Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD's next big thing?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 14, 2009 4:39:02 PM

It looks to me like AMD is behind Intel as of i7. What's AMD's next big thing? I haven't heard much of anything about AMD in a long time and I believe they are due for a breakthrough bigger than Intel, prolly next year. What does anyone else think?

More about : amd big thing

September 14, 2009 4:46:56 PM

well the new ati cards will be first, they look promising then well see
m
0
l
Related resources
September 14, 2009 4:56:52 PM

A Phenom x6 would be a start and the AM3 socket is an improvement but they are due for a break through. I've been reading about i7 and I thought it was supposed to be some kind of monster but the i7 isn't much different than the C2Q other than the DDR3 memory controller. I'm not impressed with Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 7:23:24 PM

ozzman24 said:
A Phenom x6 would be a start and the AM3 socket is an improvement but they are due for a break through. I've been reading about i7 and I thought it was supposed to be some kind of monster but the i7 isn't much different than the C2Q other than the DDR3 memory controller. I'm not impressed with Intel.


are u kiddin??? i7 is far far away from any other cpu outhere, be that intel or amd. there is even no real need for i7 on the market. intel is just showing muscles.

i cant wait to see how much heat 6 cores will produce... AMD barely hold up these days.

for the record, I prefer nether intel nor amd, i am "competition" fan.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 7:31:33 PM

6 cores will be useless, unless they come up with an x6 CPU that has 12Mb L3 cache..... which I doubt.....

m
0
l
September 14, 2009 7:33:42 PM

jimishtar said:
are u kiddin??? i7 is far far away from any other cpu outhere, be that intel or amd. there is even no real need for i7 on the market. intel is just showing muscles.

i cant wait to see how much heat 6 cores will produce... AMD barely hold up these days.

for the record, I prefer nether intel nor amd, i am "competition" fan.

It makes no difference to me either, really. I was just thinking about buy some AMD stock since it's low. They've not had a breakthrough in a long time and what's to say they won't?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 7:43:12 PM

i personally believe that intel and amd work together to keep the balance. there is no way that amd or intel will banish someday. they co-exist for a reason, there must be a competition, but the cookie is only for the 2 of them, no room for other brands.

if amd makes a breakthrough, it will only be to do a refresh in public's eyes, i am sure intel will be on top again in no time. i wish the cpu battle was the same as the gpu one.
Share
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 7:47:14 PM

AMD Preparing ''Thuban'' Desktop Six-Core Processor

AMD is planning to create a desktop implementation of its Opteron "Istanbul" monolithic six-core processor. Codenamed "Thuban" (named after a star in the Draco constellation, which means Dragon), the new processor will be based on the socket AM3 package for compatibility with existing and future desktop core logic. It features six cores, 9 MB of total cache (6 x 512 KB L2 + 6 MB L3). Thuban is aimed to make for AMD's high-end desktop processor, as the company prepares to face competition from a near-complete lineup of processors based on the Nehalem/Westmere architectures from Intel. It is expected to be the posterboy for AMD's "Leo" high-end consumer desktop platform that succeeds its current Dragon platform.

Some of the key components that make up AMD Leo platform are the upcoming AMD 890FX and 890GX chipset, companion SB800 series southbridge chips, and members of AMD's Evergreen family of DirectX 11 compliant graphics processors. On the software front, AMD will give its Fusion and Overdrive utilities some big updates. The SB800 series southbridge chips will feature native support for SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0; connectivity is further enhanced by integrated Broadcom MAC Ethernet interfaces. While the Leo platform is expected to launch almost simultaneously with the 8-series chipsets, the six-core Thuban processor on the other hand comes later. It is due only in Q3 2010. Thuban will have come out an year after its enterprise implementation in the form of Opteron "Istanbul".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 7:58:24 PM

I don't see the Thuban being any better than a 965be..... We really don't need more cores, we need a more powerfull quad with more L3 cache..... Something that can whip the i5 750 to the curb and be able to brag about, this of course will not happen anytime soon....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 8:02:51 PM

going beyond 4 cores with todays tech will require water cooling as the minimum standard. My guess is that the future cpu architectures will be based on the gpgpu technology (something like nvidia's cuda & ati's steam).
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 8:08:17 PM

