Geez, I don't think I've ever seen an article which is quite as mis-informed in this one in a very long time.
Issue 1: The only real feature that the 760MP has that's even notable is point-to-point connections not using shared bandwidth.
Answer: If you had even the slightest idea of what heavy-load programs like, you'd know that cache and bandwidth are the top two. You don't need a ton of CPU to send out real audio data (or so my boss informed me when I worked at a web company doing servers for them), but you do want a hell of a lot of fast memory and bandwidth so you can send out all that massive information as fast as possible. As far as I'm concerned, this feature alone makes the AthlonMP/760MP better than the Intel SMP stuff.
Issue 2: Quote: "..its just my observation that they should've maybe done this much earlier and debut SMP Athlons in the consumer market and gain support early on, before going after the high-end x86 workstation market."
Answer: You debut your processors at _high_ price points (server market) before you debut them at _low_ price points (consumer market). This is no-brainer business sense. I doubt Intel is going to try to put Xeons in desktops before they put them in servers. You certainly shouldn't fault companies for trying to make a profit.
Issue 3: Quote: "For AMD to give Intel a run for their money and make their x86 SMP architecture the de-facto standard in the workstation market they should not have released their 760MP chipset with two 1.2GHz Athlon MPs but rather 1.7GHz or even 1.8GHz versions of the CPU instead."
Answer: If AMD had CPUs ready that could compete megahertz for megahertz with the P4, you can be damned sure they'd be out now. Yes, a 1.8 ghz Athlon would _own_ a Xeon 1.7ghz, but be real, AMD doesn't have them. To a certain extent, I agree that a 1.5ghz version of the AthlonMP would have been a good idea, but you can't just wish for a higher clock speed in a CPU - it's a manufacturing issue. In any case, the current Athlon 1.4ghz is about as fast as a Xeon 1.7ghz, so there's no issue here.
Issue: Quote: "As for the price/performance battle it may come as no suprise that an 760 MP/dual Athlon MP combination is far less expensive than a dual Xeon DP configuration, so the 760 MP platform might be your platform of choice afterall."
Answer: This is amazing! You devote _one_ line as an afterthought to one of the biggest selling points of the whole AMD SMP business! This is the reason that AMD is _probably_ going to succeed - why bother with expensive Xeons and RDRAM when you can just grab a couple AthlonMPs ($250 a piece) with DDR memory (half the price of RDRAM) and get 90% (absolute worst case) of the performance for 3/4 the price of a Xeon machine? Some people might want that extra 10%, but most businesses will want the Athlons.
Issue: Your _entire_ section on nForce consists of one thing: "Well, nVidia's never put out a chipset before, so it might suck. I've never seen it, but I guess it will, since they have no experience."
Answer: This is just plain libel. You've never seen the chipset in action before, yet it sucks... why? It might suck, but then again, nVidia's made good on their claims so far on everything past the TNT2. Leaks from the manufacturers have claimed that it's a pretty impressive chipset. There's no reason to make assumptions that it's going to be bad.
The truth is, this entire article was written just so HA could get some press for being pessimistic about products that are a step forward, and probably good for the computer market as a whole. The writer, at best, is misinformed, and does not understand the issues involved with the SMP market, and certainly has not undertaken any real research (like, _reading posted reviews_) on any of these subjects.
I hope HA's editorial staff has the sense to check over articles before posting them in the future.
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I'm not being a pessimist, I'm just making some points which I think are valid. Why does AMD release the Athlon MP at only 1 and 1.2GHz when Joe average and myself included have long since been running their Thunderbirds at +1.5GHz with air-cooling. The Thunderbird is now already available at 1.4GHz. I can't see why many AMD enthusiasts take any article slightly hinting towards the negative as bashing or as pro-Intel propaganda.
I don't have a passion for either Intel or AMD, if AMD can beat
Intel in price and performance, as currently with their Athlon CPUs, I'd be
the last to not tell my friends/family to buy AMD instead of Intel. I do have a passion for objective reporting and am the last person to take all the marketing BS some companies publish for real. I'd rather take a few steps back and look at it from a different angle so I can see the fine print in between the lines.
However if AMD wants to add the x86 workstation market to their portfolio there's a lot to be said about not doing a regular introduction but rather beating Intel at their own game in one fell swoop. That, in my opinion, is what they should've done, as that would've put Intel on the backseat for good. Now they're faced with the same clockspeed battle and marginal % increase in performance every time a new clockspeed CPU is released. Instead they should've gone for the kill and released at 1.7 or even 1.8GHz dual CPU 760 MP platform and get the whole Athlon vs. Pentium 4/Xeon DP discussion over with.
