Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WHY INTEL DOESN'T INCLUDE A MEMORY CONTROLLER IN IT'S CHIPS?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 8, 2006 11:50:37 PM

Quote:
Memory controllers add space to the size of the chips. In turn, this cuts down the number you can make

Paul Otellini has to be a real dumb @ss to say something like that. AMD's memory controller only takes 5% of die space, while Intel's approach of larger caches takes 50% of the chip die area.

Once again, Intel's way to hide their flaw. :wink:

http://news.com.com/2061-10791_3-6047412.html?part=rss&tag=6047412&subj=news
March 8, 2006 11:52:44 PM

WHY DOES EVERYONE HAS TO TYPE IN CAPS FOR!!!!!????1111

Intel is working on it, moron. Also AMD's caches take up alot of real estate too, moron.
March 8, 2006 11:57:05 PM

Quote:
WHY DOES EVERYONE HAS TO TYPE IN CAPS FOR!!!!!????1111

Intel is working on it, moron. Also AMD's caches take up alot of real estate too, moron.


Shut up fanboy, here's your rigged conroe: http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Related resources
March 9, 2006 12:07:39 AM

Yep, so true. I'm not gonna disagree with you on that. There is simply no better design than AMDs.

The drawback with this is, it doesn't leave much room for AMD to improve their current design much though.
March 9, 2006 12:08:22 AM

Quote:
Yep, so true. I'm not gonna disagree with you on that. There is simply no better design than AMDs.

The drawback with this is, it doesn't leave much room for AMD to improve their current design much though.


http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:09:33 AM

You're right, chip die area isn't a very good reason. However, it is important to look at the whole concept of what he is saying which is included in the lines that followed which you didn't include.

Quote:
Instead, Intel makes its memory controllers on the next-to-best technology generation, where silicon real estate goes for less of a premium.

The current northbridges are made on the 130nm process which hasn't been used in processors since Banias. By using a older process, Intel maximizes it's production facilities while keeping costs at a minimum. I'm probably being repetitive, but Intel's next step is to double transition from 130nm to 90nm and 200mm wafers to 300mm wafers which should easily cut their production costs by more than half while reducing power consumption and giving them more space for additional features.

A lot of it is probably superstition. Intel tried it with Timna and it screwed up royally. Now AMD is constantly flaunting their OMC. The OMC just seems like bad luck for Intel.
March 9, 2006 12:09:56 AM

Mad Mode! How was the aformentioned post fanboy? And secondly, do you think you sound smart?
March 9, 2006 12:11:31 AM

Quote:
You're right, chip die area isn't a very good reason. However, it is important to look at the whole concept of what he is saying which is included in the lines that followed which you didn't include.

Instead, Intel makes its memory controllers on the next-to-best technology generation, where silicon real estate goes for less of a premium.

The current northbridges are made on the 130nm process which hasn't been used in processors since Banias. By using a older process, Intel maximizes it's production facilities while keeping costs at a minimum. I'm probably being repetitive, but Intel's next step is to double transition from 130nm to 90nm and 200mm wafers to 300mm wafers which should easily cut their production costs by more than half while reducing power consumption and giving them more space for additional features.

A lot of it is probably superstition. Intel tried it with Timna and it screwed up royally. Now AMD is constantly flaunting their OMC. The OMC just seems like bad luck for Intel.

Oh shut up and look at this fanboy: http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:13:22 AM

SSA BMUD LETNI NICKUF A TSUJ ER'UOY. MUROF SITH NI UOY NAHT ELPOEP RETRAMS ERA EREHT
STCAF EHT EES OT STNAW T'NSEOD TAHT
March 9, 2006 12:15:59 AM

Where is the fanboy post mad mod? And do you think you sound smart?
March 9, 2006 12:20:44 AM

I read it dipsh!t, its weak at best.
March 9, 2006 12:21:25 AM

Great post, p!ss off fanboy.
March 9, 2006 12:26:44 AM

I'll have a T for troll and a W for wrong.

5 steps of grief:

1. shock
2. denial <-- you are here
3. depression
4. anger
5. acceptance
March 9, 2006 12:29:02 AM

Sure troll, scurry back to under your bridge.
March 9, 2006 12:31:56 AM

Please stop this; we understand you don't like Intel.
March 9, 2006 12:36:58 AM

Because you're a troll? Thought so.
March 9, 2006 12:42:06 AM

I beleive you're against bias, mike, because that article really rats out intel's setup-mistakes. However, it's also a big bias to stick to one article that makes things look greener on your side, no pun intended (yeah, that sucked, green=AMD...).

Notice this isn't an offensive post and I don't believe that an agressive reply would be appropriate, although I have to admit it's expected.
March 9, 2006 12:44:46 AM

Quote:
I beleive you're against bias, mike, because that article really rats out intel's setup-mistakes. However, it's also a big bias to stick to one article that makes things look greener on your side, no pun intended (yeah, that sucked, green=AMD...).

Notice this isn't an offensive post and I don't believe that an agressive reply would be appropriate, although I have to admit it's expected.


I didn't mean to be aggressive, but for the past 6 hours, I've been flamed for sticking to AMD, now I have proof, I think that warrants a few minutes of bragging.

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-t...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:49:04 AM

I agree. I see all the flaming you get and think it's really dumb. It may be tough, but ignore the intel fanboys(this isn't meant to be agressive towards them <.<, notice I have an old P4...) and just reply to the clean arguers. Replying with an insult to an insult accompanied with that article link only makes them want to flame back until they've got the last word.
March 9, 2006 12:51:46 AM

Quote:
I agree. I see all the flaming you get and think it's really dumb. It may be tough, but ignore the intel fanboys(this isn't meant to be agressive towards them <.<, notice I have an old P4...) and just reply to the clean arguers. Replying with an insult to an insult accompanied with that article link only makes them want to flame back until they've got the last word.


