Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anandtech says core architecture with no disadvantages

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 2, 2006 1:03:02 PM

hey look at this

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...

in the end they say that the core architecture has no disadvantages, this could pose a serious threat to AMD.

i dont think the K8L will be able to beat it.

But the k10, which might be coming in 2010, might rival it.

please note that im neither an AMD fanboy nor an intel fanboy, i am simply a fanboy of performace.
May 2, 2006 1:06:35 PM

Quote:
in the end they say that the core architecture has no disadvantages, this could pose a serious threat to AMD.


i already knew that :) 

Quote:
i dont think the K8L will be able to beat it.

Obviously! its understood!

Quote:
But the k10, which might be coming in 2010, might rival it.


no use by then Intel would be way ahead of AMD as usual and Intel will have something even better by that time to completely finish AMD once and for all! hahahahaha...

AMD'S 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW!!!
May 2, 2006 1:43:16 PM

There's already a thread about the Core architecture, along with many others in general, going on, so next time, use the search function and contribute to the existing ones.... now for a quick input.

Core architecture is very good in concept, though I would like to see some serious testing and benchmarking results done on retail chips, and we won't see those until later in the year. Secondly, I doubt AMD will let Intel steamroll over them, so AMD's 65nm might have a surprise in store for all of us. All in all, its going to be one hell of an interesting few months.
Related resources
May 2, 2006 9:05:02 PM

Quote:
in the end they say that the core architecture has no disadvantages, this could pose a serious threat to AMD.


i already knew that :) 

Quote:
i dont think the K8L will be able to beat it.

Obviously! its understood!

Quote:
But the k10, which might be coming in 2010, might rival it.


no use by then Intel would be way ahead of AMD as usual and Intel will have something even better by that time to completely finish AMD once and for all! hahahahaha...

AMD'S 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW!!!
You come back and post again after your balls drop son.
May 3, 2006 1:22:06 AM

Quote:
in the end they say that the core architecture has no disadvantages, this could pose a serious threat to AMD.


i already knew that :) 

Quote:
i dont think the K8L will be able to beat it.

Obviously! its understood!

Quote:
But the k10, which might be coming in 2010, might rival it.


no use by then Intel would be way ahead of AMD as usual and Intel will have something even better by that time to completely finish AMD once and for all! hahahahaha...

AMD'S 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW!!!



I'm no expert but maybe you should lay off the BF2. Competition is good.
May 3, 2006 1:53:34 AM

well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 
May 3, 2006 2:09:15 AM

Are you hi? Seriously what are you smoking. EVERY CHIP WILL HAVE DISADVANTAGES! People say AMD is history because they haven't announced anything huge yet, well I'm sure that if they announced everytime they went to the bathroom we'd all be saying that Intel is gone, AMD's K8l hasn't been fully tested in an unbiased review, same with conroe, so until it is STFU!
May 3, 2006 2:12:02 AM

S7- clam down. And there seems to be a consensus that the benchmarks we are seeing will be pretty much what we get.
May 3, 2006 2:13:38 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 


Even IF that were true, which it's not, it would be a bad thing. The competition between Intel and AMD over the years is what keeps us in fast rigs, whether they've got Intel or AMD inside 'em. Hoot and holler about the performance of one or the other all you like, but please save fanboyism for people who care.

-J
May 3, 2006 2:24:56 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 



You are absolutely categorically incorrect.

AMD still has a superior product in the desktop market and a vastly superior product in the server market.

Assuming conroe performs in accordance with performance claims made by Intel it will be in serious trouble when the 65nm AMDs are released.
May 3, 2006 2:26:00 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 


Even IF that were true, which it's not, it would be a bad thing. The competition between Intel and AMD over the years is what keeps us in fast rigs, whether they've got Intel or AMD inside 'em. Hoot and holler about the performance of one or the other all you like, but please save fanboyism for people who care.

-J


Very eloquently said! :-D
May 3, 2006 3:25:09 AM

i thought that intel was only going to concentrate on notebook artitutures for now on
May 3, 2006 3:32:57 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 



You are absolutely categorically incorrect.

AMD still has a superior product in the desktop market and a vastly superior product in the server market.

Assuming conroe performs in accordance with performance claims made by Intel it will be in serious trouble when the 65nm AMDs are released.

I do believe Conroe could perform very well against, or even pwn 65nm AMDs... but of course, that is just guesswork. No way of knowing. :)  AMD has a superior product to the current P4's alright, but that won't last long either.
May 3, 2006 4:01:29 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 



You are absolutely categorically incorrect.