I think it is rather funny and actually sad to see that any negative article
or comment about AMD is envoking such strong reactions. Its like AMD has a strong following that'll debunk and stomp into the ground anything slightly negative about their products. I quite frankly don't care whether my box has an Intel or AMD CPU, I just look for the best price/performance and stability/compatibility ratio I can find for the $$$ I got to spend. Today that'll buy me a nice AMD box, tomorrow Intel might have a better offer. Both companies have great products and have had minor/major mishaps in the past that made them loose/gain marketshare in the past. I'm simply reflecting on the 760 MP and all the hyped up specs and prospective performance numbers that have been floating around the web. I'm not saying it is a bad product or performs bad, it would just have been soo much better if they'd settled the issue once and for all.
Hope to have given you a little background about why I wrote the article. I
am trying to keep an open mind, and will not be buying into the hype and all the marketing BS some companies use to promote their product. And if you read my Xeon DP review you'll see that I'm equally 'negative' about Intel as their new Xeon frankly can barely hold a candle next to the older Pentium III Xeon.
As for nVidia, I think their marketing department has proven on numerous accounts that they know their stuff. Unfortunately they're not the ones designing the chipset they just want to publish prospective performance numbers that are better than anyone else's. Why? Simply because if they'd not been would you've been interested in buying a nForce motherboard? Or wait a couple of months for it to be introduced? I'm not saying I feel a BitBoys coming on, as nVidia has too much at stake to flunk this one. But I surely think we should take the current performance numbers with a grain of salt. If it does turn out to be a screamer I'll be the first one telling you about it.
Having had previous experience in chipset (asic and fpga) design and having two degrees in the field you can trust me on having an idea what problems nVidia will be faced with. I applaud them for trying to take the initiative in a chipset market that has been plagued by underperforming chipsets for about a year and a half now. But my attitude and yours should be 'show-me-the-money' as nVidia is known for creating a hype and then not having the goods or only part of them to show for.
"I'm not being a pessimist, I'm just making some points which I think are valid. Why does AMD release the Athlon MP at only 1 and 1.2GHz when Joe average and myself included have long since been running their Thunderbirds at +1.5GHz with air-cooling."
Does the term ASP mean anything to you? Above all else, AMD has the right as a business to make money. They have done a smart job to this point in not saturating the market with any more high end (MHz wise) a chip than is warranted at the time.
"I can't see why many AMD enthusiasts take any article slightly hinting towards the negative as bashing or as pro-Intel propaganda."
Because without any hard data to back up your claims.....or even worse, ignoring the hard data that is out there, you might as well be part of Intel's marketing arm to take shots at the Athlon MP like you've done.
And we go on...
"I don't have a passion for either Intel or AMD, if AMD can beat
Intel in price and performance, as currently with their Athlon CPUs, I'd be the last to not tell my friends/family to buy AMD instead of Intel."
So I expect that any friends/family of yours buying new high end PC's are getting Athlons?
"I do have a passion for objective reporting and am the last person to take all the marketing BS some companies publish for real. I'd rather take a few steps back and look at it from a different angle so I can see the fine print in between the lines."
Gee, I didn't realize that Ace's Hardware and Anandtech were part of AMD marketing. Quite funny considering Anand has been at times accused of shilling for Intel, yet his benchmarks of the Athlon MP against the P4 Xeon are quite positive.
"However if AMD wants to add the x86 workstation market to their portfolio there's a lot to be said about not doing a regular introduction but rather beating Intel at their own game in one fell swoop. That, in my opinion, is what they should've done, as that would've put Intel on the backseat for good."
You still haven't offered a single shred of information as to why or how this would ever have been feasible.
"Now they're faced with the same clockspeed battle and marginal % increase in performance every time a new clockspeed CPU is released. Instead they should've gone for the kill and released at 1.7 or even 1.8GHz dual CPU 760 MP platform and get the whole Athlon vs. Pentium 4/Xeon DP discussion over with."
Back to ASP again, why would they want to when they can beat/match what Intel currently has at the moment, sell them at higher prices, and then release new speed grades as the situation calls for it.
"I think it is rather funny and actually sad to see that any negative article or comment about AMD is envoking such strong reactions. Its like AMD has a strong following that'll debunk and stomp into the ground anything slightly negative about their products."
