Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Bulldozer vs Nehalem

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2007 8:41:56 AM

Phenom has lost to C2D in this round but AMD's next gen Bulldozer is waiting in the wings. Upon it's release (2009-10), it'll probably go up against Nehalem. Details about both chips are scant, but Nehalem will probably be a better performer than Penryn which means Bulldozer needs to be better than K10 by at least 20-30% to match Penryn's IPC. Things are looking tough for the green team but they were in dire straits before when the P4's slaughtered the Athlon XPs.

What do you guys think AMD needs to do to make Bulldozer perform competitively with Nehalem/Penryn? Better L2 cache? MCM? Let's give AMD suggestions to make them better!

More about : bulldozer nehalem

November 23, 2007 9:11:25 AM

you don't have a clue about Nehalem performance (in 2008), let alone 2010 processor. So now AMD can start again with the "just wait for xxx which will bit Intel". lets first see the next generation - nehalem vs AMD 45NM beore you jump to pure speculations (which seems to be the only feild AMD can win)
November 23, 2007 9:49:15 AM

AMD cant compete at new vs. old core, so how could they compete at old vs. new architecture?
Related resources
November 23, 2007 10:41:59 AM

It's a bit too soon for anybody to be predicting the performance of Nehalem or Bulldozer.

Besides, I hope AMD survives long enough to actually release Bulldozer...
November 23, 2007 11:19:59 AM

This is fiction. And given that AMD has yet to launch a processor on time, i highly doubt we will see "Bulldozer" this decade.
November 23, 2007 12:25:45 PM

I can tell you firsthand that Nehalem is a monster. It will make you crap your pants.
November 23, 2007 12:44:29 PM

These things does not exist in labs yet so we cant tell yet.

Even AMD cannot take the crown of the fastest as of this time it doesnt mean it cannot take it in the future. Look at Pentium 4? its equivalent performance is almost only half the Athlons. But here comes Core2 to take the crown, though the Core1 is unsuccessful on performance. Phenom is still struggling now at few gaps over C2Quads. Maybe the Phenom2 or as others say Phenom FX can do the trick. lol
November 23, 2007 1:47:50 PM

epsilon84 said:
Nehalem or Bulldozer.


they're actually calling it Bulldozer ?

read up on an American woman named Rachel Corrie and
you'll see what i mean.

the Nehalem plant is in Israel; Rachel Corrie was killed
by a bulldozer operated by Israel, her offense being
to stand in front of the home of a Palestinian family.
November 23, 2007 2:54:48 PM

The word 'bulldozer' has been around and in common useage since before the unfortunate Miss Corrie stood in front of a bulldozer.
November 23, 2007 3:11:53 PM

This thread started 12 months too soon.
November 23, 2007 3:51:17 PM

with amd's reputation lately, i think this thread started a little earlier than 12 months too early.
not picking on them or anything..but it's the truth.
November 23, 2007 4:00:55 PM

Naaaa.. its not that its too early. Both company's prolly already have it locked away, and on perhaps some kind of time lock. I mean, what else are they going to do with all this time, especially when they have the fastest CPU to help them make a better product. :lol: 
November 23, 2007 4:08:55 PM

Quote:
What do you guys think AMD needs to do to make Bulldozer perform competitively with Nehalem/Penryn? Better L2 cache? MCM? Let's give AMD suggestions to make them better!

I'm no designer so this is just a wishlist. Compartmentalize the design - CPU-buffer logic, CPU-core, CPU-cache, GPU/vector-core, GPU-RAM (?), IMC, HT. For the CPU, design huge look-ahead buffers and robust decoding/analysis instead of so much generic read caching. Add raw execution engines to enable multithreading (I'm sure Intel went after this). Add redundant CPU logic units/subunits whenever possible and useful (based on past experience in failure rates; extra units would still be fused off if everything comes out working). Redesign and condense old core components for easier clock scaling and power efficiency. Work on HyperTransport/IMC logic to enable low-latency "MCM" if later called for. Remove separate voltage planes and instead focus on internal ability to turn components on/off.