AMD still has a superior product in the desktop market and a vastly superior product in the server market.

Assuming conroe performs in accordance with performance claims made by Intel it will be in serious trouble when the 65nm AMDs are released.

I do believe Conroe could perform very well against, or even pwn 65nm AMDs... but of course, that is just guesswork. No way of knowing. :)  AMD has a superior product to the current P4's alright, but that won't last long either.


I believe 65nm AMD CPUs will perform quite well.
May 3, 2006 4:05:42 AM

but there is always room for better.
May 3, 2006 4:14:04 AM

Quote:
but there is always room for better.



I like better :-D
May 3, 2006 5:05:08 AM

well... it looks like no one is agreeing with me, so its done! we'll see what AMD can bring up, have some reviews and then it will be clear crystal who is better which by my prediction will surely be Intel as they've proved in the past, present and the future! (i hope so), so until then just wait and see...

anywayz... my personal view abut AMD is that woteva they do with there 90nm or 65nm they just don't have the time to do it right against the competition from Intel. But still we'll see! THE END!
May 3, 2006 5:56:13 AM

Quote:
I do believe Conroe could perform very well against, or even pwn 65nm AMDs... but of course, that is just guesswork. No way of knowing. :)  AMD has a superior product to the current P4's alright, but that won't last long either.


I bet Intel fanboys said the same thing when the A64 came out so long ago and bested intel...oh look, its still not over!

It took intel a year (arguably more, counting from the time the prescott fiasco was announced to when conroe was) to really do anything about having an inferior product, so I don't think it is unreasonable to give AMD the same time frame. Being a better company, I think they'll do it in less (indeed, roadmaps have already shown this, to the effect of ramping up 65nm processes late this year).
May 3, 2006 7:14:42 AM

I think Intel fanboys need to get there head out of there ( ! ) and look at the history of Chips. Like when Amd 1ghz came out. What did Intel do. Lower there cost untel Amd 1800 came out. Then Intel won untel 3.2 came out. Price was higher then amd. Then Amd 64 came out when the prescott came out. Amd Had a better price and power was low. But intel had a major problem they startted Understanding power from the cpu was making for high light bills so they started lowering cost. Then Amd started rasing there price due to the fact they had a better chip. Now Intel comming out with Conroe. Which will be lower cost in power so what do you all think going to happen. Intel going to rase prices. Amd going to lower prices. So we Need Conroe. So what if it take 5 Months to 2 a year for amd to bounce back. But they will.

So what dose this history tell you.

1 We need Amd and Intel to fight with each other. Why to lower cost and more improvements for each side.
2 What happens if amd or intel gone?? Let me answer this. It will take longer for Intel or Amd to Push for New Ideas stuff like quad core and such. My guess would be New ideas every 1 to 2 years. Faster chips and so on.
May 3, 2006 8:05:22 AM

Intel is breaking out new uArch.
Given the investment involved, we should expect a performance advantage.

If AMD can stay close with the 65nm chips of the same uArch, then it's advantage AMD. Because they'll be next with the new (which should always result in better performance).

ALSO.....don't forget that AMD's financilas have been on an upswing (ie...more cash) and Intel is getting ready for a corp restructuring. When you look to cut costs you will ALWAYS fall behind on R & D.

Moral of the story:
Wait for Conroe, wait for AMD 8l.
If AMD is close....doesn't have to be better....just close..
Then advantage AMD.

If they ain't close.......sell yer AMD stock.
May 3, 2006 1:04:06 PM

well... as i see it, AMD is way behind Intel. well, coz Intel has working 65nm CPUs D9xx etc, whereas AMD doesn't they doesn't even have introduced it, and moreover Intel has already introduced its 45nm working chip and AMD... well just sleeping with there A64 in there arms!
so if anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken! now AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! dUh` that's the story as i see it! so we'll see what AMD really has now! Now we'll see who is really BETTER!
May 3, 2006 1:46:33 PM

Quote:
hey look at this

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...

in the end they say that the core architecture has no disadvantages, this could pose a serious threat to AMD.

i dont think the K8L will be able to beat it.

But the k10, which might be coming in 2010, might rival it.

please note that im neither an AMD fanboy nor an intel fanboy, i am simply a fanboy of performace.

