Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD? : Introduction

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 14, 2008 11:17:18 PM

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD? : Introduction

"As has been the case with each new architecture for several years now, Intel has also added new SSE instructions to Nehalem. The architecture supports SSE 4.2, components of which appear to be borrowed from AMD’s K10 micro-architecture. ."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem,20...

Good going Tom. It's about time you post an article that shows who's copying who

Is Tom an AMD fanboy?

Ok, lock the thread! Because some people can't handle the truth.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/lol...

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 14, 2008 11:43:55 PM

So they have one instruction set in SSE 4.2 that is in AMD CPUs. AMD also uses MMX which is Intel. Your point?

AMD doesn't even have full SSE 4 instructions, unless that has changed. They have SSE 4a from what I read and plan on adding more with SSE 4b.

Nehalems architecture is not made ny AMD. In fact it still has its base in Pentium M/Core which is Pentium III based. It has a IMC yes but that was coming and besides its a more advanced 192bit memory controller compared to AMDs 128bit.

It has QPI but from what I have read it is not eexactally the same as HTT. It has its on way of connecting devices and is much faster than current HTT is only matched by HTT 3.1 which should come out with Deneb from what I have read.

The article is nothing about copying. You took one statement and twisted it to your own means.
October 14, 2008 11:44:42 PM

LOL, Intel borrowing SSE4.2 from AMD? WTF?!

AMD doesn't even have the full SSE4 instructions, just a small subset called SSE4a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4
Quote:
SSE4 subsets

Intel SSE4 consists of 54 instructions. A subset consisting of 47 instructions, referred to as SSE4.1 in some Intel documentation, is available in Penryn. Additionally, SSE4.2, a second subset consisting of the 7 remaining instructions, will first be available in Core i7 (formerly Nehalem). Intel, unusually, credits feedback from developers as playing an important role in the development of the instruction set.

AMD also added two new SSE instructions that it named SSE4a. These instructions are not found in Intel's processors supporting SSE4.1 and alternatively AMD processors are not supporting Intel's SSE4.1. Support was added for SSE4a for unaligned SSE load-operation instructions (which formerly required 16-byte alignment).[3]
Related resources
October 15, 2008 12:57:57 AM

yawn... :sarcastic: 

Another worthless article from THG.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 1:41:34 AM

a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 1:46:20 AM

enigma067 said:
Is Tom an AMD fanboy?

Couldn't tell you. He hasn't written an article for this site for years.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 2:30:17 AM

TROLL
October 15, 2008 2:42:52 AM

randomizer said:
Couldn't tell you. He hasn't written an article for this site for years.


I miss Tom :>
October 15, 2008 2:53:13 AM

zenmaster said:
I miss Tom :>


get over it :fou: 
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 7:02:15 AM



Sorry some one wake me when something exciting comes out...


Hey AMD fans - have some thing interesting to say...

Instead of rambling on about how the ever so fantastic has copied Intel is only one way is again in the middle of a denial process.


October 15, 2008 11:11:35 AM

FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 12:49:47 PM

Actually I am more interested in the latency betwwen the caches and hopefully someone with a brain like Scott W will publish an article on it.

I am also interested in the efficiency of the memory controller.

I also asked about the loop stream detector ... nothing so far.

I havn't received any decent comments in the section at the end of the article so hopefully one of the engineering peopke who have been following the K10 and I7 architectural briefs would like to comment.

I found the article quite good.


October 15, 2008 3:25:19 PM

as ever, everyone is just copying everyone else - I mean its so unfair you are using the language that was invented in England People! the fact that it has been changed large amounts and is an obvious solution to a given problem apparently means nothing.....
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 3:36:59 PM

Poms will whine about anything it seems ... now they want their language back.

We improved it significantly for you ...
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2008 3:45:14 PM

spuddyt said:
as ever, everyone is just copying everyone else - I mean its so unfair you are using the language that was invented in England People! the fact that it has been changed large amounts and is an obvious solution to a given problem apparently means nothing.....

