AMD Intros 12-Core Opteron Processors


alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,654
122
these are just 2 6 core CPU's in the same package on the soon to be dead 45nm process. nothing special
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
these are just 2 6 core CPU's in the same package on the soon to be dead 45nm process. nothing special
From a techical POV, No they're not. But for certain uses, they're a less expensive alternative to Intel's offerings, which is a definite advantage for AMD (i.e. clusters, render farms, virtualization that doesn't need dynamic resource allocation,...).
 

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,654
122
by the time you price out the entire server the cost is about the same. and according to Anandtech the Xeon won on power savings.

One nice thing is that HP is going to introduce some new tech with their Magny-Cours servers that won't be available on the Intel based servers until next year.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
From a techical POV, No they're not. But for certain uses, they're a less expensive alternative to Intel's offerings, which is a definite advantage for AMD (i.e. clusters, render farms, virtualization that doesn't need dynamic resource allocation,...).
AFAIK, Magny-Cours is just two 6-core chips in one die. There is no 12-core chip in other than AMD's and Intel's labs yet.

BTW, 16-core "Interlagos" will come next year

http://translate.google.fi/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/amdlta-ensi-vuonna-16-ytimisia-palvelinprosessoreita&sl=fi&tl=en
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
AFAIK, Magny-Cours is just two 6-core chips in one die. There is no 12-core chip in other than AMD's and Intel's labs yet.
I know. That's why it's nothing special from a techical aspect (dual die CPU's have been around, and dual die transistors even longer). A 12 core single die CPU, would have been another story, as they'd have a obtained good lead on Intel had they done so (efficiency/core wars currently underway). That would have made one heck of a splash in the enterprise market.
 

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,654
122
AMD's biggest problem is manufacturing. The CPU's are about the same as Intel. the difference is that Intel has worked out a killer manufacturing program where they can out produce AMD and get new technologies working faster. AMD was still working out the kinks in their 45nm process when Intel said they were going to 32nm the next year.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
AMD's biggest problem is manufacturing. The CPU's are about the same as Intel. the difference is that Intel has worked out a killer manufacturing program where they can out produce AMD and get new technologies working faster. AMD was still working out the kinks in their 45nm process when Intel said they were going to 32nm the next year.
That's true but AMD offers way cheaper CPUs. Their high-end Phenom II x4 965 BE is ~170$ and it's 3.4GHz with unlocked multiplier. Intel offers equal CPU for 1000$. You can even buy Phenom II x2 for 99$ and unlock the two extra cores to get quad-core for less than 100$!

Intel is better and more developed but AMD has much better prices
 

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
The only reason AMD got where they are today is the backlash from Intel's horrible Pentium 4. Now that Intel got the trash out of their lineup, AMD is going to keep falling.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
The only reason AMD got where they are today is the backlash from Intel's horrible Pentium 4. Now that Intel got the trash out of their lineup, AMD is going to keep falling.
They're primary market is the low cost server arena, not consumer parts (though like Intel, they scale them down to produce low cost consumer parts to further their sales, and ultimately, profits). And it's sizable enough that they should be able to survive, so long as they don't make a substantial blunder.

Then there's the ATI division, which is good at producing fast, efficient parts compared to nVidia's offerings.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
They're primary market is the low cost server arena, not consumer parts (though like Intel, they scale them down to produce low cost consumer parts to further their sales, and ultimately, profits). And it's sizable enough that they should be able to survive, so long as they don't make a substantial blunder.

Then there's the ATI division, which is good at producing fast, efficient parts compared to nVidia's offerings.
+ Gamers and low-budget people

I've built dozens of AMD Phe 965 3.4GHz gaming boxes in few months (I work in a computer shop) and that is our best seller CPU. Cheaper mobos than LGA 1156 ones and I have to say, it's great bang for your buck if you're looking for a very decent gaming box for low money. Other big market is cheap desktops again, AMD offers better specs for less money.

Intel is still the winner but AMD isn't bad, they keep the competition running because otherwise we would still be paying 500$ for 2GHz single core Celeron ;)
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
+ Gamers and low-budget people
Those too, but think of it this way; consumers buy one, maybe a couple of systems at a time. Enterprise purchases however, may be buying in the thousands (one sale). So if you look at quantities sold, the enterprise market is the larger chunk of their sales (and it does include low cost single user systems, such as office workers only doing email, web browsing,...). But even in this realm, the server rules in terms of profits.

I've built dozens of AMD Phe 965 3.4GHz gaming boxes in few months (I work in a computer shop) and that is our best seller CPU. Cheaper mobos than LGA 1156 ones and I have to say, it's great bang for your buck if you're looking for a very decent gaming box for low money. Other big market is cheap desktops again, AMD offers better specs for less money.
Definitely. But it's the same thing for the server parts too, and they sell more of them.

