Rated: 45% (4 votes)
Loading ...Are we missing something?
greyhavens24
Firstly, let me get something off my chest. I am very much a fan of AMD’s and ATi’s, there said it! However something occurred to me over the last few months that perhaps some of the computer pundits may have missed. I’m talking about Intel’s and AMD’s swapping of CPU fortunes.
As a keen fan of Formula 1, trends have been a prevalent part of the pinnacle of motorsports for decades. In the late 90’s a Williams was the car to be in. If you were in one of those cars all you had to do was turn up and drive to ensure a podium position (barring a certain Mr Schumacher’s miracles and ahem…aggressive driving style). Where were McLaren or Ferrari? Firmly midfield. It was very much slugged out between the then Benetton Team and Williams F1. Fast forward to the late 90’s and suddenly McLaren was the car to be in with Ferrari also in the ascendency. Bring it into the 2000’s and Ferrari lead the technology race with McLaren in 2nd Place.
So what has that got to do with Intel and AMD you may ask? Well I see it as a graphic demonstration of the “law of diminishing returns”. Much of an organisations technology is based on a tried and tested winning formulation from their current technology which is evolved into the next technology that they develop. By using the technology they have, that works extremely well and tweaking the technology at each iteration, the next thing you develop makes a step forward. However whilst this works well in the short term, in the medium to long term cracks appear in the apparent dominance of the technology. Essentially the longer you continue to evolve the current technology, at each iteration, the step forward is less pronounced. Jumping back to Formula 1, this is why we see teams fall down the pecking order after a few years of dominance.
Why does this happen? Put simply, if you are leading the technology stakes there is no motivation, or need to dramatically change what clearly is working , it is just tweaked a little to improve the performance a bit further. However this plan can be easily scuppered when technological rivals develop something that the current trend setters technologies don’t have. This results in an apparent sudden leapfrog in performance over your competitors. This performance increase is usually born out of a need to rethink your current technology, reoprientate your R&D and, in extremes, abandon your once dominant technology entirely and go back to the drawing board.
So how does this relate to old rivals AMD and Intel? When you start to analyse the relative technologies of the CPU’s these arch rivals have produced there is a similar trend to Formula 1 that emerges.
It is difficult to say who produces the better CPU’s as at different times AMD and Intel have both had the technological edge and to a greater or lesser degree it is individually subjective. However it is important to note that neither seem to learn from the others mistakes. Both have made the mistake of taking a technology too far and arriving at the party too late. In both companies histories, they have both had to cull their previous, initially ground breaking designs, in order that they can adopt a new technology to push forward. In recent times this brought about both the Superb AMD Athlon 64 and the all conquering Core 2 family.
Beginning to sound a bit familiar to Formula 1 for me! AMD and Intel aren’t the only culprits though. ATi and nVidia are also doing exactly the same! Anybody, like me, reading the reviews in CPC will notice that the the jump from nVidia’s 8×00 to 9×00 is a bit of a damp squid in terms of a leap forward from the previous generation. Both AMD/ATi and nVidia are resorting to chucking a couple of GPU’s on a single card in order to eke out a performance advantage, a sign that the current architectures are at the end of their performance gains before the next step. This is nothing new both manufacturers have done this before ATi with the ill-fated Rage 128 Maxx and nVidia with the Geforce 7950 GX2.
I think that the Phenom is actually ahead of the game and it won’t become obvious until software, clock speeds and cache catch up with the all-conquering Core 2. It’s interesting that Intel’s next generation CPU - Nehalem will adopt native quad core (just like AMD Phenom) and will have an on die memory controller (just like AMD since the Athlon). By dropping the quad pumped FSB approach of the current crop of Intel processors and adopting the more direct connection like Hypertransport, Intel are stepping into the unknown and right into territory that AMD have had numerous years of experience.
The stakes are certainly high, but who will win is a tough call. AMD have been in this position before and the results was the all conquering Athlon family and ATi’s champ the X1950 XT. I can’t help feeling that AMD/ATi are just about to spring a huge surprise on a complacent Intel and nVidia, and AMD/ATi have just the heritage and pedigree to do just that.
All the signs are there, nVidia getting cosy with AMD to fight off Intel, Intel through it’s ownership of Havok Physics API siding with AMD against nVidia and Ageia GPU physics via CUDA. All in all you have to say it appears to me that nVidia and Intel are so busy watching, commenting and reacting to what each other are doing that they seem to have neglected what AMD are up to. I also think that the native Quad Core of Phenom will be unleashed when Havok starts to be integrated into the next generation of games and programmers start multithreading the code in games. I think that Ageia’s API’s days are well and truly numbered.