While thinking through this, I noticed that they may want to put some design effort into how they "glue" components together. Placing an entire performance design on one slab of silicon and microconnecting all the parts seems to be a sure way to cause yields to tank. On the other hand, having every tiny component on separate silicon could cause a manufacturing and assembly nightmare and, depending on the gluing method, unnecessary latency.

Too bad it's too late to be designing like this in time for release in 1H'10.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2007 4:31:03 PM

pogsnet said:
These things does not exist in labs yet so we cant tell yet.

Even AMD cannot take the crown of the fastest as of this time it doesnt mean it cannot take it in the future. Look at Pentium 4? its equivalent performance is almost only half the Athlons. But here comes Core2 to take the crown, though the Core1 is unsuccessful on performance. Phenom is still struggling now at few gaps over C2Quads. Maybe the Phenom2 or as others say Phenom FX can do the trick. lol


Where do you get your info at? Intel has had Nehalem up and running at the first step 45nm chips for a while now with full plans to release in Q3/Q4 08. The P4 was stomping the Athalon until 2003 when they released the Athlon 64. The only way the Phenom FX will ever see the light of day is if AMD can fix the L3 mess up and fix the thermal problems they have above 2.4GHz since the only thing different for a FX is the higher frequency. And Phenom is not only struggling in the performance area vs C2Qs but als in power usage. My Q6600 still uses less than the 2.3 or 2.4GHz Phenom.

So lets say AMD can release Bulldozer in late 08 or earl 09. This means all of those who bought a Phenom and want the best performance out of their AMD would need to buy another chip in less than a year. I for one do not forsee AMD being able to release Bulldozer that soon since the Phenom may not sell as well as expected. Or at least not well enough to get them the cash needed to be able to produce them in a large enough volume.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2007 4:34:38 PM

I cant wait until AMD releases this chip...(sarcasm) Hopefully Intel has some thing better. : lol :

FUD????
November 23, 2007 5:02:23 PM

I thnk this thread is interesting.now, as far as I now (net news) Bulldozer will really be a more advance barcy/agena core,which means to me that it will be more mature with new sets of instructions working on a ddr3 motherboard vs.a brand new Intel proc.I;m def not like WR with some really serious knowledge of cpu.And for those who really think AMD will be that far behind, less heart(fanboy-ism) and more brain please
November 23, 2007 6:18:45 PM

Quote:
brand new Intel proc

Those words would make me cautious. Last time, Netburst cost Intel a lot of headache. Fortunately, Nehalem seems to borrow from the highly successful Merom core; the brand new parts are the caching system and memory interface. As long as they don't ruin both, it should be solid.

Quote:
Bulldozer will really be a more advance barcy/agena core

It seems as dramatic a shift as from Penryn to Nehalem. I hope it is, as AMD needs something like that to compete. I also hope they simulate and then test it - tired of their dumping half tested products on us lately (2900-series power consumption, K10 clock ceiling).
November 23, 2007 8:15:37 PM

wickedmonster said:
Phenom has lost to C2D in this round but AMD's next gen Bulldozer is waiting in the wings. Upon it's release (2009-10), it'll probably go up against Nehalem. Details about both chips are scant, but Nehalem will probably be a better performer than Penryn which means Bulldozer needs to be better than K10 by at least 20-30% to match Penryn's IPC. Things are looking tough for the green team but they were in dire straits before when the P4's slaughtered the Athlon XPs.

What do you guys think AMD needs to do to make Bulldozer perform competitively with Nehalem/Penryn? Better L2 cache? MCM? Let's give AMD suggestions to make them better!



BullDozer is a TOTAL REDESIGN @ 45nm. It will have SSE5 and probably much more IPC. Montreal will be MCM with more L3.
November 23, 2007 8:46:40 PM

i think AMD will have the next round, why? because they already put out a native quad-core and are tweaking it to make it more efficient and faster, whereas intel is shooting for their first native quad core with Nehalem. Intel will probably run into problems like AMD is right now.

