Enough with the AT-is-Intel-sponsored crap, please.
Most of us (with brains in our skulls) have come to appreciate their objectivity, and most of us (over the age of FOUR) do fondly remember the days when AMD was actually competitive and AT reported just that.
Another possible factor why AMD Shanghai is losing, is its smaller L3 cache (-25% than Nehalem).
If SAP loves low-latency memory but doesn't care about memory bandwidth, isn't this an indication of SAP's poor locality? And Nehalem's L3 cache is 33% larger than Shanghai's.
Agree that the low CPI means a massive CMT processor is a good candidate. Though for SAP, the article somewhat invalidates this due to extensive data sharing across threads.
The real story here isn't between Intel and AMD - no one really cares about that battle. The real story here is that to install a large SAP instance in the past would cost hundred of thousands (sometimes millions) of $ in hardware - predominantly IBM power PC or HP/sun Unix platforms. (or for the crazy people Itanium rack based toasters)
The sensational part of this story is that a medium sized SAP instance can now be run on under $100k of hardware.
25000 SAPS per box is astonishing - It wasn't long ago that 25000 SAPS would have cost $300k to provision - Now it is going to be available to a single WINTEL box (HP DL380 G6 or something similar).
I love the Intel roadmaps and presentations in general. Almost as slick as Apple. I think if Intel went into making devices for their chips they'd probably do very well.
Why is the author having to defend his article??
Sure its a little one-sided, but hey, thats life sometimes.
From a business aspect...
the few people who make the decisions on purchases dont look at just SAP bench's
IN FACT - they dont look at many benches at all. its a small factor in the big scheme of things. The Global Company i work for has a server room the size of a football field. The cost of backup media is MUCH higher than server cost.
They look at price/performance & longevity. Especially in times like these where every company should be & IS looking to cut everything possible. Lower power consumption wins hands down. I dont care if its intel or amd, In the long run a lower power bill wins. A little well-known secret. the life cycle of desktops/laptops is shorter than servers, with 1000+ laptops/desktops per site, 50+ sites just in the US alone. You're going to look at long-term savings in power consumption to offset the cost of a pc's life-cycle. Again because in these times NOBODY with half a brain is going to go and buy the biggest and best server when even yesterdays servers can last 10+ years if stretched. not many large corporations are shelling out the dough for the best of the best.
IF Intel dramatically cut pricing, they would EASILY once and for all crush amd more than they already have these last few years.
And if intel can spend 7 billion on fabs for 32nm, they can squash amd with unrealistic price cuts. then you'll see huge power bills & jacked up prices FOREVER. personally, i buy amd for this sole reason. not for performance OR price.
so someone explain why the author gets bashed??? thats simply childish. he shouldnt have to defend his own articles because of some stupid amd-intel war, Its simply business as usual for EVERY LARGE CORPORATION to try and out the competition.
While gamers might look at the absolute performance, and workstation users might look at price/performance, enterprise server rooms operate on the total cost. Can you save power, reduce heat, shrink the space, etc.? While a SAP benchmark might attract notice, no one is going to redesign their server room based on it - especially if they're not using SAP.
Wasn't this expected? I mean this IS what i7 was built for. Intel isn't happy with desktop and notebook domination, they want the whole thing. They obviously want to put AMD out of business and just might with these i7 server chips.
Anand even stated before i7 was made for servers and this is why you only see a 15% increase (roughly) over highly clocked Core2Quads in the desktop and gaming consumer space.
I really hope AMD can come with some 8 core 45nm server chips otherwise this could be the nail in the coffin.
It's really hard to praise AMD since the best they can do with their top-of-the line CPU is to compete with last gen of Intel CPUs. Intel clearly has a momentum and good products in the pipeline, and AMD lost their momentum a long time ago and are clearly struggling. AMD provides value CPUs these days. I built my HTCP around a quad AMD CPU because it was inexpensive, the whole platform was cheap. But if I want the most speed for my apps and games I'd have to be crazy not to go with i7.
I knew that Anandtech is an Intel Website but this article is just ridiculous.
