Intel's 45nm chips coming next year

Intel First to Demonstrate Working 45nm Chips

"Achieving this milestone means Intel is on track to manufacture chips with this technology in 2007 using 300mm wafers, and continues the company’s focus on pushing the limits of Moore’s Law, by introducing a new process generation every two years."

"Intel’s 45nm process technology will allow chips with more than five times less leakage power than those made today. This will improve battery life for mobile devices and increase opportunities for building smaller, more powerful platforms."

Isn't it just getting harder for AMD?!

161 answers Last reply
More about intel 45nm chips coming year
  1. So now they will be able to make more chips on a single wafer.
    By the time they release 45 nanos, Amd will be using 65 nanos.
    Since Amd beats Intel with the current 90 nanos to intel's 65 nanos, I doubt having Amd's production that much closer will help Intel at all.
  2. ahh amd is working with ibm right now on 32 nm so i think amd has an ace up their sleeve
  3. Intel has already built functioning 32nm parts while IBM cant even get 65nm working :roll:

    Its always getting harder for AMD unless they get some serious help from other manufacturers.
  4. Quote:
    Isn't it just getting harder for AMD?!

    And why??

    It's a sweet joke for me to know that Intel's 65nm aren't cool enough than AMD's tried-and-true 90nm. :lol:

    Did you see the new AM2 processors (specifically the 35W X2 3800+) which will consume no more than 65W (excluding the FX-62)?
    Let's not forget that these are still 90nm 8)
  5. dude amd and ibm are working together on 22nm also so whos ahead now
  6. Intel (why you even ask when its so obvious who is ahead?)
  7. These projects -if true (link?!)- normally take a long time to get to the production line. This is important that Intel has working sample of 45nm chips.

    Did you see the new AM2 processors (specifically the 35W X2 3800+) which will consume no more than 65W (excluding the FX-62)?

    I may agree with you on the performance of AMD chips, but still I’ll wait to see what Conroe has to offer. Finally, it comes to performance/price ratio. Due to the reduced cost with this technology, Intel can offer prices we have never seen on new chips.

  8. Heres a link to a working 45nm waffer:
    Intel's 45nm waffer

    I'm new to this forum, so I better go read the rules.
  9. Intel might as well skip 45nm and go to 32nm, AMD has Intel's 65nm beat with their 90nm on performance and power consumption! They have consisitently demonstrated an inability to efficiently use a die at any size. There is no reason to believe that even if Intel does go 45nm they will be able to manage their heat loss issues and performance issues while demonstrating an edge over AMD. Take that you fanboys!
  10. Sure they can. Intel has their 65nm cores out but with old technology that really doesn't work well unless you OC them. Conroe is a whole new ball game and should most certainly gain back plenty of respect for Intel.
  11. no dvd, you're not even close. right now intel is working on 1.8121551 nanometer chips... :roll:

    there's supposed to be a theoretical limit of the size which you can make transistors before you get too close to the size of atoms. so then what? will we have loose atoms floating around in our chips? will current leakage be avenged tenfold?
  12. Quote:
    Intel (why you even ask when its so obvious who is ahead?)
  13. pretty much all i see is intel is jumping from milestone to milestone and amd is following with various improvements from intel's "mistakes", so really AMD has an advantage.
  14. Wow, reading this stuff is really hilarious. so many taglines and key words without the faintest comprehension of what is really going on. just a bunch of people out to say why their chip is beter than the other guys.

    First off AMD does have performance lead on many applications. They also have a power lead. that is known.

    However, to blindly say that since AMD, using a 90nm SOI process, is lower power than the P4 EE on a 65nm process means that AMD's 90nm process is so incredibly that much better is just raising a big flag to say "look at me i haven't the faintest clue what i'm talking about!!"

    the fact of the matter is that AMD's power lead has everythign to do with their clock speed, not with their process. higher frequency, higher power. look it up in any 1st-year electronics textbook.

    If you want to make a process comparison, therefore, compare centrino. Intel's Yonah processor (Core Duo) to AMD. They are much closer frequency-wise.

    Here all you AMD people will say "yea, but that's a mobile processor, that's not a fair comparison!". so? neither is the AMD-to-P4 comparison when measureing the efficiency of the process.

    So if you think Intel isn't leading the process-technology or manufacturing revolution just cause your Athlon FX runs warcraft at 20fps faster than the P4, you're again, waving the dummy flag.