Quote:
The second and more important advantage is the on die memory controller, which lowers the latency to the memory considerably. However, the lower clockspeeds of the Core CPUs (relative to NetBurst) and the faster FSB also lower latency significantly. With the numbers available to us now, we have reason to believe that the Athlon 64 X2's latency advantage will shrink to only 15 to 20%. For comparison, the memory subsystem of the Pentium 4 was almost twice as slow as the Athlon 64 (80-90 ns versus 45-50 ns).

However, those two small advantages are likely negated by all the other memory subsystem metrics. The Core CPUs have much bigger caches and much smarter prefetching than the competition. The Core architecture's L1 cache delivers about twice as much bandwidth (Measured by ScienceMark), while it's L2-cache is about 2.5 times faster than the Athlon 64/Opteron one.


The FSB is still a dissadvantage with Core, but less so than with Pentium.
May 3, 2006 3:34:07 PM

Quote:
well... as i see it, AMD is way behind Intel. well, coz Intel has working 65nm CPUs D9xx etc, whereas AMD doesn't they doesn't even have introduced it, and moreover Intel has already introduced its 45nm working chip and AMD... well just sleeping with there A64 in there arms!
so if anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken! now AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! dUh` that's the story as i see it! so we'll see what AMD really has now! Now we'll see who is really BETTER!


i believe that AMD doesn't need to shrink their die size to compete with Intel, as Pentium D 9xx series proved that 65nm only showed minor improvement, and couldn't save NetBurst against K8. Intel needed to shrink their die size because of the "compensation cache" Intel shoved into the processor (think about Tulsa with 16MB of cache...w00t) 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 60nm, especially when you consider the current fallout effect.

(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.

(AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! )
AMD is actually the innovator right now, considering HT, AMD64, IMC, etc. i seriously doubt Intel's microarchitecture will force AMD back to a mere immitator.
May 3, 2006 3:36:49 PM

Quote:
well... as i see it, AMD is way behind Intel. well, coz Intel has working 65nm CPUs D9xx etc, whereas AMD doesn't they doesn't even have introduced it, and moreover Intel has already introduced its 45nm working chip and AMD... well just sleeping with there A64 in there arms!
so if anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken! now AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! dUh` that's the story as i see it! so we'll see what AMD really has now! Now we'll see who is really BETTER!


i believe that AMD doesn't need to shrink their die size to compete with Intel, as Pentium D 9xx series proved that 65nm only showed minor improvement, and couldn't save NetBurst against K8. Intel needed to shrink their die size because of the "compensation cache" Intel shoved into the processor (think about Tulsa with 16MB of cache...w00t) 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 60nm, especially when you consider the current fallout effect.

(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.

(AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! )
AMD is actually the innovator right now, considering HT, AMD64, IMC, etc. i seriously doubt Intel's microarchitecture will force AMD back to a mere immitator.

You got that right.
May 3, 2006 4:24:28 PM

Quote:


(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.



You pulled that directly from your arse.
May 3, 2006 4:32:42 PM

Quote:
well... as i see it, AMD is way behind Intel. well, coz Intel has working 65nm CPUs D9xx etc, whereas AMD doesn't they doesn't even have introduced it, and moreover Intel has already introduced its 45nm working chip and AMD... well just sleeping with there A64 in there arms!
so if anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken! now AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! dUh` that's the story as i see it! so we'll see what AMD really has now! Now we'll see who is really BETTER!


i believe that AMD doesn't need to shrink their die size to compete with Intel, as Pentium D 9xx series proved that 65nm only showed minor improvement, and couldn't save NetBurst against K8. Intel needed to shrink their die size because of the "compensation cache" Intel shoved into the processor (think about Tulsa with 16MB of cache...w00t) 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 60nm, especially when you consider the current fallout effect.

(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.

(AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! )
AMD is actually the innovator right now, considering HT, AMD64, IMC, etc. i seriously doubt Intel's microarchitecture will force AMD back to a mere immitator.

You got that right.

Well, AMD started its roots by stealing technology and engineers from Intel in the beginning, and that assisted their ascent along the technology bubble. So now it is time for AMD to once again throw money at infiltrating Intel's training camps and buy out a selection of top engineers and integrate them into their camp to invigorate more innovative design which in turn will position them at or near the top again in a year or two.
May 3, 2006 5:18:51 PM

Quote:
well... as i see it, AMD is way behind Intel. well, coz Intel has working 65nm CPUs D9xx etc, whereas AMD doesn't they doesn't even have introduced it, and moreover Intel has already introduced its 45nm working chip and AMD... well just sleeping with there A64 in there arms!
so if anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken! now AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! dUh` that's the story as i see it! so we'll see what AMD really has now! Now we'll see who is really BETTER!


i believe that AMD doesn't need to shrink their die size to compete with Intel, as Pentium D 9xx series proved that 65nm only showed minor improvement, and couldn't save NetBurst against K8. Intel needed to shrink their die size because of the "compensation cache" Intel shoved into the processor (think about Tulsa with 16MB of cache...w00t) 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 60nm, especially when you consider the current fallout effect.

