ie8 fix
madison

Where is AMD's Intel-killer Barcelona?

By | July 3, 2007, 4:30am PDT

Summary: Back in May when speculation on AMD’s “Barcelona” quad-core CPU was still running rampant, I wrote that “AMD Barcelona can potentially smash Intel” if high clock speeds at sufficient yields could be produced in a timely manner.  AMD needed to hit 2.5 GHz to reclaim the performance crown and release the product on time in [...]

Back in May when speculation on AMD’s “Barcelona” quad-core CPU was still running rampant, I wrote that “AMD Barcelona can potentially smash Intel” if high clock speeds at sufficient yields could be produced in a timely manner.  AMD needed to hit 2.5 GHz to reclaim the performance crown and release the product on time in July to give it some breathing room before Intel strikes back with its new 45nm “Penryn” processor at the end of the year.  Now that it has been confirmed that AMD will miss their original Barcelona release date by at least 2 months and the best clock speed they can do is 2.0 GHz, the future is looking grim for AMD.  With shocking news like this it’s no wonder AMD decided to announce Barcelona’s release schedule and clock speeds on iPhone Friday.

Based on AMD’s own claims, the quad-core CPU codenamed “Barcelona” will have a 20% clock-for-clock advantage on Integer performance over Intel’s “Clovertown” quad-core CPU.  [UPDATE 7/4/2007 - The 20% clock-for-clock advantage claimed by AMD is actually a 1% clock-for-clock advantage in the dual-socket 8-core Server space.  Intel holds a much stronger clock-for-clock position with fewer core tests since that doesn't put as much a strain on their shared memory controller and FSB architecture.]  The problem is that the Intel’s 3.0 GHz quad-core CPUs have a 50% clock speed advantage so a 20% [UPDATE 7/4/2007 - actually a 1% clock-for-clock advantage] clock-for-clock advantage doesn’t come close to beating Intel.  At this rate the only thing that Barcelona is going to smash are AMD’s existing dual-core CPUs and last year’s Intel dual-core products.  By the time AMD releases the Barcelona product in September, Intel would have had nearly a full year’s lead in quad-core CPUs and it’s no wonder AMD has lost nearly all of its market share gains in just the last year.

Based on the paper AMD released at the ISSCC in March, it came to light that AMD’s Barcelona CPU had electrical capabilities that permitted a maximum clock speed of 2.8 GHz.  At the height of the speculation on Barcelona in May, Charlie Demerjian reported that AMD was “dancing in the aisles” in Austin Texas because early indicators for Barcelona was so good that it would hit a whopping 2.9 GHz for a desktop part and 2.8 GHz for a Server part.  That post fueled a lot of stories and cheers for AMD watchers but in hindsight it was couldn’t have been more wrong.

I asked CPU analyst David Kanter (Real World Technologies) what could be the problem behind AMD’s failure to deliver an Intel killer and Kanter came up with the following three possibilities.

  1. Manufacturing cannot get the frequency high enough
  2. There are speed paths that prevent higher clocking
  3. You can hit high frequencies, but not within the TDP

Kanter noted that all those statements have an implied “with good yields” at the end.  Manufacturing problems shouldn’t be surprising since that has always been an Achilles heel for AMD.  As for the second possibility, Kanter explained that “Speed paths” mean that certain parts of the CPU can’t handle higher clock speeds even though the rest of the CPU can.  Then there’s the possibility that manufacturing can hit the desired clock rates but with unacceptable amounts of leakage.

These problems may all just be temporary and AMD will eventually iron out the bumps and produce high quantities of higher clocked Barcelona CPUs, but time isn’t on AMD’s side when Intel’s tick-tock cadence keeps ticking away.  If AMD manages to release higher clocked Barcelona CPUs closer to the end of the year, Intel will raise the bar even higher when it releases the Penryn processor.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

George Ou

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?page_id=557

Biography

George Ou

George Ou, a former ZDNet blogger, is an IT consultant specializing in Servers, Microsoft, Cisco, Switches, Routers, Firewalls, IDS, VPN, Wireless LAN, Security, and IT infrastructure and architecture.

