I find it so very ironic that Dell has been solely supplying Intel solutions during the entire time that P4's/Xeons were so obviously inferior to AMD x64/Opteron/X2 and now that Intel has Has the Core2Duo which is obviously superior to AMD solutions, out comes the first Dell AMD machines: the C521 and the E521. It just seems so Ass-backwards of them.
AMD for Dell
- Thread starter P5-133XL
- Start date
Computer Generated Baby
Learning Storage Performance
>> to AMD solutions
A Core2 Xeon is a hell of a lot better processor than any Pentium 4 Xeon derivative ever was, but I wouldn't say that Core2 Xeon products are particularly superior to the latest Opteron offerings.
The Core2 Xeon (Woodcrest) has better performance and a better power/performance ratio than the current best-of-breed Opteron, but the Core2 Xeon doesn't scale as well as the Opteron (using the latest HyperTransport) in a multi-processor system, nor does it have a superior system memory interface. Opterons processors still scale a lot better than Intel X86 when it comes to 4-way and 8-way SMP systems.
As for the mid-range and higher-end desktop, this is where Intel is currently spanking AMD's posterior; not so in serverland.
A wee bit of futureschlock (based on well-founded rumours that I picked up at an Intel engineering conference earlier this year): You will eventually see Intel X86 processors with on-die memory controllers. No word on when or which (as in desktop or server, or both), but I took it as being several financial quarters away.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Not at all. It's classic Dell. They have never once wavered from offering the lowest performance solution available at any particular time. Why should this year be different?
I here late '08, '09 as the when.
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
>> I here late '08, '09 as the when.
If this is indeed the info churning in the silicon rumourmill, then it likely is true.
As for Intel's answer to HyperTransport: Actually, I would not go into convulsions if Intel announced one day that they were joining the HyperTransport Consortium. But, the chance of that happening are at best 10%. About the only other *existing* microprocessor I/O interconnect that might have a chance at working for an X86 processor is RapidIO -- and that would be if Intel took a big interest in hijacking the spec and beefing it up. Then, there's the super fast, shiny, high-tech wunderkind data channel called InfiniBand, but nobody uses InfiniBand for processor interconnects.
However, InfiniBand is the data channel that *could* replace just about every other type of bus or channel except super-cheap USB. InfiniBand has the capability to replace ATA, SATA, SCSI, SAS, Fibre-Channel, Ethernet, and PCI. InfiniBand is currently the darling of the supercomputing crowd, but it should soon begin making inroads into the realm of the blade server, where the multi-core / multi-processor plug-in server blade has a very fast very-low-latency 5 Gb/s or 10 Gb/s InfiniBand connection to an InfiniBand fabric for all its I/O. Somewhere out on the InfiniBand fabric -- maybe even a half kilometer away -- are host channel adapters for direct connections to multi-port Ethernet switches, multi-port Fibre-Channel switches, multi-port SAS/SATA switches, PCI Express, general serial I/O, etc. OK, I'll quit babbling.
This leads me to wondering what the hell Intel has been cooking up in the labs to take on HyperTransport. Could there eventually be another PCI specification? Maybe something called Super PCI, or PCI Ultra, or PCI Grid, or the Mother-Of-All-PCI? Maybe a radical new PCI that does everything what PCI Express does now, but adds microprocessor interconnects for X86 and Itanium? This would be my guess if Intel doesn’t have a change of heart and join the HT Consortium (cold day in Hell) <cough>.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Intel is behind the curve on this one. There are already HTX slots on some servers.
Wonder no more: CSI
Corvair
Learning Storage Performance
CSI. Actually, I have heard of Intel's CSI, but I thought it was the eventual "replacement" for CSA (communications Streaming [or Screaming] Architecture).
In any case, CSI was *not* brought up even once at an Intel technical briefing I attended a few months ago that covered the various upcoming (then) Core2 processors, the new dual-core Itanium, and several other key technologies that had recently been released, were soon to be released (like further enhancements to virtualisation within the chipset), and many of the technologies that were due to arrive or be updated in 2007 (yes, more virtualisation).