Taking the absolut sweetspot with SAP (no vitualisation or cloud computing), saying nothing about price (DDR3?), availability (April) or power consumption.
Just pure Intel promotion and AMD bashing, quite a masterpiece.
Trying to keep customers from buying Shanghai servers that dominate the complete Intel server lineup today, by promoting the "oh so great" Nehalem without talking about platform pricing and power consumption.
Every article about Nehalem vs anything AMD shows about the same thing, that it's only in a very few areas that AMD has a chance, and in even fewer where they are a bit ahead.
Don't blame Anandtech if other major testing agencies find AMD to be wanting, it's their own fault.
Back when AMD introduced its first Athlon 64 server CPUs, Anand's site was among the first to tell the world that Intel would have a hard time in the server market.
Platform pricing is something OEMs end up determining on the server arena; I think you already know that in large corporations it won't be frequent to find anyone buying bare bones to build up the systems.
And you certainly should also know that in that kind of scenario, price is not the only determining factor, added to the fact that no company will be switching servers overnight just because something new and better and shinier has come.
"Taking the absolut sweetspot with SAP (no vitualisation or cloud computing), saying nothing about price (DDR3?), availability (April) or power consumption. "
Like another reader already remarked, don't expect huge price differences. About virtualization, read between the lines: I have the necessary data but I can not publish it. Do you think I would write this kind of post if I had no data to back it up? Our longtime readers will know we won't take that risk, it.anandtech.com is not about producing sensational news.
And lastly you should bring some real proof that I am bashing AMD. I have seen no proof that I am wrong in your post.
knowing that you can´t use hyperthreading in virtualization, since it realy kills your system on high load configs, turbo mode is also no glance unless they found a way in there VM code to deal with the switching CPU ghz...., guess not for absolute stability. That leaves the raw nehalem performance. ddr3 would provide a benefit with there 3MC, also with the bigger L3 size, but then again for shanghai larger l1-l2 faster l3 so that is a mixed bag. In the end i think it gets to the real technology, AMD has really more experience when it comes to NPT while for intel its the first time they will use EPT and don't forget the enhanced performance on virtualisation switching time in shanghai showed a real big improvement in virtulisation performance, Barcelona time you would require about 10-15% more ghz from an intel 2s hypertown to get the same performance but now with shanghai its allready about 20-25%, this is realy shown in recent vmmarks and becomes just clearer when you actually work with the systems. Istanbul is also not far away and the die size won´t increase that much by just adding the 2 logic cores only,
Then there is the 4s configs where there is really no competition in VMware, who ever buys a 4s intel for virtual platform is a marketing fool and that will continue for another half a year, tigertown had a short life because amd screwed there quad design and dunnington was dead from the beginning.
interesting future, we will see soon, whas there a silent hint from intel why they sold there Vmware shares again and started a joined effort with Xen?
You don't expect dual-socket Intel systems to be significantly cheaper than quad-socket AMD systems? I mean, our AMD fanboi might think AMD quad-sockets will be significantly cheaper than Intel dual-sockets, but I kind of expect it will be the other way around, myself. I mean, even with the price penalty for FB-DIMMS (worse than the price penalty for DDR3), dual-socket Xeon boxes are a lot cheaper than quad-socket Opteron boxes right now (based on a cursory glance at rack server pricing at Dell.com).
"You don't expect dual-socket Intel systems to be significantly cheaper than quad-socket AMD systems?"
I meant that I don't expect that a dual Xeon box is so much more expensive that it is influencing the purchasing decision in a huge way. A 10% higher price is not really that important, just like a 10% performance boost should be put into perspective.
Actually. I've already ran the early numbers on price/performance.
Normally, the expectation would be that the much newer dual Xeon system would cost more than the already existing quad-Socket F option.
In this case, I think that Intel actually released (or targetted release) in order to take aim directly at the 4S AMD market.
On the other hand then, I think that people really really need to take into consideration that the SAP benchmark is the first of what I'm sure will be MANY to follow.