I agree. More than 4 core's on most desktops would be useless unless you edit HD film or have it set up like a recording studio. They are going to have to make improvements else where.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 8:09:18 PM

i wanna get my hands on a 890gx
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 14, 2009 8:13:03 PM

jimishtar said:
are u kiddin??? i7 is far far away from any other cpu outhere, be that intel or amd. there is even no real need for i7 on the market. intel is just showing muscles.

i cant wait to see how much heat 6 cores will produce... AMD barely hold up these days.

for the record, I prefer nether intel nor amd, i am "competition" fan.


are u kiddin??? The i7 is about 10% ahead in some tasks , and behind in some too . Its a good processor but for uses like gaming its really poor value

As for AMD's future .. well with intel facing all those fines they will be having to rethink marketing practices . The current anti trust fines date from years ago when the Athlon 64 was top of the heap and embarassing intels P4 . Who knows what other issues intel may face .

I did read too that AMD has started work on a 22 nm FAB Intel may transition to 32 nm soon but in 2010 they will be left behind . A 6 core 22nm die will be cheaper than a quad at 45nm [ or 32nm] and it will probably draw less than todays dual cores .

Worth thinking about

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 8:18:42 PM

can u name a cpu that is better than i7 ?
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 8:24:26 PM

We don't want more cores: we want more cache, faster clockspeeds and better architectures, anything else looks good only on paper.

It seems both AMD and Intel can't deliver on that, they're trying to keep Moore's Law afloat by increasing the number of cores, but the performance of those designs suffers from the law of diminishing returns.

I'm still waiting for that 10ghz CPU, now that would be a revolution!
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
September 14, 2009 8:36:53 PM

Here's what I have seen in AMD's public roadmaps. This is just about everything that anybody knows as saying more than that and posting it would be getting a nasty letter from AMD's legal department as you would have broken an NDA somewhere.

1. The "next big thing" we know is coming out of AMD is the >4-core "Orochi" CPU in 2011. Orochi will be a 32 nm CPU based on the upcoming Bulldozer microarchitecture and use DDR3 memory.

2. The only confirmed six-core CPUs coming out of AMD before Orochi are server CPUs. We already have the six-core Opteron "Istanbul" and there will be an updated, DDR3-using variant of that debuting next year (Socket C32 Opteron 4xxx "Lisbon.") The "Thuban" AM3 six-core is an unconfirmed rumor.

3. The six-core CPUs coming out of AMD before 2011 have 6 MB L3, just like the current Istanbul Opterons...because they are only slightly tweaked Istanbul dies. The Istanbul has a huge ~350 mm^2 die size already- doubling the L3 cache size without a process node shrink would make it absolutely enormous and give poor yields.

And for the rest of the comments I have read:

- The existing six-core Opteron CPUs are rated at either 55W ACP/79 W TDP (2.00 and 2.10 GHz), 75 W ACP/115 W TDP (2.20, 2.40, and 2.60 GHz), or 105 W ACP/137 W TDP (2.80 GHz.) Those are not all that high of numbers considering AMD's ACP is roughly equivalent to Intel's TDP on the (quad-core) Nehalems. AMD's TDP is the product of Icc_max and Vcc_max, which is a separate figure in Intel's Nehalem datasheets and not the TDP.

