Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who needs Core2 when Core duocan already beat amd's fastest.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 19, 2006 11:32:30 AM

This little mobile chip fckn o/c like a champ and it can beat the top fx and ee chips.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-duo-o...

Best of all this chip is only going to cost $423 next month.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545
May 19, 2006 11:36:05 AM

Quote:
This little mobile chip fckn o/c like a champ and it can beat the top fx and ee chips.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-duo-o...

Best of all this chip is only going to cost $423 next month.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545


Why do you Not want to Buy Core 2 Duo? It'll cost the exact same, the Conroe Chips range from 200$ to max 600$ thats about 250$CDN to 700$CDN

The Memrom chips i'm not sure about. i think they might be cheaper than the Maximum Conroe(Extreme) Prices
May 19, 2006 12:39:26 PM

No I am planning on buying a conroe, I just think that it is amazing that a current mobile chip can beat a high dollar fx and ee chip for less than half.....just fckn amazing.
May 19, 2006 1:14:58 PM

Isnt that how it's supposed to be.
The new technology is supposed to be better than the old right? :roll:
Just for the record, Intel has not released anything in years that can beat AMD, and they still havent.
May 19, 2006 1:17:41 PM

That is not true...both companies are better at different things.
May 19, 2006 1:23:49 PM

Really? Give me an example of what Intel's good at?

Video/audio encoding? :roll:
Producing massive amounts of heat and little performance?
Increasing your electric bill?
Making expensive paper weights?
May 19, 2006 1:31:31 PM

Quote:
Isnt that how it's supposed to be.
The new technology is supposed to be better than the old right? :roll:
Just for the record, Intel has not released anything in years that can beat AMD, and they still havent.


Ok.... so I take it you didn't read the article. Both chips are currently out and I think the core duo is still old banias tech.... kind of like the k8 is still old k7 tech so they are both old techs.
May 19, 2006 1:35:56 PM

Quote:
Really? Give me an example of what Intel's good at?

Video/audio encoding? :roll:
Producing massive amounts of heat and little performance?
Increasing your electric bill?
Making expensive paper weights?


OK how about developing, manufacturing, marketing, and making lots of money.....see i even lined them up for you :) 
May 19, 2006 1:47:52 PM

meh...too expensive...I'm a budget shopper ;) 

Pentium D 805 OC FTW!!!
(beats high end with water-cooling @ 4+ghz ;) )
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
May 19, 2006 1:53:54 PM

Quote:

I would also like to point out that the today’s results show very clearly what the upcoming Intel Conroe processors will be capable off. These CPUs will have similar architecture and will be manufactured with the same technological process. Moreover, Conroe micro-architecture will also have a few differences from the Core Duo, which will determine even higher performance. These differences will be faster instruction processing (four instead of three instructions per clock cycle) and twice as fast FPU/SSE units.


While the Core Duo does have very good performance, the above quote on the last page of the article should give enough reasons to wait.

Also, the AOpen i975Xa-YDG motherboard is in limited production as stated in the article, so expect it to be expensive, if you are able to find one. A i965 motherboard will surely be cheaper once they become available.
May 19, 2006 2:51:34 PM

Quote:
Really? Give me an example of what Intel's good at?

Video/audio encoding? :roll:
Producing massive amounts of heat and little performance?
Increasing your electric bill?
Making expensive paper weights?

that's intels past history, that all changes when conroe hits the streets...then amd will be playing catchup for a while....and they'll have a lot to catch up to
May 19, 2006 3:28:53 PM

The Core Duo is the biggest scam intel has come out with. I can't believe they actually convinced people to buy them. Yes Core Duo is great in the 32 bit arena, but it can't do 64 bit. They came out this year in January, when Intel knew that Windows vista was coming out the same year (until it was pushed back). So really the only point of Core duo was to convince people to purchase for a little while until it becomes obsolete.

