Anandtech benches dual Magny Cours and Xeon

[piesquared]

LOL - sure, industry urged AMD to market its stuff better and lie about power consumption with bogus measurements .

The real reason why AMD wanted to get rid of TDP is because they didn't have thermal throttling like Intel did, so of course they had to spec their CPUs conservatively. Otherwise they probably would have been class-action sued by end-users with burnt-out CPUs.

No actually that's not the real reason. ACP was adopted by AMD because the industry wanted a more realistic measurment because the TDP AMD gave was never reached and was far too conservative and partners over specced their machines causing unnesessary cost, like I said.

Tests have proven that time and again. You can bloviate all you want, the facts won't change. Getting back to the topic at hand, it is more clear now than ever that AMD has performance AND performance/watt secured with Magny Cours. It looks like they caught intel with their pants down.

 

[Chad Boga]

No actually that's not the real reason. ACP was adopted by AMD because the industry wanted a more realistic measurment because the TDP AMD gave was never reached and was far too conservative and partners over specced their machines causing unnesessary cost, like I said.

Tests have proven that time and again. You can bloviate all you want, the facts won't change. Getting back to the topic at hand, it is more clear now than ever that AMD has performance AND performance/watt secured with Magny Cours. It looks like they caught intel with their pants down.

You AMDZoners have such a poor understanding of the server market(and pretty much everything else in life too). :lol:

 

[piesquared]

You AMDZoners have such a poor understanding of the server market(and pretty much everything else in life too). :lol:

You Chad Boga's have such a poor understanding of reality (and pretty much everything else in life too). :lol:

 

[huntluck]

Amd is best among all in gaming system's ,price wise , quality wise ....

Intel is better but it gives prices beyond the sky of it's product's

 

[Scotteq]

You Chad Boga's have such a poor understanding of reality (and pretty much everything else in life too). :lol:

The part I'm stuck on is why you appear to think that ACP, TDP, and the SPECpower benchmarks are the same thing.


And they certainly are NOT the same measurement:

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Clarifies+ACP+TDP+Enigma/article9981.htm

Several processor architectures ago, AMD and rival Intel used the same methods for calculating Thermal Design Power with regard to microprocessors. From an engineering standpoint, the TDP represents the amount of power the cooling mechanism for the CPU must dissipate before failure.

AMD and Intel now differ with TDP calculations, and for different reasons. Intel's current architecture, for example, allows the CPU to exceed the TDP rating for a small period of time before the processor throttles its frequency clock in order to reduce the temperature at the processor level. AMD's current-generation processors do not practice this method, and thus AMD intentionally publishes conservative TDP ratings.

http://www.formortals.com/?p=137

We can easily verify that AMD’s ACP rating is not comparable to Intel’s TDP rating by looking at the actual performance of the newest AMD Shanghai based servers versus Intel’s current servers. When we look at the official published SPECpower measurements between an AMD “Shanghai” 2384 2.7 GHz system with an ACP rating of 75 watts and an Intel L5430 with a TDP rating of 50 watts with comparable components in the rest of the server, we would expect a power difference of roughly 50 watts (25W per processor) if AMD’s claim that AMD’s ACP was most comparable to Intel’s TDP rating. But according the official SPECpower benchmarks which is optimized for low power consumption, the Intel L5430 server peaks at 161 watts while the AMD 2384 based server peaks at 264 watts.

That’s more than a 100 watt delta and when we account for the fact that the Intel server has an additional North Bridge memory controller to deal with, the actual difference between the CPUs is even greater than 100 watts. We can negate the fact that the AMD server has two more memory DIMMs which consume an additional 8.4 watts of power because AMD uses hard drives that use 6 watts less power than the Intel system. This strongly suggests that an AMD TDP rating of 95 watts is far more likely to explain the 100 watt more power consumption than the Intel system with 50 watt TDP processors, so calling the “Shanghai” 2384 processor a 75 watt part simply doesn’t reflect the actual efficiency of the chip.

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+The+Lies+About+Power+Consumption+Start+Here/article9955.htm

Look at those numbers closely. The first thing to notice is that TDP measurements are significantly higher than ACP. When AMD compared its power consumption figures to Intel's TDP, ACP measurements significantly underestimate power consumption. TDP differed between the two versions of the white paper by as much as 20 W, which is a 21% increase in the case of the quad-core Opteron. AMD did not increased its ACP estimates, emphasized in bold, despite the TDP increase.