- AMD holds up pretty well in all but the very high end on Windows. The Phenom IIs compete very well with the Core 2s and Pentium Dual Cores, which is most of Intel's product lineup. The fastest Phenom IIs also do pretty well against the lower-end Nehalems in gaming, since quite a few modern games are optimized for three or four cores. Three active cores is enough to knock the massive 667 MHz top-speed Turbo Boost in the Lynnfields down to 133 MHz but not enough threads to let the i7s' HyperThreading add much of anything. Sure, the i7 Extreme Editions are a lot faster than the Phenom IIs, but the number of people who buy $1000+ Extreme Edition CPUs is VERY small. If you run Linux (more people run Linux than run Extreme Edition CPUs, I will guarantee you that!), the nod goes towards the Phenom IIs since the $563 i7 870 has its work cut out for it battling with a ~$100 Phenom II X3 710, let alone a Phenom II X4. The Core i7 Bloomfields do well in Linux, but it's a much closer race between them and the Phenom IIs in Linux than it is Windows.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 8:42:36 PM



Quote:
This is just about everything that anybody knows as saying more than that and posting it would be getting a nasty letter from AMD's legal department as you would have broken an NDA somewhere.


Your kiding right?
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
September 14, 2009 9:07:34 PM

OvrClkr said:
Quote:
This is just about everything that anybody knows as saying more than that and posting it would be getting a nasty letter from AMD's legal department as you would have broken an NDA somewhere.


Your kiding right?


Only a little.

AMD has been pretty tight-lipped about future products. Ask anybody from there who would know about future products and they'll pretty much invariably say "look at the roadmap/trade show presentation. That's what we can tell you right now." There are a lot of rumors and speculation out there, many of which turn out to be garbage, so I only really trust what the roadmaps say. If you actually knew something that wasn't on a roadmap or in a released slideshow (as opposed to just guessing like The Inquirer and some others often do), then odds are somebody broke an NDA to get that information to you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 9:13:35 PM

I agree, but that would only apply to non-forum websites/blog's etc.... Tom's alone has more than a million misleading/irrelevant posts to this date....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 9:15:06 PM

I thought Phenom II was AMD's 'breakthrough'.

Btw i7 is extremely powerful. You don't see benefit much in games because the GPUs are still the bottleneck. Just wait til the tri/quad fire 5870 setups and the next gen, that's when I think we'll see these processors really shine.
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 9:16:23 PM

Gulli said:
We don't want more cores: we want more cache, faster clockspeeds and better architectures, anything else looks good only on paper.

It seems both AMD and Intel can't deliver on that, they're trying to keep Moore's Law afloat by increasing the number of cores, but the performance of those designs suffers from the law of diminishing returns.

I'm still waiting for that 10ghz CPU, now that would be a revolution!


Forget it, the GHz race was a dead end resulting in huge power and heat problems. Intel and AMD then started their core race... which will end probably in the same way. When AMD introduced their 64 bit cpu, a huge gain was supposed to be seen compared to 32 bit applications, but it didn't change anything since Windows is holding back any real benefit of using the technology.

What really need to be done is a pure 64 bits platform which game developers will want to change their coding ways for matching the new reality... instead they want to program xbox 360 games for the next 10 years...
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 9:24:41 PM

jimishtar said:
can u name a cpu that is better than i7 ?

I don't believe so but I'll stick with my Q9300 for now. i7's yet to impress me, especially at the prices they want?!
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 9:40:35 PM

Raidur said:
I thought Phenom II was AMD's 'breakthrough'.

Btw i7 is extremely powerful. You don't see benefit much in games because the GPUs are still the bottleneck. Just wait til the tri/quad fire 5870 setups and the next gen, that's when I think we'll see these processors really shine.

The Phenom II, to me isn't much of a breakthrough, it's just a Phenom with a DDR3 controller, little higher bus speeds, and a new socket, Right? I don't know exactly what I mean just yet. Neither Intel nor AMD has made any kind of impression on me yet. I was an AMD fanboy when the Athlons were king, just recently move to Intel (Q9300) by choice, merely outta curiosity. I could go either way when I decide to upgrade again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 9:43:29 PM

@ stock you really wont see a perfromance gain compared to the Core2Quads.... Of course once the 920 is around 3.5GHZ+ then you can really see why they are at the top....
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 9:47:36 PM

OvrClkr said:
@ stock you really wont see a perfromance gain compared to the Core2Quads.... Of course once the 920 is around 3.5GHZ+ then you can really see why they are at the top....