(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.

(AMD will have to go back to the table learn from intel how they are doing go to there teacher IBM get that technology cheated and then make a processor! )
AMD is actually the innovator right now, considering HT, AMD64, IMC, etc. i seriously doubt Intel's microarchitecture will force AMD back to a mere immitator.

You got that right.

Well, AMD started its roots by stealing technology and engineers from Intel in the beginning, and that assisted their ascent along the technology bubble. So now it is time for AMD to once again throw money at infiltrating Intel's training camps and buy out a selection of top engineers and integrate them into their camp to invigorate more innovative design which in turn will position them at or near the top again in a year or two.
AMD may integrate some of the top Intel engineers into their teams to spark more innovative designs. However, that does not mean they "immitate" Intel's design.
May 3, 2006 6:45:04 PM

viperabyss! you said that 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 65nm??? are you out of your mind? without saying anything further about your post i strongly recommend that you better go and read some white papers, do some search and get some solid info out of it! for God's sake don't make irrelevant comments about the things which you don't know! all other comments from you are very immature!
May 3, 2006 6:48:22 PM

Quote:


(anyone doubts about intel R&D they're probably absolutely mistaken!)
it is the same for AMD. especially when 4 intel R&D teams said 64bit was impossible on x86. months later, K8 was released.



You pulled that directly from your arse.

Quote:


Four separate design teams at Intel examined how the company could take one of its 32-bit chips and transform it into a 64-bit machine, said Richard Wirt, another senior fellow at Intel. After running simulations, all four teams concluded that such a transition wouldn't be economically feasible, he said.



not really.. i pulled it from news.com

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html
May 3, 2006 6:59:32 PM

Quote:
not really.. i pulled it from news.com

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985432.html

Exactly, now if you read the whole article, you will note that the Intel team had 64-bit working, but decided it did not make sense econimcally. Now you could argue that they was a poor marketing decision, but they definitely had the technical capacity to do it if they chose to.

The Intel guy quoted in that article made some very factual statements about how consumers really don't currently need 64-bit computing (in 2003). To this day that is still true, regardless of AMD (and now Intel) marketing. Until everything (OS, drivers, applications, and chips) are 64-bit, there are very few advantages to it outside of certain scientific computing and encryption/compression apps that very few consumers have a need for. Just now (2006) that ecosystem is coming together, and now both companies have 64-bit chips.

AMD just chose to jump the gun becuase they saw it as a marketing opportunity. And it was a largely successful decision.

End of story.
May 3, 2006 7:10:34 PM

Quote:
viperabyss! you said that 45nm doesn't mean a significant improvement over 65nm??? are you out of your mind? without saying anything further about your post i strongly recommend that you better go and read some white papers, do some search and get some solid info out of it! for God's sake don't make irrelevant comments about the things which you don't know! all other comments from you are very immature!

as i said, 45nm doesn't mean significant improvement against 65nm. take a look at PD 9xx series, which is manufactured on 65nm. is it better than Opteron / Athlon @ 90nm? please take a look at the review done by THG.

conroe may perform better because of it has better architecture, not mainly because it is manufactured on 65nm, although 65nm may helps conroe to reduce its die size.

as a result, if the transition from 90nm to 65nm only yield minor improvement, the transition from 65nm to 45nm may also only yield minor improvemtns, not to mention the current leak effect.

since you want info, here you go:
this explains how transition to smaller manufactor process may affect the performance of the processor
http://chicagrafo.blogspot.com/2006/02/65nm-is-just-int...