Again biggest scam from Intel
May 19, 2006 3:41:12 PM

Huh another intel fanboy thread listen compare the core duo t2500 to the opty 170 guess what the opty and core duo are even yes you hear me completely even in almost all benchmarks In Max Payne 2 (yes i still play that game) it was 89 for the opty and 87 for the core duo (both with 2 gigs ram and 7900gtx) on cod2 it was much higher on the core duo max fps was 65 on high and with the opty 62 so they even each other out geez stop with your bull and listen to logic. They are both even both are 3 issue core both have 2 megs of L2 cache and only difference is the fsb speed and ram.
May 19, 2006 3:45:21 PM

Quote:
The Core Duo is the biggest scam intel has come out with. I can't believe they actually convinced people to buy them. Yes Core Duo is great in the 32 bit arena, but it can't do 64 bit. They came out this year in January, when Intel knew that Windows vista was coming out the same year (until it was pushed back). So really the only point of Core duo was to convince people to purchase for a little while until it becomes obsolete.

Again biggest scam from Intel

rofl
i can't think of anyone i know personally who even knows what 64bit instructions are, ok maybe 2 or 3...the average user doesn't have a clue and thats where the money is at. And I'm sure intel, like the average user here, knew that vista would be pushed back LOL
May 19, 2006 3:54:01 PM

hey its not an apples to apples comparison.
The margins are pretty close ~10%, assuming fx 60 or ee is overclocked, im sure margins can be closed or exceeded. And then we can look at other features like SSE, 64-bit to justify the price difference...

btw, I AM NOT AN AMD OR INTEL FANBOY. period.

I find it really stupid to go all out JUST for a brand (even w/ its history or progress) and completely ignore or downplay the competitors' strengths. Heck, i am open even to VIA's C456 or 7.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
May 19, 2006 4:24:31 PM

Quote:
Huh another intel fanboy thread listen compare the core duo t2500 to the opty 170 guess what the opty and core duo are even yes you hear me completely even in almost all benchmarks In Max Payne 2 (yes i still play that game) it was 89 for the opty and 87 for the core duo (both with 2 gigs ram and 7900gtx) on cod2 it was much higher on the core duo max fps was 65 on high and with the opty 62 so they even each other out geez stop with your bull and listen to logic. They are both even both are 3 issue core both have 2 megs of L2 cache and only difference is the fsb speed and ram.


How about pointing to an article that compares the Core Duo to the Opteron 170?
May 19, 2006 4:30:51 PM

I can't understand why people are still debating this whole Intel is better than AMD argument to death. Since Conroe was announced, about 2-3 months ago, you can be sure that AMD has been hard at work on AM2. 2-3 months of time in the IT world is enough to create a universe, and don't be so naive to assume that AMD has done NOTHING to make improvements to the AM2 architecture.

Some might argue that the switch to DDR2 for AMD will have little effect, but consider this: why, for so long, was AMD beating the hell out of Intel, when Intel was on DDR2-533 and AMD was still using first-gen DDR? It's because of HyperTransport, and AMD has had a long time to make improvements there as well. Can you absolutely tell me that with AMD doubling the speed of their FSB on AM2 that there will be no significant improvement? Forget what the test sample benchmarks say.

I've said this time and again, and I'll say it once more - wait until both Conroe and AM2 are a reality in the retail market to draw your conclusions. Until that time, Conroe and AM2 are paper launches, and we all know what paper launches mean in this day and age - absolutely nothing. Just because AMD hasn't announced any significant improvements other than the move to DDR2, it doesn't mean they haven't got something up their sleeve. And if you know AMD, you know something's waiting in the wings... so don't jump to conclusions yet.
May 19, 2006 4:40:16 PM

performance fanboy here...conroe is not a paperlaunch, they've been breaking records left and right...thats not paper. Although, i understand what you mean :) 
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
May 19, 2006 4:41:40 PM

Quote:
The Core Duo is the biggest scam intel has come out with. I can't believe they actually convinced people to buy them. Yes Core Duo is great in the 32 bit arena, but it can't do 64 bit. They came out this year in January, when Intel knew that Windows vista was coming out the same year (until it was pushed back). So really the only point of Core duo was to convince people to purchase for a little while until it becomes obsolete.

Again biggest scam from Intel


An individual may care about 64-bit software compatibility, only if they know what that means. The average user doesn't.

Corporations will not really care about 64-bit software for thier employees. Corporations usually wait awhile before implementing any upgrades to the operating system. For example, at the company I work for, a large financial company, Windows NT was used until 2003. Windows XP Pro was not implemented until later that year. Since MS will support Windows XP Pro until 2011, there is really no incentive for large companies to completely upgrade PCs overnight. Beside every piece of software must be fully tested and evaluated to make sure it will function properly.

