waiting for USB3 (end of the year) since I do a lot of archiving and the limitations of USB2 are my biggest productivity bottleneck. Hopefully, by March 2011, Sandybridge notebooks will drive down Westmere prices to current core2 price points (i.e. ~$500 CAD notebooks), but that depends somewhat on where netbooks are priced. Even though the new netbook processors are significantly cheaper to manufacture, because they have a slight performance improvement over existing netbooks, the new ones (Jan 2010) will likely be priced higher ($300-500 CAD) which is unfortunate for consumers considering that core2 notebooks can be had for 500CAD. Hopefully, the older netbooks will sell out quickly and the new models competing mostly with themselves and smartphones and with profit margin wiggle room will settle to lower and lower price points (it would be nice to see many of them under $200 CAD by year’s end).
Regardless of how things pan out price wise, for me--and I think most people--I am going to buy the best value notebook that meets my needs when I "must" buy it. And it my case, it will mean holding off for wider USB3 adoption. (Yes, I know that I could buy USB3 controller now through the PCI express port, but that will be a consideration for later when there are more options on the table and the inevitable kinks of these early models are worked out with better production and better drivers).
Happy New Year!
About 5 years ago we were flying along with AMD and Intel developing new parts every year, lowering prices, increasing speed, core count, bits, everything!
Now we have Intel sat on top since Core2, then they buried AMD when they came out with the Intel Q6600. Since then Intel have remained in the driving seat with AMD struggling to catch up.
Nebojsa:
Can AMD implement your suggestions quickly and cheaply?
I have a duak core opteron at 2.2GHz, which is quick enough for what I do (net, email and gaming). Nothing is enough of an improvement per dollar for me to upgrade.
If Intel would reduce the prices on the I7 920 and it's motherboard by at least 30%, then I might get one of those.
Given the title, I would have expected actual news in the parts where you had opinion and speculation. Drop the whole "comment" idea, this article could have been a lot shorter.
Intel cannot monopolize their CPU based on price range, and AMD cannot also monopolize by means of cheaper price.
Yes please. There's a bit of chickens and eggs with volume in 2P and 4P opterons and boards. Volume is low because margins are high. And they want margins high because volumes are low.
If AMD trimmed their margins on the 2P opterons, and there was a skulltrail equivalent enthusiast workstation board, they would boost volume, and market share in that segment.
Not everything can be parallelised on a GPU.
Yet another NeboNova ICM* love letter.
For those not madly in love with ICM, read the EU Court of First Instance Intel Provisional Decision PDF for the truth about the criminal monopoly NeboNova writes weekly Inq love letters to.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel_provisional_decision.pdf
Have you no shame Nebo Nova?
*Intel Criminal Monopoly
AMD should have never quit their lawsuit with INTEL that cheap.
They had Intel by the balls.
They need the cash, about 5 billion
would give them room to move up on INTEL.
You never know the jury might have give them 10 billion.
But we will know, they quit to early.
Intel will lose the 3d/video/photo market in 2010 due to the coming of Adobes next gen suite and Nvidias next gen GPU. Noone serious enough is gonna pay the hefty prices that Intel demands for its CPU's when they can put a 300$ GPU that will wipe the floor of all Intels cpus in everything. 2010 is gonna be some interesting year. Watch out for Adobe CS5 and more coming...
How about AMD break the mold a little?
Nothing was stopping AMD from making a skulrail type setup. Dual core, lots a RAM slots, 4 full speed PCIe lanes. They are doing great things on the low end, but why do they have to imitate Intel on the high end is beyond me. Intel wants to protect their high end SKU's. AMD doesn't have any. Why not 8 RAM slots? Why not additional functionality when using ATi cards on AMD chipsets?
amd was first to 1ghz,first to ddr platform, 64bit cpus ,first x86 dualcore,firstto use an internal memmory controller ,hyper transport .. and many other things
The innovators are Intel and IBM. DEC Alpha was the premier microP, and system, but that's a sad story.