Hmm... it looks to me (on a cursory glance; I've never seriously priced out anything bigger than a dual-socket box) like quad-socket boxes are much, more expensive than dual-socket boxes. To the point where that completely overwhelms the 'new and shiny' price penalty for cutting-edge hardware.
The cheapest Opteron (Shanghai) 2376 2.3 GHz processor is around $380. An Opteron (Shanghai) 2384 2.7 GHz is around $950. Sure I only calculated for 2P versions not 8P versions. 8P versions are for systems needs over 60 processors. Most setups will do just fine on 2P setups or setting up a cluster server with 2P versions.
If you really want to compare pricing and power consumption with theoretical pricing from Intel. Intel Xeon DP E5540 may cost a little less, but the Opteron has a little edge of power consumption. Though the Opteron (Shanghai) was not supposed to compare to Intel Xeon DP. They were supposed to compare to Xeon MP. I will be surprise that Opteron (Shanghai) compares to some Xeon DP.
AMD HyperTransport sets the processors in a mesh like network. This creates complexity and (I think) requires fabrication quality to be higher for 8P versions.
Thanks for the data. Though I'd have wished the AMD fanboys can do their homework themselves, that way we don't always have to point out how they don't know what they're talking about.
Time and time again people fall for cheap Intel taktiks.
Intel is doing the same thing they do @ desktop with i7.
The processors are very cheap, the money is made with the expensive platform. Without information about platformpricing and yes, DDR3 for server is also very expensive, you can not say anything about competition. Only comparing CPU prices from AMD right now vs. Intel prices in 2 months is double bullshit. If nehalem really is that good, prices will drop to a competitive level.
Intel is not going to make a gift to anyone, they are also not going to devaluate their existing server lineup completely. When Shanghai is loosing to nehalem, everything Intel has to offer right now is going to loose big time to nehalem.
Do you really believe a 2 socket Nehalem System is going to win every benchmark vs. a 4 socket Shanghai System? Seriously?
Do you really believe Intel did not choose the sweetspot with releasing those SAP benchmarks? Beating a 4P system with a 2P system sounds great and is "simple" to understand for the average joe.
Yeah right, Nehalem is going to be 100% faster than any Shanghai in every benchmark and also will use 50% less power doing so? What are you smoking?
Maybe now they will stop strong arming people and compete on merits. Hopefully though when Atom is done with growth there'll be someone left to actually sell the computers and make a profit.
Ah, it appears the F-wads from AMDzone don't agree with the data provided. Of course, anandtech is just a "paid Intel pumper" site. And Intel forces people to buy their products, because AMD parts are actually alot faster and offer far more MEGATASKING PLATFORMANCE!!!11!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
Back to Article
stonedsurd - Thursday, February 19, 2009 - link
Enough with the AT-is-Intel-sponsored crap, please.Most of us (with brains in our skulls) have come to appreciate their objectivity, and most of us (over the age of FOUR) do fondly remember the days when AMD was actually competitive and AT reported just that.
hha - Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - link
On one hand, the article says that hardware threading is not the major factor of Intel's advantage over AMD.But, 4 paragraph later, the article puts a very strong word on AMD's lack of hardware threading killing its performance.
Which one is the stand now?
hha - Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - link
Another possible factor why AMD Shanghai is losing, is its smaller L3 cache (-25% than Nehalem).If SAP loves low-latency memory but doesn't care about memory bandwidth, isn't this an indication of SAP's poor locality? And Nehalem's L3 cache is 33% larger than Shanghai's.
Agree that the low CPI means a massive CMT processor is a good candidate. Though for SAP, the article somewhat invalidates this due to extensive data sharing across threads.
Wozar - Monday, February 16, 2009 - link
Or is it just me?The real story here isn't between Intel and AMD - no one really cares about that battle. The real story here is that to install a large SAP instance in the past would cost hundred of thousands (sometimes millions) of $ in hardware - predominantly IBM power PC or HP/sun Unix platforms. (or for the crazy people Itanium rack based toasters)
The sensational part of this story is that a medium sized SAP instance can now be run on under $100k of hardware.
25000 SAPS per box is astonishing - It wasn't long ago that 25000 SAPS would have cost $300k to provision - Now it is going to be available to a single WINTEL box (HP DL380 G6 or something similar).
