4 AMD news story on tgdaily

[gman01]

AMD to release first 65 nm processors in December:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_65nm/

AMD to postpone DDR3 adoption, first quad-core K8L resident Socket AM2+:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_postpones_ddr3/

AMD to ship 90% of desktop CPUs at 65 nm by end-2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_65nm_45nm/

AMD to launch quad-core K8L platform in Q3 2007
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/03/amd_quad_core/

I figured 1 thread was enough for all 4 stories....

 

[dasickninja]

At least its not the INQ. We can be sure that its possiblly true then.
They've got big plans that they look to impliment. It just all seems a bit late. most of them will be implimented in the Q3

 

[spanishfleee]

it does seem very late to introduce new stuff. by then intel may have an even stonger preforming proccessers and we already know they will have the quad core out possibly this year. what is interesting though is AMD will stick to the 45nm transtition in 2008 accoring to one of those articles.

 

[Wombat2]

Intel releasing a monolithic quad core 45 nm CPU at the same time AMD debuts its K8L is a real kick in AMD nuts.

 

[spanishfleee]

seems like Intel will be at 8 core processors before AMD even touches the quad core market

 

[kamel5547]

seems like Intel will be at 8 core processors before AMD even touches the quad core market

Perhaps... I'm a little worried by the TDP rise from Conroe to Kentsfield as it is purely linear. Unless they control it we would be looking at 200+ Watts for 8 Cores which would put overclocked 805's to shame. I think we'll see a pause at 4 cores for a bit until the thermal situation is figured out (either that or a tradeoff of less clockspeed for more cores), barring any architectural improvement like P4->Conroe of course.

 

[Wombat2]

Perhaps... I'm a little worried by the TDP rise from Conroe to Kentsfield as it is purely linear.

Its linear because its just two C2D dies next to each other.

Intels monolithic quad core (Q3 07) will solve that ... until they offer two monolithic quad cores in one package as the first 8 core chip incarnation

 

[NickJerguy]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

 

[spanishfleee]

preformance wise intel have beaten them. anyway the true dual core stuff doesnt matter just like the true quad core and the 'glued' approach.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

Uh?

Intel Core 2 Duo is Dual Core (Two Cores in one), Intel's Quadcore Intel Core 2 Quad is (Two Core 2 Duo on a single chip). Intel's 45nm shrink will introduce a Native Quad Core processor.

Intel has AMD beat for sure until Q3 2007.. then we'll see.

 

[dasickninja]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

Please, lets stop with this "glued" vs "native" nonsense.
You all seem to think of Intel Dual Cores being crappy, and pieced together.
That may have been the case with the Pentium D's. But won't be the case with the Core 2 Quadro. The Pentium D was based on cores that had the infamous (for good reason, the thing could substitute for a stove) Netburst architecture. Netburst was very inefficient, so putting two of those on one chip made a CPU that was twice as inefficient in my opinion.
Core 2 Duo and its brother chip the Quad(ro) are based on the very efficient Pentium M architecture. Pentium M being mobile based, has a very good TDP rating. Intel just went and made it 30% more efficient.

1 x 4 = 4
2 x 2 = 4
4 = 4

Non Mathematical Short Version
Its not the amount of dies that you put on a chip or the implementation, its the core itself that's the real variable.

 

[Wombat2]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol:

 

[spanishfleee]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol: true, very true

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

somethings you need to understand about the Intel "Core" . There not actually dual core. They're "Dual Dye" they have two processor dyes on one processor. So in essence its not a "real" dual core part. However AMD's part is an authentic dual core processor. Lets see intel beat that.

You fell out of the stupid tree, hitting each branch on the way down :lol:
:trophy:

Now that's a Good post ..

 

[dasickninja]

Word

:trophy:

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Word

:trophy:

Phrase

:trophy:

 

[neocristi]

Go AMD... GO!

 

[dasickninja]

Word

:trophy:

Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Word

:trophy:

Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:

Paragraph

:trophy:

 

[Joe_The_Dragon]

but they are still on the old fsb tech

 

[dasickninja]

Word

:trophy:

Phrase

:trophy:

Sentance

:trophy:

Paragraph

:trophy:
I really shouldn't continue this but...
War & Peace

:trophy:
Now with that bit of ownage out of the way, the FSB still has a long way to go before it is fulling bogged down. Intel is due to change to a IMC sometime in the future as stated by their road map. Unlike AMD, they don't release a new socket ever year. But obviously with the implementation of both Duo and Quad(ro), we have yet to see the "massive" problems with the FSB.

 

[dasickninja]

From AnandTech

One thing we pointed out in our earlier preview coverage of Intel's Core 2 Extreme is that the new processors have extremely low latency memory access, despite relying on the same memory controller as the previous generation of Intel CPUs.

Without an on-die memory controller Intel's Core 2 processor must use the memory controller in its chipset, which currently means the 128-bit DDR2 memory controller in either Intel's 965 or 975X chipset. The confusing thing is that although the Core 2 processors use the same memory controller as the old NetBurst processors, memory latency has been improved tremendously

Intel's Core 2 processors now offer even quicker memory access than AMD's Athlon 64 X2, without resorting to an on-die memory controller. While Intel will eventually add one, the fact of the matter is that it's simply not necessary for competitive memory performance today thanks to Intel's revamped architecture. Update:As many astute readers have pointed out, Core 2's prefetchers are able to work their magic with ScienceMark 2.0, which results in the significant memory latency advantage over AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.

 

[gman01]

The irony to all this is(ignoring anti-competitive factor) - AMD had the faster chip for 3 years, but most the system manufacturers used intel....

now

lets say intel may take the performance lead for 3 years - but the system manufacturers seem hot on swiching to AMD now....

No - AMD may not overtake intel in units sold, but you get my point.... But in an sense maybe intel is too late giving the system manufacturers(dell/lenova etc.) a GOOD product at a CHEAP price.... We may see more hardships financially for intel, no matter how good their desktop/notebook chips are....

ps. not starting a fight, I am just bringing up the business/money aspect of the next 3 years.... It is no secret intel is having financial hardships, because of it big size....

 

[dasickninja]

We forget that the Core 2 has just been introduced. When Intel has had this product out for atleast a year, expect them to drop the prices on regular Core 2's or pump out prodiguos amounts of Core solo budget chips.

 

[gman01]

We forget that the Core 2 has just been introduced. When Intel has had this product out for atleast a year, expect them to drop the prices on regular Core 2's or pump out prodiguos amounts of Core solo budget chips.

They absolutely need to drop those prices then.... But from what heard from the stock pages they have literally Billions worth of pentium chips they can't get rid of.... So they really need to get as much for the cores as they can...

I hadn't considered Core 2 solo budget chips - interesting idea! I bet it would make a decent low end notebook chip.... Should be able to run vista....