44
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I get your point but...
Cayble 8th Sep 2007
Don't make it sound like George said AMD is doomed. I don't recall reading him say that. I think at worst you might attribute an implication by George that things could get very rough for AMD for some time, and that seems to be a highly accurate position at this point. Take note; George isn't writing AMD off by any means, he did say:

"These problems may all just be temporary and AMD will eventually iron out the bumps and produce high quantities of higher clocked Barcelona CPUs but time isn?t on AMD?s side when Intel?s tick-tock cadence keeps ticking away."
0 Votes
+ -
If AMD can't beat Intel's Penryn out the door
No_Ax_to_Grind 3rd Jul 2007
it's game over for AMD.
0 Votes
+ -
Not neccessarily
Prognosticator 3rd Jul 2007
AMD will be around, I'm sure. Worst case is they get bought by a Samsung or something and Intel will have competition.

From a Barcelona perpsective, Barcelona is an aggressive, difficult design that they will solve eventually and likely to be a successful product. Barcelona could always compete on energy (clock it down), compete on cost (give up margin) and sell to all the AMD bleeding hearts out there.

Unfortunately for AMD, time is running out in terms of cash and Intel's aggressive product and tech line up. I hope AMD recovers because I would hate a Samsung or some Chinese outfit buy them out.
0 Votes
+ -
It doesn't matter how aggressive the Barcelona design is. Intel is not static. All the fanboys make the same mistake. They think their product is evolving but the competition isn't until their product hits the market. Barcelona will only be a me too for a few months and be surpassed by 45nm tech from Intel.
0 Votes
+ -
The huge IP portfolio?
odubtaig 3rd Jul 2007
The perpetual license to make x86 chips?
ATI's 28% market share in the consumer graphics market?

AMD are slow to market because their resources are limited compared to those of Intel. A company with sufficient capital could take what AMD has and turn it into a powerhouse.

It's much more likely that they'd downsize and rearrange their business model around the ATI chips but there are many reasons to buy a failing company with valuable IP.
0 Votes
+ -
They would have to buy it dirt cheap.
osreinstall 3rd Jul 2007
But if AMD cannot make any money making 86 chips, neither could the folks buying it up. ATI and the patents would be the only incentive if the package was very cheap. Even ATI is not as attractive as the IP. Otherwise it would be more profitable to invest in something else. Look at all the hardware companies that disappeared in the 90s. Bottom line is what determines decisions. Nobody rescues anybody.
0 Votes
+ -
If Intel no longer has any competition, they will slow down their R&D, charge more for their product, increase their dividend, and buy back stock. I think I'm going to put a lot more Intel stock in my portfolio. But I'm also going to paying more for computers in the long run.
0 Votes
+ -
That is not all bad.
osreinstall 4th Jul 2007
Right now there is razor thin profits in the industry and people in that industry have a harder time making any money. People do not even repair their computers anymore. They just throw them out and buy a new one filling land fills. Maybe more of us repair techs can make more money. Another thing is the market cannot bear any increase in prices so it will not go up to much if AMD goes under. I was happy with AMD products but they decided to come out with 50 different models milking the Athlon line instead of 1/2 dozen models and more R&D. They rested on their laurels too long. GM did the same with repeat designs and Oldsmobile no loner exists. No more money in treasuries to carry on like this.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe not.
Cayble 8th Sep 2007
Sure, if AMD gets wiped off the face of the earth, maybe then Intel will feel free to jack prices. I doubt AMD is going to get wiped off the face of the earth, as some have pointed out a worst case scenario might be AMD getting bought out by another firm.

The only way you can consider that Intel could afford to increase prices of their processors by so much that it would make an entire PC noticeably more expensive is if you honestly believe there really isn't room for two CPU manufacturers in the market place, and AMD is going to be wiped out and no one will be able to step into their shoes.