Flame away,
Wozar
mobilecomputing - Monday, February 16, 2009 - link
I love the Intel roadmaps and presentations in general. Almost as slick as Apple. I think if Intel went into making devices for their chips they'd probably do very well.http://news.idealo.co.uk/voucher-codes/">http://news.idealo.co.uk/voucher-codes/
Lucentmoon - Saturday, February 14, 2009 - link
Why is the author having to defend his article??Sure its a little one-sided, but hey, thats life sometimes.
From a business aspect...
the few people who make the decisions on purchases dont look at just SAP bench's
IN FACT - they dont look at many benches at all. its a small factor in the big scheme of things. The Global Company i work for has a server room the size of a football field. The cost of backup media is MUCH higher than server cost.
They look at price/performance & longevity. Especially in times like these where every company should be & IS looking to cut everything possible. Lower power consumption wins hands down. I dont care if its intel or amd, In the long run a lower power bill wins. A little well-known secret. the life cycle of desktops/laptops is shorter than servers, with 1000+ laptops/desktops per site, 50+ sites just in the US alone. You're going to look at long-term savings in power consumption to offset the cost of a pc's life-cycle. Again because in these times NOBODY with half a brain is going to go and buy the biggest and best server when even yesterdays servers can last 10+ years if stretched. not many large corporations are shelling out the dough for the best of the best.
IF Intel dramatically cut pricing, they would EASILY once and for all crush amd more than they already have these last few years.
And if intel can spend 7 billion on fabs for 32nm, they can squash amd with unrealistic price cuts. then you'll see huge power bills & jacked up prices FOREVER. personally, i buy amd for this sole reason. not for performance OR price.
so someone explain why the author gets bashed??? thats simply childish. he shouldnt have to defend his own articles because of some stupid amd-intel war, Its simply business as usual for EVERY LARGE CORPORATION to try and out the competition.
garydale - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
While gamers might look at the absolute performance, and workstation users might look at price/performance, enterprise server rooms operate on the total cost. Can you save power, reduce heat, shrink the space, etc.? While a SAP benchmark might attract notice, no one is going to redesign their server room based on it - especially if they're not using SAP.Mr Roboto - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Wasn't this expected? I mean this IS what i7 was built for. Intel isn't happy with desktop and notebook domination, they want the whole thing. They obviously want to put AMD out of business and just might with these i7 server chips.Anand even stated before i7 was made for servers and this is why you only see a 15% increase (roughly) over highly clocked Core2Quads in the desktop and gaming consumer space.
I really hope AMD can come with some 8 core 45nm server chips otherwise this could be the nail in the coffin.
zagortenay - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Yes I am an AMD fan and I can see so many sheep like creatures licking the knife of a big, bad, ugly butcher named Intel.Zak - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
It's really hard to praise AMD since the best they can do with their top-of-the line CPU is to compete with last gen of Intel CPUs. Intel clearly has a momentum and good products in the pipeline, and AMD lost their momentum a long time ago and are clearly struggling. AMD provides value CPUs these days. I built my HTCP around a quad AMD CPU because it was inexpensive, the whole platform was cheap. But if I want the most speed for my apps and games I'd have to be crazy not to go with i7.Z.
BaronMatrix - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Baaaahhhh. The shearer is right over there.BSMonitor - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
Who let this clown start posting again?HelToupee - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Even if you may be right, this has anything to do with high-end server CPU's, and hence this article how?Zak - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
This referred to the posters accusing Anandtech of not praising AMD and being an Intel fan site.balancedthinking - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
I knew that Anandtech is an Intel Website but this article is just ridiculous.Taking the absolut sweetspot with SAP (no vitualisation or cloud computing), saying nothing about price (DDR3?), availability (April) or power consumption.
Just pure Intel promotion and AMD bashing, quite a masterpiece.
Trying to keep customers from buying Shanghai servers that dominate the complete Intel server lineup today, by promoting the "oh so great" Nehalem without talking about platform pricing and power consumption.
melgross - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
You seem to be the fanboy here.Every article about Nehalem vs anything AMD shows about the same thing, that it's only in a very few areas that AMD has a chance, and in even fewer where they are a bit ahead.