At times AMD offers marginal price / (performance * reliability) improvements. At they did force 64-bit down market (useful to Large Applications Servers, no use to consumers). But why should I care if AMD exists for one more hour?
The mantra that Intel will stop innovating, and raise prices, if AMD dies, is a hollow call.
If Intel doesn't improve their product, then only a dummy would replace a perfectly functional computer with a MORE EXPENSIVE, equally powerful, computer.
Invest in AMD, and support the status quo, if you wish. It is your money.
I'm assuming bulldozer is the cpu with the gpu built in that I've been waiting for. I guess I've also been waiting for a gpu that plugs into the second cpu socket to help things along. Those are things I was looking forward to 5 years ago and I haven't upgraded my pc during those 5 years but now with netbooks being so darn neato and my interests in gaming no longer an interest, I think I'd rather see a netbook with a 1.2Ghz bulldozer core with 256 of those nifty gpu units running linux capable of hdtv without drm and heck, lets give it 20 hours of battery life and a total weight of 3 ounces. /me rolls over and goes back to sleep.
I like the idea of 2 cores, but past that I not impressed. I dont need quad core or any 90watt cpu's. I would like to see cheaper cpu's in the 3mhz range with low power requirements. The days of doubling the cpu speed every few moths are long gone and the small performance gained from a very expensive cpu is not worth it to me.
I recently picked up a inspiron 1545 for a great price and it had the low end pentium 2.1ghz cpu. The peforance was was way better than I expected. You can spend alot of money and see very little for your money. I will stick to the low end be it intel or amd.
First of all, I think it is kinda funny that analyst and industry experts keep writing off AMD. THis is not the first time AMD has been in this position, nor will it be the last. AMD suffered just like this back in the K6 days, and there were more than just AMD and Intel playing ball back then. So to loose AMD would have been a very interesting turn of good fortune to Intel. They would have loved nothing more than to have Motorola as their only real competition. Now, they need AMD. If AMD goes completely belly up, then Intel becomes a Monopoly and gets split up and makes room for various other small nothing companies to enter the big boy world and steal Intels thunder (nVidia perhaps!). AMD has got more up their sleeve than is being told. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Intel was in on it. Despite the lawsuite settlement, the two of them are in bed together and desperately need each other. Regardless of who's CPU is on top currently or in the future, both will remain bed buddies for a long time to come and will not allow the other to fold. After all, Intel's own VP came out and publicly stated AMD wasn't going anywhere and Intel needed them to stick around!
Not to mention, AMD is still the favorite of "do-it-yourselfers" looking to put a system together without breaking the bank and still wanting future expandability!!!!
I kinda agree with your CPU assessment, but CPU is only a small part of the equation, and Intel loses heavily on all other points. Each time I look at buying a new PC for myself, friends, or relatives, AMD comes out on top:
- OK CPUs, even if they lag a bit behind in power consumption, and are at best on a par in power/$
- much better IGP
- much lower MB cost: Asus have a 57euro 780G DDR2 board, while their X4500HD is 105euros. I couldn't find anything IGP in socket 1156, nor 1356, so that's socket 775.
Once you factor in a discrete video card, neither Intel's price nor power consumption are competitive. That's only true for for gamers or graphic artists who need a discrete video card.
chipsets
chipsets
chipsets
SAS3, PCI3, USB3
What do you expect out of AMD? You have seen there balance sheet - they can't afford all the developments you call for, nor to be up on speed with process tech. They didn't get the needed money then they there in front of Intel in some measures, due to Intels stronghold tactics. And now Intel has woken up (some 3 years ago) and rushed ahead of the sucked dry competitor. So give AMD your money if the product fullfil your needs, even if Intel has better product for a little more money - else there will be not only _lame_ competition, there will be NO competition anymore. And then Intel will have the time and power to stronghold other markets.
regards,
DD