Is Intel about to close the technology gap after its CPUs have largely lagged behind AMD's devices for the past few years on a performance-per-watt basis? We scrutinized what Intel was willing to divulge about the Core Micro architecture and how it could boost PC and server performance during the next couple of years.

:?: QUESTIONS (three, sort of) :?:

1.) Is there a printable view or PDF format available for that article?
2.) If not, is it possible to add such a document/link?
3.) Please? (I'm begging here, heh heh.)

That is a fantatic overview article for the Spring 2006 IDF. I would love to have a printed copy to share with colleagues, friends and family members.

I think the photos here are actually better than the ones available anywhere else I've seen.

Great coverage!

I must say, even though I'm an AMD guy, Intel's new architecture has me excited. It sounds like Intel is now officially out of the frequency race and is now going for performance. AMD made this switch with the Athlon XP system and did so very successfully.

Intel 65nm processors seem promising. I hope they can release them in the H2-2006 (Q3 / Fall 2006) as expected.

I haven't heard any official word from AMD or Intel about the 65nm release dates. I know both estimate a H2-2006 or H1-2007 release. At lease, the various news outlets leak those rumors.

In any case, I hope AMD and Intel stay around for a good long time to counter-balance one another for price and performance.

I think that, in the end, real world technology will always win over marketing hoopla.

Of course that is possible provided that the masses have such quality media outlets such as Tom's Hardware and others to do the dirty work of testing items as they are released.

I'm looking forward to AMD's AM2 based (or future) responses to the Intel Core (Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest series) processor family.

Nah, looks good but so did their 64 bit hyperthreading and a slew of other things that where a day late and a dollar short. It looks strong but lets wait until you can actually buy it and it is in your hands... Also AMD has not been on vacation you know. Lets just wait and see. You may be suprised.

At last, Intel has pulled its head out of its arse and done something about their product range. Again, i like AMD... a lot... their X2 processors are amazing and i love mine to bits, but seeing a chip by Intel for once be able to beat an OCed FX-60 has got me interested. Intel definitely has the budget to put out decent products, its just taken its time to do so. I do fear that Conroe may be overpriced when its released, but then again, i wonder what beast AMD will come up with in order to rival Conroe. There's still a few months in for AMD to tweak and improve the AM2 chip architecture before release, and all i can say is its going to be a very interesting Q2 this year... so bring on the popcorn!

Did anybody else find it scary at how they were able to bring up the locations of flights in real time using Google and the FAA?????

Bluefinger

Actually the internet grape vine is saying that the Conroe will be similarly priced to the procesors now.
The 2.67ghz around $530
The 2.4ghz around $316
The 2.13 ghz around $240

There is a 1.8 but I do not remember the estimated price for that processor. The catch will be the price of the mobo's required for them, because then975x chipset boards a outrageous. Hopefully the soon to be released 965g boards will not be so bad.

What about the 3.33GHz EE? Any info on pricing?

Well, we all know that Intel certainly as 65nm up and running as I have seen (and even used for a minute or two) their Pentium D 9xx and Core Duo 65nm chips. Now AMD is another matter. I bet they will wait and "drop a bomb" like Apple does with their major changes, so we'll not hear of AMD's 65nm chips until they have already made some and verify it works.

It's interesting to see the AM2 has very little performance gain, and more to the point, performance loss in some areas of the reviews. This is just like (not meaning at all to jinx AMD) the launch of Intel's P4. No real gain until the freq's ramped up. Hope that the official launch of the AM2's are a bit more spactacular.. I want to see my 4400x2's big brother from the '65' Fab do well. 8)

Yeah performance didnt increase (yet to see full speed ddr2 tho) but the thermal specs for the lower models are whats more impressive, but the FX62 (115w) is not and thats prolly the most they will get with the architecture sadly (and maybe a 3ghz single core) because of the 90nm limit, and whats worse is there 65nm comes in next year so intel will lead with conroe, and when amd does have 65nm intel will have 45nm (and quad core etc), Intels timing is the best so far i think.

AMD will lower there prices a fair bit so we get great deals so i cant wait for conroe or that and it will be a tought decision - cheap A64 (ddr1 or maybe am2) with reasonable performance or expensive conroe with more performance.

I am, like many of you fascinated by the latest developments in CPU technology. Firstly i'd like to state that i'm not a "fan boy" of either Intel or AMD and have built computers based around both brands over the past few years, usually based on what gave the best performance and value at the time. Obviously Intel will gain a marketing advantage by going to 65nm first, but people are forgetting that AMD are set to deliver products on thier new AM2 platform within the same performance and thermal envelopes as Intel, even though they will for now still be using thier 90nm fabrication. This is made possible by AMD utilising SOI, something that Intel still hasnt done with thier fabrication process, this drastically reduces leakage currents and hence power consumption, so I feel that once AMD go 65nm on SOI they will still have an advantage, even if Intel do go to 45nm and i'm still personally concerned with Intel pursuing the legacy FSB route instead of going with an AMD style integrated solution that has proven so efficient in AMD's Athlon 64 line.

SOI is overhyped because of colder A64s vs hotter P4s (the P4 is actually quite big, the wilamette P4 was twice the size of AMDs at the time and expensive and slow), the Pentium M and Conroe both get away without it in both 90nm and 65nm quite fine, and besides the designs (AMD and Intels) are so diffrent they cant be compared.

NVM

I was about to replay on this topic, but somehow i opened a new one while i was trying to find the REPLY button
im a newbie on this forum