I also think that AMD’s aquisition of ATi was too much too soon and they took their eye off the ball and as a result Intel took the lead. But going back to my earlier comments, Intel did exactly the same thing with Pentium IV and look how long it took them to catch AMD napping. It will be interesting to see if AMD can change their fortunes and how long it takes them to close the gap. I personally think the initial signs are reasonably promising even if they can’t overclock massively.
CPC’s Clive Webster stated that we could be in for a calm 2008, I predict much of the same with the big 4 tweaking and repositioning for a very interesting 2009.
I guess I’ll just have to wait and see!
P.S. Yes I have changed the post as responses seemed to centre around my lack of F1 knowledge and personal observations about processors which were not relevant to the subject matter. I was wondering if anybody else felt that perhaps AMD/ATi are up to something as they have been ominously quiet for a while now. What do you guys think?
For the 10th generation (as you put it) I’d say Intel win hands down rather than by a “slim margin”.
Good blog there.
I’m sorry but your analogy of F1 is basically flawed.
The reason teams fall down from on high can be a complex equation between technology, personel and funding. When rules change a particular type of tech on a car becomes more important so a lower team can by chance end up in a better position, which leads to more money which leads to better development.
Your CPU chart is also flawed.
The only time AMD as been above Intel was with the Athlon 64 > Pentium 4 & Athlon 64 X2 > Pentium D. Athlon xp was close but intel still made the big bucks and ruled the roost.
I was always a big AMD fan but you can’t argue with numbers Intel is kicking AMDs ass in a bigger way now than they ever had that is fact in both sales and performance. Unless AMD can pull another 64 style new design out of nowhere they are in serious trouble. Nvidia could be the one to watch as they are just waiting for the chance to get an X86 license. AMD really should have bought VIA.
Interesting article though.
Slim margin??? Massive margin actually. Im not sure about the ’something missed’ part though. I’ve seen AMD and Intel see-sawing for years now and its been fairly common knowledge. Oh and MMX wasnt abandoned. Its an instruction set that lives on today.
I would have to agree, Intel are winning in this generation by far more than a slim margin. Intels Core 2 chips were miles ahead of AMD’s X2 in terms of performance, and for once, Intel were offering good price/performacnce ratio. However, it’s been a good while since Intel have been able to say this, I’d say ever since AMD released the Athlon, they have offered far better price/performance, with innovations and performance jumps from Intel being few and far between (Hyperthreading being the only thing that springs to mind). Of course, Intel were also charging a massive premium for their chips. However, intel often still led in terms of sales as PC manufacturers and the general public were slow to pick up this.
I’m hoping AMD will pull something big out the hat for their next generation, since they’re going to be competing with Neahalam. Of course, it’s possible that nehalam could flop in the same way Phenom did. We’ll have to wait and see
The Phenoms don’t have any native quad core power to unleash, they will be competing with 45nm Intel chips with the same integrated memory controllers.
Amd are screwed, all fan boi-ism aside you can wish all you like but as fourthletter says about f1 you can’t get anywhere without investment and AMD has no funds to waste.
Your chart certainly relies on rose tinted glasses, 64 was the only winner for AMD but they have even managed to lose that ground back to intel.
MMX is still in chips today so FAIL.(Try a bit more unbiased research before you share this stuff with the world)
AMD have also missed the boat on the so called nettops/MIDs. VIA and Intel both have chips to sell whereas AMD don’t.
Loving AMD won’t change the fact that they are dropping like a stone.
Mclaren won the Contructors 84,85
Prost won the drivers crown in a McLaren 86
They won 15 out of 16 races in 88 (both titles)
Senna was world champ in 90 & 91 in a Mclaren
Benetton only won 2 championships in 94 & 95 with that famous german.
Williams dominated most of the 90s.
Your F1 knowledge is lacking BADLY
are you only 14 ? try googling a few of your “facts” before you share them with the world and look like a complete idiot. lol
Mclaren and Ferrari were the car to be in in the 90s ?
Ferrari won the first title in a long time in 2000 they didn’t win anything in the 90s.
Mclaren won 98 & 99 but last won in 91
Williams dominated the 90s
FAIL ! I’d give you an F in F1 knowledge.
Most of the time its subjective whether AMD or Intel is better, for example, while the athlon 64 was better for gaming, intel chips were still better for things like video encoding, or you could argue that AMD chips are better because they run cooler or that intel chips have a shinier looking socket.
In terms of developing technology though, scrapping existing technology and introducing completely new technology is very expensive, but developing existing technology costs practically nothing. Companies will only develop new technology when it becomes necessary to do so to remain competitive, but it can be a year or more before its ready to be released.
Schumacher only made his debut in a Jordan in 1991
He only started racing F3 in 1989.
Wiliams dominated the 90s, Mclaren the mid to late 80s, then late 90s
Ferrari came back on form in 2000.
How about a bit of fact checking next time ? You are obviously very young and you never know when your blog will be on CPCs front page.
Especially with such cruel comentors about 
There are more idiots writing on the custom PC forum than any other I have seen.
After reading the WoW forums that is really saying something…
If you read the magazine you would never envisage that a large proportion of its readership appear to be halfwits.
The poor writers must hold their heads in their hands when they read the drivel and leet speak posted by people seemingly not old enough to vote.
I refer to the comments and not the interesting op.
@Jamie
The article in incorrect in its facts. Thats why there’s so many negative comments.
Glad to see my article generated some feedback. Opinions are just that. I did point out that I was generalising on my statements and that they weren’t hard facts - that’s what opinions are. As to comments about the money spent by Formula 1, I’m pretty sure that Intel and AMD spend FAR more on their R&D budgets than some of the Formula 1 teams. I noticed that nobody challenged the view about ebb and flow in the dominance of technology however which was the point of my article. Before people make negative comments about an article please read it properly to see what it is actually about before spouting responses. I never set out to make it an analysis about whose technology was better or to show off my knowledge of F1 therefore facts weren’t that interesting. As for the MMX issue, I was referring to the CPU family not the x86 instruction set. Anyway glad to see that at least I’ve generated a discussion.
Hypocrit much?
The point about money wasnt that intel and AMD dont spend on r&d: it was that if you dont have money, you can’t spend it. So if AMD havn’t been raking the money in through big chip sales, the idea of them pulling some fabulous tech out the hat that intel aren’t also developing is unlikely. Didn’t read that comment too well did you?
In addition people DID challenge the view about ebb and flow in the dominance of technology, every person who said you were wrong to attrubite soo many wins to AMD is basically saying that intel stayed top, no eb and flow, get it?
Before you make patronising comments about replies please read them properly to see what they are actually about before spouting responses.
p.s. “Nice” facts (opinions in your doublespeak)
Jon,
I wasn’t aware that I was being patronising to be honest. I was trying to point out that they were MY observations not points of fact. What is hypocritical about my article? I like AMD sure but I acknowledge that AMD need to catch up - where’s the hypocrisy?
I would also like to point out that whilst not as big as Intel, AMD still generates a considerable turnover and have done so since the 70’s. To say they don’t have the money is incorrect, but as profits have declined (no losses until the ATi aquisition) they need to refocus and reshuffle as all big companies do.
At the end of the day the shareholders want a return on their investment and to a lesser or greater degree it is the shareholders that dictate what happens.
I anticipate just as Intel in the intervening years between Pentium IV and Core 2 had to refocus, AMD will have to do the same thing, lean up and come back.
And as for the fabulous tech, I assume you haven’t heard about Fusion then? Discrete graphics linked to the CPU via HyperTransport - ie no PCI-E bottleneck - that sound’s pretty clever to me!
Intel completely lack discrete graphics and I’m pretty sure they haven’t got anything that can counter ATi/nVidia’s dominance in that sector. Sure, Larrabee is meant to be special, but then so was the i840 Graphics Card and that was utter rubbish.
Let’s wait and see.
Jeez! Some of these comments are completly un-nessecary!
Instead of focusing on innaccuarate F1 facts and patronising comments about the suspected age of the poster why not have a reasonable debate?
@greyhaven.
I actually enjoyed reading your post, I’ve already posted my input which I feel was relevant to it and I hope a few narrow minded halfwits aren’t going to discourage you from such posts in the future
I meant your comment on the 14th saying that people wernt sticking to your topic and that they should read it more thoroughly: hypocritical because thats exactly what you didnt do when you read through the comments.
You also missed/ misintepreted some of my points. OF COURSE amd have money, but they dont have as much as intels, so in as far as research relies on money (a point someone made and you decided to take as meaning amd didnt spend money on research) amd is unlikely to be able to gain any fabulous tech advantage over intel.
As for fusion, where have you been? Nearly EVERYBODY is banging on about the eventual demise of dedicated gpus! Intel are a big driving force behind research in that, truly revolutionary area of research whereas, amd are just improving existing tech? Wow, im blown away. Not.
But no you were right, I didnt mean anything in your blog was hypocritical (theres plenty thats straight up misguided though) I just meant your persistant misreading/ ignoring of comments was funny considering you asked people to reread your blog and focus on the points you raised.