See, I think we should see performance at a stock level.
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 9:53:04 PM

OvrClkr said:
@ stock you really wont see a perfromance gain compared to the Core2Quads.... Of course once the 920 is around 3.5GHZ+ then you can really see why they are at the top....


It doesn't change the fact that you need 400$ of graphic cards to see a marginal gain over a Phenom II. It's another story when you crossfire 2 4890 or SLI 2 GTX285. Still, not many can afford such setup.

If you take into account triple channel memory and a ridiculous 300$ mobo on LGA1366, the i7 was really a joke for enthusiasts...

Still, the new LGA1156 is what Intel should have done from the start. With a mobo costing 100$, there is no real reason to go with a Phenom II anymore.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 9:58:25 PM

ozzman24 said:
See, I think we should see performance at a stock level.


I agree 100% with you, Intel should have at least started out the clock at 3.0Ghz and not 2.66Ghz like they did... This way less peeps would have complained about the price to performance issue compared to AMD....Then on top of that Intell had the nutz to sell a chip for a grand that is not even worth paying attention to.... So in all Intel had to release the i5 750 just to get that monkey off of their back... Once Intel lowers the price on the 920, then we will be able to firmly state the the 920 is a great CPU at a great price.....
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 10:06:53 PM

OvrClkr said:
I agree 100% with you, Intel should have at least started out the clock at 3.0Ghz and not 2.66Ghz like they did... This way less peeps would have complained about the price to performance issue compared to AMD....Then on top of that Intell had the nutz to sell a chip for a grand that is not even worth paying attention to.... So in all Intel had to release the i5 750 just to get that monkey off of their back... Once Intel lowers the price on the 920, then we will be able to firmly state the the 920 is a great CPU at a great price.....


It's not the cpu price tag that itch peoples, it's the LGA1356 platform that is totally unaffordable.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 10:11:42 PM

OvrClkr said:
I agree 100% with you, Intel should have at least started out the clock at 3.0Ghz and not 2.66Ghz like they did... This way less peeps would have complained about the price to performance issue compared to AMD....Then on top of that Intell had the nutz to sell a chip for a grand that is not even worth paying attention to.... So in all Intel had to release the i5 750 just to get that monkey off of their back... Once Intel lowers the price on the 920, then we will be able to firmly state the the 920 is a great CPU at a great price.....


Yeah, if intel played the stock clock game like AMD did they would have smashed AMD to pieces.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 10:39:36 PM

intel doesnt want to smash amd to pieces. none does.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 10:45:40 PM

jimishtar said:
intel doesnt want to smash amd to pieces. none does.


Yes they must love being known as the corporation who can't put down it's competitor at 1/10th the size.

You know what, you're talking rubbish. M$ had years and years of being a true monopoly and look at them now. With AMD gone, intel would be a true monopoly. The only reason AMD aren't gone is because #1 AMD have better engineers and #2 AMD are the chip makers of the people.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 11:05:23 PM

redgarl said:
It's not the cpu price tag that itch peoples, it's the LGA1356 platform that is totally unaffordable.


Yea but now at days you can get a good x58 mobo for cheap :

ASRock X58 Extreme LGA 1366
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

and if you can buy your CPU at microcenter then it is no brainer :

Core i7 920 Processor Boxed
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...

in all you can build a 750/920 rig for almost the same price.... ;) 


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 11:07:23 PM

jennyh said:
Yes they must love being known as the corporation who can't put down it's competitor at 1/10th the size.

You know what, you're talking rubbish. M$ had years and years of being a true monopoly and look at them now. With AMD gone, intel would be a true monopoly. The only reason AMD aren't gone is because #1 AMD have better engineers and #2 AMD are the chip makers of the people.


"Better engineers"?? LOL -

If that were true, why hasn't AMD regained the performance crown in the last 3+ years and counting?

"Chip makers of the people"??? What are you - some sorta leftover hippie "power to the peeplez" type?? :D  Only Frito-Lay can lay claim to that title :pfff: 

Hate to break it to ya, but both AMD and Intel are corporations - they are only interested in their bottom line -- making money. Unfortunately, only Intel has had any success at same :D ...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 11:07:35 PM

chill out dude. u talk rubbish.