Don't blame Anandtech if other major testing agencies find AMD to be wanting, it's their own fault.
DeepBlue1975 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Nonsense.Back when AMD introduced its first Athlon 64 server CPUs, Anand's site was among the first to tell the world that Intel would have a hard time in the server market.
Platform pricing is something OEMs end up determining on the server arena; I think you already know that in large corporations it won't be frequent to find anyone buying bare bones to build up the systems.
And you certainly should also know that in that kind of scenario, price is not the only determining factor, added to the fact that no company will be switching servers overnight just because something new and better and shinier has come.
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
"Taking the absolut sweetspot with SAP (no vitualisation or cloud computing), saying nothing about price (DDR3?), availability (April) or power consumption. "Like another reader already remarked, don't expect huge price differences. About virtualization, read between the lines: I have the necessary data but I can not publish it. Do you think I would write this kind of post if I had no data to back it up? Our longtime readers will know we won't take that risk, it.anandtech.com is not about producing sensational news.
And lastly you should bring some real proof that I am bashing AMD. I have seen no proof that I am wrong in your post.
duploxxx - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
knowing that you can´t use hyperthreading in virtualization, since it realy kills your system on high load configs, turbo mode is also no glance unless they found a way in there VM code to deal with the switching CPU ghz...., guess not for absolute stability. That leaves the raw nehalem performance. ddr3 would provide a benefit with there 3MC, also with the bigger L3 size, but then again for shanghai larger l1-l2 faster l3 so that is a mixed bag. In the end i think it gets to the real technology, AMD has really more experience when it comes to NPT while for intel its the first time they will use EPT and don't forget the enhanced performance on virtualisation switching time in shanghai showed a real big improvement in virtulisation performance, Barcelona time you would require about 10-15% more ghz from an intel 2s hypertown to get the same performance but now with shanghai its allready about 20-25%, this is realy shown in recent vmmarks and becomes just clearer when you actually work with the systems. Istanbul is also not far away and the die size won´t increase that much by just adding the 2 logic cores only,Then there is the 4s configs where there is really no competition in VMware, who ever buys a 4s intel for virtual platform is a marketing fool and that will continue for another half a year, tigertown had a short life because amd screwed there quad design and dunnington was dead from the beginning.
interesting future, we will see soon, whas there a silent hint from intel why they sold there Vmware shares again and started a joined effort with Xen?
icrf - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
I'm curious, is the date that you can tell us more information also under embargo?drothgery - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
You don't expect dual-socket Intel systems to be significantly cheaper than quad-socket AMD systems? I mean, our AMD fanboi might think AMD quad-sockets will be significantly cheaper than Intel dual-sockets, but I kind of expect it will be the other way around, myself. I mean, even with the price penalty for FB-DIMMS (worse than the price penalty for DDR3), dual-socket Xeon boxes are a lot cheaper than quad-socket Opteron boxes right now (based on a cursory glance at rack server pricing at Dell.com).JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
"You don't expect dual-socket Intel systems to be significantly cheaper than quad-socket AMD systems?"I meant that I don't expect that a dual Xeon box is so much more expensive that it is influencing the purchasing decision in a huge way. A 10% higher price is not really that important, just like a 10% performance boost should be put into perspective.
alpha754293 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Actually. I've already ran the early numbers on price/performance.Normally, the expectation would be that the much newer dual Xeon system would cost more than the already existing quad-Socket F option.
In this case, I think that Intel actually released (or targetted release) in order to take aim directly at the 4S AMD market.
On the other hand then, I think that people really really need to take into consideration that the SAP benchmark is the first of what I'm sure will be MANY to follow.
So, just keep that in mind.
drothgery - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Hmm... it looks to me (on a cursory glance; I've never seriously priced out anything bigger than a dual-socket box) like quad-socket boxes are much, more expensive than dual-socket boxes. To the point where that completely overwhelms the 'new and shiny' price penalty for cutting-edge hardware.rv968 - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
Also relevant, in the server market it is common for the cost of application licensing (per CPU) to be much greater than the cost of the hardware. Oracle DB EE for example lists at over $20K per Intel core.http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/technology...">http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/technology...