Either the ACP is an arbitrarily measured system, and AMD changed it at will for its convenience, or AMD's document team failed to update the document properly. There is no other feasible explanation of why a 20 Watt TDP increase would be accompanied by no increase in ACP.

http://it.anandtech.com/show/2807/2

The only thing clear about the TDP numbers of AMD and Intel is that they are confusing and not comparable. It is clear that no power consumption or thermal design point number is going to make much sense to the server buyer unless the method of determining power consumption (or dissipation) is precisely defined by an independent third party. From that point of view, AMD Average CPU Power (ACP) only blurs the picture, even though it offers interesting information to those who are well informed about its purpose.

 

[Scotteq]

Here's the SPECpower site: http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/

The drive to create the power and performance benchmark comes from the recognition that the IT industry, computer manufacturers, and governments are increasingly concerned with the energy use of servers. Currently, many vendors report some energy efficiency figures, but these are often not directly comparable due to differences in workload, configuration, test environment, etc. Development of this benchmark provides a means to measure power (at the AC input) in conjunction with a performance metric. This should help IT managers to consider power characteristics along with other selection criteria to increase the efficiency of data centers.

 

[piesquared]

Which is exactly why AMD promotes power consumption at the wall. Only problem is, intel doesn't want to play that game, because it get's beaten like a red headed stepchild.

The fact remains, Magny Cours is a monster chip in price, perfromance, and power consumption regardless of intel's 32nm HKMG node. BTW, where's all the mouthpieces saying AMD couldn't compete on 45nm SOI against intel's unbelievable 45nm HKMG process? AMD is handing them their a$$ on 45nm, and even ahead on power consumption on 32nm WITH 6 EXTRA CORES.

It's clear intel were caught with their pants down.

 

[Scotteq]

*sigh*

Nevermind. It's pointless trying to make any sense of blind rhetoric.

 

[Chad Boga]

Which is exactly why AMD promotes power consumption at the wall. Only problem is, intel doesn't want to play that game, because it get's beaten like a red headed stepchild.

Where is the evidence that Intel doesn't want to "play that game"?

You are just regurgitating bulls**t spouted on AMDZone and by Used Car Salesman John the Fool Fruehe.

The fact remains, Magny Cours is a monster chip in price, perfromance, and power consumption regardless of intel's 32nm HKMG node. BTW, where's all the mouthpieces saying AMD couldn't compete on 45nm SOI against intel's unbelievable 45nm HKMG process? AMD is handing them their a$$ on 45nm, and even ahead on power consumption on 32nm WITH 6 EXTRA CORES.

As always, AMD have priced their chips according to their competitiveness, so when they had the performance lead with the K8 in the early days, we saw $1,000 dollar FX chips, but when they don't have the performance lead, they have to result to price bombing, which is what they are doing with Mangy Corpse.

AMD's pricing tells you all you need to know about how competitive they are.

 

[MU_Engineer]

As always, AMD have priced their chips according to their competitiveness, so when they had the performance lead with the K8 in the early days, we saw $1,000 dollar FX chips, but when they don't have the performance lead, they have to result to price bombing, which is what they are doing with Mangy Corpse.

AMD's pricing tells you all you need to know about how competitive they are.

Pricing is set to try to gain market advantage. Just look at Intel's pricing on the Core 2 launch day. They could have priced the E6300 at twice its' ~$180 price and it would have been appropriate in regards to the performance it provided relative to AMD's X2s. But they chose to drop the prices substantially instead, which resulted in them taking back a lot of market share from AMD. Or you could look at Apple. They want to have a brand image, so they intentionally sell their parts at much higher prices than they are actually competitively worth just to maintain the air of "oooh, shiny expensive!!" they feel helps them maintain high margins and profitability. It's all about what the company thinks will give them an edge.

Here, AMD feels that their lower prices will help them to move so many more servers and chipsets that they'll end up ahead versus trying to sell chips at a stiff premium like Intel is doing. Remember, AMD was still selling a fair number of Shanghai and Istanbul CPUs prior to the Magny-Cours launch, even though they were much more expensive and slower than the MC units. Thus it's not a 'they're pricing them low because nobody's buying if they're priced higher," it's a calculated move by AMD's management. We'll see how well their tactic goes.

And as a side note...the $1000 FX chips still were a better buy than the $1000 Pentium Extreme Edition CPUs. Both were poor values for the money, but the PEEs were more so.