The English language is membered as a Germanic language in the Indoeuropean family of languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 15, 2008 7:58:49 PM

jj463rd said:
The English language is membered as a Germanic language in the Indoeuropean family of languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


Thats because English has large roots in Germanic while mixing Latin in it too. The difference between Enlgish and most other languages is that there is not he or she with basic objects like in Spanish for example.

Remember England was founded by a mix of Reomanic and Germanic people so the mix in language made English.
October 15, 2008 8:11:26 PM

You are correct...some can't handle the truth....but you can't hide it

AMD cannot take any legal proceedings because of some licensing agreement. AMD has been producing countless innovative technologies in recent years. Who cares if AMD copied Intel years ago....the student has almost certainly outdone the teacher! Intel realized their FSB was old and that doublecheeserburger quads were not the future......AMD understood the future with more integrated technologies like hypertransport....AMD leads Intel in server technology as a result. Nehalem...or should I say K10 clone will offer similar technologies. I wouldn't worry AMD will yet again produce something new in the future......then no doubt Intel will copy it.

Then why is AMD in such a bad financial position? You ask...because of Intels Anti-competitive behavior.

AMD are the Masters! AMD the moral choice!!

AMD4Life!!
October 15, 2008 8:37:25 PM

thunderman said:
Then why is AMD in such a bad financial position? You ask...because of Intels Anti-competitive behavior.


Well Thunder-kou, can you explain why AMD's marketshare increased during Intel's alleged "Anti-competitive behavior", and AMD's marketshare has been falling ever since Intel stopped this practice?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 15, 2008 8:48:56 PM

^heh.... he doesn't want to admit that AMD cannot manufacture nearly as many chips as Intel can and that 2 Phenom just doesn't do what it needs to sell enough.
October 15, 2008 8:58:12 PM

Well, to be fair, Intel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for AMD.

AMD invented electricity. Jerry Sanders used this invention to send a spark through the primordial ooze to create life itself.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 15, 2008 9:02:51 PM

exit2dos said:
Well, to be fair, Intel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for AMD.

AMD invented electricity. Jerry Sanders used this invention to send a spark through the primordial ooze to create life itself.


LMFAO. Thats a good one.
October 15, 2008 10:15:49 PM

thunderman said:
You are correct...some can't handle the truth....but you can't hide it

AMD cannot take any legal proceedings because of some licensing agreement. AMD has been producing countless innovative technologies in recent years. Who cares if AMD copied Intel years ago....the student has almost certainly outdone the teacher! Intel realized their FSB was old and that doublecheeserburger quads were not the future......AMD understood the future with more integrated technologies like hypertransport....AMD leads Intel in server technology as a result. Nehalem...or should I say K10 clone will offer similar technologies. I wouldn't worry AMD will yet again produce something new in the future......then no doubt Intel will copy it.

Then why is AMD in such a bad financial position? You ask...because of Intels Anti-competitive behavior.

AMD are the Masters! AMD the moral choice!!

AMD4Life!!




He can't even be serious so don't even respond!


FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
FLAMEBAIT ALERT!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

October 15, 2008 11:11:49 PM

*sigh*

It'll swing back and forth over the years, same as it always has done. At the moment Intel in the lead, for the previous few years AMD where, then before that Intel for a short period, then AMD with the XP. Same thing will happen again. Probably in a couple of years AMD will pull the performance lead again.

In the meantime, the fanboys won't contribute anything beyond new and interesting ways to foam at the mouth.
October 15, 2008 11:47:26 PM

I better reply before this gets locked :lol: 


Speaking of AMD I read the following on fool.com

And I quote.....one fool said.....

The Shanghai architecture will be some 30% faster and more power-efficient than Barcelona, and that release date was just moved up from January 2009 to this very month. In fact, I would not be surprised to see AMD rolling out Shanghai right alongside the earnings report.

Hmmmm maybe AMD is going to launch their new CPU TOMORROW! :D 
October 16, 2008 12:43:34 AM

I don't think AMD will be able to take the crown anytime soon - conroe, kentfield, yorkfield, and now Nehalem!! Intel been hitting Home Runs last two years and Nehalem is a grand slam!! With launch of Shanghai, AMD will be only down 1.5 generation vs Intel.
October 16, 2008 12:50:30 AM

young said:
I don't think AMD will be able to take the crown anytime soon - conroe, kentfield, yorkfield, and now Nehalem!! Intel been hitting Home Runs last two years and Nehalem is a grand slam!! With launch of Shanghai, AMD will be only down 1.5 generation vs Intel.