Rahul Sood, the president of Voodoo PC, also one of the respected technology analyst, believed that even though conroe may be a real product, its yield may become a significant problem for Intel.
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

if you think my posts are immature, please post some real links that support your claims. otherwise, you're just as "immature" as i am
May 3, 2006 7:18:13 PM

Zarooch, let me spoon-feed this to you. Having AMD compete against Intel is a GOOD thing, so saying goodbye to either company is a bad idea. Seriously... who is gonna take up the challenge of competing with either company if one of them goes bust? And what about that lovely 45nm process chips you want so badly. If AMD goes bust, what would make Intel bring those processors out when they can rape your wallet with the current 65nm processors? Without AMD, you wouldn't even be getting Core processors, since prescott did just fine for games and such. AMD will probably make some big improvements on their 65nm chips, since they can't afford to let Intel take back the market-share they managed to scrape into their hands with A64. As long as K8L is as good as Conroe, AMD will be around for a hell of a lot longer.
May 3, 2006 7:35:37 PM

Quote:
Zarooch, let me spoon-feed this to you. Having AMD compete against Intel is a GOOD thing, so saying goodbye to either company is a bad idea. Seriously... who is gonna take up the challenge of competing with either company if one of them goes bust? And what about that lovely 45nm process chips you want so badly. If AMD goes bust, what would make Intel bring those processors out when they can rape your wallet with the current 65nm processors? Without AMD, you wouldn't even be getting Core processors, since prescott did just fine for games and such. AMD will probably make some big improvements on their 65nm chips, since they can't afford to let Intel take back the market-share they managed to scrape into their hands with A64. As long as K8L is as good as Conroe, AMD will be around for a hell of a lot longer.


good point.

if it wasn't for AMD's K8, we would probably still be using Prescott @ 4GHz, consuming 150W, at idle temperature of 70C+. XD
May 3, 2006 7:36:28 PM

Quote:
Zarooch, let me spoon-feed this to you. Having AMD compete against Intel is a GOOD thing, so saying goodbye to either company is a bad idea. Seriously... who is gonna take up the challenge of competing with either company if one of them goes bust? And what about that lovely 45nm process chips you want so badly. If AMD goes bust, what would make Intel bring those processors out when they can rape your wallet with the current 65nm processors? Without AMD, you wouldn't even be getting Core processors, since prescott did just fine for games and such. AMD will probably make some big improvements on their 65nm chips, since they can't afford to let Intel take back the market-share they managed to scrape into their hands with A64. As long as K8L is as good as Conroe, AMD will be around for a hell of a lot longer.


good point.

if it wasn't for AMD's K8, we would probably still be using Prescott @ 4GHz, consuming 150W, at idle temperature of 70C+. XD
May 3, 2006 7:55:34 PM

Zarooch, how can you be so naive as to think AMD's dys are over when they currently have a commanding performance lead in the low-volume but highly lucrative multiproccessor server market? Even if Woodcrest delivers a 20-25% increase over xeons, AMD still leads in some apps by 35 - 50% Anandtech multiprocessor comparison. And that is before the next die shrink and the improved version of HTT are implemented.
May 3, 2006 9:23:59 PM

Yes @65nm, AMD will roll out DDR3 compatability to the surprise of Intel.

Quote:
AMD'S 15 MINUTES OF FAME IS OVER!!!!


Ummm....you mean 2 years of fame? I bet you said the same thing when AMD hit 1ghz first? Intel hasnt been able to touch AMD for 2 years, thats pretty impressive considering they are 1/10 the size of Intel. Im still laughing. I cant beleive its taken this long to catch up. hahahaha.
May 3, 2006 9:26:05 PM

Trust me, AMD wont lay down for long after taking sooooooo much market share from Intel. No one can deny, AMD is hiring, while Intel is firing.
Intels little blue guys are in a giant tub of vasoline, grasping, clawing at the walls trying to get up.

Quote:
AMD'S 15 MINUTES OF FAME IS OVER!!!!


Oh its been years buddy, not 15 minutes. Did you also whine and cry when AMD hit 1ghz first? Intel hasnt been able to touch AMD for 2 years, thats pretty impressive considering they are 1/10 the size of Intel. Im still laughing. I cant beleive its taken this long to catch up, and they still havent. Intels yet to release anything that can touch an FX-60. Not even and Exreme Edition OC'd to 4.26ghz and 4mb cache can keep up. MUUUUHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA.
May 3, 2006 9:35:48 PM

At this point? Shrinking a die is mostly a marketing ploy(namely intel) combined with cost saving measures. Its reaching, rather reached, the point where architecture is setting a processor's performance and is especially now starting to show.
May 3, 2006 11:25:43 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood, the president of Voodoo PC, also one of the respected technology analyst, believed that even though conroe may be a real product, its yield may become a significant problem for Intel.
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

Rahul said so many things that have been wrong, don't you believe a word he says. :roll:

AMD is not dead, but years behind. K8 at 65nm will not bring them back. In over four cores they may well still have a lead with the ICM, but I am talking desktops. K10 in 2008 is the next real chance, but don't go thinking Intel is sitting back either. Intel 45nm in H207 has many process improvements, some are in the link in my sig.
May 3, 2006 11:40:16 PM

Also don't forget AMD has the backing of IBM's helpful R&D. I see many people post its only AMD against the mighty Intel when IBM helps AMD and then they are forgotten.
May 3, 2006 11:41:55 PM

Quote:
Also don't forget AMD has the backing of IBM's helpful R&D. I see many people post its only AMD against the mighty Intel when IBM helps AMD and then they are forgotten.