    Intel has over 2M sq-feet of cleanroom space. They are spending $3.5B to build a production FAB for a fully-proven, chip-in-hand, 45nm process technology they alrady developed in their research fab. And they already have 3 full production fabs (using 300mm wafers) on 90nm technology.

    AMD has 250,000 sq-feet of cleanroom space, they are just now getting their 300mm wafers online (Intel had this in 2002), they are using a 90nm Silicon-on-insulator process (that incidentally requires more-expensive wafer stock with substrate "stuck" onto silicon dioxide, thus eroding profits) . And as far as all of you saying how they are "working with IBM on 22nm process"...if you think that Intel isn't working on the next process, hell, the next 4 processes, without help from outside companies, you're sadly mistaken

    See these links from 2003! Paul O. showed photos at IDF of prtotype transistors (in-hand) all the way down to 22nm

    and the following press about it:

    Intel is the world leader in semiconductor manufacturing. period. That is their power. if you think that AMD has *anything* on them in that regard I eagerly await hearing what that might be.

    Also, there is more to process techology than power, or performance. There is cost. Intel, or AMD for that matter would gladly accept the exact-same chip on a smaller process, with no improvements whatsoever. In fact, that is *exactly* what intel did going from their 90-nm to 65-nm P4 processors. there was no performance gain there, only the process change. So why do it? simple. lower cost per processor. Fabrication goes through a number of steps per wafer (lithography, implantation, NiO2 deposition, cleaning, SiO2 growth, poly-dep, etc...). the time it takes the wafer in each one of those steps dictates how many wafers you can put thorugh the fab. If you can get more processors (dies) per wafer, great, because it doesn't change how many wafers you can get through the factory - just that you get more chips per day, and thus you increase your capacity, and lowers your cost/processor (which is then sold at the same price or more).

    Intel leads the world in that regard. AMD has to go on IBM's research coattails, announcing joint-partnerships and so forth about "technology breakthroughs " that intel announced years earlier. sometimes about technologies that intel already has in production.

    So there are many factors at play here, but as far as the title of this thread, If nothing else, just realize that lower-clockspeeds means lower power. It does not mean better process technology. A new process technlogy usually means lower power as well, but if you're gonig to compare that directly, you have to compare apples to apples. Right now, that's not available, since CoreDuo operatesin a 35-W TDP mobile envelope. Athlons are in the 85W desktop envelope, so naturally can be run a little faster, higher power, higher performance.

    The true comparison comes with Conroe later this year. I can't wait to watch and see what the 65-nm process can really do at a lower clock speed.

  15. Quote:
    ...AMD does have performance lead on many applications. They also have a power lead...

    So does intel
  16. I can't help but agree.

    The fact is, Intel has always been a manufacturing company first, which has become blindingly obvious with the failure of the Netburst architecture. I think a lot of the cynicism about Intel's manufacturing abilities was due specifically to the 90nm transition with Prescott. However, looking at Prescott alone doesn't tell the whole story. While Intel did initially have problems going to 90nm it actually isn't as much of a black mark on the process itself as people may think. Just look at the Banias to Dothan 130nm to 90nm transition. The maximum clock speed was increased from 1.7GHz to 2.1GHz and the L2 cache was doubled all the while the TDP actually dropped from 24.5W to 21W.

    As well, claims that AMD's 90nm SOI technology is far superior to Intel's 65nm process is overblown. All we're seeing right now is Intel's initial production run on 65nm. The current Cedar Mill and Presler chips aren't very impressive, but they were the test-run and I believe that they're production actually started over a year ago. Yonah is the second run on 65nm process and it's managed to actually increase clock speeds from Dothan's 2.26GHz to an eventual 2.33GHz while increasing the FSB to 667MHz and adding a second core with the TDP only increasing 4W.

    65nm is even now currently moving into its third run with the C1 stepping Cedar Mills and Presler. Currently the fastest mainstream dual core, the 3.4GHz 950D, has a TDP of 130W and with the new stepping will actually drop to 95W. You can argue that using mobile chips like Dothan and Yonah to look at process technology may be cheating, but the results are impressive when looking at these desktop chips. Netburst is a decidedly inefficient architecture yet with the C0 stepping Intel has managed to fit two 3.4GHz cores into a lower TDP than the original single core 550 while still doubling the power consumption L2 cache. Certainly the ability to stuff two 3.73GHz cores together into a similar TDP to the single core variety is good progress. The yields have also increased to an extent where Intel is planning 50% price reductions on the 950D. 65nm is maturing nicely and will be making it's fifth run on Merom and family. (The fourth run is the new stepping of Yonah coming before Merom, but after the Presler/Cedar Mill C1 stepping.)