Where the hell do they come up with these names? do they just pick them out of a hat?
November 23, 2007 8:55:10 PM

I think the ramp from 65nm to 45nm will be much kinder and easier on AMD than that of the 90nm to 65nm. So I think Bulldozer is going to be an amazing processor. The only problem is that I think Nehalem will be a little better; mainly because AMD saw large performance gains whilst putting an inbuilt memory controller. So I think that intel, who already has great core architecture, is gonna see some great gains from the inbuilt memory controller. Of course, we know almost nothing about these two processors, so until then, I am just going to have to pray that AMD can get enough cash to help their R&D team so they can be a competitor again.
November 23, 2007 9:03:08 PM

We do know that Intel already has them in validation in their labs. They showed an A0 stepping part at the IDF in San Francisco. I hope that AMD can get better performance and yield out of their transition from 65nm to 45nm. But currently if we extrapolate what has occurred from the 90nm to 65nm I only see worse yields and increased thermal issues do to leakage. They need to come up with their own version of High K. But from everything that has so far come out they will only be using 45nm immersion with Low K. That means they will not see the advantages that Intel has with their High K metal connect process.
November 23, 2007 9:38:36 PM

AMD and IBM along with another company are jointly working on high K.AMD is far ahead of what people are giving them credit for,no one know for sure if Phenom is a bust for them to say its no good .The native core on 65nm and the merge did take a toll on AMD,but now imagine how far they will be when Intel goes native core.Native core is here to stay and AMD is well on there way.Like they say "What does'nt kill you makes you stronger
November 23, 2007 9:46:21 PM

Ro3dog, Sorry I think you are being overly optimistic on AMD's behalf and overly pessimistic on Intel making a Quad core monster which is what I believe the Nehalem is going to be. If they got it working enough to have Windows operating on it showing 16 cores in a 2 processor system in the first release of silicon (A0) stepping and don't plan to release the part until the end of next year. They will have it working great by then.

November 23, 2007 10:16:36 PM

I believe AMD too showed native cores working and everyone was saying how AMD will make this strong come back and distroy c2d but it was not the case(atleast right now).Pessimistic about Intel,no,they will still have strong products as buffer till Nehalem is matured.It will a great time for consumers,for the compition between AMD and Intel will be big.Just cannot count them out
November 24, 2007 1:43:10 AM

Quote:
BullDozer is a TOTAL REDESIGN @ 45nm. It will have SSE5 and probably much more IPC.

Throwing those words around like it's simple to redesign and increase IPC. :) 

While it wasn't even a complete redesign, look where K10 stands. Hardly noticeable real-world IPC improvements; good multicore scaling as with K8, but newfound single-thread troubles and lackluster frequency headroom.

Netburst was a complete redesign; look where that put Intel. Complete redesigning is very hard. History has favored conservative refinement because you only have so much R&D time.

Quote:
i think AMD will have the next round, why? because they already put out a native quad-core and are tweaking it to make it more efficient and faster, whereas intel is shooting for their first native quad core with Nehalem. Intel will probably run into problems like AMD is right now.

I think AMD's mistakes with its first try of quad-core are isolated. Did the Athlon64 exhibit such trouble going x2? Well, they did claim they planned ahead while designing the core. Did Intel's Core Duo fall behind Pentium M?

I don't think we could foresee AMD's problems until their odd transition to 65nm. If at 90nm you go from 1 to 2 cores, then with an equally proficient 65nm process, you should be able to go from 2 to 4 of the same cores. Not only is AMD's 65nm process not up to par with previous node shrinks, but AMD made it worse by further complicating the design.

Quote:
I think the ramp from 65nm to 45nm will be much kinder and easier on AMD than that of the 90nm to 65nm.