I don't think 1.5 is a fair number. I would say AMD's current state is at most 1 generation behind. A sucessful AMD launch would bring them anywhere from on-par with Intel, or at worst just .5 generations behind.


Of course, "generation" is subjective and rather undefined.
October 16, 2008 12:52:49 AM

BeakerUK said:
*sigh*

It'll swing back and forth over the years, same as it always has done. At the moment Intel in the lead, for the previous few years AMD where, then before that Intel for a short period, then AMD with the XP. Same thing will happen again. Probably in a couple of years AMD will pull the performance lead again.

In the meantime, the fanboys won't contribute anything beyond new and interesting ways to foam at the mouth.


It WAS back and forth, K10 broke that. Intel bested AMD with Core 2, and then AMD responded by shooting a major blank. Intel then futher dominated AMD with 45nm. Now most people are hoping that at best that AMD's new parts will match the Core 2 offerings. I think AMD will make a significant recovery, but I don't see them taking the crown back anytime soon.
October 16, 2008 2:36:59 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
It WAS back and forth, K10 broke that. Intel bested AMD with Core 2, and then AMD responded by shooting a major blank. Intel then futher dominated AMD with 45nm. Now most people are hoping that at best that AMD's new parts will match the Core 2 offerings. I think AMD will make a significant recovery, but I don't see them taking the crown back anytime soon.

How did K10 break that? I'm talking 3-5 year timescales here. Until the Core architecture arrived AMD where well in the lead performance wise. The Pentium 4 was marginally eased out by the XP at the same price points, and at lower clockspeeds. The A64 left the P4 even further behind, and when the X2 arrived it took until Core before Intel could claim the mainstream performance crown (I loved the Pentium-D myself for it's heat and lack of any real performance).

Intel at the moment have the lead, but I don't doubt AMD will pull it back in a few years. At the moment it would be nice to see some performance parity between the two companies, but I can't honestly see it before AMD adopt the IBM tech fully into their CPU designs. Even then they'll need at least a cycle before they have perfected the design. Then the race will start again, and Intel will ease them out a year or two after. AMD dropped the ball, and they are busy picking it up atm.

See how things run, but TBH I like most other people don't really care. I do however enjoy watching the fanboys foam and pontificate. Intel/AMD/nVidia/ATi/PS3/360/etc etc, doesn't matter what people are fanboys about, it's enough that they are fanboys and can't as a result make informed decisions, because they'll always have their views tinted by unshakable personal opinions.
October 16, 2008 2:52:21 AM

BeakerUK said:
How did K10 break that? I'm talking 3-5 year timescales here. Until the Core architecture arrived AMD where well in the lead performance wise. The Pentium 4 was marginally eased out by the XP at the same price points, and at lower clockspeeds. The A64 left the P4 even further behind, and when the X2 arrived it took until Core before Intel could claim the mainstream performance crown (I loved the Pentium-D myself for it's heat and lack of any real performance).

Intel at the moment have the lead, but I don't doubt AMD will pull it back in a few years. At the moment it would be nice to see some performance parity between the two companies, but I can't honestly see it before AMD adopt the IBM tech fully into their CPU designs. Even then they'll need at least a cycle before they have perfected the design. Then the race will start again, and Intel will ease them out a year or two after. AMD dropped the ball, and they are busy picking it up atm.

See how things run, but TBH I like most other people don't really care. I do however enjoy watching the fanboys foam and pontificate. Intel/AMD/nVidia/ATi/PS3/360/etc etc, doesn't matter what people are fanboys about, it's enough that they are fanboys and can't as a result make informed decisions, because they'll always have their views tinted by unshakable personal opinions.



K10 was AMD's gamble, their new arch. K10 was AMD's chance to edge Intel. AMD failed, miserably with K10. It barely competes with Core 2, barely.

