MPUs in 2006: Power vs. Muscle

By Colleen Taylor -- EDN, December 22, 2006

In 2006, chipmakers continued the focus on smaller architectures and processors with low power consumption in an effort to keep up with the growing demand for ever-slimmer, more efficient consumer electronic products. Additionally, this year more than ever, as MP3 players and cell phones become more and more ubiquitous, the chip industry has put in overtime to develop smaller, faster and stronger products that keep up with an increasingly savvy and demanding consumer market.

On top of the continuous upswing in market demand, a renewed competitive fire at the top ranks of the MPU market has proved to cause an even bigger surge ahead in chip technology. Once again taking center stage this year and pushing technology processes surge ahead was the battle between rival microprocessor makers Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and Intel Corp., on both the technology and business fronts.

In 2004 and 2005, the up-and-coming AMD beat longtime industry front-runner Intel to the punch on a number of product releases, garnering industry accolades and hype as the possible usurper of the number-one MPU making spot. Additionally, AMD typically touts its lower power consumption, while Intel traditionally trumpets its processing might.

In 2006, however, many industry analysts agree that Intel has shown a renewed hunger for market share and industry clout, and brought its competitive A-game back to its R&D and marketing strategies. "The fact is that such events have hurt Intel emotionally," Matt Wilkins, principal analyst of market research firm iSuppli Corp.'s compute platforms division, said of AMD's successes in recent years. "2006 was a year where Intel really fought back."

Perhaps the clearest evidence this year of Intel's newfound vigor is in the power realm. Intel showcased an incredibly rapid development and rollout of its muscle-bound quad-core family of processors in 2006. The Quad-Core Xeon 5300 for business and Intel Core 2 Extreme quad-core for gamers began shipping in November -- months ahead of AMD's anticipated Q2 2007 quad-core release. In contrast, it was just one year ago that mere dual-core processor architecture reigned supreme on the industry landscape.

Although Intel has claimed that the new processing architecture is energy efficient, its focus with the quad-core release is unquestionably on its processing strength: the 5300 series Xeon boasts a 50 percent performance boost over the previous generation 5100 series dual-core Xeon chips, according to Steve Smith, a VP at Intel and the director of the company's digital enterprise group. "We're in a good position right now," Smith said. "Intel is significantly ahead of the competition by shipping quad-core in volume today."

For its part, AMD is taking its time in entering the quad-core realm to put a stronger focus on power consumption than on processing muscle. "When AMD does move to quad-core, we'll be delivering it in the same power and thermal envelopes as for our dual core," John Fruehe of AMD's server team said.

"We're not yet seeing a big uptick from dual-core to quad-core, because Intel's quad-core processors actually consume 25 percent to 30 percent more power," Fruehe added. "I always tell our customers that the best indicator of processor performance is in their energy bill," rather than company claims. By this bottom-line indicator, Fruehe claims, AMD wins out.

It seems inevitable that as quad-core picks up steam, the he-said/she-said exchanges between Intel and AMD are sure to continue. Amid the companies' assertions, heated competition and growing demand, "it's going to be confusing through 2007 for buyers and integrators," Richard Doherty, senior analyst at market research firm Envisioneering Group, warned.

Underneath it all, however, in the future both companies might start to cut through the hype. "Consumers, businesses and energy regulators are all wondering what dual-core and quad-core architectures really offer that previous ones didn't," Doherty added. "In 2007 and beyond, there are going to be more real-world sanity checks on what the performance per watt of a processor really is."

And as the price war between Intel and AMD actually leads to negative bottom line effects for the companies, the competition will continue to prove most beneficial for a third party: the customers. "In the market battle between Intel and AMD, customers are going to be the winners in the end," Doherty said. "We'll continue to see very clever solutions that are good for the industry and good for the environment."