... why tha paranoia from intel? ... why they try to rule all? ... architecture or not, but the attitude stinks!!!

I find it humorous that the response to this news from Intel ends with, "The key is who has the better processor microarchitecture, and clearly that is Intel."

While I don't dispute this currently, as it's evident that the I7 is an outstanding CPU, it wasn't that long ago when Intel was throwing around clock speed in attempt to keep up with AMD's superior architecture. Of course, maybe this statement is in response to AMD's slight reemergence into competition with Intel.

The Intel reply of that it's not about IMC's, that AMD is throwing more cores at the problem, and six cores takes up valuable die space stinks of irony. It seems to me that's exactly the strategy Intel has employed in the past.

The fact that Instanbul adds performance, does not increase the thermal profile, and is socket compatible with existing servers is in line with AMD's strategy. Given the current state of the economy, releasing a drop in compatible proc that only requires a BIOS update (if even that) is cost effective than requiring a new systems altogether to support an improved mArch, regardless if that mArch is "better" or not.

Either way, competition is good - it brings in new products and better prices.

*SCRATCHES HEAD*

Didn't Intel release the first 6-core? Why is is a good idea when they do it, but when AMD does, its 'throwing' more cores at it?

Nah, the key is keeping up either way. And if AMD can keep up or exceed intel because of two more cores or better power performance due to die shrinks, then they've got the better processor despite how robust Intel's microarchitecture is.

In that market, more cores with less power req's is going to win, period.

Man, just reading some garbage like that makes me seriously sick. It actually makes me wanna take my Q6600 and motherboard and smash it. Seriously. AMD has seemed to always play a fair game even when they were wiping the floor with Intel. You didn't see them talk trash like THAT. CMON INTEL, throw me a friggin bone here. You don't like a little competition? They beat you to the punch with your 6 core chip... soooo WHAT.

6 cores, can we have 8 please ;-)

This is good for the market, even if it really isn't a better processor than the i7. If AMD ever couldn't keep up, we'd be left with one company...and that's only good for that company.

I'll probably never buy one, but i hope other people do.

yep, tipical intel attitude. that's why i hate them and i don't buy anything that is related to them. simply i hate intel because of they veryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery poor innovation when they are in monopoly. shame on you intel.

I have a feeling intel will rush their dual die i7 procc out in 2k10 to answer this. So I doubt you'll be waiting long.

Weird... I could have sworn I hit quote on Jsloan's post...

Didn't Anand run a review showing Nehalem to be about 50% faster than Shanghai in server application? Istanbul is 30% faster than Shanghai meaning 4 cores Nehalem is faster than 6 cores Istanbul.

Less cores = smaller die so AMD is cutting it close competing with Intel with inferior microarchitecture.

screw 6 cores AMD's roadmap has 12 core processors available by q1 2010 wait a year get double the cores =) .... one thing to say to Intel Fanboys... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA eat that.

intel makes me laugh....throwing more cores at a processor....like they are ones to speak. AMD has ALWAYS been the first of the two to come up with true multi core designs.... Pentium D, core 2 Quad, the coming 6 core cpu, all dual die processors. Wow intel, just wow. Of course i guess intel does like bragging on their microarchitectures....they liked the core 2 duo so much, they stuck 2 on 1 package and called it a "quad" core. Granted, it DID grind amd's barcelona's into the ground, but still, veyr lacking in innovation on intel's part. It seems like AMD is always behind intel on releases, but does a better job because they arent racing, they take their time - and oh ya, they cost nearly half as much at every price point.

And i am in no way a fanboy, all 3 of my computers run intel, this just had to be commented on.

i7's main advantage is hyperthreading, which turns that quad core into an effective 8 core chip. So a 6 core opteron may be able to keep up better with that quad core i7, at least until AMD can manage to start implementing SMT in their chips.

Should be interesting, 6 physical cores vs 4 physical and 4 virtual cores.

I just don't understand 6 cores. It is not a logical step from 4 cores.

but if it's a native 6 core cpu, than it's easyer to do a 12 core cmc or whatewer called "fused" cpu, or not ?

