AMD..."Customers don't want high end Phenoms"

[freeloader]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080112155207_AMD_Says_Customers_Demand_Low_End_P ower_Efficient_AMD_Phenom_Chips.html

All I can say is, "Wow".

Discuss...

[VulgarHandle]

remember, we aren't just customers, we are enthusiast customers, huge difference

[Brother Esau]

Hey, man gotta say that a Phenom 9500 for $189.00 is "Huge" to the average person (which it is) in my opinion as well:)

[swami]

Customers... "don't want AMD"

[Zytek_Fan]

:rofl: Are they sure about that?

[naokaji]

its partially true that i dont want a high end phenom, i dont want to blow up my TRUE with the heat a phenom clocked high enough to compete with intels cpu's would put out:p:

[Ugly n Grey]

Hey, man gotta say that a Phenom 9500 for $189.00 is "Huge" to the average person (which it is) in my opinion as well:)
Can't argue with that... I mean it's a darn good price for four processors in the old way of thinking....

The world’s largest x86 chip manufacturer did not unveil whether its customers did not want to get higher-speed Phenom chips.
When did that happen? did I have my back turned and they overtook Intel... :shocked:

HP is the one (mostly) demanding the EE chips btw... buggers :p:

[alexio]

When did that happen? did I have my back turned and they overtook Intel... :shocked:
The guy means AMD manufactures the largest x86 die, it has nothing to do with production volume ;)

I hate to agree with AMD on this one but I'm pretty sure that they're right. They can't compete with Intel performance wise with K10, so they are targeting another segment. We should be glad they didn't forget about us releases the Black Edition 9600. AMD will try to recude K10 TDP as much as they can without massively increasing clock speed. This just leaves room for us overclockers ;)

[Syn.]

Mainstream customers want a cheap PC, with AMD going on cheap it means cheap PC's. Besides none of us want a Phenom thats clocked lower then 2.8Ghz which cant be made currently so they might as well target the market where they can achieve some of the goals.

Doesn't this remind anyone of the AthlonXP days?

[Fatal Error]

Change the title to
AMD..."Customers don't want Phenoms"

would be more accurate

[SKYMTL]

I completely agree with what they are saying even though the XS community will automatically think they are the only target audience around. Let's face it, the ultra high-end, power guzzling chips are not what most consumers want or need.

It is time AMD focuses on their core market before they look to cater to the enthusiast. Then, when they are in a more profitable situation they can begin looking at releasing high end chips again.

[savantu]

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms" means " We can't produce high end Phenoms ".Easy as that.

The entire BS about power consumption would work if AMD was isolated in a crystal ball with no competition.Sadly for them , there is another chip manufacturer which offers far better performance at lower power consumption.

[Periander6]

I completely agree with what they are saying even though the XS community will automatically think they are the only target audience around. Let's face it, the ultra high-end, power guzzling chips are not what most consumers want or need.

Then why would they get a quad core at all? Why not get a dual core that will be cheaper, use less power, and on top of that perform better than a retarded 1.8GHz Phenom on the majority of software that "most consumers" would be using anyway??

[Brother Esau]

PHENOM = STOCK SET UP...........END OF STORY!
Quit re hashing this strung out Dramma!

[Skyline GT-R]

Well if they go that way, then we can say, "Customers don't need quad cores". I mean, if you think of what an average user does with his PC, he simply doesn't need a quad core. Typing some text in word, searching stuff on the net, chatting with his/her friends, etc... Those tasks don't require a quad, a dual core is perfect for them.

Edit: Seems like Periander6 thought the same thing as me :)

[Donnie27]

Change the title to
AMD..."Customers don't want Phenoms"

would be more accurate

:rofl: Picks self up off floor, regains composure, then cracks up laughing again.

I do agree with some of the guys though, most consumers want cheap and will happily buy Athlon X2's. They've proven that already and AMD isn't having any problems dumping X2's. These same folks don't want Phenoms because they are not priced like X2. Guys, you can't have it both ways. Look, in this case, Intel has almost nothing to do with it. Cheap X2's have spoiled most of these folks.

There's a parallel. Athlon64 had a hard time gaining traction not because Intel had markets blocked, but because many of these same folks had gotten to use to Cheap AthlonXP. No Intel vs AMD war is needed or necessary.

[Donnie27]

PHENOM = STOCK SET UP...........END OF STORY!
Quit re hashing this strung out Dramma!

How much the systems cost is still the largest factor. Starting with a $183 instead of one that starts a $65 is the problem though.

[AbelJemka]

Well if they go that way, then we can say, "Customers don't need quad cores". I mean, if you think of what an average user does with his PC, he simply doesn't need a quad core. Typing some text in word, searching stuff on the net, chatting with his/her friends, etc... Those tasks don't require a quad, a dual core is perfect for them.

Edit: Seems like Periander6 thought the same thing as me :)

You need a dual core for searching net, chatting and typing text? :ROTF:
Only enthuasiast think that average customer spend time doing such basics things...

[LowRun]

Then why would they get a quad core at all? Why not get a dual core that will be cheaper, use less power, and on top of that perform better than a retarded 1.8GHz Phenom on the majority of software that "most consumers" would be using anyway??

Because Intel will let loose the marketing dogs of war who will teach the world how you can't live without a quad core to boost your Office experience. Remember when Intel's chips were speeding up your internet? :rolleyes:

[Donnie27]

Can't argue with that... I mean it's a darn good price for four processors in the old way of thinking....

When did that happen? did I have my back turned and they overtook Intel... :shocked:

HP is the one (mostly) demanding the EE chips btw... buggers :p:

The world’s largest x86 chip manufacturer did not unveil whether its customers did not want to get higher-speed Phenom chips.

Maybe they're largest in his heart?

EE?????? But keep in mind that HP did buy VooDoo PC.