    It wouldn't be wise to simply dismiss Intel's 45nm architecture. You can debate how much or how little the 90nm to 65nm transition brought, but the 65nm to 45nm transition will be different. 65nm was only a refinement of existing technologies in the 90nm process, mainly in the strained silicon and various gates. However, 45nm will continue improving strained silicon and other features while adding PD-SOI. We can agree about the benefits that SOI brought to AMD's processes, and now Intel is planning on skipping SOI and going directly to it's next improved incarnation. The difference between 65nm and 45nm should be quite a bit larger than the previous transistions.

    In fact, they go so far as to claim:
    Think happy thoughts here people, from what several sources have told the INQ, the leakage problem is solved, and I mean solved, not lessened.

    I know we can debate over the validity of the sources and the claim, but it's worth noting the bluntness and the lengths the article goes to disuade doubters. Certainly there must be something to the claim, if they are willingly to go so far out on a limb to support it.

    So, if you hear gushingly good things about 45nm coming from IDF, believe it. If you hear anyone pooh-poohing Intel and its process tech because of the debacle that was 90nm, just point and laugh. This one will be very very good.
  17. There's a nice chart that David Wang from put up about process technology papers from IEDM (biggest annual process technology conference).

    When debating "who has the low power process", I think it's interesting (well, to me anyway) to compare the Ion/Ioff numbers for the various process technology papers. "Ion" is the saturation current when the transistor is on - so it's basically how much current the transistor can source when it's conducting... higher numbers are better. And then "Ioff" is the leakage current when the transistor is off - so it's basically the amount of current that leaks through the transistor when it's supposed to be off.. lower numbers are better.

    Note that to compare apples to apples, you want to compare columns that have the same "Vdd" and the same process node. Papers 10.8 and 3.3 make a nice comparison.

    The SRAM cell size is also interesting - it's basically how small one can draw a minimum sized SRAM cell in square microns.
  18. basically intel has more dough :lol: intel just sells technology and "oooo-ahhhh" the consumers wheras AMD tries to provide the highest performance on what they have. So in the research and technology area, intel is in the lead wayy ahead while AMD tries to catch up. To me, they are doing a good job at it. :D
  19. Actually the 45nm SRAM is best acheived by Intel at this time. And IBM is announced this week that they will print circuits with 30nm ridges using current lithography imaging processes.
  20. wow ycon, your sooo bias, go away, dvdpiddy is a little bias towards amd but they are better at the moment, so what's wrong with that, also, some of you need to shorten your posts[lt data], man i read one sentence and skip it. ALSO, conroe is mainly speculation right now, and someone said, i thinkj it was mcdonalds guy, that amd cleans up intels mistakes so they have an advantage, but now with conroe having such a low clock speed for intel, it seems they are copying amd, and since most people see a lower clock speed as crap, that may be bad for intel's sales.
  21. frankly, who gives a rats ass who thinks what, i like AMD cuz they are cheap and give good preformance

    you may like intel becasue...danm im stuck :D ..but you may like intel

    this argument is liek the ATi vs Nvidia someone will come by and say ATi is better then someone will reply back saying Nvidia has a lifetime warrany on their products then someone else will say ATi si better etc and the process will go on
  22. true, but after reading everything i have this to say:
    i use both amd and intel for my builds, and honestly they both preform very well cuz when it comes down to it its how well it operates and not all of that crap bout how it was made, i mean if intel has a better make then amd thats great, but i want to no who is going to preform better and who is goin to last longer. and even if intels new 45nm chips are amazing then thats great, then ill use intel, but if amd is better then im gunna use amd and where does cell processing fall into all of this?? its being used in the ps3 and had herd it was coming out for pc as well,a lil off topic jw. so if u think im bias ur wrong, i use w.e i want and w.e i think is best for what it needs to do. amd has gaming, intel has multi apps and stuff of the sort. and there right u cant really compare amd and intel acurtly in build style there to differnt. amd is using older stuff and making it preform better but intel is not doing so bad and beats amd sometimes. u would need 2 cpus with same core and same socket and same everything, then we benchmark, then we no who is better, but right now they dont wanna do that, so im personaly left to speculate.