A Non-Disclosure Agreement was required to attend. I did learn a number of juicy things about upcoming processors, and I got to play around briefly with some PCs, servers, and a notebook that were all running one of the Core2 Duo processors (codenames "Conroe," "Woodcrest," and "Merom" to be exact), as well as some servers running the upcoming (then) dual-core P4 "Dempsey" processor.
Several weeks after that technical briefing, I believe I reported right here that the Core2 Duo was definitely not a slouch. If I recall correctly, I played around with one server that had a pair of 3.73 GHz "Dempsey" (dual-core Pentium 4) processors and 4 GB or RAM and then basically the same server model with 4 GB of RAM and a pair 2.33 GHz "Woodcrest" (Core2 Duo Xeon) processors. Without a doubt, the Woodcrest-based server with much less GHz was a lot snappier at everything. Granted, I was not running a commercial database benchmark or a ray tracing benchmark on these servers, but it was not hard to tell by my seat-of-the-pants test that the Woody was superior to the Dempsey. And, the Woody was (in theory) doing this major spanking of its opponent without radiating as much heat. About the only thing the Dempsey processor lineup has going for it is retail price.
By the way, one thing I learned about the Itanium is that it is designed for 99.999% uptime (5 nines), but is capable of 99.99999% (7 nines). Probably one reason why SGI is using the Itanium in their high-end Altix systems. I already knew that the Itanium is currently the fastest processor for encryption.
Tukwila, at least in its original configuration was cancelled. CSI was supposed to enable XEON and Itanium on the same platform. Opteron, and now Woodcrest, crashed that party. Woodcrest was not designed with CSI in mind. CSI isn't dead, but it's release date has slipped, or so sayeth my moles...
RWT has information in its forums.
RWT has information in its forums.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It would not surprise me in the least that Dell is selling the AMD systems with the full permission of Intel.
The AMD baseline machine costs more, but has superficially similar specs to Dell Celerons.
Dell can say that they provided AMD systems and no one wanted them, an industry press/PR win for Intel.
Intel DOES win on the high end. A mainstream AMD chip just isn't going to look that good.
Dell does a lot of bad things, but they are godly at supply chain/logistical issues. They picked this moment to start selling AMD absolutely understanding that it would not harm their business with Intel.
The AMD baseline machine costs more, but has superficially similar specs to Dell Celerons.
Dell can say that they provided AMD systems and no one wanted them, an industry press/PR win for Intel.
Intel DOES win on the high end. A mainstream AMD chip just isn't going to look that good.
Dell does a lot of bad things, but they are godly at supply chain/logistical issues. They picked this moment to start selling AMD absolutely understanding that it would not harm their business with Intel.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
With all the trouble I'm having getting anything Intel, maybe it's a supply problem at Intel's end. That's the only reason I can think of that would have Intel using ATI chipsets on their motherboards. :crap:
Bozo :joker:
Bozo :joker:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Er... any chip ATI makes is going to be a better chip than Intel's integrated graphics options. I was under the impression that the ATI chips were used to provide a more mainstream integrated graphics option for Intel chips.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
Intel calls them "value platform" IE:cheap About $65 at newegg.
It will be interesting to see how long these will be available with the recent ATI/AMD merger.
Bozo :joker:
It will be interesting to see how long these will be available with the recent ATI/AMD merger.
Bozo :joker:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The word is that Intel put the kibosh on all products with an ATI chips as soon as news of the merger hit.
Isn't everything with an integrated graphics chip and no exotic I/O options a "value platform?"
Isn't everything with an integrated graphics chip and no exotic I/O options a "value platform?"
A couple for the ATI - Intel relationship:
Re: CSI
I knew I had seen something about it just this past week or so ... just remembered early this morning where it was (funny how the brain continues to work on problems behind the scences
): http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15795
- http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20060823235224.html
- http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20060907023305.html
Re: CSI
I knew I had seen something about it just this past week or so ... just remembered early this morning where it was (funny how the brain continues to work on problems behind the scences
): http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15795
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Pretty sneaky. Getting Intel coming and going....