The Phoney Forecast Game

I've noticed an interesting trend in forecasts for Intel and AMD. No matter how Intel performs the forecasts tend to be positive and no matter how AMD performs the forecasts tend to be negative. AMD has come a long way since it was a full generation behind Intel with the K5. AMD has now caught up to Intel in servers and mobile and in 300mm FAB production. AMD's current position is much more positive than it was five years ago. However, you wouldn't tend to know this from the many biased forecasts that lean toward Intel.

The main difference between a phoney forecast and a genuine forecast is that a genuine forecast is based on a reasonable evaluation of where each company is and is likely to be. These types of forward looking evaluations seek to dismiss things that are not relevant or have little effect. These evaluations can sometimes be counterintuitive because they can take into consideration activity in markets like China which are not as obvious as what is on a shelf in a computer store or what commercials are seen on tv. This is a hazy subject of orders that may have been made months before and decisions made based on the strength of partnerships and profit margins rather than benchmark scores. These types of outlooks are often accurate but dull and sometimes difficult to understand without a background in business.

In contrast, the phoney forecast is often based on a trivial surface view of the market rather than anything in-depth. These forecasts are often grounded in emotion rather than analysis and are never counterintuitive to the author since they are often based on the author's biases more than anything else. The author may be very passionate about this view and feel very deeply that this view states what the market should do (or at least what he wants it to do). These phoney forecasts have been popping up all over the place lately and typically masquerade as genuiune forecasts. The difference can be difficult to tell but one strong clue is when the facts change but the forecast doesn't. In other words, an argument will simply flip flop in order to keep the forecast in line with the current circumstances. When this happens it is a sure sign of a phoney forecast.

For example, Intel supporters were often quite vocal in stating that Intel couldn't lose ground to AMD because Dell was Intel only and Dell had a very high volume. The association of Dell with Intel gave Intel a guarantee of a high volume customer and therefore lots of sales. Curiously, these same people are now saying that AMD is being hurt because of the supposedly low prices it is getting from Dell for its chips. This is an odd argument because these same people were never concerned about the wholesale price to Dell before. This is a good example of a Phoney Outlook. What was a strength for Intel is now flip flopped to become a phoney detriment for AMD. It is simply not reasonable to assume that AMD is hurting its profits by giving away chips to Dell at fire sale prices. This is a particularly odd argument because it is often accompanied by the idea that Intel will sell its massive overstock of Prescott based chips at low, low prices. Supposedly, this will take market share away from AMD. So, what we have is the argument that if AMD is selling at low wholesale prices to Dell that this is bad for AMD and the simultaneous argument that if Intel is selling at low wholesale prices that this is good for Intel. It should be obvious to everyone that there is no real logic in these two arguments.

Similarly, when many Intel fans saw the benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, they proclaimed that this would obviously reduce the demand for AMD processors. This half baked argument of course overlooked the fact that C2D would only reach about 30% of Intel's total production by the end of the year. People making this argument could never explain how the other 70% of Intel's production was going to reduce demand for AMD chips. Nevertheless, this statement has been repeated with great confidence by Intel fans since the first preview of C2D in March. The reality today is that AMD is actually short of chips because its processors are in such high demand that it cannot suppply fill all of the orders. This fact also negates the previous assumption that lower prices for Intel's overstock would also reduce demand for AMD chips. This simply is not happening. However, the current argument is that this is bad for AMD because failure to meet all of the demand will drive customers away. So, the argument has flipped from low demand will be bad for AMD to high demand is bad for AMD. This of course makes no sense. However, it also overlooks the fact that C2D itself has been in short supply and will be in short supply probably until end of Q1 07. It is curious that it is never stated that this short supply of C2D will drive customers away from Intel.