    If u compare a 2.8 intel and a 2.8 amd amd is going to win becuase they refined that chip better and intel wins with ultra high clock speeds. on the other hand, amd has intel beat in FSB, 2000mhz and 1066 max for intel. they also use ddr2 for intel and ddr for amd. so again u cant really compare any of it all, i mean ya u can run tests but there are to many vairiables in it.

    Heat is a big thing for some ppl, but i mean if its stayin under 60c full load shut up and let it run, thats plenty cool and within the specs, plus its free heating! YAY!! yes i have water cooling but thats cuz my parents complained bout the noise lvl, and its better for ocing, but to run it at stock speeds under 60c ur fine, when u start ocing then u need to cut that in half, but thats neather here nore there.

    so more or less im with who ever i think is better at the moment or who ever im building the comp for thinks is better. so ill continue to build both and praise both. and if u have a problem with it then that sucks.
  23. i think you guys missunderstood me cause i don't really like intel's stuff at the moment and really like AMD. Also, my point was that people can think what they want but they are ALL speculations until you can have a fair test on equal ground with 2 equivalent processors.
  24. thats what i said, there is nothing that u can compare becuase of all of the vairbles so im just taking what i like and leaving it at that and ty for agreeing wit me im happy now, i can sleep easy :P :P
  25. Great, Intel can make smaller, cheaper chips.
    All Amd can do is S.O.I., with three years of advancements. Okay, so Amd's interconnects and layering is also much better.
    Then again Intel's chips are made in the USA. They are made within very exacting tolerences.
    Amd's chips are made in Germany. In Germany they say " tolerenzes? Ve dont do tolerenze. Ve make it egzactly richtish, und das is it.
    I remenber hearing that Intel went to bga because they couldn't get that many pins to work. 775? Amd seems fine with 940.
    I'm quite happy that Intel can do small and cheap. I give credit to Amd for doing it right.

    For my part, I'm left to wonder how high the northwood C would scale, with 45 nanos, FD SOI and DDR2.
    I wonder how long it will be before we find out.
  26. Quote:
    Sure they can. Intel has their 65nm cores out but with old technology that really doesn't work well unless you OC them. Conroe is a whole new ball game and should most certainly gain back plenty of respect for Intel.

    oh man i hope intel craps on AMDs K8s clock for clock and with higher clock speeds and colder temps so all the AMD fanboys who doubt intel WILL SHUT THE HELL UP WITH "AMD IS SO GREAT"

    on the other hand then we will all hear the "intel is so great" if that happens, uch it never ends

    as for the 65nm P4's - there like an experiment with 65nm, as for the real results (conroe etc) - yonah is already equal to an A64 X2 - conroe can only do better
  27. So, what is the difference between

    - yonah is already equal to an A64 X2 - conroe can only do better

    Well, actually yonah does not equal X2, but it is close. Since conroe has more stages, and we dont know what else, it could be northwood to prescott all over again.
  28. Quote:
    Well, actually yonah does not equal X2, but it is close. Since conroe has more stages, and we dont know what else, it could be northwood to prescott all over again.

    No one is dumb enough to make that mistake again.
  29. apart from the "tdp rating" you can't really fairly compare intel chip temps vs amd chip temps either cos you're not using the same cooler on each chip!
  30. I wonder. Since Intel hasn't fixed the problem, so much as bandaded it, I'm not sure they even know for certain what caused it.
    I am pretty sure that since they intend/are doing an increase in pipeline stages, and need to do a major redraw, the potential is still there.
    If the problem stemmed from system resonance, a smaller die size, and a slower frequency could trigger it.
    The main problem seems to stem from transistor density, and speed.
    Conroe is denser, and slower.
  31. IF there is one thing I hate its fanboys.
    Seriously, AMD is blah blah blah... Intel is blah blah blah..
    Right, each company has its advantages in their chips, as well as disadvantages.
    OK, at the moment AMD are leading the curent processor battle, as everybody knows and as fanboys constantly make clear.
    Intel however is making considerable steps into the future with working 65nm and 45nm in development.
    Another thing i detest is the AMD fanboys going on about am2, and intel fanboys dissing it.
    For the AMD FBs, am2 will be good in the future, utilizing ddr2 and it will be good when AMD enters 65nm. For the Intel FBs, currently its just an upgrade in chipset and the addition of a few new processors, the first steps arent to blow you away with an fx-423462389462389 on a 45nm process, running @ 50GHz, its just an upgrade of chipset to enable better processors in the future... gah...