I hold my doubts because of lackluster information on how AMD will address leakage (not simple gate leakage but source to drain I.off) which plagued their transition to 65nm and gets worse with further shrinks. If they do it as well as Intel, then their early transition to immersion lithography can help them leapfrog Intel in process quality.

But immersion lithography alone is not kind. Nor is IBM's focus on quality at all cost, since AMD must take costs into higher concern for desktop/mobile production.
November 24, 2007 2:24:00 AM

Quote:
I hold my doubts because of lackluster information on how AMD will address leakage (not simple gate leakage but source to drain I.off) which plagued their transition to 65nm and gets worse with further shrinks. If they do it as well as Intel, then their early transition to immersion lithography can help them leapfrog Intel in process quality.



WR, I will need to disagree with your statement that if AMD can transition as well as Intel. From the looks of the Transition from 90nm to 65nm it will just get much worse for AMD on the 65nm to 45nm transition. They don't have Hi K which I believe they will need to get anywhere near Intel's Penryn design in performance. I also don't believe anyone in the industry has better process quality. Intel is the defining manufacturer.
November 24, 2007 2:37:49 AM

Ycon said:
AMD cant compete at new vs. old core, so how could they compete at old vs. new architecture?

you never know what can happen.
November 24, 2007 3:40:01 AM

Rumour has it Bulldozer will feature reverse hyperthreading and SSE5 while Nehalem will have full SSE4 and hyperthreading. It will be interesting to see reverse HT vs regular HT.
November 24, 2007 3:56:23 AM

Wickedmonster, Penryn already has SSE4. I have not heard if Intel plans to provide any additional SSE instructions for Nehalem but yes it will have Hyperthreading enabled in it.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2007 4:11:00 AM

jkflipflop98 said:
I can tell you firsthand that Nehalem is a monster. It will make you crap your pants.

I believe you, just coz I know that you know :lol: 
a c 447 à CPUs
a c 111 À AMD
November 24, 2007 4:32:42 AM

Nothing like paper tiger going at each other.
November 24, 2007 4:40:06 AM

Nehalem is already up and running on windows (the first sample, also runnoing Mac OSX as well). Did anyone watch the intel keynote? Take it with a grain of salt, but they stated there will be a big performance jump, similar to the migration from netburst to core.

The big factor though. AMD delayed bareclona for AGES, they had tons of issues to work out. The main problem is how much time they had to invest with their R&D department to at least get it to where it is today. Personally..I think the Barcelona release may have pushed back their next architecture my a slight margin..How big? I have no idea. But the extremely late release of barcelona will have some consequences in their next architectures development/release.

Penryn is nothing to phenom. By that I mean not a big problem. Penryn pretty much offers a slight increase performance wise to their 65nm brethren (not in certain tasks though thanks to SSE4, where performance in encoding has improved greatly). Needless to say, Intel's 65nm brethren can out pace barcelona at the same clock speed. But Nehalem will be a monster I believe...and AMD's worst nightmare. They are already deep in the hole, now comes the time for intel to fill it up with some dirt to hold down AMD for a bit, how long will it slow down amd?..who knows, but hopefully Bulldozer won't be a second tasting of barcelona...Otherwise I've lost all hope for AMD.
November 24, 2007 5:25:30 AM

Quote:
They don't have Hi K

Hi-K is just a matter of using Hafnium Oxide for the gate insulator and thickening that to reduce leakage; the secret sauce however is in the gate electrode itself. If AMD has something that's both compatible and performs well, then immersion will only make it easier for them to get high yields.
November 24, 2007 5:29:42 AM

For the tiny little bit it is worth...

In an interview with the Inquirer, Kirk Skaugen, Intel's Digital Enterprise Group VP and GM of Server Platforms Group said that the CPU core performance jump from the same process Core 2 (Penryn) to Nehalem would be higher than the jump for Netburst to Core 2 itself.

IE: Nehalem will exceed Core2, by a margin greater than Core2 exceeded Netburst.