#1 none will allow a monopoly in any IT segment, be that cpu or gpu or whatever. keep that in mind, i already said, intel and amd will always be there.
#2 "Advanced Micro Devices was founded on May 1, 1969, by a group of former executives from Fairchild Semiconductor. The company began as a producer of logic chips in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor." basically, copied intel old technology, for which intel must had given a permission first.
#3 amd aren't gone cause the market need them. u are right, it is a people-chip maker. but sometimes it seems to me that its intel's chip maker for the people.
m
0
l
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 14, 2009 11:09:18 PM

ozzman24 said:
A Phenom x6 would be a start and the AM3 socket is an improvement but they are due for a break through. I've been reading about i7 and I thought it was supposed to be some kind of monster but the i7 isn't much different than the C2Q other than the DDR3 memory controller. I'm not impressed with Intel.


Unless you are looking purely at single GPU gaming at mid res then you are wrong. In everything but gaming Core i7 blows everything away by 50-100% (1-2x faster).

In terms of the actual CPU then a i7 is nowhere near the same as a C2Q.

And in terms of multiple GPU high res gaming, Core i7 beats most by a 30% margin due to better scaling.

jennyh said:
Yes they must love being known as the corporation who can't put down it's competitor at 1/10th the size.

You know what, you're talking rubbish. M$ had years and years of being a true monopoly and look at them now. With AMD gone, intel would be a true monopoly. The only reason AMD aren't gone is because #1 AMD have better engineers and #2 AMD are the chip makers of the people.


Actually if you look at it every major corp at one time in history did not put down a company 1/10th its size. Hell in the 80s when Honda first truly came to the US as a company they were doing so horrible that they almost withdrew completely until Ford actually infused them with cash to stay alive. Thats right. Now in a strange ironic twist, Honda easily beats out Ford due to being a bit better for many years, well at least until recently.

To your point #!, not really. You realize their IMC came from DEC-Alpha who they bought. Most of thier process nodes come from IBM. In all actuallity their engineeres don't really do anything except think of the core logic. Most of the actual technology comes from outside their think tank. And #2 no they are not. They are another corporation. If Phenom IIII (say they do the same naming for a bit) blows Intel out of the water you better believe they wont be only in the price/performance segment. They will jack the prices of their CPUs up to make money just like they did with Athlon 64/X2 that killed Pentium 4 and Pentium D.

Don't be blinded to think there is any company out there that truly feels the consumer is their friend. They don't. Only ones who do that are mom and pop stores who don't exist because ginat corporizations wipe them out. AMD is like Intel, just smaller. Out for the money to line their share holders pockets with and keep them happy. Both will do what they can to make money.

But yes the HD5K series looks great. And I hope ATI does well this round and doesn't get squasehd out by nVidias trickery with game optimizations.... or at least pushes to get the games optimized for Radeon too......
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 11:18:29 PM

one more thing. some of the low clocked Pentium 4's actually have a typical resistor on them, right under the heat-spreader. its purpose is to lower the clock speed. take it out and simply put a wire to make a circuit. u instantly get 4 Ghz with less heat than before (resistors generate heat). u can do this yourself if u don't belive me.

my point is, its not that intel(amd) can't make 6 GHz quad core with 120 MB cache. the reason is simple - they dont need to. they make tons of money already. the very best technology goes for the military. what we are using is simply the old leftovers.
m
0
l
September 15, 2009 12:33:10 AM

jennyh said:
#2 AMD are the chip makers of the people.

I agree to that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2009 12:48:12 AM

jimishtar said:
one more thing. some of the low clocked Pentium 4's actually have a typical resistor on them, right under the heat-spreader. its purpose is to lower the clock speed. take it out and simply put a wire to make a circuit. u instantly get 4 Ghz with less heat than before (resistors generate heat). u can do this yourself if u don't belive me.

my point is, its not that intel(amd) can't make 6 GHz quad core with 120 MB cache. the reason is simple - they dont need to. they make tons of money already. the very best technology goes for the military. what we are using is simply the old leftovers.