Very tru64. IBM still has a great R&D team.

So it is IBM+AMD vs. Intel

:-D
May 4, 2006 12:02:02 AM

Quote:
Rahul Sood, the president of Voodoo PC, also one of the respected technology analyst, believed that even though conroe may be a real product, its yield may become a significant problem for Intel.
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

Rahul said so many things that have been wrong, don't you believe a word he says. :roll:

AMD is not dead, but years behind. K8 at 65nm will not bring them back. In over four cores they may well still have a lead with the ICM, but I am talking desktops. K10 in 2008 is the next real chance, but don't go thinking Intel is sitting back either. Intel 45nm in H207 has many process improvements, some are in the link in my sig.
so whatever you say is correct, so we must believe you?

there is no one in this world that is correct all along. however, would you believe someone who only post on blog, or someone who actually has a pretty successful business?
May 4, 2006 12:04:14 AM

Quote:
[double post deleted]

i apologize for the double post. there was something wrong with THG forumz server, so i ended up posting two comments.
May 4, 2006 12:10:52 AM

Quote:
Rahul Sood, the president of Voodoo PC, also one of the respected technology analyst, believed that even though conroe may be a real product, its yield may become a significant problem for Intel.
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

Rahul said so many things that have been wrong, don't you believe a word he says. :roll:

AMD is not dead, but years behind. K8 at 65nm will not bring them back. In over four cores they may well still have a lead with the ICM, but I am talking desktops. K10 in 2008 is the next real chance, but don't go thinking Intel is sitting back either. Intel 45nm in H207 has many process improvements, some are in the link in my sig.
so whatever you say is correct, so we must believe you?

there is no one in this world that is correct all along. however, would you believe someone who only post on blog, or someone who actually has a pretty successful business?


I absolutely agree, NO ONE is infallible.

Remember "TRUST BUT VERIFY"
May 4, 2006 12:13:37 AM

Quote:
Rahul said so many things that have been wrong, don't you believe a word he says. :roll:

AMD is not dead, but years behind. K8 at 65nm will not bring them back. In over four cores they may well still have a lead with the IMc, but I am talking desktops. K10 in 2008 is the next real chance, but don't go thinking Intel is sitting back either. Intel 45nm in H207 has many process improvements, some are in the link in my sig.

so whatever you say is correct, so we must believe you?

there is no one in this world that is correct all along. however, would you believe someone who only post on blog, or someone who actually has a pretty successful business?

You don't need to believe me, but you can't proove me wrong either! Or show any of my misstakes even. Rahul said Dell would not buy Alienware. I think he says what he wants to happen, that's it. Every thing he said about the Intel stunt at the IDF was prooven wrong be Anandtech. So you shoud quote a more reputable source. :haha:
May 4, 2006 12:17:10 AM

2x post :p .
May 4, 2006 12:19:17 AM

Quote:
well... woteva u guys say... its simple!
AMD's 15 MINUTES OF FAME ARE OVER NOW! and thats for sure! they themselves know it! :lol: 



You are absolutely categorically incorrect.

AMD still has a superior product in the desktop market and a vastly superior product in the server market.

Assuming conroe performs in accordance with performance claims made by Intel it will be in serious trouble when the 65nm AMDs are released.

I do believe Conroe could perform very well against, or even pwn 65nm AMDs... but of course, that is just guesswork. No way of knowing. :)  AMD has a superior product to the current P4's alright, but that won't last long either.


I believe 65nm AMD CPUs will perform quite well.

Just like 0.25u, 0.18u, 0.13u K7 in comparison to each other? Point being without sounding snide is just because they change process technology doesn't mean there will be a significant change in performance.

But I am not ruling it out I am just basing it off previous performance of the later generation K7 which is for all intensive purposes the K8 since folks believe the Conroe is very similar to the P6.
May 4, 2006 12:20:50 AM

The IBM and AMD 65nm process is said to have 30-40% faster transister switching. I think maybe that will give 20% better performance. Intels quad-cores and EEs will still be better than that.
!