~~presumablely~~ Kirk is in a position to actually know, and since Nehalem is up and actually running (likely at low clock speeds, but at least functional) this postulation by Kirk should be based upon real silicon and is not "simulated benchmarks" or something equally daft.

Of couse Phenom was going to be 40% faster than Conroe.. so I guess you never do actually know till silicon comes out...


http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/16/...
November 24, 2007 5:30:14 AM

WR, so you are saying that IBM will have their version of Hi-K and metal gates ready for AMD when they bring out their 45nm process???

I'm betting they won't. I'm betting they might get some processor out by the time Nehalem comes out in 45nm but without Hi-K and metal gates.
November 24, 2007 5:37:32 AM

BaronMatrix said:
BullDozer is a TOTAL REDESIGN @ 45nm. It will have SSE5 and probably much more IPC. Montreal will be MCM with more L3.


You also said K10 was a TOTAL REDESIGN... which turned out to be a slightly modified K8, with a shared L3. You also said 1Ghz Barcelona will outrun any Core 2.. :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 

Although the rule of thumb is never introduce a new architecture on a new node, but we'll see how AMD does. Given how they executed the last 2 years, I don't see them turnover soon.

Maybe I'll put this into my sig, and we'll wait for next year.
November 24, 2007 5:46:39 AM

pausert20 said:
WR, so you are saying that IBM will have their version of Hi-K and metal gates ready for AMD when they bring out their 45nm process???

I'm betting they won't. I'm betting they might get some processor out by the time Nehalem comes out in 45nm but without Hi-K and metal gates.


If AMD's own roadmap serves any ring of truth, the next 45nm Deneb will come out in H208, which coincides with Nehelam's launch. Also, according to AMD, HK won't be implemented until the 2nd generation of 45nm, which is likely Bulldozer.

2008~2009 will be the bloodiest year for AMD. Personally I really don't see how they can survive it.
November 24, 2007 6:06:02 AM

if the Bulldozer is to appear 2009/10 - it might not compete with Nehalem at all...
Nehalem - Q4 2008
Westmere (Nehalem shrink + improvements (?) ) - H2 2009
Sandy Bridge - new uArch - 2010

if we cannot reliably compare a technology existing on paper with technology available only @ intel's labs - how are we to compare 2 uArchs that we have absolutely no info about as of now ?
November 24, 2007 6:19:03 AM

http://chip-architect.com/news/2001_10_02_Hammer_microa...

Here's a link to several patents that AMD intended for the original K8 but never made it to silicon. Maybe at that time, process tech was not good enough to include all those things in there. With 45nm, AMD might be able to better include them. Certainly if Bulldozer includes all those upgrades, it will be a monster performer.
November 24, 2007 6:27:23 AM

vonhell said:
if the Bulldozer is to appear 2009/10 - it might not compete with Nehalem at all...
Nehalem - Q4 2008
Westmere (Nehalem shrink + improvements (?) ) - H2 2009
Sandy Bridge - new uArch - 2010

if we cannot reliably compare a technology existing on paper with technology available only @ intel's labs - how are we to compare 2 uArchs that we have absolutely no info about as of now ?


IMO, for AMD, coming early is a lot better than coming late. If they can launch 45nm Deneb before Nehalem, then AMD can at least secure some foothold on the market. If they come in after Nehalem, it'll be a lot more difficult for them to persuade buyers from staying with AMD. Afterall, Nehalem will eliminate AMD's architectural advantage at that point, with some major improvements.

According to those with first hand experience with Nehalem, it seems like Nehalem will once give us about 20~40% increase in performance compared Core 2.

The thing is, we cannot compare Nehalem with Bulldozer, as we have no information on how Bulldozer will perform, or what features does it have. However, given K8=> K10's transition, and if this continues, I don't have too high hopes for AMD.

But of course, I'm a d@mn Intel fanboy :D 
November 24, 2007 7:54:50 AM

randomizer said:
I believe you, just coz I know that you know :lol: 


Thanks kittah =)

I got to play around with a nehalem system the other day in the lab. I've been building chips for a while now, and I've never seen anything as cool as this.
November 24, 2007 8:20:09 AM

JK, have you played with one of the Wolfdale processors. From what I have heard you can practically run it with a passive heatsink because it is so cool running.