For the longest time AMD and Intel were neck and neck, K10 changed that. K10 was AMD's surrender on the desktop side. AMD's 45nm will hopefully gain some of that ground back.

However, I feel (pure speculation) that AMD's next new arch, K11 (or whatever it may be called) will be do or die time for AMD. If AMD can't get back to neck and neck with K11 it will be over for them. (once again, pure specualtion)
October 16, 2008 3:15:03 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
K10 was AMD's gamble, their new arch. K10 was AMD's chance to edge Intel. AMD failed, miserably with K10. It barely competes with Core 2, barely.

For the longest time AMD and Intel were neck and neck, K10 changed that. K10 was AMD's surrender on the desktop side. AMD's 45nm will hopefully gain some of that ground back.

However, I feel (pure speculation) that AMD's next new arch, K11 (or whatever it may be called) will be do or die time for AMD. If AMD can't get back to neck and neck with K11 it will be over for them. (once again, pure specualtion)



Whu? Intel and AMD Neck and Neck for a long time? piffle. Though the Time of A64 and with the introduction of the X2 AMD was leaving Intel behind (with the exception of the EE stuff, but TBH who in their right mind pays £500 or more for a CPU alone?). With the introduction of Core Intel took the performance lead, and they have retained it. Only the hardcore Intel crowd would disagree there. the Presler dual cores couldn't compete with the Windsor cored X2 chips all over the range. a 3.7Ghz Presler that was being outperformed by a 2.6Ghx X2? Or the Pentium 965 being outperformed by the 5600+? Is that what you call competing neck and neck?

it was Core that put Intel in the lead, and it's what keeping them there. As I said, I don't really care who is in the lead except when I'm buying machines for myself at home, and then I buy to the budget I allocate, not what will give the ultimate performance. I would agree that K11 will be the break-point for AMD, though I wouldn't be surprised if you see something appear with the dis-shrink of the K10. Whatever happens, when the time comes for people to upgrade there will always be people who scream "Buy Intel" or "Buy nVidia" regardless of the actual facts. At the moment I personally. wouldn't recommend AMD to anyone who wanted massive performance, It's got to be Intel really. Likewise if someone wants a cheap desktop I'll tend to steer away from Intel and put them on AMD. The only argument for using exactly the same manufacturer through all price bands is because you just want to, however in some cases it's not a valid viewpoint (WOuld you build a HTPC with a low-end Intel CPU and GMA Graphics?).
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2008 4:11:55 AM

caamsa said:
I better reply before this gets locked :lol: 


Speaking of AMD I read the following on fool.com

And I quote.....one fool said.....

The Shanghai architecture will be some 30% faster and more power-efficient than Barcelona, and that release date was just moved up from January 2009 to this very month. In fact, I would not be surprised to see AMD rolling out Shanghai right alongside the earnings report.

Hmmmm maybe AMD is going to launch their new CPU TOMORROW! :D 



Shanghai is probably going to be 30% faster in multithreaded highly memory hungry server apps. And Shanghai from what I have heard has already started shipping. We just have to wait for Deneb in January. I doubt they would move the release date up without enough chips to get out into the market.
October 16, 2008 4:56:11 AM

exit2dos said:
Well Thunder-kou, can you explain why AMD's marketshare increased during Intel's alleged "Anti-competitive behavior", and AMD's marketshare has been falling ever since Intel stopped this practice?


AMD's market share did increase at this time....however it cannot be denied that Intel hurt AMDs business hugely by such anti-competitive behavior. AMD would be much stronger now if it wasn't for Intel...Intel are evil. Who's to say Intel has stopped this practice? I don't trust Intel.
At least AMD is still leading the way technologically...Nehalem proves this as we see Intel follow AMD.

AMD4Life!!
October 16, 2008 11:06:08 AM

thunderman said:
AMD's market share did increase at this time....however it cannot be denied that Intel hurt AMDs business hugely by such anti-competitive behavior. AMD would be much stronger now if it wasn't for Intel...Intel are evil. Who's to say Intel has stopped this practice? I don't trust Intel.
At least AMD is still leading the way technologically...Nehalem proves this as we see Intel follow AMD.