It's called being disgusted by FUD and/or shoddy reporting.
"I am trying to keep an open mind, and will not be buying into the hype and all the marketing BS some companies use to promote their product."
Once again, whose marketing BS? Give links, quotes, something to justify what you're claiming.
When the P4 debuted at 1.5 Gig their was a lot of concern over the ability of the thunderbid to compete with it. it seemed at the time that the thunderbird could only clock up to about 1.5, but that would be months away. Time enough for intel to run away with the PC market share. And then AMD's response: the thunderbird would not be clocking up above 1.2 for quite some time. Panic insued among the AMD enthusiast crowd, it seemed that AMD was conceding defeat. Then the benchmarks came out and quieted everyone. The reason why AMD wasn't ramping up clockspeed quickly? It didn't NEED to. The AMD 1.2 was OUTPERFORMING the P4 1.5. The industry had become too hung up on MHz, and asssumed that just because the P4 was faster it would perform better. This was not the case, as the benchmarks showed. Fast forward to the present where the 760MP comes out. Again some critics say the xeon is faster than the the MP and will perfrom better. Not having learned anything from the P4 release fiasco. You could look at the benchmarks that already exist at several sites (anandtech.com is one) that show the duel 1.2 MPs outperforming the duel 1.7 xeons on a number of sever testing suites and real world business application suites. The biggest complaint of your article is why the MP wasn't debuted at a higher clock speed. The answer is that it doesn't need clock speed to outperform the xeons.
Good points about the 760MP, but I don't think AMD have entirely screwed up (by themselves that is).
Intel play the Mhz game, they increase there pipeline so they can jack up the speed rating of their chips. By the time AMD get together a 1.7Ghz Athlon 4, Intel will have gone way past that, so they are in a losing situation.
The only way AMD can compete is if they too increase the pipeline. Surely it would be best to wait for better interconnect/lower micron technology to increase the speeds rather than take the 1 step back two steps forward aproach of Intel?
As for releasing this 2 years ago, well I don't think they really had the capital to market such a product. It's only recently that they have been turning over a profit since the introduction of the Athlon line. If an MP system had been released two years ago (and only AMD had the power todo this) then it could have been a catastrophy and put the company in serious danger. At least now they have some capital to fall back on.
Sys Admins have a reason to go with Intel, they've been doing it for years, and those are the types of arguments they will look for not to change to AMD. This is exactly the crowd that the MP is marketed at, and there's no getting round this.
>>I'm not sure what this article is trying to accomplish...
I'm a little confused by this article. It seems to be taking a negative stance towards AMD without making any substantial points. So, what was to point of this article?
The author outright says that the "760 MP platform might be your platform of choice afterall" because of its price/performance, implying that AMD cannot compete on performance alone. This flies in the face of all the data so far. So, in essence, we have an article with no evidence contradicting all the evidence found elsewhere. I suppose its just an AMD marketing conspiracy, right?
Others have already jumped on the numerous other errors in this article, so I'll just make one last point: "...they should've maybe done this much earlier and debut SMP Athlons in the consumer market." Why? [sarcasm] Because of the lucrative consumer SMP market? [/sarcasm] Please.....
BTW - Please, no one reply that I'm some kind of AMD lackey. I don't own AMD. I just know good arguments when I see them.... elsewhere.
I think your article was rather off handed and not well thought out, and read like over simplified specualtion. You could have made your points in 2 sentences. I have 2 things to add;
Van Smith wrote an article that can be found at inquest here http://www.inqst.com/articles/nforce/0605main.htm ..... I quote:
"Using pre-production silicon we logged several hundred hours of continuous testing..." and claims its not only very fast, but also very stable. You were obviously not aware of this article or chose not to mention it.
Another point I think you should have mentioned is AMDs and nVidias rather well known SNAP partnership. Its clear AMD invested alot of time and expertise helping nVidia with this chipset, so its innacurate to portray nVidia as total n00bs taking a shot in the dark. Not to mention the cool $100 mil of M$s money and expertise they got their hands on for the Xbox ( which also uses hyper transport if the rumor mill is correct)
We all wait w/ baited breath to see if nForce will be stable and compatible, but given the help they are receiving, I think the chances are better than poor that it will be a great success. Infact, we should all hope so, AMD needs a chipset maker that concentrates on AMD chips that can raise the bar of performance and motivate intel and VIA to play catch up. (and also creative labs for that matter)
I read the article and began shaking my head. My wife just asked me what was up.