 

[huntluck]

wooooooooo what a tough fight

 

[Chad Boga]

Pricing is set to try to gain market advantage. Just look at Intel's pricing on the Core 2 launch day. They could have priced the E6300 at twice its' ~$180 price and it would have been appropriate in regards to the performance it provided relative to AMD's X2s. But they chose to drop the prices substantially instead, which resulted in them taking back a lot of market share from AMD.

Ahhhh the E6300, that is the chip that Maron Batrix is always crying about like the little retarded bitch he is. :lol:

Intel of course had other chips at other price points faster than the E6300.

I know when Conroe got released if I was buying then and there, I probably would have overlooked the E6300 and gone for an E6600.

Here, AMD feels that their lower prices will help them to move so many more servers and chipsets that they'll end up ahead versus trying to sell chips at a stiff premium like Intel is doing. Remember, AMD was still selling a fair number of Shanghai and Istanbul CPUs prior to the Magny-Cours launch, even though they were much more expensive and slower than the MC units. Thus it's not a 'they're pricing them low because nobody's buying if they're priced higher," it's a calculated move by AMD's management. We'll see how well their tactic goes.

I would be cautious about believing the spin AMD marketing are putting on their plans.

The pricing they have adopted means they won't be totally wiped out in server(in terms of systems sold), but let's see what it does to their profit margins.

And as a side note...the $1000 FX chips still were a better buy than the $1000 Pentium Extreme Edition CPUs. Both were poor values for the money, but the PEEs were more so.

The difference between having to eat dog s**t or dog vomit, I would never buy a $1,000 CPU from either maker.

 

[huntluck]

Again ............. Plz Stop nothin is goin to happen to both companies niether their sale will be decreased

 

[yannifb]

wow i thought toms censored language.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Some people think they are smart and can get around the filter but they may not be smart enough to get around a perma ban. 😗

 

[piesquared]

[edit]

Nevermind, mouser is moderating the thread, so i'll leave it at that.


Anyway, the fact remains that AMD brings a leader to market in Magny Cours.

 

[Chad Boga]

I'm surprised Chad 'intel fanboi' Boga hasn't been banned here like he was on XS. Probably just a matter of time, unless this is a haven for people like him. Tom's has changed quite a bit for the better over the last few years, so i'm surprised they have let the little boy's post ias ndiscretionatly as they have.

Anyway, the fact remains that AMD brings a leader to market in Magny Cours.

I see you still have no idea what the term "fact" means.

And you are confused if you think I am an intel fanboi, I just have no time for liars who have over imbibed on the Green Kool Aid, and unfortunately the Internet is full of such weirdo's.

 

[Scotteq]

..which explains further Ad Hominem... how, exactly?

 

[Scotteq]

..and yes, I mean *both* of you.

 

[Guest]

Unbelievable. I get a ban again (guess who) while Chad gets away with this foul mouth tirade?

This website is a F&@%$ING JOKE. Now you can ban me when I get back too :lol:

 

[Mousemonkey]

If it was all about banning so called "fanboi's" this place would be quite empty :lol: , differing opinions are all well and good so long as those opinions are expressed in a way that conforms to the ToS and rules of conduct. So less of the profanities please (you know who you are).

 

[Guest]

Yeah less of the profanities lol. I got banned for my language and it was NOTHING like this. Talk about double standards.

 

[Chad Boga]

Yeah less of the profanities lol. I got banned for my language and it was NOTHING like this. Talk about double standards.

What kind of ban is it when you just reregister again?

 

[Guest]

The_Prophecy has banned you (Section : all)


Reason of the sanction : Disrupting threads / personal attacks


Duration : 3 Days

Q) What kind of messed up system would get me banned while you get away with your thread disruption/ personal attacks?

A) A system designed by intel fantards.

No point even keeping up the pretence anymore - THG is a joke of a site and is clearly in intels pockets.

 

[yannifb]

If it was all about banning so called "fanboi's" this place would be quite empty :lol: , differing opinions are all well and good so long as those opinions are expressed in a way that conforms to the ToS and rules of conduct. So less of the profanities please (you know who you are).

Seriously Mousemonkey thats a little so far. Jenny didn't really use language and you ban her, while chad does and he gets a "stop please". Just for reference the language he used was:
little retarded b**ch (in reference to someone)
bull***t
sh**
dog sh**
and several other variations, repeatedly. But i guess calling someone a fanboy is worse so ok.

EDIT: And if you decide to use jenny's intel fanboy name twists (like fantard) as grounds for banning her, please cite the exact place in the TOS where it states you cannot use made up words that aren't vulgar (unless your in 2nd grade i suppose).