Here's a Dell story you don't see too often

Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1

Yousuf Khan

Hi Yousuf Khan,

Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1

How can Dell compete upon price-performance in these markets when they
don't sell CPUs that provide better price-performance and features?

Dell only sells PCs equipped with Intel CPUs, an arrangement not
expected to change in the near term, Amelio said. Lenovo, Hewlett
Packard and China's No. 2 PC seller, Founder Group, have all recently
introduced models in China powered by AMD chips.

Thankfully Intel's got an astonishing marketing machine in Western
countries. Check out these objective truths:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/13/33TCworkstation_1.html

Intel's Xeon-based workstations are much faster than workstations based
on AMD's Opteron when it comes to heavy multitasking

http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/04/08/13/33TCworkstation-sb_1.html

Despite a great deal of hype, AMD's 2.2GHz Opteron 248 CPU -- as
embodied in the IBM IntelliStation A Pro workstation -- doesn't fare
well under heavy workloads.

...

In fact, across the range of tests, the Opteron system took an average
of 15 percent longer to complete the tasks than the Xeon.

The Opterons are "in fact CPU-bound and running out of processor
bandwidth." They can't even keep up with last generation Xeons. "The story
gets worse for AMD when you factor in the newest Xeon processors from
Intel."

Infoworld's bottom line:
"... with heavy processing, the 2.4GHz Opterons show their limitations and
the A Pro starts to crawl." They're no match for 3.2GHz Xeons which are
"the performance king."

The benchmark methodology and paucity of information appears to preclude
anyone reproducing the results.

Regards,
Adam

Adam Warner wrote:

Hi Yousuf Khan,


Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1


How can Dell compete upon price-performance in these markets when they
don't sell CPUs that provide better price-performance and features?

Dell only sells PCs equipped with Intel CPUs, an arrangement not
expected to change in the near term, Amelio said. Lenovo, Hewlett
Packard and China's No. 2 PC seller, Founder Group, have all recently
introduced models in China powered by AMD chips.

Thankfully Intel's got an astonishing marketing machine in Western
countries. Check out these objective truths:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/13/33TCworkstation_1.html

Intel's Xeon-based workstations are much faster than workstations based
on AMD's Opteron when it comes to heavy multitasking

http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/04/08/13/33TCworkstation-sb_1.html

Despite a great deal of hype, AMD's 2.2GHz Opteron 248 CPU -- as
embodied in the IBM IntelliStation A Pro workstation -- doesn't fare
well under heavy workloads.

...

In fact, across the range of tests, the Opteron system took an average
of 15 percent longer to complete the tasks than the Xeon.

The Opterons are "in fact CPU-bound and running out of processor
bandwidth." They can't even keep up with last generation Xeons. "The story
gets worse for AMD when you factor in the newest Xeon processors from
Intel."

Infoworld's bottom line:
"... with heavy processing, the 2.4GHz Opterons show their limitations and
the A Pro starts to crawl." They're no match for 3.2GHz Xeons which are
"the performance king."

The benchmark methodology and paucity of information appears to preclude
anyone reproducing the results.


Do you have evidence you'd like to present that supports your
implication that the InfoWorld conclusions are wrong? Or should we just
stick with your judgment that everybody who buys Intel hardware is a
sucker for Intel's propaganda machine (which is, indeed, very impressive)?

If marketing muscle is a clue to long term survivability (and it is),
then marketing muscle is a legitimate consideration in making buying
decisions.

Leaving that question aside, just how well Intel processors with long
pipelines and SMT stack up against AMD processors with a shorter
pipelines and smaller memory latency but no SMT juggle realistic heavy
workstation workloads is an interesting question, but the net effect of
your post is to leave the weight of evidence with Intel on that
particular question.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:

Do you have evidence you'd like to present that supports your
implication that the InfoWorld conclusions are wrong? Or should we just
stick with your judgment that everybody who buys Intel hardware is a
sucker for Intel's propaganda machine (which is, indeed, very impressive)?