True, there do seem to be a few educated non-insulting people I am chatting with now about this, it's nice to know not everybody hated me because I wasn't joining Team Intel.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 12:56:27 AM

People hate you because you're a troll, you keep posting that weakass article and you're just plain sh!tty. You also seem to be against competition for some strange reason, probably because you're a troll or an idiot or both.
March 9, 2006 12:59:42 AM

I hope that neutrality can get to calm everybody.

Anyways, the original reason I came to this thread was its topic!

About the intergrated memory controller, I think I've heard that AMD's solution was patented. That means that if Intel wants to have an IMC, it'll have to innovate with a completely different way of doing it. Then again, that statement about the patent might be wrong. Anyone care to confirm?
March 9, 2006 1:01:20 AM

Quote:
I hope that neutrality can get to calm everybody.

Anyways, the original reason I came to this thread was its topic!

About the intergrated memory controller, I think I've heard that AMD's solution was patented. That means that if Intel wants to have an IMC, it'll have to innovate with a completely different way of doing it. Then again, that statement about the patent might be wrong. Anyone care to confirm?


Not sure about the patent, but I know that Intel doesn't like to adopt technologies that rivals use (such as SOI), that is a fact, proven since back in 1986. I think Intel also wishes to remain a little different, but this can be speculation.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 9, 2006 1:04:23 AM

If its patented theres always ways around it by doing it just a little bit differently.

Quote:
but I know that Intel doesn't like to adopt technologies that rivals use (such as SOI)


Aint that the truth.
March 9, 2006 1:05:02 AM

Quote:
People hate you because you're a troll, you keep posting that weakass article and you're just plain sh!tty. You also seem to be against competition for some strange reason, probably because you're a troll or an idiot or both.


No Offense, but I have seen you post like 100 times today, and you have said nothing of substance. Then you have the nerve to call Mike a troll? At least he is trying to back up his argument with information. You have pretty much just complained and insulted the whole time, just like you will do to me when you read this.
March 9, 2006 1:12:14 AM

I'm just p!ssing off mike because hes trolling heaps.

Quote:
Then you have the nerve to call Mike a troll?


Have you seen how many times he's posted that one crappy article, jez.

Quote:
You have pretty much just complained and insulted the whole time


And he hasn't?

I addressed all his lame points then he went on a trolling spree so I countered with some good old fashioned insults. Looks like hes finished now so that means I am too.
March 9, 2006 1:16:32 AM

Well, at least he has provided some info (other than that article, which does raise some good points). You've just argued with him and anyone else who had the cajones to question the benchmarks results or your belief of them.
March 9, 2006 1:22:05 AM

I argued has awesome points like it took intel 3 years to catch up to AMD before, you've obviously put little effort into looking for it.

Instead of trolling like crazy wouldn't it be a smart idea to I don't know, wait till we have independent reviews instead of claiming conspiracy theories and whatnot.
March 9, 2006 1:26:05 AM

I agree. They have actually been quoted as saying they may have integrated memory controllers by the end of the decade. Typical, down play the technology all the while trying to integrate it into your own product.
March 9, 2006 1:26:36 AM

I am working from memoery of your posts, sorry if I mised one or two out of how many.

I have been saying all day that this is a pretty much pointless arguement for the next few months until we see some smaple chip reviews.
March 9, 2006 1:29:01 AM

Thats fair enough.

I couldn't agree more.

To rehash my points again for the sake of it.

Its not unexpected that intel would take the lead, I mean they have designed a new architecture from the ground up on 65nm while the hammer was designed for 130nm which was quite dated.

AMD moves to 65nm quite soon and intel moves to 45 after that, they leap frog each other and pricing will play a big part which is all good for the consumer.
March 9, 2006 1:36:16 AM

Very True. I have heard rumors of a new AMD Marchitecture in 2007 as well.
March 9, 2006 2:14:57 AM

Inel did have an OMC when they went with rambus memory. You guys remember how that went down right. I think they don't want that to happen again and of course it also has alot to do with money.
March 9, 2006 2:22:03 AM

I don't think so.
March 9, 2006 2:22:55 AM

i wonder if action man looks like his avatar, probably. I'm also beginnib=ng to think he is more sprite(fairy) than troll, since a troll is strong enough not to back down to save face, which is what he is doing.
March 9, 2006 3:16:08 AM

why the hell does it matter so much intel- amd same shit lol
March 9, 2006 3:39:26 AM

Intel means business. Mike, you can't handle loosing! Like they say, Wake up and smell the coffee, here come Conroe in your Face!
March 9, 2006 4:24:37 AM

If anybody still cares at this point, the correct answer to your question as to why Intel does not use onboard memory control is because they compensate with $extra L2 and L3 cache to accomplish the same thing, one of the reasons they are more expensive and run hotter. The reason they did not go to the onboard is because it only accomodates DDR1 according to them.
March 9, 2006 4:31:12 AM

Actually more cache don't cause the cpu to run hotter, cache uses minimal power and with the "smart cache" (tm intel) it always uses the same power regardless of cache size as it only has to power up one block (right word?) that its accessing. It does obviously add to cost.
March 9, 2006 12:50:24 PM

we are talking fairytales right now. as I said on another post the true comments can only apear AFTER conroe is on the market dohhh :evil: 
regardind the memory controler, mabye it's all abuout pride :lol: 
!