Consider; a PC that uses a fairly high end Intel CPU might cost, lets say $1200 for a nice tower, the CPU might only run about $300 of that, a 30% increase in the CPU would add $90 to the price of the tower, you still need a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speaker system, OS, a $90 increase is not a very big increase, most people wouldn't worry or even notice that kind of increase on a system that cost $1500 or more.

I have to think your not talking about a 30% increase in CPU price, perhaps more like at least an 80%-100% or more increase in an Intel CPU price. That of course would put the price of the afore mentioned $1500 system up to as much as $1800. And I agree that that would be rude.

But if you think for one minute that AMD wouldn't suddenly become very competitive (or any company that purchased them) with Intel, if AMD didn't have to compete with Intel's current excellent pricing scheme your nuts.

Far too many people seem to forget a very very important fact about Intel's current dominance. Sure Intel is producing some very powerful outstanding CPU's right now, but that alone would not get them anywhere if it wasn't for one very important thing. They are dirt cheap for the performance level. A year and a half ago I couldn't get an old PD 3.4 for as cheap as a new Core 2 Duo 3.0 today. That is a massive hurdle for AMD to overcome. The price for performance increase Intel has struck is lethal to AMD and thats what is killing them.

Let Intel jack their wonderful $300 CPU up to $600 and watch how great a $400 AMD CPU sells all of a sudden. Lets not forget, AMD CPU's are not bad, they are just not as good as Intel's right now. If you cant afford a $600 CPU that $400 one looks just great if it performs within reasonable price/cost standards.

Don't bet the house on computer prices taking a big jump any time soon.
0 Votes
+ -
Everywhere I have been Intel was the standard. I think as long as AMD is close in speed and slightly cheaper, there will be room in the market for them. To say that they are "done" is overboard. AMD has proven to produce reliable chips with a price advantage over Intel. I also like the idea of having more than one company as a choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Have you seen AMD's recent sales numbers?
No_Ax_to_Grind 3rd Jul 2007
Almost as good isn't working...
0 Votes
+ -
In regards to price/performance on the desktop processor end, I think AMD had an edge up on Intel starting back at the K6-2, and continuing with the Athlon line. However, Core 2 Duo clearly put a swift end to that.
0 Votes
+ -
Problem is...
3D0G 3rd Jul 2007
Until recently AMD had a market for lower cost processors because Intel charged much more for their line. With the Core 2 Duos, Intel came out of the gate with a very low price point so for AMD to come in with a low enough price to entice the bargain shoppers they're going to be making very little money, if any.
That's all true, but I'm not sure they can pay their bills like that. Things look pretty dire now but then again AMD has been in bad positions before.
0 Votes
+ -
Real World IT?...Please...
flounder141 3rd Jul 2007
George,
I've been reading your articles for a while. It's obvious you don't know anything about "Real World IT". Maybe "Real Intel Home Computing".
Every article you do is just a standard benchmark of an Intel system. Or, how an Intel overclocks better than an AMD. Sorry, in "Real World IT" overclocking is out and price and performance is in.
George, stick to what you know. Home computers and Intel overclocking. Stay away from the "Real World"
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, George is right on the money
Prognosticator 3rd Jul 2007
Me thinks you;re a sore loser. Intel's clock advantage has nothing to do with overclocking so you totally made that up and grasping at straws.

From a price and performance point of view, Intel wins. Performance a clear Intel win. Price? Well, for one, AMD's has nothing to sell in quad core so what's your point?
0 Votes
+ -
Show by a raise of hands ...
jc williams 5th Jul 2007
I don;t know about you boys, but unless you have a "real" need for quad-core, what is the point. I don't need or use dual core for most of my applications, and I think that that is true of most other users. Does any of the popular O/S's even support dual-core well? Now we are going to start quiping about the great quad-cores? What O/S and application combinations exist today that will really take advantage of the quad-core? I don't know, and that is why I am asking. Does Vista support them? How about any of the *nix distros?

So, if the processor is not really supported, then who "really" cares?
0 Votes
+ -
You're wrong on all counts
georgeou 5th Jul 2007
1. Quad-core CPUs will soon cost the same as single-core processors cost a year ago. So think of it as a free upgrade. If cars got twice as powerful every 18 months while consuming half the gasoline and costing the same, I'd be screaming for joy.