It was frequently suggested (and rightly so) that one of Intel's strengths was its chipsets. The low power chipsets for the Centrino line have given Intel based notebooks much better battery life than Turion notebooks. It was also stated that Intel's chipsets gave them an advantage with certain customers which was also true. Now that AMD is buying ATI it would appear that these would be advantages for AMD as well. However, now the argument has shifted to suggesting that AMD will be hurt by its purchase of ATI supposedly because of the cost. We might at first try to give this argument some credit. However, as Intel has spent down its cash reserves to less than half of what they had at the beginning of 2005 there hasn't been any criticism. Generally, this type of spending of cash is viewed as irresponsible however it tends to get brushed aside in Intel's case with suggestions that it is nothing compared to Intel's revenues. However, it is similarly considered reasonable to borrow money for capital investment as long as the amount is within the expected revenues, which it is for AMD. I would have to agree that while Intel's spending of cash is not great it does fit within their projected revenues and shouldn't hurt. Similarly, AMD's purchase, while large also fits within the projected revenues. I'm guessing that the main result of this will be the delay of the New York FAB. However, the ATI purchase does seem to be more strategic than just building a third FAB and AMD's capacity will increase rapidly anyway in 2008 with FAB 38. The New York FAB could be started late in 2007 and still be finished in time to take up the slack after FAB 38 tops out in 2009. So, it seems to be the case that the argument that AMD will be hurt by the purchase of ATI is just another flip flop of logic to turn a similar strength into a phoney detriment.

The issue of layoffs has been similar. I view layoffs and divestment as a good thing for Intel and something that makes it more competitive. I think AMD's divestment of Spansion was a very good thing and something that Intel should do as well. However, lately we've seen a much different treatment of layoffs between Intel and AMD. As Intel has announced layoffs this has been taken in stride even though most expect that more layoffs will follow. There has been little criticism of Intel and I think that has been correct. However, when rumors popped up about layoffs at AMD this was pounced on as though it were some glaring harbinger of doom for AMD. This is very odd since AMD stated that there would be some layoffs when it merged with ATI because of redundancies. So, basically, unnannounced layoffs by Intel have been no big deal while expected layoffs by AMD are seen as tragic. Something is wrong with this picture.

There are similar phoney arguments about partnerships and markets. For example, it seems to be the subject of great bragging rights when Intel suggests that it has signed X number of companies for initiative Y. These were often mentioned to proclaim Intel's support and standing in the market. However, Intel has driven partners away and seen increasing delays with CSI while AMD has gained traction because of HyperTransport. So, some have shifted this argument to the notion that Intel gains by having fewer partners because it can keep more of the market to itself. In other words, in a classic flip flop it is argued that having many partners means that Intel will sell lots of chips and therefore make lots of money, however it is also argued that having fewer partners and proprietary standards means that Intel will still make lots of money. We see an almost identical argument with licensing. AMD has had no licensing and therefore low cost to use HyperTransport technology. This has been countered by the notion that this is an advantage for Intel because it makes money off of licensing. However, now that it is suggested that Intel may be reducing its licensing costs to try to compete with AMD this is now stated as an advantage for Intel. So, apparently, both high and low licensing fees help Intel.

Growth has been another area of contradiction. If AMD does not grow quickly as happened from 2002 - 2004 this as seen as an indication that AMD cannot challenge Intel. However, AMD's growth in the past two years has been staggering. AMD has doubled in size in the last two years. This is a pace that has exceeded every other top 50 chip producing company in the industry. So, unable to criticize AMD based on growth, the forecasts now concentrate on size and suggest that AMD cannot continue to grow because it is already large. In other words, if AMD doesn't grow it is bad but if AMD does grow it is still bad. In a similar vein some forecasters try hard to associate the best FAB technology with Intel. However, there are two problems with this idea. The first is that AMD's FAB 30 has been the world's number one rated FAB for five years running which is why Intel keeps its FAB ratings secret. The second is that AMD has the very sophisticated APM control system for its FABs which will be a tremendous benefit once it has two 300mm FABs. This will allow production to move from FAB to FAB much more easily than it will at Intel. So, again, unable to associate the best FAB tech with Intel the forecast shifts to capacity and it is insisted that Intel will stay in the lead simply because it has more FAB capacity. Unfortunately, Intel has cut back on its capital spending severely while AMD has increased its by 50%. This would certainly suggest that AMD inteneds to have more FAB capacity in the future while Intel is cutting back.