Turns out AMD will do that too in 2010. According to their server roadmap refresh they will have 8-12 cores per CPU (dual die, mcm or native... they didn't say in tech report's article).
Performance wise it's gonna be a close battle but AMD's die size will be huge and probably is going to cost them a small fortune to produce it. I sure hope that Bulldozer will bring some kind of SMT into the game.

ripbot264 my friends

AMD (and Intel) introduced 4-cores on their 65nm technology. In order to fit 8 cores in the same package, they would need to wait for sub-35nm technology. Since AMD and Intel are currently producing 45nm technology, 6-cores just makes sense, otherwise you'd have a ridiculously over-sized processor (say, isn't the Core I7 much larger than the old Core2-Quads?)

lol the fanboyism never stops

Not surprising to see this kind of statement from Intel. My company used to be a vendor for Intel, and the vitriol aimed at AMD from within that company comes through loud and clear when you meet with their management. They actually refused to utter the name "AMD" within Intel's walls. They always referred to them in the abstract. Like "competitors" in the statement above, or in less flattering terms. It was funny and disturbing at the same time. I really was amused by the fact that I was writing code (internal to my company) that supported the work we were doing for them on an AMD platform.

AMD throwing more cores at it is a perfectly logical solution. Core i7 is a bloated architecture, they had to add way too many transistors to it just to eek out a few more instruction per clock. Hyperthreading requires huge amounts of transistors, and only gives a neglible(if any) increase in performance.

What are the die-size and # of tranistors for a 6-core Opteron and Quad i7? What if AMD brings the dual-chip 8 and 12-core to market much sooner than expected? Intel may not have an answer to that one in the server arena...

Though they may not have the performance crown, AMD is heading in the right direction to reclaim it. 6 cores operating in the same wattage? I wish everything could be that efficient.

I still remember when they announced the first processor that ran at 1GHZ...it seems so long ago.

you all are idiots! just because Intel is big and AMD is getting screwed, you morons are bashing Intel.

You all would hate AMD if they are big and Intel is small.

Sure, AMD once cameup with new architecture and had a good run for a short awhile! Thats it. They couldn't repeat it. that says all about them!

Intel, what a freakin' douche! They can preach micro architecture all they want, but to many it just adds added expense for a minimal gain. This is why I chose a phenom II over an I7. What Intel fails to realize is that what made the core 2 duo so popular was that it gave users more performance at a comparible cost to AMD's chips. This is what made AMD so appealing in the athlon 64 era. The I7's are great at encoding video and running professional programs, but the majority of users don't need it. Most just want to play a game or watch a movie. You don't need triple channel DDR3 or an I7 for that. Also the Phenom 2 are holding their own in gaming as well. With the money saved, one could afford a sli or crossfire option or go for a really high end graphics card. That is practical, that is what the consumer wants. Intel is starting to sound like Apple more and more.

...no slick...its the point that while no one likes a sore looser, a sore winner by many is considered worse. When a competitor is CLEARLY in the lead it cheapens themselves and feelings towards the market in general when they flaunt it.

When AMD was kicking the bejesus out of Intel at no point do I recall them making comments like the one intel just did.

I use both companies parts on my systems. Core2 has been a great value platform for a while now. I7 is still waaaay over priced for my tastes. Each company has attractive offerings in general though for a mainstream user.

Actually, AMD has had the lead more than once. If you recall back when the Pentium was first introduced, AMDs 80486 processors were not only faster but also didn't have the Pentium's bugs.

If Intel had the market to itself, would we be running Itaniums now? Or would Intel even have seen the need to bring out faster / better desktop processors? Competition with IBM and Sun may have driven server processor improvements but may not have had an impact on the desktops.

The race for the fastest consumer processor has been good for the general public. And while I admit that Intel are frequently in the lead, I buy mainly AMD to ensure that the race continues.

Man, just reading some garbage like that makes me seriously sick. It actually makes me wanna take my Q6600 and motherboard and smash it. Seriously. AMD has seemed to always play a fair game even when they were wiping the floor with Intel. You didn't see them talk trash like THAT. CMON INTEL, throw me a friggin bone here. You don't like a little competition? They beat you to the punch with your 6 core chip... soooo WHAT.


LOL wut?

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/28775/135/