AMD Says Intel Nehalem Microarchitecture Copied Their Design

haha...thats great.

look, we've gone over this with thunderman already - intel and AMD have both copied each other at various points in their histories, get over it, go away and stop trolling

Does that mean AMD can finally release a cpu that matches Intel's line?

No that would mean Intel copied AMD's designs they clearly state that Intel stole them!!! I hope AMD's designers can remember at least bits and pieces of the work so they can at least make something competitive!!!

Edit: oops it does say copy LOL

Well I guess if AMD does release the same chip the benchies should be a mirror image and at that point it will break down to price ?

L3 clatch at 2MB would account for some but not alot.

only ppl with a lot of money on there hands will jump on nehalem when it first launches, as most ppl know, wait for a few months until later revisions come out then jump on board with nehalem. Its not that much different right now, processors still range into the 300 and if nehalem is about that price it isn't half bad, but ddr3 sticks will be expensive although prices are starting to drop. How exactly is Intel going to screw ppl over on the x58 chipset when it is cater to the enthusiast market and not mainstream?

Maybe "screwing people over" isn't the best choice of words, but I think the point being made is that Intel will likely drastically overcharge for the chipset. Intel has somewhat of a bad record regarding performance chipset as of late. You may remember that some months ago when the X48 chipset was released several review sites found that it was little more than a rebadged X38 with the FSB speed set a little higher at the factory, and yet it cost significantly more.

Of course it will drop in price. Everything drops in price. Look back at AMDs Athlon X2 back when it was kicking the bejebus out of Pentium D. They were priced very high. Then Core 2 came and the prices dropped. Thats alwasy how it goes and its due to it actually costing less for the company to make them.

Second part, Intel charges a certain amount for the chipsets yes but its not going to be $200 dollars. The chipsets are cheaper than that. Its the mobo makers who decide the final price of the mobo.

I don't care whats going to happen with Nehalems release cost wise because I am waiting for Westmere, the 32nm shrink of Nehalem. My reasoning is because it will allow more cores, run cooler and also improve on the original Nehalem design.

^ must hurt if you can get 6000+ for ~$100 these days =(

That's why I always buy extremely old high performance tech =) Got my Athlon XP during the Athlon 64 age =)

I like waiting until the nm is half the amount of my previous processor... Good way of knowing when to upgrade... Also most programs aren't even optimised properly for dual-core let-alone quad-core...

Looks like I'll be keeping the Athlon X2 for some time =)

have we come so far that we cannot even have a laugh and joke and take the slide in the manner it was meant?

That slide has alot of truth to it, and i7 goes a long way in complimenting AMD's design.

I think this one may have been joking though:




Original http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_25688835/tm.htm

Important point that is almost always ignored.

According to Wikipedia (Whether it's accurate) Core i7 (Nehalem) will have a TDP of 130 watts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7

And also at the Intel Pressroom whitepaper for Nehalem written there is mention of a Dual Processor 16 thread Nehalem platform(Probably another Skulltrail).

Sounds about right, given that it is a completely new architecture with a fairly large die. I'd expect the low end 2.66GHz model to use quite a bit less than that though.

@ JonathanDeane: Thanks! I knew there was something wrong with the direct comparison between those CPUs, I just couldn't figure out what. Now it makes more sense.

TBH I don't care care if the Nehalem consumes 100W or 130W. I'll get one next year regardless of TDP My video cards will most likely need close to 600W anyway, so 30W more or less won't matter. I'll let IT admins who have lots of servers worry about CPU TDPs.

I have no idea what I'll run. Whatever will sound best next summer. Most likely something that doesn't exist yet. I'll finish the mortgage payments by then and I want to celebrate it somehow

IMC
Hypertransport
Native-quad core die
x86-64 instructons
Native dual/quad core designs

As the AMD engineering team aquired the guys from DEC who designed alpha 64 fine and their designs were bought by AMD....kind of a fine line on some very key developments, but the undisputable accomplishments are

Alpha designed the first 64bit cpu in 92, the EV7 which the barton chip is largely based off of was the first chip with an IMC which was around in 99, the EV8, which never launched due to DEC being bought out was the first chip capable of similtanious multithreading, was finished and ready to launch more than a year before the P4, actually the p4 was meant to launch around the same time but strangely when DEC went under, p4 was delayed for near 2 years and showed up with multi-threading

Hypertransport was around since the launch of the 500mhz socket A chip, part of the Dec Alpha bus, they held it back until opteron since intel had motherboard manufactures in their pocket.

Was responsible for DDR memory standard

First to hit 1ghz

Barton was a 64bit RISC cpu, optimized for 32bit code

Was ready to launch a 32bit barton with IMC, but held back for opteron since intel was in no way capable of beating them to the punch

wrote the x86-64 arch instructions, which intel pay for

first to 64bit cpu...with IMC....and Hypertransport

First to produce a dual-core cpu...with 2 cores on a single die

First to produce a native DX10 gpu.

First to use a native quad core design

First to use DDR5

First to single core 1 teraflop gpu performance
between the launch of the p3 in 99 and the launch of Core arch in the end of 2006 intels biggest accomplishment was making the highest power consumption desk-top chip, with the worst memory perforamnce, worst cpu performance...but achieving this feat while managing to claim the highest clock speed. So bad that the 2.8 ghz P4's were even in performance of their own 1.8ghz P3's

What was the last innovation from intel that AMD copied? yes, intel was forced to give up their monoply of x86 cpu's since um...other wise chips aren't compatible....and AMD gave them access to x86-64, which they still couldn't make use of thus Core 2's 32bit reign began.

the only thing intel design original in nehalem is the 45nm fab process and 3 way memory grouping. It took them 10 years to get hypertransport, 5 years and change for IMC, still discount 64bit, as well as virtualization. Oh and they're more than a year away from offering a gpu capable of the 2004 x850xt PE's performance, 20% of present single gpu power.

But i'm bored and tired and intel copies, shrinks than mass produces, they're out of things to copy now though.

dragonsprayer, I agree with everything you said but the if AMD had a decent cpu. They do have decent ones, at stock, close to Intels, and the 1% of 1% that oc, to them the AMDs arent worth it, tho theres some as well.

it is usually a great idea to upgrade CPUs only when the manufactoring process is at half the size of your current generation, but there are exceptions: the Core 2 launch was such a massive event that i jump on the first bus , paying $220 for an e4300: and i was very happy and surprised by the performance of the entire system, and cool temps/lower fan noise of the beast at full load! But i became unhhapy pretty fast: the 975X chipset was suboptimal for the true CPU potential, and by the time a good chipset with great overcloking potential hitted the shelfes my 65nm was already old tech : 45nm parts were amazingly cooler and quieter, so instead of wayting for an overpriced and bugged nehalem i decided to jump on an e8600/P45 combo, probably the last and best dual core ever. when we see good and stable nehalem mobos/chipsets and 32nm CPus i will upgrade again, by that time most games will make use of 4 or more cores.

I really hope that AMD can put competitive products on the CPU market, but i just dont see that happening before the company is kicked out of the market...maybe ATI can survive as a pure GPU producer, but AMd is doomed by waay too many years with slower and hotter processors.

Next we will be hearing that Intel will follow AMD's lead and release a bodged chip which is actually more advanced but somewhat more slower than the competition...


For god sake give it a rest already...

here we go again another round and round in circles conversation.


Open door, gazed around and walked straight out again..

To argue that Intel copied AMD on native die design, IMC, and hypertransport is like arguing Toyota copied Mercedes on putting four wheels on a car, and two headlights in the front.

Get over it. AMD copied Intel, and Intel copied AMD.