AMD: 6-Core Istanbul Available in June

[JMcEntegart]

AMD plans to ship the six-core Opteron in May to boost profitability. Intel says that its processors are still better.

AMD: 6-Core Istanbul Available in June : Read more

 

[DjEaZy]

... why tha paranoia from intel? ... why they try to rule all? ... architecture or not, but the attitude stinks!!!

 

[Guest]

I find it humorous that the response to this news from Intel ends with, "The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."

While I don't dispute this currently, as it's evident that the I7 is an outstanding CPU, it wasn't that long ago when Intel was throwing around clock speed in attempt to keep up with AMD's superior architecture. Of course, maybe this statement is in response to AMD's slight reemergence into competition with Intel.

 

[chunkymonster]

The Intel reply of that it's not about IMC's, that AMD is throwing more cores at the problem, and six cores takes up valuable die space stinks of irony. It seems to me that's exactly the strategy Intel has employed in the past.

The fact that Instanbul adds performance, does not increase the thermal profile, and is socket compatible with existing servers is in line with AMD's strategy. Given the current state of the economy, releasing a drop in compatible proc that only requires a BIOS update (if even that) is cost effective than requiring a new systems altogether to support an improved mArch, regardless if that mArch is "better" or not.

 

[tweak13]

Either way, competition is good - it brings in new products and better prices.

 

[B-Unit]

*SCRATCHES HEAD*

Didn't Intel release the first 6-core? Why is is a good idea when they do it, but when AMD does, its 'throwing' more cores at it?

 

[curnel_D]

Nah, the key is keeping up either way. And if AMD can keep up or exceed intel because of two more cores or better power performance due to die shrinks, then they've got the better processor despite how robust Intel's microarchitecture is.

In that market, more cores with less power req's is going to win, period.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Man, just reading some garbage like that makes me seriously sick. It actually makes me wanna take my Q6600 and motherboard and smash it. Seriously. AMD has seemed to always play a fair game even when they were wiping the floor with Intel. You didn't see them talk trash like THAT. CMON INTEL, throw me a friggin bone here. You don't like a little competition? They beat you to the punch with your 6 core chip... soooo WHAT.

 

[jsloan]

6 cores, can we have 8 please ;-)

 

[theJ]

This is good for the market, even if it really isn't a better processor than the i7. If AMD ever couldn't keep up, we'd be left with one company...and that's only good for that company.

I'll probably never buy one, but i hope other people do.

 

[t85us]

[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]*SCRATCHES HEAD* Didn't Intel release the first 6-core? Why is is a good idea when they do it, but when AMD does, its 'throwing' more cores at it?[/citation]


yep, tipical intel attitude. that's why i hate them and i don't buy anything that is related to them. simply i hate intel because of they veryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery poor innovation when they are in monopoly. shame on you intel.

 

[curnel_D]

[citation][nom]curnel_d[/nom]Nah, the key is keeping up either way. And if AMD can keep up or exceed intel because of two more cores or better power performance due to die shrinks, then they've got the better processor despite how robust Intel's microarchitecture is. In that market, more cores with less power req's is going to win, period.[/citation]
I have a feeling intel will rush their dual die i7 procc out in 2k10 to answer this. So I doubt you'll be waiting long.

 

[curnel_D]

Weird... I could have sworn I hit quote on Jsloan's post...

 

[Pei-chen]

Didn't Anand run a review showing Nehalem to be about 50% faster than Shanghai in server application? Istanbul is 30% faster than Shanghai meaning 4 cores Nehalem is faster than 6 cores Istanbul.

Less cores = smaller die so AMD is cutting it close competing with Intel with inferior microarchitecture.

 

[fatedtodie]

screw 6 cores AMD's roadmap has 12 core processors available by q1 2010 wait a year get double the cores =) .... one thing to say to Intel Fanboys... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA eat that.

 

[scook9]

intel makes me laugh....throwing more cores at a processor....like they are ones to speak. AMD has ALWAYS been the first of the two to come up with true multi core designs.... Pentium D, core 2 Quad, the coming 6 core cpu, all dual die processors. Wow intel, just wow. Of course i guess intel does like bragging on their microarchitectures....they liked the core 2 duo so much, they stuck 2 on 1 package and called it a "quad" core. Granted, it DID grind amd's barcelona's into the ground, but still, veyr lacking in innovation on intel's part. It seems like AMD is always behind intel on releases, but does a better job because they arent racing, they take their time - and oh ya, they cost nearly half as much at every price point.

And i am in no way a fanboy, all 3 of my computers run intel, this just had to be commented on.

 

[Mathos]

i7's main advantage is hyperthreading, which turns that quad core into an effective 8 core chip. So a 6 core opteron may be able to keep up better with that quad core i7, at least until AMD can manage to start implementing SMT in their chips.

 

[tipoo]

Should be interesting, 6 physical cores vs 4 physical and 4 virtual cores.

 

[tayb]

I just don't understand 6 cores. It is not a logical step from 4 cores.

 

[t85us]

but if it's a native 6 core cpu, than it's easyer to do a 12 core cmc or whatewer called "fused" cpu, or not ?

 

[armistitiu]

[citation][nom]curnel_d[/nom]I have a feeling intel will rush their dual die i7 procc out in 2k10 to answer this. So I doubt you'll be waiting long.[/citation]
Turns out AMD will do that too in 2010. According to their server roadmap refresh they will have 8-12 cores per CPU (dual die, mcm or native... they didn't say in tech report's article).
Performance wise it's gonna be a close battle but AMD's die size will be huge and probably is going to cost them a small fortune to produce it. I sure hope that Bulldozer will bring some kind of SMT into the game.

 

[danimal_the_animal]

ripbot264 my friends

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]I just don't understand 6 cores. It is not a logical step from 4 cores.[/citation]

AMD (and Intel) introduced 4-cores on their 65nm technology. In order to fit 8 cores in the same package, they would need to wait for sub-35nm technology. Since AMD and Intel are currently producing 45nm technology, 6-cores just makes sense, otherwise you'd have a ridiculously over-sized processor (say, isn't the Core I7 much larger than the old Core2-Quads?)

 

[rooseveltdon]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]Didn't Anand run a review showing Nehalem to be about 50% faster than Shanghai in server application? Istanbul is 30% faster than Shanghai meaning 4 cores Nehalem is faster than 6 cores Istanbul.Less cores = smaller die so AMD is cutting it close competing with Intel with inferior microarchitecture.[/citation]
lol the fanboyism never stops

 

[gsacks]

Not surprising to see this kind of statement from Intel. My company used to be a vendor for Intel, and the vitriol aimed at AMD from within that company comes through loud and clear when you meet with their management. They actually refused to utter the name "AMD" within Intel's walls. They always referred to them in the abstract. Like "competitors" in the statement above, or in less flattering terms. It was funny and disturbing at the same time. I really was amused by the fact that I was writing code (internal to my company) that supported the work we were doing for them on an AMD platform.