How about this results, which are reasonably easy to reproduce:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

Opteron shows to outperform (significanly more expensive) Xeon
in database applications.

Regards,
Evgenij


--

__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------

Adam Warner wrote:
Hi Yousuf Khan,

Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1

How can Dell compete upon price-performance in these markets when they
don't sell CPUs that provide better price-performance and features?

It seems Intel doesn't have enough money to market to the entire Chinese
market properly like it does in the Western world. Thus it's processors are
at a disadvantage, simply based on price.

Yousuf Khan

Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

Do you have evidence you'd like to present that supports your
implication that the InfoWorld conclusions are wrong? Or should we
just stick with your judgment that everybody who buys Intel hardware
is a sucker for Intel's propaganda machine (which is, indeed, very
impressive)?


How about this results, which are reasonably easy to reproduce:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

Opteron shows to outperform (significanly more expensive) Xeon
in database applications.


I don't think there is any question but that Opteron is an impressive
server chip. I'm not a database guy, so I can't judge the relevance of
the particular benchmark that is cited.

_Published_ results from tpc.org put systems with Opteron in the hunt
for top $/tpmC:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...f&sor tby=asc

but not at the top of the list.

In any case, the point of the InfoWorld article was that the Xeon
workstations excelled on mixed workloads...the kind an actual
workstation user _might_ experience...different for different kinds of
users to be sure, but a better measure of workstation performance than a
database benchmark.

Intel hypes hyperthreading every chance it gets because it's something
Intel's got that AMD doesn't. There's been much online discussion among
people who could be expected to be knowledgeable, and the best
conclusion I can draw about SMT is that, as a design strategy, it's a
wash...if you consider performance per watt or performance per
transistor. That leaves open the question of responsiveness. Anybody
who uses a workstation and does CPU-intensive work has had the
experience of having the system become annoyingly slow. Does
hyperthreading help with _that_? The InfoWorld article suggests that it
does, and a database benchmark doesn't seem particularly relevant.

RM

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:24:03 +1200, Adam Warner
wrote:
Hi Yousuf Khan,

Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1

How can Dell compete upon price-performance in these markets when they
don't sell CPUs that provide better price-performance and features?

The CPU has almost nothing to do with the price. The key phrase from
the article is right he

"Sellers have cut prices to as little as 3,000 yuan ($362) per unit by
offering models without Microsoft's Windows operating system"

That is where the price difference is coming from. Windows is the
ONLY expensive component in a modern low-end computer. The cost of a
WinXP Home Edition license roughly $100. The cost of service and
support is another $100+. The cost of ALL the hardware comes up to
under $200 for a low-end system, and most of that is tied up in the
hard drive and motherboard.

When Dell buys Intel Celeron chips they are paying damn near nothing
for them. Maybe $35 or $40. AMD might be able to sell their chips
for $30 or $35, shaving a few percent off the top, but even in China
and other developing markets that isn't going to make a huge
difference. But cutting $100 off the top by dropping WinXP from the
price definitely will make a huge difference.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

Hi Tony Hill,

Dell driven out of a market by low-cost competition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040816/tech_...html?printer=1

How can Dell compete upon price-performance in these markets when they
don't sell CPUs that provide better price-performance and features?

The CPU has almost nothing to do with the price. The key phrase from
the article is right he

"Sellers have cut prices to as little as 3,000 yuan ($362) per unit by
offering models without Microsoft's Windows operating system"

That is where the price difference is coming from. Windows is the ONLY
expensive component in a modern low-end computer. The cost of a WinXP
Home Edition license roughly $100. The cost of service and support is
another $100+. The cost of ALL the hardware comes up to under $200 for
a low-end system, and most of that is tied up in the hard drive and
motherboard.

