http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31408/135/

http://www.chipzilla.com/default.aspx?article=38566

Intel is continuing to push the Penryn line with smaller die (65nm>45nm), bigger cache (4MB > 6MB Dual Core, 8MB > 12MB Quad Core), SSE4 and new S3 ops to intergrate with increased cache associativity (16 way >24 way). Clock speeds, for now, appear to be only slightly increased, ie. topping at 3.2-3.3 Ghz. However, TDP appears to have dropped even more, though Intel is modestly claiming that they will "hold" it to the same TDP as the 65nm process. Additionally, FSB will further increase from 1333 Mhz > 1600 Mhz.

With Nehalem (expected late Q1-early Q2 2008), Intel is introducing their own version of an intergrated memory controller (IMC) , known as the "Nehalem System Controller", which aims to introduce "burst"-style point-to-point cpu requests and receipts. Additionally, Nehalem will offer up to 8 cores, and will see the return of "hyper-threading" (virtual cores), along with an updated SMTP (simultaneous multi-threaded processing) instruction and control scheme. Initially released at 45nm fab, Nehalem will be further shrunk down to 32nm, in late 2008.

Does anyone want to guess whether AMD will be able to stay competive with the break-neck pace that Intel is going? 'Cause it certainly appears like intel is trying to crush AMD into the dust..

IMHO this is exactly Intel's strategy. To kick AMD while it's down and unable to get up. It's more of a mugging than competition. But all's fair in war and business!

K10/HT3.0 should suffice for awhile.... HTX graphics cards might excite gamers....

IF AMD fusion/APUs make it to market in a timely manner, than yes they can catch up(big IF).... They need to get to 45nm in a timely manner also....

I would like to see them get some of that cool stuff they are working on with IBM to market soon.... 6.0ghz speeds / that cooling system that makes cpus run at 1/3 the temp of current technology / and that new cache technology that lets you put alot of cache on die for cheap(forget the name)....

Where I come from, this might seem like more of a r@pe case.
It's like seeing one skinny guy being surrounded by "big men" in the prison yard.. you know who the "pivot man" is going to be.

Still, while AMD is talking some interesting ideas, I don't see a whole lot of doing. They diffently need to saddle up, and rethink some strategies (if they have any), but all they're doing now is simply embarrassing themselves. They've been riding high in the saddle since the Thunderbird/Palamino(sp?) K-7 releases, but they rode it into the ground, and now it's time to find a new ride.

I am starting to think that the K10 (both Barcelona and Agena) might be too little, too late. None of it's features are really revelutionary, merely evolutionary. Plus, I have grave concerns that they can do so while Intel is selling its' (so far) superior chips at seemingly "fire-sale" prices (to which I have no personal objections ). Plus, their first run 65nm Brisbane's have failed to live up to alot of the claims that AMD touted. It may be good for AMD, but the consumer takes it in the seat, just like the Netburst chipsets.

gman01,
the thing is, Intel could buy/lease alot of those technologies, too. Even more so, when you consider all the cash that Intel in it's reserves. And don't forget, Intel and IBM go back a loooong way..

Intel has a lot of their own versions of the technologies that IBM and AMD are talking about. The difference is that Intel waits to talk about technology when it is going to be available in the near future. I find it quite amusing that IBM announced the High-K dielectric/metal gate technology ahead of Intel despite the fact that they are about a year behind. Heck, the cell processor is only just making its way to 65nm. Right now, the second largest investor in technology development, the IBM/AMD/Freescale/Samsung alliance has a much smaller investment than Intel has for chip development and is a year or more behind. No one is going to create a better high end digital design process than Intel. Expecting IBM/AMD to beat them in more than one specific process area is extremely unrealistic.

Couldn't agree more. Let's face it, AMD's last interesting launch was the first batch of X2s. The 65nms have been a snoozefest. Everything else has been nothing more than posturing and pushing back the roadmap launch dates. C'mon... it's almost six months after the intro of Business Vista and ATI still doesn't have a DX10 card out? That is completely unbelievable.

Poor, poor AMD. Some of these guys will miss you.

