This is NOT an AMD vs. Intel Post... Want One? Go Start One!

[rodney_ws]

Although I didn't know it at the time, I now know that AMD's X2 and Opterons are essentially the same CPU... with the X2 being designed for your every day desktop PC and the Opteron destined for use in servers.

I think it's safe to say that the X2 bests its Intel rivals (800 and 900 series CPUs) and the Opteron bests its Intel rivals (Xeon) ... but here's what I don't understand...

How is it that Intel could design a CPU specifically for a desktop (800/900 Series CPUs) and a CPU specifically for a server (Xeon) and neither of them could come out on top vs. AMD's do-it-all processor? Conceptually it makes sense that any specialized chip should be able to best one that is designed for a variety of roles.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Although I didn't know it at the time, I now know that AMD's X2 and Opterons are essentially the same CPU... with the X2 being designed for your every day desktop PC and the Opteron destined for use in servers.

I think it's safe to say that the X2 bests its Intel rivals (800 and 900 series CPUs) and the Opteron bests its Intel rivals (Xeon) ... but here's what I don't understand...

How is it that Intel could design a CPU specifically for a desktop (800/900 Series CPUs) and a CPU specifically for a server (Xeon) and neither of them could come out on top vs. AMD's do-it-all processor? Conceptually it makes sense that any specialized chip should be able to best one that is designed for a variety of roles.

The answer is quite easy. Intel's current processors are a generation behind. They were built to compete with the Original AMD Athlon (K7). Intel's upcoming designs are built to compete the AMD Athlon64 (K8 ) processors and designs.

 

[ChipDeath]

Intel do virtually the same with Xeons and Pentiums as AMD do with Athlons and Opterons. Xeons ARE P4 chips. Some have much more cache, but that's just a side dish, not the main course.

That's why. It's as simple as that. Xeons still lose to Opterons because it's basically exactly the same comparison as P4 Vs A64.

Intel's Itanium is a completely different chip of course, but that's not a Xeon.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I think you will find this gap will be erased with Intel's new architecture that will be coming out soon. I think you'll find it will take AMD a little bit to catch up, and then I predict that the processor market will resemble the Video Card market where companies will take turns having the best product out there.

 

[rodney_ws]

No one games on a Xeon... well, I'm sure one idiot does somewhere on the planet... but generally speaking, no one does... however, plenty of people (just look at signatures!) DO game on Opterons... so it would appear Intel has made a distinct processor for servers and has distinct line of processors for desktops. My question is this...

Don't you think it benefits each company to have a specific product for a specific purpose? In other words, AMD's superior design (Athlon 64/Opteron) was enough this time around, but in the future it would seem that specialized processors are going to be the way to go. I just can't picture another "one size fits all" CPU sitting on top.

 

[Caboose-1]

Intel iss determined as I've ever seen to promote Itanium. They are practically forcing it into the market. Its been around for a while, and no one ever really picked up on it. I don't know why Intel is so determined to make Itanium successful.

 

[FITCamaro]

Intel do virtually the same with Xeons and Pentiums as AMD do with Athlons and Opterons. Xeons ARE P4 chips. Some have much more cache, but that's just a side dish, not the main course.

That's why. It's as simple as that. Xeons still lose to Opterons because it's basically exactly the same comparison as P4 Vs A64.

Intel's Itanium is a completely different chip of course, but that's not a Xeon.

Exactly. Actually Xeons lately typically haven't had the latest features that the P4s had. Like when the 800MHz FSB came out it was a few months before you could get a Xeon with it. Only difference lately has been the cache size.