2. Dual-core and quad-core processors are supported by all versions/editions of Windows XP and Vista. The CPU licensing restriction is based on sockets, not cores per socket.

3. All the *NIX distros support SMP.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah!! Because it's obvious
Hallowed are the Ori 3rd Jul 2007
that you know everything there is to know about everything.

Nobody is forcing you to read anything George puts up, so if you don't like it, keep walking. How hard is that?
0 Votes
+ -
never said
flounder141 3rd Jul 2007
I knew everything. But, I have worked with several high-end and mid-sized systems running AMD and Intel. In general, AMD has been able to move more data per cycle than Intel. This isn't always the fact and Intel has of late caught up.
Once again, I'm talking "Real World IT". I'm talking about simulations and data mining not a Quake 3 benchmark.

I like to get all points of view, but sometimes I have to call BS.
0 Votes
+ -
Intel may run a better benchmark, but in real world throughput, they don't hold a candle to our AMD servers. Intel's FSB is a real hindrance to getting work done in the system.

Using virtualization, where the hypervisor moves processes around between processors, makes this even worse as the pre-fetch doesn't hit and data must be reacquired from memory. Hypertransport and the efficiency of the on-die memory controller reveal themselves in these situations. We run out of memory on our AMD virtual hosts before we run out of processor capacity.

We've also had IVR telephony software that was CPU bound on Intel boxes but only consumed about 30% CPU when moved to 2-socket, dual core, HP DL385s. MS Exchange is also very memory intensive and yet our AMD servers are just snoozing.

In performance per watt, and power management, Intel is still playing catch-up. Don't tell me about how many watts Intel's CPU uses. Find out what the underlying chipsets and FB-DIMMs consume on that Intel platform and get back to me.
0 Votes
+ -
I won't use FB-DIMMs.
Grayson Peddie 3rd Jul 2007
Seems like a mistake for Intel. }:)
I never mentioned Quake benchmarks or overclocking; only you did. The only benchmark I mentioned was what AMD cited which is Integer performance.

If we were overclocking, Intel's quad-core would be clocking in at 3.8 GHz. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about production clock speeds at 3.0 GHz. Apple uses two of those quad-core chips in their 8-core workstation.

So it sounds like the only BS is coming from you.
0 Votes
+ -
Typical IT guy "geek" response
Cayble 8th Sep 2007
Once again it takes a guy so focused on his own little corner of the world that he forgets that the "Real World" in the end combines Information Technology that is useful for both the home and the business world. Thats Real World IT. Further, your bizarre comment;

"overclocking is out and price and performance is in."

has no connection to reality as overclocking is in huge in home based Information Technology and price and performance is in in both home and the business world and Intel destroys AMD in that area mercilessly right now so you do not appear to even have a common mans grasp on the realities of Real World IT in any of its incarnations.
0 Votes
+ -
... when they beat Intel with the Opteron. So the second head of the Wintel Hydra kicked in gear to make up for some complacency.

Just because their current products, and the tardy Barcelona, will not beat Intel does not necessarily mean we need to start ringing the death bell for AMD. Anybody who has been around for a while knows the leap frog contest that the two have been playing for years.

Writing AMD off may make for good, sensational headlines but not much else.
0 Votes
+ -
I Agree Completely
Cayble 8th Sep 2007
I'm not digging any holes to drop the corpse of AMD into quite yet. I just don't see it. To buy into that argument you have to feel that there really isn't any room for a second CPU manufacturer in the industry. I do not believe that for one moment.

I think its time ALL THE FANBOYS did a reality check. I remember when word of the new Core 2 Duo's coming out hit the message boards and blogs and the AMD FANBOYS went nuts, completely lost their minds, and spread more FUD then a normal human could ever hope to remember.