Those are not the only contradictory gems that have been floating around. There are many others. For example:

If ATI can't sell chipsets for Intel processors then this will hurt AMD because of the loss of Revenue to ATI : If ATI sells chipsets for Intel processors then this will hurt AMD because ATI will be helping Intel.

If AMD can't gain share in the Chinese market this will hurt AMD because this is the fastest growing market : If AMD gains share in the Chinese market this will hurt AMD because this is a low margin market.

If AMD doesn't produce quad core processors soon this will hurt AMD because Kentsfield will be out in November : If AMD starts making quad core processors this will hurt AMD because it will use up too much of AMD's capacity.

If AMD cannot increase its Average Selling Price this will hurt AMD's margins : If AMD increases its Average Selling Price this will hurt AMD's volumes.


It does seem unfair that all of the phoney arguments that I've given are in favor of Intel and against AMD. There is certainly no shortage of biased statements made by AMD fans in favor of AMD and against Intel. However, these statments that favor AMD don't tend to travel very far. It is rare to see something of this nature picked up by the general web press or projected into the forecast of a financial or stock analyst. In contrast, phoney arguments that favor Intel seem to have much more stamina and can be repeated almost anywhere and by anyone on the web including by professionals. Since I don't know of any way to stop the internet press from repeating phoney arguments and outlooks the best thing is to recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.

To help illustrate, I'll give an example from Information Week.

AMD Seen Strong This Year, Intel Next

This article with quotes from Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Reuters at first appears to be a professional outlook article. However, a closer look reveals that it is in fact phoney. The actual content of the article from Reuters is entirely biased in favor of Intel and simply seeks a rationalization to say that Intel will come out ahead. In other words, the outlook is decided before looking at the evidence and the arguments are simply used to try to fit the preferred outlook into the reality of the data. Essentially, the arguments become an adapter that allows the author to fit the square peg of Intel optimism into a round hole.

The first thing we are told is that AMD's stock has fallen because of fears that Intel's steep price cuts would reverse AMD's gains. This statement is irrelevant. AMD's performance is not directly rated to its stock value. This statement seems to work as a bandwagon fallacy to try to suggest that the author's view is actually common. The author has to use this irrelevant line because what follows does not support his bias.

Price performance continues to be better at AMD, even with all of Intel's pricing cuts.

AMD has been rapidly increasing its share of the PC processor market

Citigroup analyst Glen Yeung said he expected AMD to gain more share in 2007, thanks in part to a new supply agreement with the No. 1 PC maker Dell Inc.

"We expect momentum to favor AMD," Yeung said in a research note. "While the shares have already had a significant move so far in the second half of the year, we believe additional upside is likely through year-end."

At this point, the author has been essentially run over by the statements favorable to AMD. To try to get back to his original favored view of Intel he again talks about stock. He mentions that AMD's stock value is about the same as Intel's when compared with profit. This is statement is not only irrelevant, it is completely ridiculous. Intel moves most of its profits via stock buyback whereas AMD does not. If we were to actually follow his suggestion that the value of the stock somehow indicates a company's future performance then we would conclude that Intel's stock is actually selling for much less than AMD's after we included the amount that Intel spends on buyback. However, there really is no correlation as stock can rise and fall based soley on speculation of future stock value rather than company performance.

Next the Reuters IW author, Scott Hillis, makes a comment:

That's because despite taking a beating in the market share battle, Intel is slashing costs, jettisoning underperforming businesses and launching new chips that are faster, more energy efficient and, crucially, more profitable.