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Dual Xeon vs Dual Opteron thus. (I have to ask John for an edit function ;-)strikeback03 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Wow, and here I thought fanboiism was only in the consumer space. Guess not.carniver - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
So why don't you post your price estimates for both? I have a hard time believing a dual nehalem can cost much more than a quad opteron systemdefter - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Pricing for Nehalem Xeons has been released long time ago: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200811180...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displa...ehalem_P...Cheapest (2.26GHz) 8-thread Xeon will cost only $373 while 2.93GHz model mentioned in the article costs $1386.
You can see AMD's pricing here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInforma...">http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInforma...
Chepeast 1.8GHz 4-way Opteron CPU costs $523, 2.7GHz model costs $2149.
Then we need to take into account that 4-way motherboard costs much more than 2-way (offsetting higher cost of memory).
Here are some price examples (without motherboard):
cheapest dual Nehalem: 2*373 = $746
cheapest quad Opteron: 4*523 = $2092
Models mentioned in the article (2.93GHz Nehalem, 2.7GHz Opteron)
dual Nehalem: 2*1386 = $2772
quad Opteron: 4*2149 = $8596, over three times as much!
AMD needs to cut 4-way Opteron prices really, really low in order to be even remotely competitive.
jmurbank - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
The cheapest Opteron (Shanghai) 2376 2.3 GHz processor is around $380. An Opteron (Shanghai) 2384 2.7 GHz is around $950. Sure I only calculated for 2P versions not 8P versions. 8P versions are for systems needs over 60 processors. Most setups will do just fine on 2P setups or setting up a cluster server with 2P versions.If you really want to compare pricing and power consumption with theoretical pricing from Intel. Intel Xeon DP E5540 may cost a little less, but the Opteron has a little edge of power consumption. Though the Opteron (Shanghai) was not supposed to compare to Intel Xeon DP. They were supposed to compare to Xeon MP. I will be surprise that Opteron (Shanghai) compares to some Xeon DP.
AMD HyperTransport sets the processors in a mesh like network. This creates complexity and (I think) requires fabrication quality to be higher for 8P versions.
carniver - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Thanks for the data. Though I'd have wished the AMD fanboys can do their homework themselves, that way we don't always have to point out how they don't know what they're talking about.balancedthinking - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
Time and time again people fall for cheap Intel taktiks.Intel is doing the same thing they do @ desktop with i7.
The processors are very cheap, the money is made with the expensive platform. Without information about platformpricing and yes, DDR3 for server is also very expensive, you can not say anything about competition. Only comparing CPU prices from AMD right now vs. Intel prices in 2 months is double bullshit. If nehalem really is that good, prices will drop to a competitive level.
Intel is not going to make a gift to anyone, they are also not going to devaluate their existing server lineup completely. When Shanghai is loosing to nehalem, everything Intel has to offer right now is going to loose big time to nehalem.
Do you really believe a 2 socket Nehalem System is going to win every benchmark vs. a 4 socket Shanghai System? Seriously?
Do you really believe Intel did not choose the sweetspot with releasing those SAP benchmarks? Beating a 4P system with a 2P system sounds great and is "simple" to understand for the average joe.
Yeah right, Nehalem is going to be 100% faster than any Shanghai in every benchmark and also will use 50% less power doing so? What are you smoking?
BaronMatrix - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Maybe now they will stop strong arming people and compete on merits. Hopefully though when Atom is done with growth there'll be someone left to actually sell the computers and make a profit.JKflipflop98 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - link
Ah, it appears the F-wads from AMDzone don't agree with the data provided. Of course, anandtech is just a "paid Intel pumper" site. And Intel forces people to buy their products, because AMD parts are actually alot faster and offer far more MEGATASKING PLATFORMANCE!!!11!Griswold - Thursday, February 12, 2009 - link
Hello Numbnuts!