I read posts that said Intel would go into bankruptcy, and worse yet these posts came with figures that were supposed to back the claims up!! I read posts that said the Core 2's were vaporware. That they would never ever come close to reported performance claims because it was quite literally impossible to achieve the reported results (at least by Intel I guess). I read that the websites doing the performance tests were corrupt and being paid off by Intel to lie.

People! Seriously! Get a bloody grip! What is wrong with your life where you are so frightened that Intel may make a better processor for awhile that you loose your mind at the thought of it??

AMD is not going to be wiped off the face of the earth, at least not any time soon. At worst they may one day get picked up by another company, but if someone is trying to tell me that there is only room for one CPU manufacturer you had better come up with some very strong reasoning. The computer industry runs on CPU's, and its a very very big business on a world wide basis.
0 Votes
+ -
Sensationalism
Mojo_Jojo 3rd Jul 2007
Seems like you passed your headline writing class in Journalism 101 with flying colors.

You are always first to make huge declarative statements right off the bat about some new piece of news, and then reverse yourself a short time later.

Speculation is just that - speculation. It's never a replacement for fact. Declarative statements lead people to believe they are based more in fact than in speculation. It seems you would do better to tame the rhetoric and report more on the known, provide possible outcomes with appropriate language, and find yourself correcting your print less often.

Truth be told, AMD has a knack for wringing out more "horsepower" per transistor than Intel. Architecture is key, and sometimes it takes a few iterations to find that harmonius design. While Intel holds enormous advantages over AMD, AMD somehow finds a way to perservere. I find it admirable that AMD fights on, but also admirable that Intel rediscovers its ingenuity and provides more advances.

The winner in all of this is the consumer, who would be better served by not choosing sides, just the best technology at the time of purchase.
Please. And lets make them something substantive, not something like "sorry I got the color wrong".
0 Votes
+ -
AMD is doomed...
jasonp@... 3rd Jul 2007
No, wait...Intel is doomed. No, now AMD is doomed. Hold on a sec...

I've been hearing people predicting the downfall of Intel or AMD since AMD broke into the x86 market. These people look at market competition and come to the conclusion that all markets can only be dominated by a single player. Every move by any player in the market is destined to destroy the competition or wind up as some form of marketplace hara-kari.

It's pretty amazing that when it comes to the Intel/AMD marketspace these "journalists" have been wrong 100% of the time. Neither company has killed its competition or committed suicide. It's just business as usual. If you have to sensationalize news to such an extent, maybe you should give up journalism and go into fiction. Only there do terms like "Intel-killer" or "AMD-killer" have meaning.
0 Votes
+ -
I get your point but...
Cayble 8th Sep 2007
Don't make it sound like George said AMD is doomed. I don't recall reading him say that. I think at worst you might attribute an implication by George that things could get very rough for AMD for some time, and that seems to be a highly accurate position at this point. Take note; George isn't writing AMD off by any means, he did say:

"These problems may all just be temporary and AMD will eventually iron out the bumps and produce high quantities of higher clocked Barcelona CPUs but time isn?t on AMD?s side when Intel?s tick-tock cadence keeps ticking away."
0 Votes
+ -
AMD no matter what
GeiselS@... 3rd Jul 2007
There are also the AMD fans. Since their K6 chip came out, I've waivered between Intel and AMD with a slight preference for AMD. Over the years I have phased out all Intel in favour of AMD and don't plan to look back.

More and more companies I have worked with also tend to favour AMD and I don't see that changing. Companies these days are less concerned with the minor performance differences and rather look at price and availability.
0 Votes
+ -
That doesn't matter to me.
Grayson Peddie 3rd Jul 2007
All it matters is the energy conservation.

For example, I've underclocked my AMD Sempron64 3400+ down to 1GHz x4 at a voltage core of 0.9 volts (currently CPU-Z indicates 0.912 volts).