The problem is that this statement is wrong. AMD's biggest liability was its Spansion flash memory business which it divested. Notice that there is no mention of this. In contrast, Intel still retains its own flash memory business. Again, no mention of this. The reality is that it is AMD that has slashed costs while Intel has trimmed. There is no mention of the fact that AMD's chips will be more energy efficient just one month later when it releases 65nm. There is no mention that AMD's K8L architecture will be considerably faster in 2007. Nor is there any mention of the way that AMD's costs will drop all during 2007 as production ramps up on the 300mm process with FAB 36. Finally, the notion that these chips are more profitable for Intel doesn't exactly fit with the previous statement about steep cuts in chip prices. The author is therefore either biased or extremely ignorant of the subject that he is trying talk about. This tends to be the problem where inconvenient facts tend to be rationalized away in favor of pro-Intel biases. There is no reason why anyone should believe arguments based soley on pro-AMD biases however most people are far more likely to encounter arguments based on Intel biases.

What Quads May Come

I had a technical look at AMD's K8L in AMD Unveils Barcelona Quad-Core Details . There are improvements that I had not heard about before. There are several that should make a difference and boost both K8L's SSE and Integer performance. From this information it appears that 2007 will be much tougher for Intel and that it will lose most if not all of the ground it gained with the release of Core 2 Duo.

The K8L architecture seems to have more tweaks than I had first thought. There are many changes that pull AMD up to where Intel is now with Core 2 Duo. For example, Intel has had a dedicated stack unit since Pentium M and now AMD matches this with its own Sideband Stack Optimizer. Intel has been ahead of in out of order execution and AMD moves closer with enhanced reordering and some out of order loading. Intel had already increased the size of the reorder buffer.

AMD now has data dependent latency on the divide instruction as Intel had already done. AMD greatly improves SSE width and the number of SSE operations. It doubles the bandwidth of Prefetch and the L1 bus. Again, these are changes that Intel had made from Yonah (Core Duo) to C2D. AMD might have a small advantage here due to twin L1 buses rather than just a wider L1 bus.

It is also no secret that AMD's K8 architecture works better with lower latency memory like DDR. Intel has been pushing Jedec toward DDR2 and higher because its larger cache tends to reduce the bad effects of latency while it hurts AMD's smaller cache architecure more. However, AMD is now moving to a split memory controller where each half can act independently. This along with the larger L3 cache, improved memory scheduling, a better write burst mode, and out of order loads more than makes up for the higher latency of DDR2. We should see a big improvement for AMD with DDR2 and into DDR3. This again, moves AMD up to where Intel is now.

AMD's L3 is also more complex than I had thought. I had expected the L3 to be exclusive but AMD has apparently decided to make it more complex. They use it exclusively with data but can use it inclusively with instructions. This is a big improvement and would tend to negate most of Intel's advantage with inclusive cache and its advantage with the shared L2. However, this multi-mode function allows AMD to retain its current cache size flexibility. It would be able to change the size of both L2 and L3 without a severe penalty in performance. Intel does not have this flexibility. Further, Intel's use of shared L2 leaves the processor vulnerable to cache thrashing where one thread pushes instructions out of the L2 only to have its own instructions pushed out by the first thread in a cpu clock wasting tug of war.

AMD is expanding the number of FastPath instructions. This is important because the decoders can do 3 fastpath instructions or 1 complex instruction. The more instructions that are fastpath the better. This again makes up for some of the improvement that Intel gained by adding a fourth decoder and macro-ops fusion. This is also helped by doubling the Prefetch as Intel has done.

Overall, AMD moves much closer to Intel's C2D with the changes in K8L. AMD will add to its already greater memory access speed and match or beat C2D in terms of SSE. However, the changes don't quite add up to C2D's 4 instruction issue and Macro-ops fusion. I would guess that AMD will remove about 3/4 of the current IPC gap. This would mean that a K8L of 3.1 Ghz would match a C2D of 3.0 Ghz. This is much better than today where it would take a 3.5 Ghz K8 to match the same 3.0 Ghz C2D.

