The Core 2 Quad Q8400: Intel's $183 Phenom II 940 Competitor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 7, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Phenom II Earns a Financially Troubled AMD Less per Chip than Core 2 Quad
The global economy isn’t exactly strong right now. People are still buying, just not nearly as much as before when it felt like money grew on trees. Financially, all companies have been hurt, but AMD has much bigger issues. The table below shows net income in millions of US dollars before taxes for AMD and Intel over the past four quarters:
| Net Income Before Taxes | Q1 2009 | Q4 2008 | Q3 2008 | Q2 2008 |
| AMD | -$298 Million | -$1,358 Million | $22 Million | -$682 Million |
| Intel | $629 Million | $369 Million | $2,833 Million | $2,313 Million |
Yeah. Ouch. Granted Intel going from ~$2.8B of income in a quarter down to under $400M must’ve hurt, but AMD has lost over $2.3B in the past four quarters. The company isn’t profitable and unfortunately is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to fixing that.
The financial issues extend beyond simple CPU sales but I must point out the obvious issue with AMD’s current strategy. We know that the Phenom II is competitive, but look at what it’s competing against:
| Processor | L1 Cache | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | Total Cache (4-core) | Transistor Count | Die Size |
| AMD Phenom II | 128K per core | 512KB per core | 6MB | 8.5MB | 758M | 258mm2 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9x50 | 64KB per core | 12MB | N/A | 12.25MB | 820M | 214mm2 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9x00 | 64KB per core | 6MB | N/A | 6.25MB | 456M | 164mm2 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q8xxx | 64KB per core | 4MB | N/A | 4.25MB | 456M | 164mm2 |
Every single Phenom II uses a single 258 mm2 45nm die, that’s nearly Nehalem-sized. The problem is that the Phenom II parts generally compete against Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9x00 and Q8xxx series, both of which have a total die size of 164mm2. AMD’s Phenom II die is 57% larger.
AMD and Intel both manufacture on 300mm wafers, but Intel can get nearly 60% more CPUs for each wafer than AMD can thanks to its die size advantage. That translates into more revenue per wafer and a significant profit advantage for Intel.
AMD’s Phenom II is very competitive, but the strategy does not have much long term staying power. AMD needs to introduce smaller die versions of its CPUs soon.
The deeper ramifications of AMD’s current situation are troubling. I’m not sure what impact all of this is having on the development of AMD’s next-generation architectures, but I suspect that it can’t be good.
The Test
| Motherboard: | Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48) MSI DKA790GX Platinum (AMD 790GX) |
| Chipset: | Intel X48 AMD 790GX |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1010 (Intel) AMD Catalyst 8.12 |
| Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill DDR2-800 2 x 2GB (4-4-4-12) G.Skill DDR2-1066 2 x 2GB (5-5-5-15) Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) |
| Video Card: | eVGA GeForce GTX 280 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64) NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32) |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1920 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark) Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
erple2 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link
while there may be fewer defects per wafer, there are also fewer chips per wafer (about 57% fewer). To take the analogy to the extreme, lets say that AMD makes one chip that consumes the entire wafer, and Intel can make 2. If there is, on average, 1 defect per wafer for AMD and 5 defects per wafer for Intel, AMD has zero good chips per wafer, and Intel has (on average), 2 good chips per 5 wafers. That example is horribly contrived, sure, but I used it to show that even having a better process (fewer defects per wafer) doesn't guarantee a good result if the size of the chunks you use on the wafer is significantly larger - AMD's can fit quite a few less per wafer (about half?).erple2 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link
arg... edit button... Intel would have 1 good chip per 3 wafers. I assumed 4 defects per wafer, not 5 in the 2/5 ...slayerized - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
You are confusing yield and throughput - they are two different things.8steve8 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
no Virtualization Tech... so no windows 7 virtual PC, no hyper-v...that sucks.
rather go phenom 2, intel e8xxx or q9xxx
ltcommanderdata - Friday, May 8, 2009 - link
I don't think the lack of VT will be a huge issue for the average consumer. The Q8400 is a budget quad core and OEMs will no doubt be bundling Windows 7 Home Premium with it which doesn't support XP Mode anyways. Tech savy buyers who build their own computers with a Q8400 and Professional Edition would notice, but the larger impediment to XP Mode adoption is probably still Microsoft's production edition matrix.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
Very good point, I've updated the conclusion to point out the difference. Honestly it's ridiculous that Intel isn't enabling it on these chips.Take care,
Anand
spazmedia - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
I second this. Just bought a intel box with an E5200 thinking it had VT. Hopefully they will follow AMD's lead.GeorgeH - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
+1No support for Windows 7 XP Mode is the reason I chose AMD over an Intel Q8X00 in the PC I just built.
leomax999 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
Intel has announced vt support for Q8300, E7400, E7500, E5300, E5400.So i dont see any reason why q8400 shouldnt get it.
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25...">http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25...
GeorgeH - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
Thanks for the link, but to be clear the chips you listed will never support VT.Intel is supposed to be releasing Q8300".1", E7400".1", etc. chips, but unless they change the model number I can only see that leading to mass confusion. Forcing average people to check the S-Spec or MM number against a list to see what they're actually getting is a classic recipe for fail.
Until those updated Intel chips hit the market, AMD will remain the only real choice for budget and midrange quad core.