When Dell buys Intel Celeron chips they are paying damn near nothing for
them. Maybe $35 or $40. AMD might be able to sell their chips for $30
or $35, shaving a few percent off the top, but even in China and other
developing markets that isn't going to make a huge difference. But
cutting $100 off the top by dropping WinXP from the price definitely
will make a huge difference.

You make a great point, thanks Tony. But why would a savvy consumer choose
an Intel _Celeron_ over most AMD CPU choices? Doesn't Dell need to hope
that Intel's marketing is so strong in China that consumers will choose
the Intel brand even if computers are priced the same? If Dell cannot rely
upon this perception it cannot compete. Period. Even if it starts selling
"naked PCs". What happens if 64-bit computing becomes a checklist point?
Or gamers find out that an AMD Athlon64 3000+ beat a P4 3.2GHz _Extreme
Edition_ running Doom 3?

Intel has to provide Dell with suitable priceerformance options so it
can compete effectively. Whether this is already hurting Dell is debatable.

Regards,
Adam

Hi Robert Myers,

In any case, the point of the InfoWorld article was that the Xeon
workstations excelled on mixed workloads...the kind an actual
workstation user _might_ experience...different for different kinds of
users to be sure, but a better measure of workstation performance than a
database benchmark.

Without ascribing a point or motivation to the Infoworld article I will
simply state what it does: It plays on the fears of IT buyers that the
Opteron may not be able to hack it when the going gets tough. It
establishes an amorphous criterion and scary results so the fear can
propagate without ever being disproved or reputations being at stake.

The results are not presented in a way that supports verification. Even
the hypothesis ("mixed workloads...the kind an actual workstation user
_might_ experience") is subjective. The article is powerful benchmarketing.

When Kristopher Kubicki of Anandtech produced his first article on the
Intel Xeon 3.6 he was eviscerated because people could demonstrate how
individual results were so screwed up. At a time which tests one's mettle
he came through admirably.

We should be discussing verifiable benchmarks. Benchmarketing is
fascinating and it's always important to know what Dilbert's Pointy Haired
Boss is going to believe next. But if I'm required to disprove Infoworld's
article then I've already lost.

I asked no-one to believe me. This forum's informed readership is able to
reach their own conclusions about the usefulness of the Infoworld article.

If you have some benchmarks that show that Xeon workstations are much
faster than Opteron workstations at a defined mixed workload then we will
have some concrete figures to discuss and put into context. When results
are verifiable people will be able to comment, for example, "you used the
wrong Linux scheduler for this kind of workstation load. You have
maximised throughput at the expense of interactive responsiveness." The
article asks us to believe these three truths, simultaneously:

(a) The Opteron workstation is faster when running a few tasks.
(b) The Xeon workstation is more responsive when running many tasks.
(c) The Xeon workstation is faster when running many tasks: "In fact,
across the range of tests, the Opteron system took an average of 15
percent longer to complete the tasks than the Xeon."

"The Opteron machine outperformed the Xeons when lightly loaded with
minimal multitasking, but once the real work started, the Opteron stopped.
It was effectively shut down by the same multitasking load that the two
Xeons performed with ease. In the clean environment, it still performed at
less than half the speed of the older and allegedly less-capable Xeons."

I suspect there is a fundamental misconfiguration or inappropriate
software choice that many IT professionals would have been able to
resolve. But is the reputation of Infoworld at stake in the same way that
Anandtech's was? If the answer is no then you need to question why you
believe things based upon authority alone, especially when other
authoritative sources are available which not only say "trust us" but also
provide information to verify that trust.

Regards,
Adam

Robert Myers wrote:
In any case, the point of the InfoWorld article was that the Xeon
workstations excelled on mixed workloads...the kind an actual
workstation user _might_ experience...different for different kinds of
users to be sure, but a better measure of workstation performance
than a database benchmark.