AMD4Life!!



Actually, the biggest issue is AMD's anti-competitive behavior. AMD delayed a product nearly a year, then launched it with bugs and at lower speeds than advertised. Now THAT is anti-competitive; and the consumers have spoken too.
October 16, 2008 11:20:59 AM

BeakerUK said:
Whu? Intel and AMD Neck and Neck for a long time? piffle. Though the Time of A64 and with the introduction of the X2 AMD was leaving Intel behind (with the exception of the EE stuff, but TBH who in their right mind pays £500 or more for a CPU alone?). With the introduction of Core Intel took the performance lead, and they have retained it. Only the hardcore Intel crowd would disagree there. the Presler dual cores couldn't compete with the Windsor cored X2 chips all over the range. a 3.7Ghz Presler that was being outperformed by a 2.6Ghx X2? Or the Pentium 965 being outperformed by the 5600+? Is that what you call competing neck and neck?

it was Core that put Intel in the lead, and it's what keeping them there. As I said, I don't really care who is in the lead except when I'm buying machines for myself at home, and then I buy to the budget I allocate, not what will give the ultimate performance. I would agree that K11 will be the break-point for AMD, though I wouldn't be surprised if you see something appear with the dis-shrink of the K10. Whatever happens, when the time comes for people to upgrade there will always be people who scream "Buy Intel" or "Buy nVidia" regardless of the actual facts. At the moment I personally. wouldn't recommend AMD to anyone who wanted massive performance, It's got to be Intel really. Likewise if someone wants a cheap desktop I'll tend to steer away from Intel and put them on AMD. The only argument for using exactly the same manufacturer through all price bands is because you just want to, however in some cases it's not a valid viewpoint (WOuld you build a HTPC with a low-end Intel CPU and GMA Graphics?).


You're right about some of that time, it perhaps wasn't "neck and neck", but Intel was at least in the same league. Back then when it was A64 vs Prescott space heaters Intel was still a player in the game. Now, with the current Phenom, AMD is playing in the minor leagues and Intel is the only big boy in the game. Or in different words, the performance gap between the two companies now is much wider than it was before.

I would also wholeheartedly agree with you that AMD had a superior product back in the Socket A \ Socket 939 days.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2008 11:23:53 AM

Socket A... Golden Bridges... Joy.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2008 3:36:39 PM

Slotkit FTW ...

Hellboy I do apologise.

My original folk came out here as Welsh miners ... setup a blacksmith shop.

I should have just gone with the convict line ... hmm??


a b à CPUs
October 16, 2008 3:52:40 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You're right about some of that time, it perhaps wasn't "neck and neck", but Intel was at least in the same league. Back then when it was A64 vs Prescott space heaters Intel was still a player in the game. Now, with the current Phenom, AMD is playing in the minor leagues and Intel is the only big boy in the game. Or in different words, the performance gap between the two companies now is much wider than it was before.

I would also wholeheartedly agree with you that AMD had a superior product back in the Socket A \ Socket 939 days.



Wonder if AMD's chip is gonna be a LGA design or has Intel got copyright on that too...

............. I shudder to think

Maybe thats where AMD went wong.... They Copied on SLOT 1 / Socket 1 then moved on to Socket A when intel had socket 478..

Ah I just might of caught on to something :) 
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2008 4:04:47 PM

BGA ??
October 16, 2008 4:29:08 PM

I wish these AMD fanboys would understand that AMD CPU's suck and will always suck. I laugh when I look at AMD's Market share and pathetic capital, yet these fanboy's try to tell us that AMD is somehow great? GET OVER IT!! AMD SUCK!! INTEL WILL ALWAYS BE THE BETTER CHIP MAKER!!