I am very curious to see how the testing will go when K8L is released as Antares for the desktop in Q3 07. There are so many improvements that move K8L closer to C2D that it will be difficult to bias the testing in Intel's favor. I'm guessing that when Intel is faced with the threat of K8L and the imminent loss of its performance advantages it will be sure to rush the new 45nm chips into reviewer's hands. Even these new chips though will probably not be enough to regain the C2D lead. I'm guessing that review sites like Tom's Hardware Guide and Anandtech will fall back on the classic cheat of comparing an overclocked Intel chip against a stock AMD chip. I can always hope that if the loss of Intel's lead becomes unavoidable that perhaps THG and Anandtech will even do some real testing with the second core (or other three cores on quads) loaded properly. They might even do some testing that actually stresses the memory bandwidth. I think that right now with the C2D lead that it is just too tempting for them to push the tests in Intel's favor and avoid real testing that would make C2D more even like loaded testing. It is generally expected that C2D will bog down under load more than K8. I'm still wondering how the review sites will avoid testing Barcelona (K8L Opteron quad) against Clovertown since Clovertown is expected to fair pretty badly in such a test. I guess we will see.

IDF, AMD, and Intel in Perspective -- 2nd Look

After a lot of discussion and consideration since the last article I've decided that FSB licensing does not mean that CSI has been scrapped. I had been under the assumption that CSI was essentially ready to go so the FSB licensing didn't make a lot of sense. I've now decided that I was overestimating Intel and that FSB licensing and Geneseo both make a lot of sense. I believe that my assumption that CSI was ready to go was incorrect and that, in fact, CSI will be two years late. CSI was supposed to be released in 2007 but now I doubt it will be released on any Xeon chip until 2009. In light of this, the FSB licensing would be a necessary stopgap. However, I do disagree with some assessments of Geneseo. Geneseo looks to me very much like CSI without cache coherency. If it were released today it would be somewhat competitive with HTX with the HT 3.0 standard. Geneseo/CSI would be competitive in terms of speed and latency however HT 3.0 includes a distance mode that can reach one meter, a power saving mode that is good for notebooks or reducing total power draw when full speed isn't being used, an unganged mode that splits a single 16 bit channel into two 8 bit channels, and HT 3.0 is hot pluggable. Secondly, by the time Geneseo is actually available we will probably be looking at HT 4.0 and Geneseo will be further behind. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable upgrade path for CSI to eventually catch up to HT. With a big upgrade to the Geneseo/CSI standard in 2009, CSI might be able to close the gap by 2010 or 2011.

The second issue is attitude. Intel and AMD have been complete opposites. Intel talked about photonics and the TeraFlop chip. Yet, Geneseo won't be ready for 2 - 2 1/2 years, TeraFlop is 5 years at the earliest, and photonics are indefinite. This is the height of vaporware. TeraFlop is unlikely to ever be released because it will most likely be outdated in five years. Similarly, it is not clear that photonics will ever be used for on-die signaling. The most likely use for fiberoptics would be something like a more robust HyperTransport link for connecting multiple cpu boards. This could even be used to connect a memory board to the processor board. The use of fiber would remove the need to run serpentine data traces all the way across the motherboard to the DIMMs. Memory could be on its own board and just plug in with fiber. I/O could also be on its own board. This would make boards easier to design because the signal path would be much smaller and easier to control. It would be easier to design just a cpu board or just a memory board or just an I/O board. I could see this application in servers. Interestingly, this would move servers back toward the way they used to be as minicomputers when the cpu occupied half a dozen to a dozen separate boards.