While you may care about buying a 64-bit CPU for a laptop, the average user will not, and corporate America will not care either. Sorry, but you represent a small minority of Intel's mobile CPU customer base.
May 19, 2006 4:53:23 PM

for almost one fourth of the $423 price I can have a $120 venice beating an FX-60 AND a Core duo in a variety of benchmarks... so what's your point Troll?

:twisted:
May 19, 2006 4:56:39 PM

Windows Starter 2007 is 32bit only, Windows Vista (From Home all the way to Ultimate) will support both 32bit, and 64bit CPUS. The install routine will work out which version to install.

So Core Duo isnt going to be obsolete for a few years, by then it will simply be too slow rather than limited by being 32bit. Anyway Core Duo was designed as a low power laptop processor, increasing to 32bit would have required more power, or a better design.

That better design is Meron.

However, anyone wanting to build a good desktop should use Core2 Duo, for 64bit support, higher clock speeds, and a higher IPC due to wider SSE units, and a 4 issue core.
May 19, 2006 5:30:13 PM

That's kind of nice to have a chip that could beat out the predessesors in both price and performance. It's a good start, and maybe would make future chips more affordable. I would definitely get the best chip for I don't think that would be an overkill, it would be cool to have a $600 that can smoke out the EE and X2. This is amazing!
May 19, 2006 6:19:24 PM

Quote:
Huh another intel fanboy thread listen compare the core duo t2500 to the opty 170 guess what the opty and core duo are even yes you hear me completely even in almost all benchmarks In Max Payne 2 (yes i still play that game) it was 89 for the opty and 87 for the core duo (both with 2 gigs ram and 7900gtx) on cod2 it was much higher on the core duo max fps was 65 on high and with the opty 62 so they even each other out geez stop with your bull and listen to logic. They are both even both are 3 issue core both have 2 megs of L2 cache and only difference is the fsb speed and ram.


How about pointing to an article that compares the Core Duo to the Opteron 170? This was'nt an article this was a test at the comp convention in jamaica that i went too a few month's ago the guy was showing us how they compared agianst each other.

P.S. I forgot to say that he was comparing a prescott too did'nt last long.
May 19, 2006 7:17:48 PM

in other hand im surprised MR. Action man hasnt spammed us with his wonderful keyboard macros, I supose he only spams anything about "conroe is a bust"
or anything against intel :p 
May 19, 2006 7:25:32 PM

Quote:
in other hand im surprised MR. Action man hasnt spammed us with his wonderful keyboard macros, I supose he only spams anything about "conroe is a bust"
or anything against intel :p 
No he just hates capitol letters!
May 19, 2006 7:25:39 PM

Quote:
This little mobile chip fckn o/c like a champ and it can beat the top fx and ee chips.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-duo-o...

Best of all this chip is only going to cost $423 next month.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545



The worse that could happen is that AMD has to drop the TDP to allow for EXTREME O/C and the roles switch like when 2.2GHz AMDs were UTTERLY DESTROYING 3.6GHz Intel chips. In this case though Intel will have to keep their speeds up too, since if AMD can get FX/X2 to 3.4+GHz with low latency 1200, the race is back on.

I think though that AMD is keeping their eye on SERVER and HIGH MARGINS and won't care if they lose the desktop crown. People who use your server will user your desktop. Especially if the servers are fast enough to offset the client speed.

Think about it. A 16 cluster 4 socket Opteron will serve alot more X2s than a 16 cluster 4 socket Xeon (Woodcrest) will serve Core 2s. So a Visual Team System setup will be a lot better with AMD than Intel.

I just hope that AMD does the right thing and applies "L" to dual core. Since their crossbar setup for quad is probably just a "mirror" with 2 cores on either side, they could just rework the cores for X2.

But I digress and have to say you are mirroring my sentiments about Intel's terrible finacial/supply position with these new "uber-chips." I guess you wouldn't want a NetBurst either huhn? I am glad that intel is finally on par with AMD, but you have to admit the amount Intel has overtaken AMD by is not as great as the lead AMD had for the last 2 years. A lot of the lead is having the ability to optimize this chip for today's software. Not to becsmirch the accomplishment or anything but don't count out AMD yet.

