This doesn't seem surprising to me at all. The Core2 microarchitecture was an amazing leap forward.

Just illustrates the huge movement forward the core2 duos and quad cores have been for Intel and AMD'S poor showing with the Phenom's.

I think in the past most super computers were built around IBM processors.

Wile EThis doesn't seem surprising to me at all. The Core2 microarchitecture was an amazing leap forward.

indeed it was . . . but we've been starting to see Intel becoming highly complacent like they were back in the day before AMD gave them a kick-in-the-nuts by GoodSwift.

Back then, Intel was running "recycled & revamped" architecture under the name NetBurst, and TBH, as much as it looked great on paper, it was really a brute force CPU architecture; and Intel milked the crap out of it in their Gigahertz war.

It wasn't until AMD took the limelight that Intel went back to the drawing board, as they intended to continue the NetBurst architecture for at least a few more CPU families:




But, now that they've reclaimed the king of the hill status, they're beginning to show their complacency again - through their sandbaggin tactics, and the fact that they're milking the crap out of the Core2 architecture now.


:ohwell:

Polaris573I think in the past most super computers were built around IBM processors.

And still are...well the fast ones are.

Look at the list: www.top500.org/

The top 6 are non intel...they are AMD or IBM or both (both being the fastest supercomputer).

1) Roadrunner - Opteron and Cell Broadband Engine (PS3 cpu) <--- first to break the petaflop barrier (it peaks out at 1.7 petaflops). It two times faster than second place.
2) BlueGene/L - PowerPC
3) Blue Gene/P (Argonne National Laboratory) - PowerPC
4) Ranger - Opteron
5) Jaguar - Opteron
6) JUGENE - PowerPC

then comes an intel...

7) Encanto - Xeon
8) EKA - Xeon
9) Blue Gene/P (IDRIS) - PowerPC
10) SGI Altix ICE - Xeon

Just realize this. If Intel gets its way, and pushes AMD out of the processor market, new technology will take exponentially longer to come out. Intel will no longer need to try to put out new processors and architecture.

Last year AMD only had 13% of the processor market. When I recently built my new computer, I could of bought Intel. I knew Intel was better. I knew I'd gimp myself if I got a phenom over any Intel but I bought AMD in hopes that I could help.

On the other hand, its awesome to see how well Intel has succeeded.

ViscariousJust realize this. If Intel gets its way, and pushes AMD out of the processor market, new technology will take exponentially longer to come out. Intel will no longer need to try to put out new processors and architecture.

Last year AMD only had 13% of the processor market. When I recently built my new computer, I could of bought Intel. I knew Intel was better. I knew I'd gimp myself if I got a phenom over any Intel but I bought AMD in hopes that I could help.

On the other hand, its awesome to see how well Intel has succeeded.

TBH, I'm not too surprised at all by it - but, for me, it has to do with growing up around computers . . .

a decade ago, the majority of CPUs in personal computers were Intel; every now and then you might've run across someone running AMD or IBM, or even a VIA. AMD was the second fastes growing personal computer CPU at the time, though, whereas IBM was headed towards workstations and corporate/industrial use.

I have to say, though, considering how long AMD has been around compared to Intel's history, AMD have come a very long and respectable way.

ViscariousJust realize this. If Intel gets its way, and pushes AMD out of the processor market, new technology will take exponentially longer to come out. Intel will no longer need to try to put out new processors and architecture.

Last year AMD only had 13% of the processor market. When I recently built my new computer, I could of bought Intel. I knew Intel was better. I knew I'd gimp myself if I got a phenom over any Intel but I bought AMD in hopes that I could help.

On the other hand, its awesome to see how well Intel has succeeded.

Good Man. I too a strong supporter of AMD. Just time will tell if they will come back. Last time they tackled a not so big monster and that monster has grown beyond control.

Yea, I think that the AMD and ATI merger took too much attention away from working on processor development. Although, seeing the scores for ATIs new cards do show that the merger was sort of a good move. Just hope the AMD half catches up.

ViscariousYea, I think that the AMD and ATI merger took too much attention away from working on processor development. Although, seeing the scores for ATIs new cards do show that the merger was sort of a good move. Just hope the AMD half catches up.

Give them time . . . they are up against:










I have faith in AMD though; they'll end up surprising us at some point.

In the meantime, Intel will stay at the top of heap (I wonder, though, how much of their success over the last 8 years has been due to their marketing tactics :ohwell:) . . .