Numerous points to make, but I think only a few are needed.
Right now Dual TBird configs are faster than Intels Xeon Duals.
When pricing finally becomes normal, AMD SMP will be the fastest and most cost effective solution.
Stability with any TBird system today is not an issue. It might be if they were playing games and didn't know how to install drivers, but I don't think any servers will be using AGP for games anytime soon.
Some pretty bold statements about the nVidia chipset. All speculation, no fact at all and it sounds like rant from a defunct 3dfx relgious fanatic.
Currently nVidia has the most technologically advanced cpu produced today with the GF3. They have a memory architecture thats is currently the fastest using ddr memory. What exactly makes the author think that nVidia is going to have a problem?
They already have hardware working with P3's in the XBox but can't get licensing or thier chipset would be coming out for Intel products also. They have the chipset working with Athlon's now.
I would say they are on track and going to take the world by storm.
The OEM market is going to grab hold of the nForce and use it dramtically, just watch.
OK, the first thing I would like to do is apologize to Mr. Sanders, in case I came off a little harsh. I'm not accusing him of being an agent of Intel.
I'm the first to agree with your main premise of "show me the money". I never _ever_ buy anything I see right off the shelf. I always make sure that I'm thoroughly read up on what's going on before I buy.
I'm not even going to disagree with your basic premise about nForce. You're very right - this is the first chipset nVidia has tried to produce, and there is every possibility it could be a dog. Heck, every non-Intel vendor has only started to put out CPU chipsets which could really have a chance of competing in a non-value oriented market.
But, you missed one thing - nVidia just put together a (supposedly) high-performance pseudo-motherboard chipset with integrated video for MS. These guys are _not_ utter novices. Your article seems to imply that, which is wrong.
You completely missed the sort of unbelievable part, though - nVidia, a _graphics_ company, is coming out with the best sound chip on the planet! That's even _worse_. Of course, that's easily explainable if you followed the news of Aureal's demise. Who hired all their engineers for no explicable reason? nVidia. Dunno if you agree with that, but the idea is that you can hire talent to make stuff. Why can't they do the same with mobo chipsets?
As for the whole CPU speed discussion, people being able to overclock to 1.5ghz does not convey the immediate ability to manufacture all your chips at that speed. Remember the PIII 1.13ghz? People could certainly overclock their PIIIs that far if they tried to (and got a bit lucky), but when Intel tried to release a CPU at that speed, things fell apart fairly quickly. You said you've worked in the industry, so tell me if I'm wrong about this, but jumping a 200-300 mhz gap in clockspeed just can't be done overnight.
As to my position in the whole AMD/Intel, 3dfx/nVidia/ATI rivalries, I present my computer system (which I did build :-P):
192mb PC100 SDRAM
Abit BH6 1.0 (still going strong!)
Elsa GF2 MX 32mb
Matrox G200 8mb (secondary display)
Generic CD and CD-RW
Honestly, the manufacturer of the equipment does not matter a whit to me, as long as they've got speed and stability in their products. I've got both Matrox and nVidia in my system, and I'm using an _Intel_ CPU. My previous computers have used chips from all major CPU and video chipset makers. Again, I've got no position other than the best quality I can buy.
I still disagree with the article, but I think I understand Mr. Sanders objective a bit better now.
Some pretty bold statements about the nVidia chipset. All speculation, no fact at all and it sounds like rant from a defunct 3dfx relgious fanatic.
Bold statements to match bold statements. If you make big claims, you can expect the response to shoot them down big too. The computer market is so hyped up nowadays, and brand loyalty is the highest ever, some people are practically like religious fanatics in defense of their favorite computer companies.
There are very strong indication from both sides, both Intel and AMD, of serious violations of consumer trust. It's just part of the politics of the industry. Come on, it's well known that the new PIII core can probably clock up a lot more, but Intel needs to push P4 in order to look respectable to shareholders, and well all know that even the PIII looks good compared to the P4. AMD on the other hand is playing it real lax with ramping up the clock speeds (we all know what the AXIA can do) because, heck they can make more money that way. The consumers decide the final word: price/performance. The review was simply not objectively written. I expect much better in future.
With all the traffic this site gets from its readers, no doubt when hardware decisions have to be made price doesn't enter the equation. Unfortunately in this case it is plainly clear: Athlon DP makes Xeon DP looks like a second rate attempt from a chip has-been.
The nForce has not been tested by any third party (as far as I know), so statements about whether it can perform are valid. The memory technology is intriguing, but the rest, all that integrated crap, is not needed. Clearly, nVidia is after the OEM market. They don't care about people that value the sanctity of their hardware. Next thing you know you'll have the nVidia nForce 840CGAPU/DVDRW integrated central graphics audio processing unit with DVD-RW and RAID and a whistle. The motherboard will have one chip on it (with a heatsink and fan).
Both the Athlon and Intel have really good processors. What this all comes down to is a matter of preference. People are going to buy Pentium because they believe that they are superior, and people are going to buy Athlons because they believe that they are superior.
The fact may be that the Athlon is more powerfull, but that obviously has no effect on those people who believe that the Pentium will always be far superior. You will not be able to change their minds, and you wont be able to change the other persons mind. Let them believe what they want to believe, whether it is fact or fiction...
From what i've read, it seems Nvidia has some ALi engineers working on the nForce chipset. (was the company bought by Nvidia? or partnered with?) Someone correct me if i'm wrong...
Anyway, i'm sick of the "our product is better than yours" coming from companies. Let the reviews give you reason to buy a product, and when you use them and see the same results, let that be reason to look into the companys' next product.```````
It's quite obvious that the AMD processors are better than Intel in most ways. All you have to do is look at the *ahem* quality reviews, and more importantly what the end-users say about them.
Notice how this article is heavily in favor of Intel, yet most of the replies seem to be in support of AMD users.
1) bULL$HIT- no denying it I was a victim. But what company isn't doin it?
2) Competition- they know how to come out tops ask 3d/Dfx
3) Making good products, mmm some GF3 goodness
so from the above i conclude that in the end the nForce is going to be the biggest hyped up under achieving product since the last one, which will out sell other companies products and will be the juice!
but in the end think they spin the $hit just as well as they make the products (which is fine with me)
Interesting to try to compare the two products Intel/AMD on a SMP and Mhz. Both of these are a little too deceptive.
P4 is a good example of this problem, yes it has high Mhz but is hampered by a longer instruction pipe. It will still out preform AMD's current line (Even then barely) when running optimized programs, but the price to preformance ratio is quite honestly not there.
It reminds me of the pentium pro, good chip. But it wasn't justifable in preformance to price ratio either.
As for Nvidia's new chipset, I'd be careful writing them off. Saw alot of people write them off when there cards first came out, now take a look around. Besides they have alot of industry support, so I'd hold out on the analysis.
you got a hot little discussion here.
As I am not what you can call a computer freak I am a person who has to work with these beloved machines every day in the CAD-market.
A few month ago I ordered a machine with TB 1200, Asus A7V, Elsa Synergy III (nvidia quadro mxr), SB PCI 128, 3Com Nic, for my work with pro/E and CATIA. I myself and some guys who are far more experienced than me could not get this system stable.
When browsing through the net I found tons of sites reporting incompatibilities between geforce/quadro-products and via chipsets, problems with agp 4x, problems with fast RAM-timings and so on.
What I want to work out ist that AMD certainly needs a well performing and stable chipset for their processors - which I believe are excellent in fact.
Also, there are too much reports concerning stability issues with the Athlon MP platform, so it ist likely that they have exactly the same problems here...
The threat over AMD is that once they get their things togehter Intel may be far ahead...
To the performance discussion: In Cad-apps the TB's or Palominos aren't faster then the P4's in either single and dual configs. You can see that in SpecViewperf numbers (MedMCAD, proCDRS03). But also fact is, that they have got the better price/performance ratio.
I am looking for a new CAD-WS myself and the only dual-configuration I could afford (I am a student in the automotive engeneering market) ist a Athlon MP, so I'd highly appreciate hearing from someone who has some experience with such a machine in the dayly CAD-work.
One last thing I noticed in Austria/Europe where I am located:
The Athlon MP platform lowered its price drastically since its introduction. Currently it sells for about half the price of a Xeon DP. Could this be a reaction to quite a lot of reviews and postings saying that the machines do have their quirks?
If so, AMD has to be very careful not to get drawn back in the corner of cheap-crap-producers from where they could free themselves mainly with the Athlon. If that happens, they will disappear from the WS/Server market before they have even fully entered! I f they can't deliver a stable platform - and stability is the king in this arena - nobody will even give a single buck to them....
I think this should be considered heavily when buying a new machine in the WS-segment, the P4's may be a little slower, but at least they do the job!