    Didnt word all that the way I wanted to, anyway, catchya l8r. Pz.
  32. Quote:
    Then again Intel's chips are made in the USA.

    that doesnt mean anything the only thing it means is they chips will be more expensive
  33. Quote:
    IF there is one thing I hate its fanboys.
    Seriously, AMD is blah blah blah... Intel is blah blah blah..

    actually when i here an intel fanboy talk about how great prescott is compared to venice or san diego and amd is bad cause they are so slow i get sick to me its like the sound of

  34. Quote:
    Then again Intel's chips are made in the USA.

    that doesnt mean anything the only thing it means is they chips will be more expensive

    That depends on other things..

    Where you live.

    If it is considered high end product.

    Regardless if it is expensive, by AMD or Intel, they both are companies that shine on different aspects, in terms of performance.

    AMD has come a long way, but I don't feel for them. I don't feel for Intel either. Each will price their stuff in competiton to one another, and milk the market as best they can in the Gighurts spectrum.

    They are 2 companies trying to make the most of what they can in the market.

    Just like us most of us trying to make the best of what they have to offer. I know most of us want to buy the best bang for the buck.

    Taking a product, and making it perform like a high end, or big dog system.

    If your really a fanboy for AMD or Intel, you might as well spend the $800-1200+ on a single processor on the high end side, to support their market, and bring up the stock.

    Other then that, it a total waste of time to even consider starting an argument here on the forum.

    Just my 2 cents in the jar..
  35. screw this carp im gonna be the odd little duckling

    GOO IBM ever the hell u make..oh yeah PowerPC's WOOT YAH

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
  36. lol mort(intel) and dvdpiddy(amd) are enemy fanboys lmfao.
    i wonder if they like ati or nvidia more...
  37. there are no such things as ati and nvidia fanboy's anymore
  38. Quote: the moment AMD are leading the curent processor battle as the AMD fanboys make quite clear...

    are you sure?
  39. Quote: the moment AMD are leading the curent processor battle as the AMD fanboys make quite clear...

    are you sure?

    yah im pretty sur ehes right

    FX-60 woops Intels what ever they have ass
  40. bah you ravenous humbugs, turn from your wicked ways. buy cyrix
  41. At least there was some entertainment value in this thread. I do love how we jump down each others throats at speculations, no really its really worth arguing over theory. Play the fence, in an evolving industry like IS, there is no point in engaging in conjecture when in 4 months the next iteration will start the fight all over again.

    I recently converted from Northwood to Venice, and I love both cores. Ok, they aren't the newest things but the point is they each did something better than the other. I play in both camps, but right now Intel owns mobile platform and AMD generaly owns desktops. Note I said generally.

    I am anxious to see what each company has install for us. In ANY case we all win with faster procs.


    Faster Procs = Better Procs (assuming they are stable hehe :P)
  42. dude,..if you dont stopp posting i'm going to eat ur avatar. i hope there's a green chile cheeseburger in there with a little bit of weed mixed in ... thtt'd be nnice.. i;m kind a hungry.b'


    i want to moveback to yelm, wa. things re nice there, =there was a house there i wanted, it was in the grass, old. it seemed peaceful, the neigboors klooked all hillbilly- tbut thts cool. as kong as i can throw back a few pabst blue ribbons wid them its cool. mayee i can help them with all their cars. adn we can wife swap or smthing,'

    ok, i go to bed nowl. goo nught to all
  43. Quote: the moment AMD are leading the curent processor battle as the AMD fanboys make quite clear...

    are you sure?

    yah im pretty sur ehes right

    FX-60 woops Intels what ever they have ass

    Yeah at what price? and its overclockability? not much concidering what an intel 65nm dual core can do for the price
  44. Quote:
    engaging in conjecture....

    I am anxious to see what each company has install for us.... In ANY case we all win with faster procs.

    Whos says its all conjecture? Perhaps there are some folks here with some insight into the situation...

    Conroe (and Penryn) are based on Yonah, which is based on Dothan & Banias. None are P4-based, and the NetBurst architecture will be put to rest after Cedar Mill and Pressler have run their course.

    But that is not to say that nothing came out of of the P4 line. The P4-FSB, advanced branch prediction schemes, cache-prefetcher schemes, (all necessary for long pipelines, but still beneficial to shorter ones) among others advancements, all benefit the future.

    It has become clear that the choice to go after MHz and GHz to sell more processors was a dead end on the high side due to power limitations, but perhaps in the end, intel will come out richer for the experience from some of the necessary advancements.