Especially now that Dell is selling 8xx. The margin on those chips can make AMDs year. And now more companies I consult for will have BETTER SERVERS to develop and test with. Even though it will be next year, the momentum will keep AMD in the running even with Conroe.
May 19, 2006 7:44:14 PM

Again I still say Core Duo is a scam. This forum was about getting core duo because it outperforms AMD in a 32 bit environment. In 64 bit AMD has the lead (until Core 2 Duo is released). So going by this forum I can tell you core duo is a scam and if you want something that will be worth the money you put down wait and get Core 2 Duo.

I feel sorry for all the people that wasted there money on a Core Duo. I was upset to hear that Intel was releasing it for 32 bit. On the business side I can see that it was good because they got people to buy into this and they will get people to buy into there upgrade a few months later.

Core 2 Duo is the better deal
May 19, 2006 7:47:50 PM

Me too but it made intel money now if core duo 2 is gonna be socket 480 like i heard than people will be really pissed dont you think so?
May 19, 2006 8:38:09 PM

Wow this thread turned to sh!t quickly but thats expected.
May 19, 2006 8:47:07 PM

Well what do you expect it was'nt in all caps and you did'nt get to use your keyboard.
May 19, 2006 8:47:34 PM

Quote:
Really? Give me an example of what Intel's good at?

Video/audio encoding? :roll:
Producing massive amounts of heat and little performance?
Increasing your electric bill?
Making expensive paper weights?


OK how about developing, manufacturing, marketing, and making lots of money.....see i even lined them up for you :) 

Developing what in the last 2 years? Crap?
Marketing? Oh u mean the little blue men painting the walls with their bodies. Oh yeah thats great.
Making lots of money? Yeah sure, but they lost almost 20 % market share to little AMD of Texas, just this year. Thats pitiful.
Any others you would like to point out? lol
May 19, 2006 8:49:57 PM

Damn you're one angry fella.

Quote:
Well what do you espect it was'nt in all caps and you did'nt get to use your keyboard.


Nah it was controversial to begin with.
May 19, 2006 8:55:11 PM

Ok man hey MrsD is a girl look at her name unless she's a he. <vomiting>
May 19, 2006 10:12:34 PM

For peeps who need to build a computer now, get an AOpen i975Xa-YDG Socket 479 mother board + a core duo and overclock it to 3ghz+ effortlessly.

Last time I checked, FX-60s are having a hard time getting more than 10% overclocking on air. So, if you are a heavy Ocer, getting a core duo now will make more sense then getting a socket 939 system. Beside the joy and excitement of being able to OC 50% or more to make the best bang out of your bucks ( and having the fastest desktop 32 bit cpu), the core duo will be a more future proof system. You will get DDR2 memory with it. And socket 479 for core duo is 100% compatible with Merom, which is a 64 bit cpu. Best of all, Merom will be available much longer before Vista's launch.

Seriously, whoever silly enough to jump on the Vista bandwagon early, be my guest. XP 64 bit Pro is out for a while now, but how come we don't hear much about it? I personally tried it out myself and it only created more headache for a little gain in performance. Getting compatible drivers and softwares were a nightmare.

AOpen i975Xa-YDG + core duo = best overclocking platform + best energy efficient + 64 bit upgradable + using DDR2 ( isn't this the memory that AMD is about to use?)= best bang for your bucks, as of today.
May 19, 2006 10:46:56 PM

Quote:
for almost one fourth of the $423 price I can have a $120 venice beating an FX-60 AND a Core duo in a variety of benchmarks... so what's your point Troll?

:twisted:
How's multitasking on that chip? :lol: 
May 19, 2006 10:53:19 PM

Whoa, wait a sec..... 9-Inch and rettihslluB got their posts removed.
May 19, 2006 11:02:56 PM

Quote:
No.
?
May 19, 2006 11:35:31 PM

maybe DVDitsapitty's will be next! :twisted:
May 20, 2006 12:47:41 AM

Quote:
maybe DVDitsapitty's will be next! :twisted:
No never!
May 20, 2006 12:53:56 AM

Quote:
Especially now that Dell is selling 8xx. The margin on those chips can make AMDs year.

It's still unclear what Dell's position with AMD is right now.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/05/19/dell_opteron_wall...

Quote:
The problem with all this is that Dell is only going to ship a four-socket AMD box. Such midrange gear makes up the slowest selling part of the x86 server market. Historically, Dell has paired back efforts to play in this part of the server market, shouting that customers really care about one- and two-way boxes.