I've always heard this and i'm very skeptical that the military is miles ahead of civilians with processing power.
m
0
l
September 15, 2009 1:08:00 AM

That could be true and prolly is.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2009 1:11:24 AM

Sooo, the military might have 5ghz octi-core with 4-way hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 15, 2009 1:59:26 AM

bige420 said:
I've always heard this and i'm very skeptical that the military is miles ahead of civilians with processing power.


bige420 said:
Sooo, the military might have 5ghz octi-core with 4-way hyperthreading.


Actually it is more than likely true. Consdier this:

The internet was discovered by some guy in his basement and his friends. But the first to utiliz it was the Government including the Military. Then it went to the schools and Universities. Then finally down to the ommon man.

Fiber Optic based internet (such as Verizons FiOS) has been the backbone internet for Colleges for many years and the Government has been using it for the military for at least 10+ years.

We the people don't tend to get the good stuff until a few years after the military/government. While it has gotten much better in the recent years (we don't seem to wait as long as before) it still is a fact that the military does get technology before civilians and it then gets handed down to us at the lowest level of all.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
September 15, 2009 2:19:11 AM

Raidur said:
I thought Phenom II was AMD's 'breakthrough'.


I would have thought the original Phenom would have been as it added a lot of new technology. The Phenom II is little more than a die shrink, more cache, and a slightly tweaked memory controller. The Phenom II just did much better as it was on time, clocked well, wasn't buggy, and had much better thermal characteristics than the Phenom.

Quote:
Btw i7 is extremely powerful. You don't see benefit much in games because the GPUs are still the bottleneck. Just wait til the tri/quad fire 5870 setups and the next gen, that's when I think we'll see these processors really shine.


To tell the honest truth, the i7 is really waiting for games to use more than 3-4 threads so it can put its HyperThreading to good use. The current trend of games having 3-4 heavy threads is about the worst-case scenario for the i7 as enough cores are loaded to only get one bin of Turbo Boost but not enough threads to get anything out of HyperThreading. Also, I am not sure how much of the better scaling of the i7 Bloomfield in multi-GPU setups is due to the CPU. The X58 chipset may have better PCIe bandwidth than the 4-series Intel units and AMD's 700-series chipsets and allow for better scaling. Nothing else besides i7s (and the almost-identical Xeon 5500 series) uses the X58 chipset so that would be a really hard theory to test.
m
0
l
September 15, 2009 2:23:05 AM

Form my understanding, the next big thing will be an architecture improvement with the 32nm process. I also think those 32nm CPUs will be something like AMD Genesis or Alchemy, not Phenom.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2009 2:36:00 AM

Gulli said:
We don't want more cores: we want more cache, faster clockspeeds and better architectures, anything else looks good only on paper.

It seems both AMD and Intel can't deliver on that, they're trying to keep Moore's Law afloat by increasing the number of cores, but the performance of those designs suffers from the law of diminishing returns.

I'm still waiting for that 10ghz CPU, now that would be a revolution!


bige420 said:
Sooo, the military might have 5ghz octi-core with 4-way hyperthreading.



unless there water-cooling those cpu's or there made out of something other than silicon i have a had time believing there going to be 5+ GHz. When Intel's p4 came around people though we would see 10+ GHz in that line in just a few short year but it didn't happen. The reason why is because we have reach the limitations of silicon. Mainly heat is the issue.

So Intel and Amd came up with the idea of instead of increasing the hertz to get more done, they just chose to add more cores. Which for multi-tasking like most of use are today is a better route than just simply increasing speed.

So until there a new material that cpu made out of that can handle heat better Intel and Amd wont go beyond selling 4 GHz stocked cpus any time soon.
m
0
l
September 15, 2009 2:57:38 AM

AMD's next big thing; higher frequencies and wattages. They're going to have to Prescott it until they do a shrink or come out with a new arch.

Perhaps their next processor will have a stock water cooler... (just kidding)
m
0
l
!