Intel's Changed Information Strategy
However, our preparatory work was not in vain, since having access to systems from different sources makes it possible to compare test results. In addition, the high availability makes it pretty clear that Intel is working vehemently on introducing dual core technology to the mainstream.
Sorry Guys, Clock Speed Does Matter!
Of course, one can't help but wonder why Intel finally decided to make this change. From a technology point of view, dual core desktop products are ready, so the impetus here might be pressure from the competition.
Let's go back to performance levels at non-thread-optimized applications (e.g. games), since they will remain the driving force for upping processor performance for many months. In this sector, AMD scores better than Intel, with the Athlon 64 3800+ and 4000+ at 2.4 GHz keeping pace with any Pentium 4 processor, and even overtaking them in certain areas. In addition, AMD's energy management system, Cool & Quiet, is more efficient, since the core clock is reduced to as little as 800 MHz whenever performance is not required. In contrast, Intel remains at 2.8 GHz for "political reasons."
According to our information, Intel likely won't provide dual core Smithfield processors exceeding 3.2 GHz, as higher clock speeds would blast the 130 W thermal envelope of Intel's 2005 platform. This represents a reduction in basic clock speed of 600 MHz from the 3.8 GHz single CPU maximum. The interesting thing is that AMD's dual core Toledo samples have been seen at up to 2.4 GHz, which is pretty much the level an AMD desktop single core runs today (except for the FX-55). If AMD really managed to introduce a dual core that runs at close to or the same clock speed as its single core versions, it would likely outperform Intel's dual core portfolio in all areas. In addition, Intel requires a new platform and DDR2-667 memory, while AMD could wrangle impressive performance that is upgradeable to Socket 939 systems with only the addition of DDR400 SDRAM.