I'm wondering why Intel does not match AMD's lower 45W DTP for desktop.
November 24, 2007 3:01:10 PM

yomamafor1 said:
IMO, for AMD, coming early is a lot better than coming late. If they can launch 45nm Deneb before Nehalem, then AMD can at least secure some foothold on the market. If they come in after Nehalem, it'll be a lot more difficult for them to persuade buyers from staying with AMD. Afterall, Nehalem will eliminate AMD's architectural advantage at that point, with some major improvements.

According to those with first hand experience with Nehalem, it seems like Nehalem will once give us about 20~40% increase in performance compared Core 2.

The thing is, we cannot compare Nehalem with Bulldozer, as we have no information on how Bulldozer will perform, or what features does it have. However, given K8=> K10's transition, and if this continues, I don't have too high hopes for AMD.

But of course, I'm a d@mn Intel fanboy :D 


I don't think a transition is ever gonna happen like that again at AMD; at least not for long time. AMD maay have some stupid people in it, but I think they learned first hand what not to do. Not that I am saying that the transition will be flawless, but rather it will be neater than the last. Plus is the drop old Hector, we might get someone in his position that will help bring the company back into trust with it's customers....cast I don't believe much they say about any of their products right now. But you are right, I think if they don't get their act together; 2008-2009 are gonna be the bloodiest days AMD have every seen.
November 24, 2007 3:30:53 PM

pausert20 said:
JK, have you played with one of the Wolfdale processors. From what I have heard you can practically run it with a passive heatsink because it is so cool running.

I'm wondering why Intel does not match AMD's lower 45W DTP for desktop.



Because AMD's new little power naming scheme is the average of what they think they will use. Intel's power measurement is taken when we turn on every transistor on the chip and measure how much heat you would ever have to remove. Positively worst case scenario.

Granted, no one will ever use 100% of a chips transistors at any one time. Hell, if you use 50% at once, you're doin pretty good. But, better safe than sorry. If you actually measure the power draw of a 125W rated 45nm processor, you're likely to discover that you're only using .25 to .5 of that at full load.

Pauser, you can run some Conroes on passive if you want. The new HK/MG really cuts down on the heat (obviously) so you'll be able to run higher clocks than conroe and keep it cooled passively if you like. Or you can put a fan on the puppy and crank the clocks. Your call.
November 24, 2007 7:22:35 PM

jkflipflop98 said:
Because AMD's new little power naming scheme is the average of what they think they will use. Intel's power measurement is taken when we turn on every transistor on the chip and measure how much heat you would ever have to remove. Positively worst case scenario.

Granted, no one will ever use 100% of a chips transistors at any one time. Hell, if you use 50% at once, you're doin pretty good. But, better safe than sorry. If you actually measure the power draw of a 125W rated 45nm processor, you're likely to discover that you're only using .25 to .5 of that at full load.

Pauser, you can run some Conroes on passive if you want. The new HK/MG really cuts down on the heat (obviously) so you'll be able to run higher clocks than conroe and keep it cooled passively if you like. Or you can put a fan on the puppy and crank the clocks. Your call.


Thanks JK. Looks like us enthusiasts and Intel will be having a party come 1st QTR 2008. :D 
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2007 11:44:45 PM

Nehalem's tiny 32nm transistors won't be able to take the crushing force of my 180nm monsters! All 37 million of them.
November 25, 2007 12:17:30 AM

Shadow703793 said:
I cant wait until AMD releases this chip...(sarcasm) Hopefully Intel has some thing better. : lol :

FUD????


I'll admit that AMD is failing to win the performance crown now. I do remember these boards when they had it and all the Intel supporters (I was one back then) kept pointing to C2D. The reasons I decided on new AMD builds last year instead of C2D were the following:

AMD bought ATI and I prefer ATI chipsets and graphics cards. I can't wait for hybrid Crossfire boards and, eventually, for Fusion.