[gallag]

Because Intel will let loose the marketing dogs of war who will teach the world how you can't live without a quad core to boost your Office experience. Remember when Intel's chips were speeding up your internet? :rolleyes:

Its always Intels fault lol

[Donnie27]

Because Intel will let loose the marketing dogs of war who will teach the world how you can't live without a quad core to boost your Office experience. Remember when Intel's chips were speeding up your internet? :rolleyes:

Yepp and still get big laughs for the Web Tools disc I kept! How about that speeding train and "ouwww that had-a hurt"! I like the other big lie Intel told even as A64 was doing the nasty to it. The marketing blitz was; "Pentium 4. With Games it is so fast it is unfair". Both have lied=P

[Donnie27]

Its always Intels fault lol

No, I think he means Intel will convince unsuspecting Consumers that they need Quad Core even if they don't. Then AMD will benefit from this because their Quad Core are cheaper. AMD will be just as willing to fool them as well:)

[tictac]

Hmm.. average user?.. they need quadcore to showoff to their noob friends.. 'hei what proc you running on?' 'QUAD!' ..lol..

[SKYMTL]

Then why would they get a quad core at all? Why not get a dual core that will be cheaper, use less power, and on top of that perform better than a retarded 1.8GHz Phenom on the majority of software that "most consumers" would be using anyway??

You seem to forget that the Phenom is not the only quad core chip in AMD's inventory. There are also the new quad core Barcelona chips which should start reshipping soon.

Personally, would think they are refering to their enterprise / server customers who were their bread and butter when Opterons were the "in thing". From what I have seen, MANY of customers who are interested in upgrading their servers / rendering farms / POS systems are looking into quad cores right now. So, AMD wants to capitalize on that portion of the market even though their own Barcy chips are far from appealing at this point.

Thus, basically what they are saying is correct: their target market does not want or need high-end chips right now so they will begin concentrating on PPW rather than clock speed bumps. The only problem I see with this is that I don't see how they will do this considering their closest competitor is migrating to 45nm.

[Periander6]

You seem to forget that the Phenom is not the only quad core chip in AMD's inventory.

Huh? The whole article was referring specifically to Phenoms, the AMD announcement was for an EE Phenom. Nothing to do with Barcelona, servers, or enterprise customers at all. AMD is saying that its consumer customers are demanding low performance low power quads instead of high performance quads. That's what made it so silly/stupid.

[SKYMTL]

The statement was taken out of context (like so many things these days). I will try to find you the whole interview.

Edit. The only direct quote was this:

We are shipping hundreds of thousands of AMD Phenoms, we added EE Phenoms to Q1, we are still shipping triple-core in Q1, and our highest volume Phenom parts are in market right now. This change is viewed favorably by the OEMs who really wanted those EE and triple core parts

[Eldonko]

Yeah they have to target cheapo pc builders because their top end stuff cant touch intel. Hence the reason we dont want the expensive chips.

[Serra]

Best and only move AMD could make to remain in this business IMO. They clearly weren't going to start winning the performance war, the only areas they can try to compete in now are the "green" and "economy" markets.

To put it one way, they have lost the enthusiast market and any server market that requires raw CPU horsepower. Of course, to go in this direction, they can take a better swipe at the lower-end consumer market (which is much larger) and just as crucially, they may very well end up taking over the market of what I like to call "dumb" servers (ie. file servers) who don't need much in the way of a processor but will see a cost reduction in power and cooling necessary.

For me in my overclocking life, this is probably the last "So long" from AMD... but unless they screw this up too, it may mean I'll still see them for a good while in my professional life.

[KTE]

For the masses price speaks and for that the BE version is very attractive to many (not me though). That said, I can't see them saying the above statements genuinely though, this is pure PR at its worst, only to cover their problems of not having high speeds launched. I don't particularly like this statement release, at least be honest and up front about it your problems delaying your plans. Or why would they have developed and wanted to launch 2.6GHz Phenom in December 07? (original plan ;))
2.3-2.6GHz is not high speed Phenom, it's low->mid nowadays and with the clock frequency and performance deficit, it becomes a low end compared to a C2Q. Face it, people who really need a quads performance (which is a very small share of world users) will want the frequency/performance:price in majorities, and most of them shop at OEMs rather than DIY, whilst "some", no where near many, just some, DIY minded will look at frequency/performance/overclock:price. XS member base doesn't usually fit in any of those two, although there are still "non-competitors" around who will fit into the latter segment. What's hailed at XS is usually the crown in perf/oc/records regardless of price/total costs/time wasted/availability/feasibility/flexibility/upgradeability/temps/noise/platform ranges.
With the platform, cost and approx. 2.5GHz guaranteed which people are seeing with Phenoms around, it does however target the masses very well. Phenom is dropping in price around the world very rapidly compared to any processor I've seen launched thus far. You can pick it up here for the same price as a used E6750, which is definitely appealing to many. Especially for X2 users.

And BTW, this is not true for Barcelona. Thousands of orders for 2.5GHz Barcelona 2360 SE were way under way before the bug was announced since September (hence the SPEC-CPU 2006 results which were taken off later), it was supposed to release 15th December IIRC with a planned slot for a 2.6GHz version ready for shipment early January if they could manage enough production units, and AMD was pimping these to the major corporations at every given chance as was Intel with Tigerton and Penryn before release. If you work at a major corp with the required cash, ask the IT management head for any exchanges with AMD. The demand was definitely there where the major money is (virtualization) but they had problems we all know about well enough which delayed the release.

[Rock&Roll]

I really wonder what the point of Barcelona was. It's a quad-core. So what? It doesn't perform. Who wants to buy that when you can buy a C2D or C2Q for the same amount of money?

As far as I'm concerned, AMD could just completely abandon barcelona/phenom, and get moving with whatever comes next. And don't F it up next time.

TBH, I want to buy AMD, and I want AMD to have the better product. But right now, there's no comparison.

[Shintai]

You seem to forget that the Phenom is not the only quad core chip in AMD's inventory. There are also the new quad core Barcelona chips which should start reshipping soon.

Personally, would think they are refering to their enterprise / server customers who were their bread and butter when Opterons were the "in thing". From what I have seen, MANY of customers who are interested in upgrading their servers / rendering farms / POS systems are looking into quad cores right now. So, AMD wants to capitalize on that portion of the market even though their own Barcy chips are far from appealing at this point.