In the most simple terms, AMD's after the low cost market. Then when split between the consumer and enterprise markets, the enterprise market buys more = larger portion of the net profit per quarter/half/annum.

Intel is still the winner...
In terms of both raw performance and total profits, absolutely. But AMD is after the market area Intel's least interested in (low cost systems) due to lower margins.

But AMD does get by. Otherwise, they'd have vanished already. ;) :p
 

DesmoPilot

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,146
0
The only reason AMD got where they are today is the backlash from Intel's horrible Pentium 4. Now that Intel got the trash out of their lineup, AMD is going to keep falling.
Failing? You completely fail to understand what AMD's target market is.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,497
27
Singapore
any benchmarks yet available for the new AMD chips? havent been impressed with them lately. i sure do hope that they can compete with intel clock for clock..
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
any benchmarks yet available for the new AMD chips? havent been impressed with them lately. i sure do hope that they can compete with intel clock for clock..
Anandtech has released a pretty wide article about Magny-Cours and it looks like Intels are winning though AMD has 12 more cores. For servers where amount of cores matter more than GHz, AMD is better but as seen in benchmarks, Intels are faster in almost all tests. Problem in cores are that software is slow to take advantage of multiple cores
 

Phantom Gremlin

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2010
216
8
Tualatin, Oregon
They're primary market is the low cost server arena, not consumer parts (though like Intel, they scale them down to produce low cost consumer parts to further their sales, and ultimately, profits). And it's sizable enough that they should be able to survive, so long as they don't make a substantial blunder.
I think that "survive" is a good choice of words. But "surviving" isn't a good long term strategy. I can't see where AMD will get the money to out-design and out-manufacture Intel in the longer term. Relying on naive money from the Middle East is IMO not a viable strategy long term. But it's all they've got.

Then there's the ATI division, which is good at producing fast, efficient parts compared to nVidia's offerings.
Yes, I made some money on ATI stock. Now that Nvidia seems to be struggling it would be nice to buy it again. But I can't do that without also buying a 2nd rate processor company.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
I think that "survive" is a good choice of words. But "surviving" isn't a good long term strategy. I can't see where AMD will get the money to out-design and out-manufacture Intel in the longer term. Relying on naive money from the Middle East is IMO not a viable strategy long term. But it's all they've got.
They've definitely gotten themselves into a bit of a fix. It's recoverable I think, but it's going to take a strong line of parts IMO, and going fab-less isn't the solution. Even with a lab fab for R&D, they'll loose QC over the production facility, and that's likely to come back and bite them in the ...

Yes, I made some money on ATI stock. Now that Nvidia seems to be struggling it would be nice to buy it again. But I can't do that without also buying a 2nd rate processor company.
I can't help but think let the GPU designers have a go at the CPU side. Powerful, small, and efficient. Nice combo, and could teach their other half a few things I think (nVidia needs to take notice too - idiots -, but there's a personal aspect for me).
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,497
27
Singapore
Anandtech has released a pretty wide article about Magny-Cours and it looks like Intels are winning though AMD has 12 more cores. For servers where amount of cores matter more than GHz, AMD is better but as seen in benchmarks, Intels are faster in almost all tests. Problem in cores are that software is slow to take advantage of multiple cores
blast. intel still goes alright, i thought that would be the outcome. not that i care - i do prefer intel over AMD currently. tnks for link!

letting GPU devs into the CPU side of things? isnt that just GPGPU like stuff lol! :rolleyes:
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
letting GPU devs into the CPU side of things? isnt that just GPGPU like stuff lol! :rolleyes:
They should be capable of developing CPU's as well. Uni's don't offer separate CPU and GPU degree... Electrical/Computer Engineers can do both (as well as a lot of other things; you know, those other annoying, necessary bits like RAM). ;) :D :p
 

Gomff

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2009
802
1
They should be capable of developing CPU's as well. Uni's don't offer separate CPU and GPU degree... Electrical/Computer Engineers can do both (as well as a lot of other things; you know, those other annoying, necessary bits like RAM). ;) :D :p
I'm cheering for AMD for three reasons:

1) We have some AMD stock which has doubled in value since we bought it 8 months ago
2) Intel having competition is good for everyone. Without AMD over their shoulder, Intel would be charging even more for their processors and the product release cycles would be further apart.
3) A weird propensity to support the underdog.
 

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,451
4,458
Intel fanboys diss this as "nothing special", when that was the way Intel used to do multicore.

It means you can have 12 cores in 1 socket, 24 cores in 2 sockets, and 48 cores in 4 sockets.