AMD CPUs were priced low enough that I even built one budget system with an MSI barebones with an Nvidia chipset, but I was disappointed in the 405 chipset, so I might just swap the chip over to a 690G board.

News reports of Intel anticompetitive practices vis a vis AMD in Europe and Asia, as well as America, but they won't prosecute here because it's not as glaring as the rest of our business scandals.

So, if the dual core Phenoms aren't too bad, I'll go for that with hybrid Crossfire, or just get a 6400+.

I'm glad you guys have the warm and fuzzy feeling that you're winning a war, but just keep in mind the FUD of Intel fans anxiously awaiting anything other than Netburst before we even saw whether C2D would compete.

teh_boxzor said:
i think AMD will have the next round, why? because they already put out a native quad-core and are tweaking it to make it more efficient and faster, whereas intel is shooting for their first native quad core with Nehalem. Intel will probably run into problems like AMD is right now.

Where the hell do they come up with these names? do they just pick them out of a hat?


I think that Intel will do better with Nehelem because it's 45nm. I don't think AMD will do well with Phenom until 45nm. There are supposedly technical issues with native quad core at 65nm, but I don't recall what they are exactly.

Nehelem is a river in Washington state, I think. Phenom is a lousy name for AMD, they should fire the marketer who came up with it, even if it's a suit at the top.
November 25, 2007 12:47:03 AM

AMD needs to put 2 6400+ ' s together and call it a quad for now, to raise money and get out of the hole they dug themselves into.


*I dont now what im talking about here really... just that AMD has made the first real quad core, and that could help in the future...

Then they can work on their monster CPU! I think that AMD was just thinking too far ahead by making a native quad core cpu (native does mean that its real quad core, not 2 dual cores together, right?) But because they have more experience in what i think is the definition of NATIVE, they might come out on top again... then they willl fall, and rise in a cycle =]


BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY...

WE CANT LET INTEL TAKE OVER THE CPU INDUSTRY!!!

This would mean bad business for the consumer =[

WE would be forced to pay whatever price intel says for a CPU =0 ZOMG! Then wed all be in trouble!
November 25, 2007 1:21:10 AM

Intel needs to work on the bus side of things and there dual cpu boards for a long time lagged behind the i/o and chipset choice of the amd dual cpu boards.

And AMD has a dual cpu board with desktop ram and the newer ones will add pci-e 2.0 in all slots with there chipset that will use cross fire and likey there will be a nvidia one with sli and all pci-e 2.0 sli.

Unlike the Intel one with FB-dimms and x16 x16 x16 x16 pci-e 1.1 sli over spilt useing 2 extra nvidia chips each on a pci-e 1.1 x16 bus or cross fire x16 x16 pci-e 2.0 + other pci-e 1.1 slots on a full sever / workstation board that may end costing less then the Skull Trail board and may even have on board hardware SAS raid and more ram slots.
November 25, 2007 1:25:40 AM

the yeti said:
AMD needs to put 2 6400+ ' s together and call it a quad for now, to raise money and get out of the hole they dug themselves into.


*I dont now what im talking about here really... just that AMD has made the first real quad core, and that could help in the future...

Then they can work on their monster CPU! I think that AMD was just thinking too far ahead by making a native quad core cpu (native does mean that its real quad core, not 2 dual cores together, right?) But because they have more experience in what i think is the definition of NATIVE, they might come out on top again... then they willl fall, and rise in a cycle =]


BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY...

WE CANT LET INTEL TAKE OVER THE CPU INDUSTRY!!!

This would mean bad business for the consumer =[

WE would be forced to pay whatever price intel says for a CPU =0 ZOMG! Then wed all be in trouble!


Amd better bus will make a dual dual core or dual quad core on the same cpu work a lot better then intel setup over the same FSB.
!