Sorry about the capitals, just AMD fanboys need to get this into their heads! :) 
October 16, 2008 4:53:00 PM

techpro said:
DELETED


I wouldn't go that far. AMD was schooling Intel only a few years ago. I sure hope Intel won't always be better, I want to see some fierce competition!
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2008 5:09:03 PM

techpro said:
I wish these AMD fanboys would understand that AMD CPU's suck and will always suck. I laugh when I look at AMD's Market share and pathetic capital, yet these fanboy's try to tell us that AMD is somehow great? GET OVER IT!! AMD SUCK!! INTEL WILL ALWAYS BE THE BETTER CHIP MAKER!!

Sorry about the capitals, just AMD fanboys need to get this into their heads! :) 





Whooooooaa there..


Thats one of the biggest flame baits i have seen so far...


You seem to fail to grasp on one point that AMD's Phenom is actually technically more advanced that the C2Q as it is an actual Quad core chip where a C2Q is a dual core stacked twice... also known as the double cheese burger..

The problem is that it is how the Phenom was executed in current real time apps...and its very miserable release..
IMHO the worst ever in the history of the CPU - AMD just couldnt get it right...

Now that they have Intel have tweaked their chips better for current software..


Nehalem ( i Core 7 will re address the techical balance as this is what Phenom should of been ) and will really kick ass..


October 16, 2008 8:58:42 PM

http://www.mercurynews.com/realestatenews/ci_10718927

"Some analysts say Intel is facing increasing competition from Advanced Micro Devices and worry that Intel's recently introduced relatively low-priced Atom chip might undercut sales of its more expensive chips. They add that Intel has become so big, it's gotten tougher for the company to keep its revenue growing faster than inflation."

You know what they say, the bigger they are the harder they fall. :D 

a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2008 9:19:27 PM

Hellboy said:
Whooooooaa there..


Thats one of the biggest flame baits i have seen so far...


You seem to fail to grasp on one point that AMD's Phenom is actually technically more advanced that the C2Q as it is an actual Quad core chip where a C2Q is a dual core stacked twice... also known as the double cheese burger..

The problem is that it is how the Phenom was executed in current real time apps...and its very miserable release..
IMHO the worst ever in the history of the CPU - AMD just couldnt get it right...

Now that they have Intel have tweaked their chips better for current software..


Nehalem ( i Core 7 will re address the techical balance as this is what Phenom should of been ) and will really kick ass..


My double cheese burger is quite good actually. I wounder if they will have a quad cheese burger. Yum.

caamsa said:
http://www.mercurynews.com/realestatenews/ci_10718927

"Some analysts say Intel is facing increasing competition from Advanced Micro Devices and worry that Intel's recently introduced relatively low-priced Atom chip might undercut sales of its more expensive chips. They add that Intel has become so big, it's gotten tougher for the company to keep its revenue growing faster than inflation."

You know what they say, the bigger they are the harder they fall. :D 


I wounder if these are the same analysts who praised Phenom upon release.....

Analysts are funny. Most of them know nothing about computers so their basis for anything is uneducated. They are great at looking at things financialy but they should stick to that only.
October 16, 2008 9:21:55 PM

Let's be civil. Ive owned Intel and AMD cpus. My biggest question is how does i7 overclock without an fsb and locked multis?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2008 9:28:44 PM

^Same way AMDs CPU OC without a FSB or unlocked multi. They have a base clock, Core i7 will be 133MHz. You up that and the overall speed goes up. Problem is we don't know how stable that is. In fact most Phenoms that are non BEs don't OC that well without the unlocked multi so Core i7 might have the same thing.
October 16, 2008 11:11:49 PM

Howcome my A64s had a multi and fsb? I simply raised the fsb to OC. The multi was unlocked downwards. Where does base clock of 133 come from? Why 133 and not 200, 266, 400, etc? Will there only be whole multis? If so, you must OC in 133MHz jumps. Todays A64s and core duo/quads can overclock in like 10MHz increments based on a 10x multi.

How did the locked phenoms overclock if you couldn't raise the multi and there's no fsb? i7 with base 133MHz clock x 21 is 2.8GHz and x24 is 3.2GHz. I finished reading an article that says you won't be able to OC the locked i7's only the $1500 extreme edition you can OC and they don't OC well like the Phenoms don't OC well.

Will this mean the OCing days are over? Will only a tiny % of people with $1500 get to enjoy a small OC?
!