    But for now they are reverting somewhat. Shorter pipes, lower clockspeeds, but still with better performance, and dual/multi-cores to boot. We will see this with Conroe, and then the New Battle begins in earnest, and yes, this discussoin continues.

    But then look ahead even more, and after that discussion, we come along with Penryn, Nehalem, Gesher, and Intel ups the ante even more. 4 cores, Integrated everything, and more cache than AMD could ever hope for due to the 45 and 32nm processes.

    for those that say AMD is doing the technological development? Where is it?? In the time that Intel has gone through the P3, P4, Banias/Dothan, and now Yonah and soon Conroe cores, what has AMD had? the current Athlon FX is the same basic core that was Palomino. yes, it has HT and an integrated memory controller, and the procesosr is now Dual core, but the core itself has not changed significantly in all that time...just advancements to allow (slightly) higher clock frequencies...where is this major advancement?

    you might say that "well they're faster - there it is". ok, yes, they are faster at some things, but that's not what i'm talking about - i'm talking about technological improvements in the core itself. You say AMD has perfected what intel has done, that it has the better architecture, that it has made the leaps and bounds? well, where are the architectural advanements? the new ideas? the revolutionary changes?

    Intel tried super pipelining, trace caches, prefetchers galore, not to mention the platform-oriented ideas like DRAM page awareness, and so forth, as well as mobility and business-oriented manageability functions that is possible soley due to their chipset business, all of which AMD can't hope to match. (not even going to mention the advancements in chipset archietcture and design here, since there's no competition)

    AMD has done nothing but increment a 5-year old design. I haven't heard their plans for the future, but its gotta be close to time for a change soon, because intel has made some mistakes, made some wrong decisions, but is coming back with a vengence according to all the info out there, and if AMD isn't careful, a year or so from now they are going to be right back in the "also-ran" category. In mobile, desktop AND server space.

    Or am I wrong? What have they done that's so much better than Intel? architecturally, Design-wise, or process wise? what are they planning on doing? you tell me. Architectural specifics, examples, hard facts. Cause i'm eager to hear.

    Or just stick with the "well, they are faster on my games, and my case is still below 60 degrees, and therefore, their architecture is leaps ahead of where intel is."
  45. Nice of you to mention HTT and ODMC. Intel of course dont need those right.
    It is good that Intel will finnaly go SOI, but since Amd has been doing that for three years now, I'm sure you will say Intell will have no trouble catching up.
    I hear that intel will be putting thier own take on crosshairs on dual core. Good move.
    Now if only intel could get the type of trace setup that Amd has. Oh, I guess that really is what banais/dothan was all about. I wonder if thiers will work @ higher speeds?
    I love it when people say Amd chips haven't changed. There is not one component that is anywhere near the same as it was, even three years ago. Oh sure, they have a layout that works. Too bad intel cant seem to get one.
    If you want to say that Intel has wasted a lot more time on crap that didn't work, I'll agree. I'll even agree that Intel's adoption of AMD64 was a good idea, too bad they cant get it right.
    Why is it you Intel fanboys take so much pride in thier inability to get a decent layout anyhow?
  46. Quote:
    Why is it you Intel fanboys take so much pride in thier inability to get a decent layout anyhow?

    Intel fanboys are one type, AMD FANBOYS ARE ANOTHER.

    I mentioned conroe many months ago (mid way through last year) and i got atacked cause "its intel" and "its a pipedream" - what seems to be spooking AMD fanboys now? We all know what design is better between the K7 and P6, yonahs a prime example and its taking on a K8, heh - its now intels turn to make a generation designed to compete with the new gen.

    Im due to buy a new system and im waiting for conroe (and amds answers) till i buy either an AMD or an Intel system.
  47. I think we all know AMD. They'll wait for Intel to develop the new technologies and they'll scrape past intel in the performance arena again
  48. i agree with the amd overtaking intel aswell as intel overtaking amd in performance eventually for both (it wasnt long ago the Intel P4c's were round and leading)
  49. Going to the 200mhz fsb was an amazing step for Intel. It really rocked the PC world.
    Do you remember the hype? I dont. They just did it, and bang, they actually had a lead.
    I do remember prescott's hype. I also remember the hype around northwoodB. The biggest hype though went to
    It seems the greater the hype, the less the gain.
    I'm seeing too much hype around conroe.
    I would like to see it be true. That would mean that Amd and Intel would have to go toe to toe. In that scenario, we the customers win.
    Truth be told though, you just cant believe Intel's PR department.
    Suprize suprize!
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Milestone Product