If Intel has been talking about technology in the distant (or nonexistent) future; AMD has been amazingly silent. AMD has not been merely quiet; it has been so secretive that even though both socket AM2 and F have been released there are still no pinout diagrams available. Typically, these pinout diagrams would be available a little before official release because chipset designers and motherboard makers would already have them. Yet, a search of the sea of information on the internet gets no hits for pinouts for either socket. And, if AM2 and F are a secret then 4X4 would make the CIA and the US military envious. I've seen demonstrations of future weapons and spy devices that won't be released for two or three years. 4X4 is due within 3 months but the technical detail available when written down would still leave space free on the back of a postage stamp. There are rumors that it will be socket F or socket AM2. There are rumors that it will support a cache coherent HTX slot or it won't. There are rumors that it will be used for workstations and support registered memory for increased reliability or that will only use unregistered DIMMs for higher speed. It still is not clear what will differentiate 4X4 and the new FX from the 2xxx series of Opterons. 4X4 could include 2 cache coherent HT links or maybe not.

One could take Intel's ramblings about future technology as a bluff because it doesn't want to admit the glaring gap in its server lineup for the next two and a half years. However, one could equally take AMD's deafening silence as an indication that it has nothing to compete with Conroe on the desktop for the indefinite future. However, I doubt everything is quite as bad as that. Intel does have a huge problem with Woodcrest. The current performance problem is small and will get fixed just as soon as Intel releases a registered DDR2 chipset because it is really FBDIMM that is making Woodcrest look bad. Dropping FBDIMM will improve latency with full DIMM sockets and reduce power draw. This should allow Woodcrest to pull noticeably ahead of Opteron. However, when it comes to 4-way, Woodcrest just isn't quite tall enough to reach the bar. This is a problem. However, IBM has the robust XA-64e (Hurricane) chipset for servers and this is probably enough to make a big tin server out of the currently wimpy Woodcrest. The only thing Woodcrest really needs are robust 4-way and 8-way connections. The need for this is even more desperate with Clovertown and its two dies crammed into one package. It should have this with XA-64e and I'm certain that IBM will be releasing heavy duty servers based on Woodcrest (Clovertown or Yorkfield), perhaps later in 2007. There is some possibility that this could even be intentional on Intel's part as Intel might wish to give Itanium some breathing room before X86 steals the markets above 4-way. Intel's statements suggest that it is all too aware that Itanium will get pushed higher and higher up the n-way ladder until it is no longer viable. The clock is ticking.

If IBM and DDR will be the saving grace for Woodcrest then K8L (Barcelona) would be the same for K8. By the time Intel gets a DDR chipset out the door for Woodcrest AMD will be releasing K8L. This processor should give K8 a huge push in FP/SSE performance and a smaller boost in Integer performance. If the rumors are true then AMD will be moving up the release of K8L Opteron to Q2 07 and the release of the desktop version to Q3 07. AMD knows that it will lose marketshare if it can't deliver something more competitive. While Woodcrest with DDR will leap ahead of Opteron it won't leap ahead of the dual core version of K8L Opteron, and Clovertown should find itself looking at tailights from quad core K8L. Opteron on HPC is where Intel wishes it were with Itanium or perhaps Woodcrest. AMD has three announced supercomputing wins (Sun, Cray, and IBM) for machines that will all be in the top 5 and has just upgraded the Oak Ridge machine. In contrast, there have been no new announcements for either Itanium or Woodcrest in the HPC arena. To add insult to injury, the purely Opteron Cray PetaFlop machine will probably rank 1st until it is displaced by the hybrid Cell/Opteron IBM machine. This would put Opterons in the number 1 and 2 systems with Sun's Opteron machine still in the top 5 (possibly even ranking 3rd). This isn't quite so bad for IBM because it has had the lead with Blue Gene L and will be putting its Cell machine into the number 1 spot and it's current Blue Gene machines will still be in the top 5. The only machine competitive with these is the proposed 3 PetaFlop Fujitsu machine which won't be ready until 2010 or 2011. It could potentially make it to 2nd on the list but there may be others by then.