I run my server 24x7 and it's pretty stable.
0 Votes
+ -
More work per cycle, maybe?
Grayson Peddie 3rd Jul 2007
Maybe AMD made quad-core processors with more work per cycle, which in term faster clock speeds may seem overkill for Barcelona when it comes to quad-core. If it succeeded and takes down an AMD Opteron running at 3GHz dual-core, then I'm thinking it'd be cool to underclock Barcelona down to 1GHz to see what it looks like when compared to Intel Pentium III at 1GHz but I know it's single-core. Maybe it'd be better to compare underclocked Barcelona processor to 3GHz Intel Pentium 4 HyperThreaded, dual-core processor.

Anyway, with underclocking put aside, I think it's better late than early, to work out some problems with Barcelona, IMO. I think quality is AMD's top priority.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567
Doesn't look like they have a real clock-for-clock advantage any more. 20% just became 1% based on the latest certified SPEC.org scores.
0 Votes
+ -
Perpetual License? don't think so
thetruthhurts 5th Jul 2007
No such thing as a perpetual license when you have cross-patent renegotiations taking place between these two companies.
0 Votes
+ -
Intel vs. AMD
justanitguy 5th Jul 2007
Just curious, George, but I noticed that you haven't mentioned immersion lithography ANYWHERE. Seems to me a remarkable thing to neglect to mention THAT when you are already talking about the 45nm Penryn. I recall reading that 38nm is about as low as you can go using Intel's manufacturing process, whereas using immersion lithography you could get down to about 18nm. Seems to me that Intel is going to find themselves stuck in a dead end road.
0 Votes
+ -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=415
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=550

"Seems to me that Intel is going to find themselves stuck in a dead end road."

Actually, Intel is playing it smart by extending dry lithography to 45nm. It will squeeze out more profits for Intel. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=550.

Intel will most likely switch to wet litho for 32nm unless they start using pixelated mask technology to extend dry litho to 32nm.
Anybody who has even the slightest knowledge of microchip architecture knows that clock speed does not guarantee performance. Not all instructions can be completed in a single clock cycle, and mispredictions can deadly on the long pipelines Intel's chips generally have.

Interestingly enough, Intel beat AMD at their own game in their latest chips. Instead of pushing more GHz as they usually do, they beefed up their existing architecture in a manner not unlike what AMD was doing.

But, yeah, GHz is not the whole story. There's been a lot of competition under the hood apart from the GHz battle.
0 Votes
+ -
Stop spamming my blogs
georgeou 10th Jul 2007
This isn't the place to be posting this. You've posted this same message in 3 of my other blogs. Post your point once and make your point; but don't post the same thing over and over again in every one of my blogs. I don't want to have to ask the moderator to start deleting replica posts.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not spamming this blog, George Ou.
TechExec2 10th Jul 2007
.
You're the one with the four-day rabid blog-a-thon campaign against AMD.

I made one single post, and one reference to it in each of the other three.

Taking down my single post and/or the three references to it, would be blatant censorship.
0 Votes
+ -
Removing replicas is NOT censorship.
georgeou 10th Jul 2007
You taking down all redundant posts but the orignal is NOT censorship. You keep spamming and I will ask the moderator to start removing replicas. You can scream censorship all you want but it just makes you look silly when it's clear that your posts are still here.

You've been given the right to speak your mind here and no one has censored anything you've said, but do not abuse that privilege with large numbers of replica posts. So don't be a jerk about it.
0 Votes
+ -
criticism but you can't take it, George.

Since I, and everyone else, isn't able to read every post, there is nothing wrong with repeating content in different posts. This is the first time I have read his debunking of you so I am glad he posted it hear. I personally think he makes a good point.

For you to ask for it to be pulled is trully censorship and show a lack of your ability to accept criticism!
0 Votes
+ -
Furthermore,
bjbrock 21st Aug 2007
This is not the first time you a bashed AMD over these same problems. Your post are starting to resemble replicas themselves.
0 Votes
+ -
George, the way I see it...
Grayson Peddie 11th Jul 2007
His comment about the use of harsh language such as "garbage" is not a good fit for tone/manner from AMD's Tone and Manner Guide, even if he's not associated with AMD in any way.

In this case, if I'm a moderator, I'd delete it right away, even if he's entitled to a freedom of speech.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix