INTEL HAD THE Woodcrest love in, and once again, I got a lot of good Windows spider games in, but somehow was left unfulfilled. The visual presentations were stunning*, and the news was a little stale, in fact, I can't think of anything that was said that has not been common knowledge since spring IDF.
But there were a few points that were odd for Intel to mention, and at least one that was flat-out wrong. The first was its spinning of the IMC. Intel officially poo-poos the lack of an IMC on the server, mainly because their first few stabs at it fell really flat.
Today, they spun it as a win because they could put 4MB of cache on the chip to allow for 50 per cent less memory accesses than AMD. Very true, but there are two problems: cost and cost.
The first cost is die area on your most expensive parts. Intel does not have an IMC, so it has to eat the cost on a cutting-edge process instead of on a -1 or a -2 process that it builds the chipsets on, or an IMC on the chip itself.
The one I thought was flat-out wrong was Intel's claim of virtualisation leadership. Intel does not have an IMC, AMD does. Intel can not virtualise memory for the time being, AMD can. Guess what the computer does a lot of? Hint, see the last paragraph. I doubt this claim to the point of almost ruining a monitor by coughing up Diet Berries and Cream Dr. Pepper when I heard it.
Another problem was Pixar, or at least Intel's touting of Pixar, and again, there were two problems there. The first is that Pixar uses P4s, not because they are better, but because Intel gave them such a sweatheart deal on them that AMD couldn't compete. It may have been the worst solution possible, but money talks.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32649