IBM's XA-64e should keep the Woodcrest/Clovertown lineage from falling off the map on quad core/quad socket but it will be nearly impossible for it to match Opteron through 2008. The extra instuctions like PopCnt in 2007 will steal some of Itanium's thunder. In addition to the robust HT 3.0 added to K8L Opteron in 2007, AMD will bounce the technology even harder when it releases Direct Connect Architecture 2.0 in 2008 (Intel will still be waiting for Geneseo/CSI). This will give Opteron even greater connectivity with 4 HT links. This will be good for Sun and Dell (as well as HP and IBM if they pursue it) and will put pressure on the Intel based SGI, HP, and IBM offerings. However, IBM should sell enough Xeon systems to make a nice return on its XA-64e development. Likewise, the massive available memory on SGI's boxes should maintain a specialized market for their products. It would be nice to see how these products compare with proper load testing but I haven't seen this yet from any of the major review sites. It has yet to be done for even the dual core processors.

I think Intel's vaporware show and tell is a symptom of being ahead and trying very hard to make everyone believe that they have a solid strategy to stay ahead. The reality suggests that Intel has almost no hope of getting ahead in servers and is in serious danger of losing its advantage in notebooks. AMD now appears to be very serious about producing a proper low power chipset for notebooks with ATI. This could be a problem for Intel in 2008 when AMD moves to an integrated CPU/GPU for notebooks. Intel will need to work hard to keep from falling behind in power consumption which has been the trademark of the Centrino line. However, pressure will come much sooner than 2008 as AMD qualifies multiple chipsets and wireless adapters for OEM's. This is a sharp contrast to Intel's all or nothing Centrino position.

I think AMD's silence is related to the fact that while everything seems to be improving in terms of servers, notebooks, and corporate customers the desktop is still a problem. Intel gained massively by both increasing IPC and increasing clock. It would be impossible for AMD to increase the clock quickly enough with K8 to offset the IPC gains that Intel has. AMD needs K8L to increase IPC and needs 65nm to continue increasing clock. This gives AMD a fighting chance on the desktop in 2007 but doesn't help today. Today, AMD is clearly behind on the desktop and is very much aware of this. I believe that AMD has been quiet and extremely secretive because they realize that they have to make a strong showing when they announce something new. People who were expecting a jump in performance with Revision F were disappointed; AMD doesn't want another disappointment. AMD only has three things it can show. It can show that the power draw is less with 65nm. This will be helpful for notebooks and with large scale servers to be sure, but won't do much on the desktop.

AMD has 4X4 which should regain the FX position by essentially selling two chips for the price of one. However, for this to have any effect, AMD will need demos or benchmarks that can take advantage of four cores. Most games and benchmarks do not. AMD is going to have to carefully plan a presentation for 4X4. I suppose it is possible that they are talking to one or more software companies for some kind of endorsement. We can only wonder. However, whatever 4X4 does, it will be compared to Kentsfield and it is unlikely that the major review sites will do anything but superficial testing. I wouldn't be surprised with claims that Kentsfield is faster in everything than 4X4 when common sense would indicate that Kentsfield will bog down on any memory intensive task. This simply indicates the very sad and unreliable state of big review sites today as I've already talked about in my articles on Tom's Hardware Guide and Anandtech. The final thing that AMD has to show is the demo of K8L. This should give some indication of where AMD will be in Q2 07. However, K8L is unlikely to have the same IPC increase as Conrore which means that AMD will need a higher clock to match Conroe's performance. Considering that AMD is currently trailing in clock this will be a challenge even with 65nm. So, Intel's banter is a company pretending that being ahead on the desktop means that it is ahead everywhere and that it will stay ahead. AMD's silence is a company that knows it is behind on the desktop and needs maximum effect to get any notice. Intel has a fighting chance to stay ahead on the desktop in 2007 but should be facing increasing competition in notebooks, corporate accounts, and servers. AMD seems to be improving in notebooks, servers, and corporate accounts, but is going to have to work hard to catch up on the destkop in 2007.