Really, the Dell-AMD relationship is more of a feel-good marketing tactic targetted at shareholders of both companies. With Dell only offering 4 socket AMD servers what they gain is something to point their finger at when people ask why aren't they offering AMD products. The benefit to AMD seems superficial also. They gain the advantage of shouting to the world that they won a contract with Dell, while the amount of money they actually make will probably be negliable when Dell is only offering AMD products in the "slowest selling part of the x86 server market". At the same time, Dell will continue to promote Intel over AMD by marketing their 1 and 2 socket systems with Conroe and Woodcrest over the 4 socket AMD option.
May 20, 2006 1:24:16 AM

Quote:
Especially now that Dell is selling 8xx. The margin on those chips can make AMDs year.

It's still unclear what Dell's position with AMD is right now.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/05/19/dell_opteron_wall...

Quote:
The problem with all this is that Dell is only going to ship a four-socket AMD box. Such midrange gear makes up the slowest selling part of the x86 server market. Historically, Dell has paired back efforts to play in this part of the server market, shouting that customers really care about one- and two-way boxes.

Really, the Dell-AMD relationship is more of a feel-good marketing tactic targetted at shareholders of both companies. With Dell only offering 4 socket AMD servers what they gain is something to point their finger at when people ask why aren't they offering AMD products. The benefit to AMD seems superficial also. They gain the advantage of shouting to the world that they won a contract with Dell, while the amount of money they actually make will probably be negliable when Dell is only offering AMD products in the "slowest selling part of the x86 server market". At the same time, Dell will continue to promote Intel over AMD by marketing their 1 and 2 socket systems with Conroe and Woodcrest over the 4 socket AMD option.

Another thing to point out is that dell will not be using amd exclusively on >4p servers..they will also be using intel's xeon mp tulsa chips which are still netburst but they are 65nm and have a massive L3 cache.
May 20, 2006 7:31:15 AM

Yeah the Conroe is such crap MrsD, and losing market share? Well 20% is bad, but not pitiful, remember there are essentially only two players in this game. Large changes in market share are somewhat expected, especially after years of disappointing performance.




What happens if Intel manages to take 20% back from AMD, will you then call AMD pathetic? Somehow I doubt that. :roll: I put in the rollingeyes for you.
May 20, 2006 1:10:08 PM

Quote:
Again I still say Core Duo is a scam. This forum was about getting core duo because it outperforms AMD in a 32 bit environment. In 64 bit AMD has the lead (until Core 2 Duo is released). So going by this forum I can tell you core duo is a scam and if you want something that will be worth the money you put down wait and get Core 2 Duo.

I feel sorry for all the people that wasted there money on a Core Duo. I was upset to hear that Intel was releasing it for 32 bit. On the business side I can see that it was good because they got people to buy into this and they will get people to buy into there upgrade a few months later.

Core 2 Duo is the better deal


Hey don't feel sorry for them, they bought the best mobile chip out in the market today.....Do you feel sorry for the guy who just bought the newest amd chip also?? Hey they should of waited for conroe right??
May 21, 2006 5:39:26 PM

Quote:
Developing what in the last 2 years? Crap?
Marketing? Oh u mean the little blue men painting the walls with their bodies. Oh yeah thats great.
Making lots of money? Yeah sure, but they lost almost 20 % market share to little AMD of Texas, just this year. Thats pitiful.
Any others you would like to point out? lol

1. Who have more money and how many times than who. Tell me something about the money in th bussines world.
2. Tell me the x86 CISC CPU history and development.
3. I think Intel will dominate over AMD on the market in 2007. Intel have cheaper production, more production capacity, faster processors with better and more power efficient architecture and in two months they will have processors with all these abilities improved. The have many times more budget, enthusiastic mission to fix the mistake made with Netubrst, good scientists and a lot of expirience on their own x86 architecture. What do you think about this?

P.S. Please try not to be radicaly biased on any of the mentioned brands and ignorant on the facts, proven with benchmarking on the full documented architectures.
May 22, 2006 2:58:12 AM

Quote:
Again I still say Core Duo is a scam. This forum was about getting core duo because it outperforms AMD in a 32 bit environment. In 64 bit AMD has the lead (until Core 2 Duo is released). So going by this forum I can tell you core duo is a scam and if you want something that will be worth the money you put down wait and get Core 2 Duo.