[BTW, bonus points to whoever gets that reference I just made! :D :toast:]

imperialreignGive them time . . . they are up against:

I have faith in AMD though; they'll end up surprising us at some point.

In the meantime, Intel will stay at the top of heap (I wonder, though, how much of their success over the last 8 years has been due to their marketing tactics :ohwell:) . . .



[BTW, bonus points to whoever gets that reference I just made! :D :toast:]

Arg! I've heard this before ... or read it... I just dont know. PM it to me plox.

imperialreignGive them time . . . they are up against:










I have faith in AMD though; they'll end up surprising us at some point.

In the meantime, Intel will stay at the top of heap (I wonder, though, how much of their success over the last 8 years has been due to their marketing tactics :ohwell:) . . .



[BTW, bonus points to whoever gets that reference I just made! :D :toast:]

J.R.R.Tolkein? The Hobbit or Lord Of The Rings?

75% of super computers use Intel? Amazing, since the FSB scales so badly with many processors.
__________
and that pic reference... Shrek?

mikek75J.R.R.Tolkein? The Hobbit or Lord Of The Rings?

The pic is from The Hobbit

imperialreignGive them time . . . they are up against:










I have faith in AMD though; they'll end up surprising us at some point.

In the meantime, Intel will stay at the top of heap (I wonder, though, how much of their success over the last 8 years has been due to their marketing tactics :ohwell:) . . .



[BTW, bonus points to whoever gets that reference I just made! :D :toast:]

smog/smaug the dragon from the hobbit, not lotr there wasnt a dragon in lotr :)

From_Nowhere75% of super computers use Intel? Amazing, since the FSB scales so badly with many processors.

They're mostly clusters.

I wonder, if they just make a huge motherboard, that holds like 100x new "video" cards... chain a bunch of them together... 800 stream processors each... hehe.

Anybody ever hear anything about the "neural network" computers or "creativity machines"? computers that pretty much mimic the way the brain works.... pretty neat stuff. One day, when we die, we will all live forever in cyber heaven, and I will be your god, MUA HAHAHAHA.

alot of interesting info. I didnt know AMD was in the top 6 of the super computers.

and as its been said by Wile E and others, it goes to show how revolutionary the Core2 architecture really was.

too bad the strongest supercomputers are composed of amd opertons, cells and ppc processors

:roll:

imperialreignindeed it was . . . but we've been starting to see Intel becoming highly complacent like they were back in the day before AMD gave them a kick-in-the-nuts by GoodSwift.

Back then, Intel was running "recycled & revamped" architecture under the name NetBurst, and TBH, as much as it looked great on paper, it was really a brute force CPU architecture; and Intel milked the crap out of it in their Gigahertz war.

It wasn't until AMD took the limelight that Intel went back to the drawing board, as they intended to continue the NetBurst architecture for at least a few more CPU families:




But, now that they've reclaimed the king of the hill status, they're beginning to show their complacency again - through their sandbaggin tactics, and the fact that they're milking the crap out of the Core2 architecture now.


:ohwell:

ROFL look at the yellow box. They want to go prescott all the way to nehalem. :roll:

I remember those willamette,s they were HORRIBLE, P3's were faster than themand they were horrible overclockers

massive waste o money at the time, unbelievable failures

but those northwoods were some very good overclockers against amd's bartons

For a total NUTKICK to Intel, you can look at the statistics another way:

Intel is the main processor "in" 75% of the top 500 supercomputers.
But it represents only 39% of the PROCESSORS in use.
And represents only 50% of the supercomputing POWER as represented by Rmax.

Statistics. Dangerous things.

The POWER LIST is represented by "Rmax share / Processor share" and shown in green in the table below:

PowerPC450
Opteron Quad Core
PowerXCell 8i

These are the 3 most powerful processors in the top 500. And they aint intel.

i 100 % dont care.. i have always built amd.. my first intel machine since the 086 286 386 486 days was a laptop...and it does scream.. (9k in 3d06)

9k in 3d06 is NOTHING to brag about.

I have 11k3 with an Intel AGP system. :nutkick:

Polaris573I think in the past most super computers were built around IBM processors.

Absolutely they were. Back in the late 70's and into the 80's I recall the HUGE super computers at Paradyne and E-Systems, they were IBM based. In fact, they took up entire rooms. Hard to believe that what used to occupy a room the size of a small house now occupies about 4 square feet if that.