Thus, basically what they are saying is correct: their target market does not want or need high-end chips right now so they will begin concentrating on PPW rather than clock speed bumps. The only problem I see with this is that I don't see how they will do this considering their closest competitor is migrating to 45nm.

If you want performance, why buy Barcelona? Even in the best case there would be a huge clock difference. And the CPUs dont make up for most of serverprice anyway, or software. So you usually dont care. And using quads to save power is also a nogo. Its a lose/lose right now.

Barcelona=less performance, and much higher powerconsumption. Thats hard for a company that used 2 years to tell jokes about how P4 was a power waster and needed assistance from the local firedepartment.

Next stop for AMD is K11. They will be super budget until then and along with going back to AthonXP server segment markedshare.

[Shintai]

I really wonder what the point of Barcelona was. It's a quad-core. So what? It doesn't perform. Who wants to buy that when you can buy a C2D or C2Q for the same amount of money?

As far as I'm concerned, AMD could just completely abandon barcelona/phenom, and get moving with whatever comes next. And don't F it up next time.

TBH, I want to buy AMD, and I want AMD to have the better product. But right now, there's no comparison.

Barcelona was developed when there was no Core 2. AMD thought they would still be fighting MCM/True dualcore P4s so they could release the first quad CPU. It was a huge arrogant misstep and sleeping in the class. The point was to make a quad and something better than X2. Not to fight Core 2.

[STaRGaZeR]

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms" means " We can't produce high end Phenoms ".Easy as that.

Yeah they have to target cheapo pc builders because their top end stuff cant touch intel. Hence the reason we dont want the expensive chips.

End of story.

[keiths]

I completely agree with what they are saying even though the XS community will automatically think they are the only target audience around. Let's face it, the ultra high-end, power guzzling chips are not what most consumers want or need.

It is time AMD focuses on their core market before they look to cater to the enthusiast. Then, when they are in a more profitable situation they can begin looking at releasing high end chips again.

Intel's high end chips aren't power guzzling, even when clocked to 4GHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page13.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page14.html

At 4GHz, a qx9650 barely pulls more than a stock x2 6400, at idle and load.
So much for that justification..

[alayashu]

AMD Says Customers Demand Low-End Power-Efficient AMD Phenom Chips
is the title i see.


OEMs want cheaper and more cool chips and it has always been so.

[LowRun]

Yepp and still get big laughs for the Web Tools disc I kept! How about that speeding train and "ouwww that had-a hurt"! I like the other big lie Intel told even as A64 was doing the nasty to it. The marketing blitz was; "Pentium 4. With Games it is so fast it is unfair". Both have lied=P

True.

No, I think he means Intel will convince unsuspecting Consumers that they need Quad Core even if they don't. Then AMD will benefit from this because their Quad Core are cheaper. AMD will be just as willing to fool them as well:)

True.

[freeloader]

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms" means " We can't produce high end Phenoms ".Easy as that.

The entire BS about power consumption would work if AMD was isolated in a crystal ball with no competition.Sadly for them , there is another chip manufacturer which offers far better performance at lower power consumption.

It's too bad AMD never reigned in their 65 nm process as far as power consumption is concerned. The overclockers among us would have lots to talk and fight about then. :D

[Start]

Give me a low end quad that cost $150 that overclocks to 3Ghz no problem, and you have me sold.

[[XC] gomeler]

This doesn't bother me at all. I'd rather see AMD push enough low-end quad and tri-core Phenoms out the door to maintain a stance in the budget and mid-range sectors while working on maintaining their market-share within enterprise servers. I do believe 4 socket Phenoms beat 4 socket Harpertowns in bandwidth intensive applications, so AMD should continue to market towards sectors they are very successful in. AMD isn't dead/dying, they are simply changing their targets to weather what very well may end up being a nasty year for them. They need that hybrid CPU/GPU and either 45nm K10 or a new architecture with high-yields to secure their future and then work on a better core. Nehalem won't be a big change on the desktops but it's going to kick the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of 2 socket and 4 socket servers and THEN AMD will lose their one area in servers that they are very good at.

[adamsleath]

so AMD should continue to market towards sectors they are very successful in.

Give me a low end quad that cost $150 that overclocks to 3Ghz no problem, and you have me sold.
quad price war !

id like a nice cheap quad.
ta.

nehalem will be a premium priced product probably;

where's the 'budget' cheepo quad?

No, I think he means Intel will convince unsuspecting Consumers that they need Quad Core even if they don't. Then AMD will benefit from this because their Quad Core are cheaper. AMD will be just as willing to fool them as well

i think you underestimate pubics' ability to sniff out bargains; particularly in a pre recessionary atmosphere ; :lol:

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms"
'Customers don't want high end Prices'
:rolleyes:

[Donnie27]

quad price war !

id like a nice cheap quad.
ta.

nehalem will be a premium priced product probably;

where's the 'budget' cheepo quad?

i think you underestimate pubics' ability to sniff out bargains; particularly in a pre recessionary atmosphere ; :lol:

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms"
'Customers don't want high end Prices'
:rolleyes:

No Adam, I said that's what he was saying not what I was saying:) I don't think the Average consumers cares and that has NOTHING to do with how tech savvy they are. In fact, I think most do know what they want. There aren't many first time buyers left.

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms"
"Customers don't want high end Prices"
"Customers don't want high end Phenoms or Core 2 Duo or Quad"
"Customers don't want high Prices on anything=P"

It's why for a long time Celeron was the Number 1 selling processor on the Planet:rolleyes:

Now did you see the part where I said X2 has spoiled them the same way AthlonX2 did? Even listed the price difference.

[Donnie27]

Barcelona was developed when there was no Core 2. AMD thought they would still be fighting MCM/True dualcore P4s so they could release the first quad CPU. It was a huge arrogant misstep and sleeping in the class. The point was to make a quad and something better than X2. Not to fight Core 2.

QFT!

[Vapor]

I gotta agree with AMD here...I know I don't want a high-end Phenom.

But I don't fully agree...I CERTAINLY don't want a low-end one either. :rolleyes:

[Ace123]

quad price war !


i think you underestimate pubics' ability to sniff out bargains; particularly in a pre recessionary atmosphere ; :lol:

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms"
'Customers don't want high end Prices'
:rolleyes:


HAHAHAHA..... HAHAHAAHAAHHAkasdflakjsdflkjasdf

[GazC]

Mainstream customers want a cheap PC, with AMD going on cheap it means cheap PC's. Besides none of us want a Phenom thats clocked lower then 2.8Ghz which cant be made currently so they might as well target the market where they can achieve some of the goals.

Doesn't this remind anyone of the AthlonXP days?

Not really, the AthlonXP had some merits when compared to the P4 of the day and was liked by enthusiasts.

[xlink]

You need a dual core for searching net, chatting and typing text? :ROTF:
Only enthuasiast think that average customer spend time doing such basics things...

i dunno I was using a celeron 420 @ 3.5Ghz for a bit...
while generally good for net there were times where it skipped a beat.

[man_bear_pig]

This makes no sense at all. Why was any R&D spent on developing the spider platform if not for enthusists wanting a high end quad platform?

oo I get it to sell more ATI cards.

This is stupid.

[STaRGaZeR]

AMD marketing guys are stupid I think :rolleyes:

They have a bad product, that's true, but hell, the marketing around them is even worse.

[SmaKKed]

Both Intel and AMD do not sell alot of Quads in the scale of things.
I work FOr IBM and we sell literally millions of machines majority are basic core 2 machines with 1 gig of ram or less. AMD need to focus on that kind of market to keep the cash flow rolling, and that is exactly what they are doing. Ask a everyday user what a dualcore CPU is and they will look at you blankly, its only us enthusiasts that know what we want and what the benefits are, and our share of the market is very small in the larger scale of things. I would say 5 - 10 % if that.

[R3d]

so any hope for expecting a quad 3.0ghz phenom is pretty much SOL now??

[justapost]

Such a less power consuming quad core will fit in (for example) barebone-pc's with low end psu's. We have many of those at work and most only support cpu's up to 85W. As more and more applications will be at least dual core cappable, the benefit of having an dual core will diminish, so a quady will be usefull even in not so performance oriented offices.

EDIT: Hope flash will never make use of more than one core

[Zytek_Fan]

I guess the server market doesn't want high end Barcelonas either :rofl:

[Omastar]

Me..."I wish I hadn't bought AMD and taken a 50% loss on the chin"

:shakes:

[JumpingJack]

I just find it odd that AMD would move to drive the potential of bringing Quad to mainstream and volume when they are getting beat on die size and costs, this is a recipe for losing money.

[ThatGuy16]

Its their excuse because they can't get enought stable at 2.6Ghz for release :rofl:


:shrug:

[Donnie27]

Both Intel and AMD do not sell alot of Quads in the scale of things.
I work FOr IBM and we sell literally millions of machines majority are basic core 2 machines with 1 gig of ram or less. AMD need to focus on that kind of market to keep the cash flow rolling, and that is exactly what they are doing. Ask a everyday user what a dualcore CPU is and they will look at you blankly, its only us enthusiasts that know what we want and what the benefits are, and our share of the market is very small in the larger scale of things. I would say 5 - 10 % if that.

But then that makes Phenom a "Tweener". It's not cheap enough to be low end. It's not powerful/fast enough to be High end, 100's of thousands aren't what many of us would call high volume. Too hot to be low powered and too powerful and overkill for light use. It will in some cases be competing against
X2.

Its only saving grace is that I don't think Intel has enough slow cheap Quad Core processors to compete with it.:up:

I read that Intel speed bins each 2 core die before adding a second DIE that matches it.

[Donnie27]

I guess the server market doesn't want high end Barcelonas either :rofl:

Off topic but look at what computers can do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMrmD9ZtJF4

Please watch the whole thing? This kind of power is just crazy!

[justapost]

Can be they expected a bigger amount of die's with three good and one bad core, but in contrary they get more die's with four weaker cores, whome they sell as low ends now.
I don't like marketing at all, so i'll avoid making statements about it now.

[turtletrax]

I am just waiting for the headline "Phenoms don't want high end customers" :ROTF:

I mean, what balogne. Be honest AMD.

[oohms]

Well obviously not... intel quads still outsell AMD quads at work by 50:1

[awdrifter]

"Customers don't want high end Phenoms" means " We can't produce high end Phenoms ".Easy as that.

The entire BS about power consumption would work if AMD was isolated in a crystal ball with no competition.Sadly for them , there is another chip manufacturer which offers far better performance at lower power consumption.

Agreed. If AMD could produce 2.8-3ghz Phenom, they would make it, however small number that might be. But now that they can't they have to focus on the low end, that's why they are making these statements.

[Zytek_Fan]

Off topic but look at what computers can do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMrmD9ZtJF4

Please watch the whole thing? This kind of power is just crazy!

:rofl: WTF? Awful animation :rofl:



Back on topic;
AMD needs high end--it's where the largest margins are. They can't sustain themselves with budget products for 1 - 2 years :/

[duploxxx]

If you want performance, why buy Barcelona? Even in the best case there would be a huge clock difference. And the CPUs dont make up for most of serverprice anyway, or software. So you usually dont care. And using quads to save power is also a nogo. Its a lose/lose right now.

Barcelona=less performance, and much higher powerconsumption. Thats hard for a company that used 2 years to tell jokes about how P4 was a power waster and needed assistance from the local firedepartment.

Next stop for AMD is K11. They will be super budget until then and along with going back to AthonXP server segment markedshare.

you have no clue about server at all Shintai as usual.

Xeon system are still a waste of power with there fbdimm and chipset. You just don't buy quads with only few gig of ram.... most of the sw config don't use quad, so its only a push by marketing that they will buy quad with low speed 1,8-2,4 and in a 2s system they are fine against Xeon.

Virtualization is another part, any buyer knowing the sw will know they need AMD unless they follow stupid marketing.

they are loosing minimal server share because there is no quadcore, from the moment there is one you will see the % raise again.

Well obviously not... intel quads still outsell AMD quads at work by 50:1

do they @ work have any idea how software and maybe you're own software works with dual or quad...probably not just fooled by marketing and IT that have no clue and just buy a name

[xlink]

they're right. I want a lowend multi-unlocked version for $50.

[Brother Esau]

:rofl: WTF? Awful animation :rofl:



Back on topic;
AMD needs high end--it's where the largest margins are. They can't sustain themselves with budget products for 1 - 2 years :/



Thats really scary stuff and thats not funny at all/ I hope you are :rofl: when it comes to pass

[Shintai]

you have no clue about server at all Shintai as usual.

Xeon system are still a waste of power with there fbdimm and chipset. You just don't buy quads with only few gig of ram.... most of the sw config don't use quad, so its only a push by marketing that they will buy quad with low speed 1,8-2,4 and in a 2s system they are fine against Xeon.

Virtualization is another part, any buyer knowing the sw will know they need AMD unless they follow stupid marketing.

they are loosing minimal server share because there is no quadcore, from the moment there is one you will see the % raise again.



do they @ work have any idea how software and maybe you're own software works with dual or quad...probably not just fooled by marketing and IT that have no clue and just buy a name

Ye, sure. I wait for the day you actually have a server then. You obviously ate all the marketing. I´m sure you also still believe the 50%+ performance.

You can sit with some 75W TDP 1.8Ghz Barcelonas or some 50W 2Ghz Xeons as an example. Chipset+FBDIMMs dont use an additional 50W..unless you work for AMD or maybe fill out all the slots with low density memory. And its just gets even worse when we look at the higher performance parts :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

[xlink]

Ye, sure. I wait for the day you actually have a server then. You obviously ate all the marketing. I´m sure you also still believe the 50%+ performance.

You can sit with some 75W TDP 1.8Ghz Barcelonas or some 50W 2Ghz Xeons as an example. Chipset+FBDIMMs dont use an additional 50W..unless you work for AMD or maybe fill out all the slots with low density memory. And its just gets even worse when we look at the higher performance parts :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

if you're using a server with 128GB RAM, then yes they would account for 50W and then some.

http://www.hiptechblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/128gb-ram-03.jpg

[naokaji]

You can sit with some 75W TDP 1.8Ghz Barcelonas or some 50W 2Ghz Xeons as an example. Chipset+FBDIMMs dont use an additional 50W..unless you work for AMD or maybe fill out all the slots with low density memory. And its just gets even worse when we look at the higher performance parts :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

you mean it would be slightly unfair to mention something like the Xeon E5450 which is a quadcore running at 3 Ghz with a TDP (no, not some weirdo ACP) of 80w...?

[Shintai]

if you're using a server with 128GB RAM, then yes they would account for 50W and then some.
[/IMG]

With 128GB memory I wouldnt care about anything but performance. So I would have 3GHz or better CPUs aswell. AMD would not even get mentioned for such a purchase.

[alayashu]

performance/watt is what matters the most in the server space, like it or not.
no one (but you it seems) likes to lose money on power consumption (which is
huge on platforms with thousands of cores and tbs of memory). They'd
rather use more slower chips coupled with less energy hungry RAM dims,
in a proportion to give the best power/watt.

anyway, this is the news section.. why no mod changes the title to the one
in that article? theinq tabloid is being criticized so much here, but this misleading
thread title gets its pass..

[Brother Esau]

Boy talk about kicking people when they are down:shakes: It appears as of late that people or the masses here on this forum and everywhere are reveling in AMD's failure currently why is that? Do all of you take enjoyment in other peoples misery and failures that much? Just shows you how Fair weathered and phony all of you truly are, because for the most part the lot of all of you were the exact same people saying that Intel sucked just about a year and a half ago!

I could go on and state some more observations that I see but more than likely seeing how this is a Intel Frat House as of late more than likely it wont be very popular amongst all of you and I will end up paying the price for it so I will keep my opinions to myself.


Maybe allot should focus in on the top paragraph and question what kind of value system you posses for you to take enjoyment on others sufferance on any level.

[gallardo]

It's a multinational company out to get your money, not a puppy.
And since they still haven't ditched Hector it seems they still need a few good kicks where it hurts.

[Brother Esau]

Thats almost like saying you cant be friends with someone anymore because they are not in the same income bracket as you currently.

I call it the California A$4hole Syndrome that seems to be sweeping the land these days!


But you are definitely right about the Hector Ruiz situation though.

[Salvador]

Wrong post.

[xlink]

With 128GB memory I wouldnt care about anything but performance. So I would have 3GHz or better CPUs aswell. AMD would not even get mentioned for such a purchase.

with 128GB RAM, the only thing I would care about would be minimizing uptime costs since each stick draws 10+ watts and heating and cooling tend to cost more than the components themselves over time.

here's a crazy fact for you, if you're using that 128GB system as a file server CPU performance doesnt' matter so much. Searching stresses the memory subsystem moreso than the CPU.

[Salvador]

performance/watt is what matters the most in the server space, like it or not.
no one (but you it seems) likes to lose money on power consumption (which is
huge on platforms with thousands of cores and tbs of memory). They'd
rather use more slower chips coupled with less energy hungry RAM dims,
in a proportion to give the best power/watt.

anyway, this is the news section.. why no mod changes the title to the one
in that article? theinq tabloid is being criticized so much here, but this misleading
thread title gets its pass..

It doesnt matter for everyone. Many big companies that buys servers and use them effieciently, wants the best performance, no matter what cost. Im not saying all does. But what you say isn't entirely true either.

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/30/procgen

Counting Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) and Xeon 53xx (Clovertown), make up 63% (im guessing this number will get higher on the 1st list of 2008) of the 500 top performing systems in the world. They all use FB-DIMM don't they? Performance/Watt must REALLY matter for you think?

[MuffinFlavored]

Customers... "don't want AMD"

LOL!

[SEA]

LOL!
There would be less to LOL if topic name were correct.
The Original says about not the customers that are end users, but:

“Our OEM customers are placing more priority on our energy-efficient and triple-core processors, where the volumes and ability to differentiate products take precedence over the more prestigious, but much lower volume, higher performance quad-core products”
source: AMD

[Donnie27]

:rofl: WTF? Awful animation :rofl:

Back on topic;
AMD needs high end--it's where the largest margins are. They can't sustain themselves with budget products for 1 - 2 years :/

Compressed video, not the animation LOL!

I know they can't sustain themselves without outside help. Many folks believe they need to first clean House from the Inside. Starting with Hector.
IMHO, Too many folks have too much tied up in AMD to see them fail. A little Honesty on AMD's part would help them. If we can see through their BS, I'm sure paid professions can! They don't have to be Saints, just honest.

Remember the Tri Core Thread awhile back? That seemed to be a chance missed to say, "We're making the best use of the K10. We're maxing cores....."
Instead some ding bat in their marketing Dept tried to make it seem like Tri core was always meant to be only 3. No one is stupid enough to believe that.

Just as currently, no one is silly enough to buy this whole schlock that's going on now. I miss the old AMD from the Jerry Sanders days. He didn't lie or misrepresent the truth unless he absolutely had to. In those days he lied A LOT LESS than INTEL did. Now AMD just lies all the time.

[man_bear_pig]

Ask google what matters the most to them and the answer will be performance per watt!

The same applies to anyone with a brain, and a budget.

[naokaji]

Ask google what matters the most to them and the answer will be performance per watt!

The same applies to anyone with a brain, and a budget.

yep, and thats why its even true to some extent that people dont want high end phenoms, because they have realized that a 4ghz phenom would require a nuclear power plant as a psu and a iceberg per day as cooling.....

[SEA]

Core2Quad at 3600 is not much better...
It is better not be hostile to our planet (at least not at 24/7 basis ;) ).

[savantu]

Ask google what matters the most to them and the answer will be performance per watt!

The same applies to anyone with a brain, and a budget.

To average Joe it doesn't.

It matters if you are an organization with 1000 PCs going 16/7.

But to individual owners it's irrelevant if the CPU burns 20 or 100w.Environmentalists are the funniest.They complain about chips burning 20w more than the competition and while they're at work they leave the AC on.
In 8 hours you've wasted more power than you could have saved with your PC in a year by going to a 75w CPU vs. 95w.

People are the same everywhere : they complain about small things , full of wisdom for protecting the Earth , yet they fail to do 5% of what they advice others to do.

[SEA]

To average Joe it doesn't.

It matters if you are an organization with 1000 PCs going 16/7.

But to individual owners it's irrelevant if the CPU burns 20 or 100w.Environmentalists are the funniest.They complain about chips burning 20w more than the competition and while they're at work they leave the AC on.
In 8 hours you've wasted more power than you could have saved with your PC in a year by going to a 75w CPU vs. 95w.

People are the same everywhere : they complain about small things , full of wisdom for protecting the Earth , yet they fail to do 5% of what they advice others to do.

I would say power consumption should be yet relevant to any of hundred millions individual owners...

[man_bear_pig]

To average Joe it doesn't.

It matters if you are an organization with 1000 PCs going 16/7.

But to individual owners it's irrelevant if the CPU burns 20 or 100w.Environmentalists are the funniest.They complain about chips burning 20w more than the competition and while they're at work they leave the AC on.
In 8 hours you've wasted more power than you could have saved with your PC in a year by going to a 75w CPU vs. 95w.

People are the same everywhere : they complain about small things , full of wisdom for protecting the Earth , yet they fail to do 5% of what they advice others to do.

Things are changing and will do so much more rapidly in the future I am afraid in terms of energy costs.

We were talking data centers and servers, so my statement was in line with the discussion. I am not gonna run my gamng rig 24/7 so it doesn't really matter. Besides the power pig in my rig isn't the cpu but the gpus anyways....

[Shintai]

with 128GB RAM, the only thing I would care about would be minimizing uptime costs since each stick draws 10+ watts and heating and cooling tend to cost more than the components themselves over time.

here's a crazy fact for you, if you're using that 128GB system as a file server CPU performance doesnt' matter so much. Searching stresses the memory subsystem moreso than the CPU.

There is a crazy fact for you. Having 128GB in a file server would get you fired. Because it couldnt be more useless in such a place.

128GB would be SQL type or virtualized basicly.

[Ugly n Grey]

Server virtualization will be one of the biggest spends by IT this year. The number one reason quoted is reduction in power (and accordingly smaller UPS's, online generators and air conditioners) with less overall equipment to maintain and update. Of course consumption is important... damned important.

Call me a trugger all you like. You get big results by doing small things and changing small habits. If you don't like that philosophy you can kiss my Ugly butt (said butt produces nominal quantities of green house gasses) . :) ;)

[Shintai]

Server virtualization will be one of the biggest spends by IT this year. The number one reason quoted is reduction in power (and accordingly smaller UPS's, online generators and air conditioners) with less overall equipment to maintain and update. Of course consumption is important... damned important.

Call me a trugger all you like. You get big results by doing small things and changing small habits. If you don't like that philosophy you can kiss my Ugly butt (said butt produces nominal quantities of green house gasses) . :) ;)

Servers usally cost much more in software than hardware. Also UPS, generators, AC and such is not the biggest cost. Nor is the power used.
And virtualization is not what its hyped to be. Take a survey and check around how many actually virtualize and how much. Each time I ask collegues in other corporations and datacenters. They usually only have a few boxes out of 1000s and no plans to virtualize more. Hell I have 63 equipement rooms around the world and 1 datacenter room with 800m2 filled with equipment and the amount virtualized can be counted on my hand.

Virtualization is basicly used for the ultra critical where any load balancing and fallover solution was not possible for some reason. Or when you need to move alot of old more or less unsued servers that is still needed to new HW and keep them. But for the 98% of the rest of the serverpark there is much better solutions. Besides that virtualization is just a deluxe edition of easier recovery on new hardware. And virtualization is also abit of the put all your eggs into the same basket. Unless you have yet more additional equipment on standby.

Virtualization is abit like outsourcing. Looks great, but real life is a bitter wakening.

If power and cooling was so costly besides on the green side of things. Then you would look more into the software that they run. We usually have much higher hardware needs due to software developers just expecting to have more or less endless amount of hardware with it. Then next is our on greedy approach. The LV and HE CPU is a nice example of this. 2Ghz at 50W, or 3Ghz at 120W. For AMD is something like it aswell 1.8Ghz with barcelona for 75W and some 125+ for 2.3Ghz.

Fix software, and your server would be a mere shadow of itself. Anyway, next issue is quickly disksystems. When I look on many of my servers they have 3-6 HDs if not connected to a SAN. For 3 HDs its easily 25-30W idle and 40-45W running. For the 6 HD setups you can do the math.

Next is PSU effeciency and all our useless supply feeds that we convert anyway. There is a reason Google only use 12V PSUs. No 5 or 3.3V.

So in short, SSDs, new PSUs, new software. Then we could have small servers with 1-2Ghz CPUs and less than half the memory. Thats how you save money.

In 1995 I could run Windows95 with 4 or 8MB memory on a 90Mhz Pentium (or 486DX4-100, cant remember) with some 100MB disk usage I think. I cant really do much different today can I? With super heavy *Nix and Windows desktops. Today (If we take Vista) you need 10GB disk, 1-2GB memory and best if a dualcore at around 1.6Ghz or more.

Now thats how you can save power. To say virtualization is the golden key is simply to give the real reasons a free get out of jail card.

[accord99]

you have no clue about server at all Shintai as usual.

Xeon system are still a waste of power with there fbdimm and chipset. You just don't buy quads with only few gig of ram.... most of the sw config don't use quad, so its only a push by marketing that they will buy quad with low speed 1,8-2,4 and in a 2s system they are fine against Xeon.
Of course thanks to the raw power of Intel's quad-core, one can reduce power use by %50 as one new dual-socket Xeon quad-core system can replace an old 4S servers, or two old dual-socket servers.

And given the uncompetitive power consumption and performance of Barcelona, it would take far more Barcelona systems (and therefore far higher power consumption) to match the performance throughput of Intel Harpertowns.

[jarthel]

Bigger question is: Does your mainstream customers need/want Phenom (4 cores!)? They would want the cheapest one out there and that involves dual-core!

[Ugly n Grey]

Servers usally cost much more in software than hardware. Also UPS, generators, AC and such is not the biggest cost. Nor is the power used.

SNIP UnG

And virtualization is not what its hyped to be.
In 1995 I could run Windows95 with 4 or 8MB memory on a 90Mhz Pentium (or 486DX4-100, cant remember) with some 100MB disk usage I think. I cant really do much different today can I? With super heavy *Nix and Windows desktops. Today (If we take Vista) you need 10GB disk, 1-2GB memory and best if a dualcore at around 1.6Ghz or more.

Now thats how you can save power. To say virtualization is the golden key is simply to give the real reasons a free get out of jail card.

I disagree, I've done almost nothing but VS projects since I got back to shore. In my target data centers what you find are heavy transactional machines (true mainframes, superdomes etc..) in multiple redundant sites in CAN/US fronted by literally hundreds upon hundreds of small *nix and Win boxes that do everything from run the clients web banking services to spitting out reports. Survey says: average utilzation of these boxes is 10-20%.

Virtualization licensing is pretty lenient in terms of the numbers from M$ now and always was lenient from IBM. It makes sense and it does save money. Just the fact that you now have one server with high redundancy instead of 20 with low redundancy is a blessing.

And point of fact, wiping out 30% of the real estate requirements (physical footprint) for a banks data centres save millions whether it's in house or outsourced.

So I disagree. While you may not be doing it at your firm, others are.

[man_bear_pig]

Servers usally cost much more in software than hardware.

WHAT?

[Ugly n Grey]

WHAT?

He's right, software support / licensing outstrip hardware costs in the 26th month of owner on average for any application server . Print and file servers go longer but licensing/support catches up later in their life cycle. Not to mention the money paid for staff to keep em working....

[Donnie27]

I would say power consumption should be yet relevant to any of hundred millions individual owners...

Phenoms use less power than Core 2 Quad?

Worrying not being stuck with 1000's of unsupported Systems is real, like it or not.

[Donnie27]

Things are changing and will do so much more rapidly in the future I am afraid in terms of energy costs.

We were talking data centers and servers, so my statement was in line with the discussion. I am not gonna run my gamng rig 24/7 so it doesn't really matter. Besides the power pig in my rig isn't the cpu but the gpus anyways....

But what does that have to do with Phenoms?

[Shintai]

He's right, software support / licensing outstrip hardware costs in the 26th month of owner on average for any application server . Print and file servers go longer but licensing/support catches up later in their life cycle. Not to mention the money paid for staff to keep em working....

It catches up before you even start usually.

Lets say you are a normal company to remove any big stuff.
A standard 2U server is somewhere between 3-4000$ I guess with good HW and redundancy. Depends what you buy.

Anyway, you are a small company that just uses windows.
If we just use MS list prices and say no MS agreements.
999$ for Windows server
5999$ for standard SQL server
4424$ for standard sharepoint
699$ for exchange standard

So with 5 servers, 2 only with windows on. The MS licensing cost without cals alone is in average 3223$

Now this is ofcourse really base software. Add any extra software like antivirus, antispam, finance system, backup software etc etc.

[Ugly n Grey]

no large firm actually pays the highest listed price for licenses however and due to the way finances are managed differently for hardware and software those charges actually hit the budget at different points over the years they are used in... not to be picky, but we were talking very large scale stuff no?

[Shintai]

no large firm actually pays the highest listed price for licenses however and due to the way finances are managed differently for hardware and software those charges actually hit the budget at different points over the years they are used in... not to be picky, but we were talking very large scale stuff no?

I said small company as example. Large companies lease software usually for a cheaper upgrade cost over time with MVLS deals etc. And paying ALOT less. But then again, HW is also cheaper for the large company.

To say software vs hardware changes after 26 months works for one company maybe. The point is software, even with heavy discounts quickly becomes the major expense on servers.

[Ugly n Grey]

The point is software, even with heavy discounts quickly becomes the major expense on servers.

Agreed.
All the more reason to run that server virtualized and do away with the portion of the cost relating to hardware as well as that piece of hardwares associated CO2 footprint. The other items you mentioned are coming, because the industry is demanding it. Why? Because it saves money. All business like not spending money and slashing budgets.

Energy saving hardware and virtualization combined works. Virtualization is sure as heck not NEW. It's just new to Wintel. Wintel is finally growing up is all that's happening. I don't know about you, but managing virtual slices off a mainframe instead of buying another mainframe worked for us in the 80's. It will work for Wintel in 2008.

People want LESS hardware that they can utilize more efficiently (fully instead of a small portion) and they want what they do buy to use less energy overall. Reducing their CO2 footprint also means cost savings for companies above and beyond what they save in reduced real estate and hardware.

So I'm not sure what your point on the "fix software" thing is. Office systems are asked to do and run software many time more complex than what we used in the win 3.11 /NT 4.0 days (win 95 wasn't a corporate OS though some fools tried to use it for that). Just the real time analytics in any logistics department will bring even a big workstation to a crawl. Can't really see running IE 5.5 or better web apps on any thing less than a GHz system either. If all you do is open MS word however.. well I have a virtual thin terminal for you.

[SEA]

Phenoms use less power than Core 2 Quad?

That is what this thread about:
"In the first quarter, AMD plans to ship the 65-watt 9000e processor, listed as an energy-efficient quad-core product, and the company's first tri-core chip, called the 8000."

[Shintai]

65 ACP watts or TDP? Their 1.8Ghz Barcelonas are marked 55W, yet they are 75W and use alot more than 55W.

[SEA]

65 ACP watts or TDP? Their 1.8Ghz Barcelonas are marked 55W, yet they are 75W and use alot more than 55W.

Hmm. Opterons 2346 HE (1800MHz) don't consume 75w - they have 75w TDP envelope. Same envelope as opteron 2347 HE (1900MHz). You see what i mean. They just belong to this niche.

[SEA]

Regarding 9000e - they expected with 65w TDP.
It is easy to show even w/out providing any link:
Opterons HE (up to 1900Mhz) have ACP 55W. So why EE Phenom @ 1800 would have more ACP? I would expect less then 55W ACP especially considering that they have less HT links on the dye then opterons. So 65W is TDP

[villa1n]

recession = budget market. the cheaper they can sell these things at the better for the mass market. Same reason by intels stock went down, economic fears, so as a business move this is an intellegent one.. surprising given the track record of hector and co these past 18 months.

[Brother Esau]

My question still applies.....Shintai , what branch of Intel do you work for?

[Shintai]

My question still applies.....Shintai , what branch of Intel do you work for?

None?

I guess this is what it sink down to... :shakes:

I know you really really LOOOOOVE AMD. But keep focus on the ball instead of the player.

Its no secret AMD has been...not telling the right story about ACP/TDP. You should know if you visited the WCG forum. Or reading AMDs own spec papers.

[Brother Esau]

OK.....Just checking:D I am well aware of the deception that AMD has pulled on their customers and myself I am not very happy about it and part of my AMD favoritism kinda died when that transpired to be quite truthful about it.

[Donnie27]

But what does that have to do with Phenoms?

Hmm. Opterons 2346 HE (1800MHz) don't consume 75w - they have 75w TDP envelope. Same envelope as opteron 2347 HE (1900MHz). You see what i mean. They just belong to this niche.

then
That is what this thread about:

AMD..."Customers don't want high end Phenoms"

Where did you come up with Opterons from that? First of all, since Core 2 Quad is faster clock for Clock, anyone wanting lower power can simply under clock those Open lower multipliers and run at 1.8 or 2 GHz and still use less power than AMD's best and still faster hehehehe. Intel also sells not only Low power versions of Xeons, but Ultra Low as well. These are out NOW and not any "Might ship soon" BS;)

The only niche here are the new ones created to make AMD followers feel good, all warm and fuzzy. Even if it is void of reality so what. Sorry guys but as long as you tell a company it is alright to lie to ya', they'll have little to no reason to stop lying to ya'.:down: Then if some of you don't mind being lied to, just say so.

[Donnie27]

recession = budget market. the cheaper they can sell these things at the better for the mass market. Same reason by intels stock went down, economic fears, so as a business move this is an intellegent one.. surprising given the track record of hector and co these past 18 months.

Last time I checked they weren't that cheap though.

[Brother Esau]

Phenom 9500 @ $189.00 shipped is outrageously cheap! I suppose you think they should give them away No?

[freeloader]

Phenom 9500 @ $189.00 shipped is outrageously cheap! I suppose you think they should give them away No?

They'll be giving away Semprons soon in cereal boxes. :D

$190 for a quad core processor is an excellent deal, regardless if it's 10-15% slower than a comparable Intel QC. My next system is going to be an AMD QC. Just waiting for the B3 revision as I intend to use said system for virtualization.

[Ugly n Grey]

funny page: I hate to break it to you guys, but did you know most of the world doesn't overclock ( or underclock as one gentleman said they could do with the Intel Quads)? (I mean I know this is a super sad statement about IT departments and PC manufacturers the world over and I myself am not thinking positive thoughts about the future of mankind because of this.)

It's all about saying "there's a quad in the box I'm flogging to you here at Best Buy and we sell CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP" . The cooler it runs (the lower end it is) the less they need to spend on comprehensive cooling solutions. Then they stick a big GREEN artichoke leaf on it and say it's da bomb and uses only as much power as your TV in standby etc....

I think AMD has it right. We'll see how many units they ship this year and if they can report two consecutive positive quarters as a partial result of selling lots of "low end" (quads are low end... that still floors me) stuff...

Peace
UnG

[villa1n]

Last time I checked they weren't that cheap though.

seems cheap enough to put in a 599$ value pc.

[SEA]

AMD..."Customers don't want high end Phenoms"

Once again, original says something different: "OEM Customers don't want high end Phenoms"
And i think it has to be refletcted in thread title otherwise it looks misleading like if customers were we end-users...