Intel hypes hyperthreading every chance it gets because it's something
Intel's got that AMD doesn't. There's been much online discussion
among people who could be expected to be knowledgeable, and the best
conclusion I can draw about SMT is that, as a design strategy, it's a
wash...if you consider performance per watt or performance per
transistor. That leaves open the question of responsiveness. Anybody
who uses a workstation and does CPU-intensive work has had the
experience of having the system become annoyingly slow. Does
hyperthreading help with _that_? The InfoWorld article suggests that
it does, and a database benchmark doesn't seem particularly relevant.

Actually the problem with the Infoworld article is that it's not even really
a true test of multitasking performance. If you read the article, and then
do some checking up on the tools used, it's very shady. First of all, the
benchmarking application is described on the company's website he

http://analyzer.csaresearch.com/

It's actually called *HTP* Analyzer (i.e. Hyperthreading Analyzer). So it's
a benchmark specifically designed for and geared towards Hyperthreading.
Therefore it's aware of how to detect it, and how to make full use of it. If
you read through the description of this benchmarker a little bit, you'll
find there are two major components of this benchmark suite. First
component, it states that it can test real-world applications through a
test-script functionality; and second, it tests the system's multitasking
efficiency by running simultaneous background workloads. So you think that
since it runs real-world apps in a test-script, therefore it must be one of
those good applications benchmarks and not one of those bad synthetic
benchmarks. However, then you read about what it uses to load down the
background tasks with. According to its webpage, it creates "simulations" of
real-world workloads such as Database, Workflow, and Multimedia. Now these
aren't real database, workflow or multimedia applications, just simulations
of them -- so they are synthetic workloads. He's not running multiple
simultaneous real-world applications; he's running only one real-world app
thread, but several synthetic app threads to load it down. It's a synthetic
benchmark cleverly masquerading as an applications benchmark.

Now, how could this benefit a Hyperthreading processor over a non-HT one?
Well, in an HT CPU, the benchmark can configure it such that it runs the
applications test-script in the primary HT logical processor, while all of
the synthetic load-generating simulations are executed in the secondary
logical processor. Windows would multitask the applications test script in
the run queue of one logical processor where nothing else would be running,
while the synthetics would contend amongst themselves for attention in the
secondary logical processor. In a non-HT CPU, all of the tasks (whether real
or synthetic) would contend for timeslices within the same Windows' run
queue.

So given three simulated workloads and one real application load, when you
put the real application in its own logical processor, what you've
effectively done is given the application test-script a 3:1 priority
advantage over the synthetic workload simulations. In a non-HT CPU, all of
the threads go into the same Windows run queue, and they all get equal
priority according to the default task scheduling behaviour. Only the
real-world app test-script's elapsed time is ever recorded; the results of
the
simulated workloads are never measured and discarded, since they are only
there to add a simulated workload and therefore they are disposable.

Now, is this a good measure of a multitasking workload? Only if you consider
a proper use of multitasking to be running one real-world app in the
foreground while disposable workload simulators bog it down in the
background.

Okay those were just the technical faults about this benchmark. There's also
some conspiracy theory stuff here. One of the co-authors of this article,
Randall C. Kennedy, happens to be the designer of this benchmark:

http://www.csaresearch.com/about.asp

Mr. Kennedy was once an employee of Intel, according to the above biography:

"Later, as a contract testing and development engineer for Intel
Corporation, he led the effort to create tools and resources to articulate
the company's performance initiatives surround high-end desktops (Constant
Computing) and Gigabit Ethernet networking."

Which sounds like he worked in the benchmarketing department.

Furthermore, this guy is some sort of long-time crusader for Hyperthreading.
He's written articles favouring Hyperthreading for a long time now, this one
from about two years ago:

http://www.networkcomputing.com/1324/1324buzz2.html

Nothing wrong with being a crusader for the technology and showing to world
an example of an application that really benefits from Hyperthreading, just
so long as you don't try to pass that off as a benchmark.

Yousuf Khan