Not only is AMD meeting Intel head-to-head; C2D E6600 = X2 6000+ they are doing this with a 4 year old architecture. Fact is Intel has sold crap for the last 4 years and thats what they will be selling for 4 years more once AMD releases in 3 months. You forget Intel is a master at marketing more than electronics, like IBM.

OK, it's time to lay off the crack..

Seriously, any OBJECTIVE (meaning UNBIASED) person knows that the C2D chipset is the better ,price and performance-wise, for the mid to high end CPU market (AMD does have better low and entry-level chips). The C2D is better in FP, Integer, Power-usage, TDP, and instruction latency than equally clocked X2's (including the new Brisbanes). And don't forget, there's also the E6700,Q6600,X6800, and the QX6700. Also, a plain vanilla E6600 can easily (greater than 95% chance) be overclocked to 3.2 Ghz on air. How far can the 6000+ be OC'ed?

Facts are facts.. AMD got their @sses handed to them this round. I am merely wondering if they have the cajones to pull their collective heads out and get back in the game. Deep down, I don't want AMD to get their teeth kicked in, but they need to actually do something. This habit they're getting into of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming real loud, and occassionaly shouting "INTEL SUX!" , isn't doing anything..

OK, it's time to lay off the crack..

Seriously, any OBJECTIVE (meaning UNBIASED) person knows that the C2D chipset is the better ,price and performance-wise, for the mid to high end CPU market (AMD does have better low and entry-level chips). The C2D is better in FP, Integer, Power-usage, TDP, and instruction latency than equally clocked X2's (including the new Brisbanes). And don't forget, there's also the E6700,Q6600,X6800, and the QX6700. Also, a plain vanilla E6600 can easily (greater than 95% chance) be overclocked to 3.2 Ghz on air. How far can the 6000+ be OC'ed?

Facts are facts.. AMD got their @sses handed to them this round. I am merely wondering if they have the cajones to pull their collective heads out and get back in the game. Deep down, I don't want AMD to get their teeth kicked in, but they need to actually do something. This habit they're getting into of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming real loud, and occassionaly shouting "INTEL SUX!" , isn't doing anything..

Not sure what your reply has to do with the fact that a Athlon X2 6000+ offers the same performance as a E6600 for the same price. OCing isn't always a lock and isn't always cheap when HQ parts need to be purchased. I read THG do you? http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] kick-left/ New stepping hits 3.30 all day if thats what your looking for.

They will have similar price.
The performance of x2 6000+ has catched up to E6600 already.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] undup.html

http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?o [...] w&id=31427

AMD ADX6000CZBOX AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz Socket AM2 Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Processor -- NEWEGG -- $409 FS

Intel BX80557E6600 Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor -- NEWEGG -- $308 FS

Then add $50 cause that's what a decent mobo for the E6600 will run you over the X2. At this rate the CPUs should reach parity within a few weeks.

AMD did something really amazing for several years.

Intel has always been, and will likely remain for quite a while, the 800 lbs gorilla of CPU land

"Chimpzilla" stole 25% of Intel's banana's due to the Netburst fiasco and right now the Gorilla is very, very angry.

Intel's executing very well right now, and they have vast resources to throw at the problem.

AMD will adapt and live, or fail to adapt and die.

Who knows, maybe Barcelona really does rock?

http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?o [...] w&id=31427

AMD ADX6000CZBOX AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz Socket AM2 Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Processor -- NEWEGG -- $409 FS

Intel BX80557E6600 Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor -- NEWEGG -- $308 FS

Then add $50 cause that's what a decent mobo for the E6600 will run you over the X2. At this rate the CPUs should reach parity within a few weeks.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but you are not correct.

The platforms for C2D versus X2s are basically the same cost.

The AMD chips are quite sensitive to memory speed, there is about a 15% delta speed wise between DDR533 and DDR800 on an X2, while on a C2D (due to the huge cache) there is about only a 2-3% delta.

Basically, DDR533 costs you +/- a speed grade on an X2, but almost zero on a C2D, so this balances the price differences at the motherboard level.

A CD2 motherboard costs more, but you can use cheaper ram, so on a systemn wide basis the tow platforms have essentially identical costs.

In a tribute to the late Bob Marley, I propose a new song... Sort of. The title is 'no benchie, no cry'.

On the other hand, I have to apologise to Mr. Bob Marley, his song actually meant something.

G'night all.