I feel sorry for all the people that wasted there money on a Core Duo. I was upset to hear that Intel was releasing it for 32 bit. On the business side I can see that it was good because they got people to buy into this and they will get people to buy into there upgrade a few months later.

Core 2 Duo is the better deal


Hey don't feel sorry for them, they bought the best mobile chip out in the market today.....Do you feel sorry for the guy who just bought the newest amd chip also?? Hey they should of waited for conroe right??

I really believe that the 64-bit feature is the real scam. The only part of 64-bit that we might benefit from on the consumer side is a larger memory address space. But we don't need to go fully 64-bit to get that. I doubt that there are many apps in the consumer space that will benefit from true 64 bit operands. The dynamic range of a 32 bit integer should be large enough for what we need in most cases (0 to 4 billion), and the number of bits of precision obtainable from a 32 bit float (8 significant decimal digits) is also very adequate for most situations. Sure, there are some situations that might need a double precision or long integer, but those data types are the exception, not the rule. If you are a programmer, can you honestly say that all of your variables are doubles and longs? EM64T and AMD64 are not really 64-bit, they have 32 bit internal processing. If you do a performance comparison with a real 64bit app, Itanium or any other true 64 bit processor will wipe the floor with the both of them. Itanium is truly 64 bit, and that is why it sucks like a Hoover when you try to run 32 bit apps on it. I dread the day, if it ever comes, when mainstream consumer processors go true 64-bit. The energy consumption and silicon real estate wastage would be phenomenal. That silicon real estate would be much better utilized in implementing more cores, to handle more parallel 32-bit threads, or in bigger cache. Another interesting point: AMD64 is doing very well right now because it is a very well-designed 32 bit architecture that just happens to be able to handle 64 bit instructions, albeit not very efficiently. And I don't think their addressable memory is a full 64 bits, because that would be a huge waste of pins, power, and silicon. They just extended it enough beyond 32 bits to serve its needs until the expected obsolescence of the chip. I think Intel's NGMA (conroe, woodcrest, merom) are following a similar path. When Windows Vista comes along, I doubt we'll see much improvement in the consumer experience that we couldn't already get with windows xp. So, to boil it down to a simple statement, we don't need to double the datapaths in the current 32-bit processors, because in most cases we'd just be wasting the upper 32 bits, using up silicon real estate and burning extra power. In the rare cases when we actually do need all those bits, we'll benefit. But I'd rather benefit in the majority of cases than in the exceptional cases. In the consumer space, 64 bit is just a marketing gimmick, and AMD's Marketing department is currently leading Intel by the nose. And we, the unknowing consumers, are following along like rats behind the pied piper. Note that I am only speaking to the 64-bit question. As noted before, AMD64 contains a lot of innovative architectural features that have nothing to do with its 64-bitness. And ditto for Intel's Core 2 architecture. Intel currently goes several steps better with Core 2 though, and I will be buying one when it comes out just for those features. 64-bit is just not one of those features. I'll leave that to the suckers.
May 22, 2006 7:33:09 PM

Quote:
Wow this thread turned to sh!t quickly but thats expected.


Word.
May 22, 2006 7:36:38 PM

Quote:
Really? Give me an example of what Intel's good at?

Video/audio encoding? :roll:
Producing massive amounts of heat and little performance?
Increasing your electric bill?
Making expensive paper weights?


OK how about developing, manufacturing, marketing, and making lots of money.....see i even lined them up for you :) 

Developing what in the last 2 years? Crap?



In the last 4 years intel has beaten the ITRS roadmap on transistor performance and timing for both the 90 nm and 65 nm nodes, Intel was 6 months ahead of the industry projected implementation of 90 nm and a full year and a quarter ahead in 65 nm production for advanced logic with record transistor performance.

Intel scrapped the Tejas project and focused research on Core 2, which is a major leap forward and a nice turn away from the deep pipeline of Netburst (a mistake they will not soon forget).

Intel also demonstrated 45 nm functional silicon about 1.5 years ahead of when ITRS has called for initial proof of concept.

Intel's development arm is in fine shape. You should not be so quick to denounce them.

Jack

Word.
May 22, 2006 7:50:35 PM

Hey, I just realised, your name means Potato! Heeheehee.
May 22, 2006 7:54:06 PM

Quote:
Hey, I just realised, your name means Potato! Heeheehee.


Word.
!