AMD blindsided?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Intel just didnt surprise AMD, they surprised nearly every one. No one was really expecting them to come back with such a bang, conroe procs just totally annihilates everything else out there today. Its not just next gen, its like next-next gen yet available next 2 weeks. :eek: .
 
Ed is an Intel !!!!!!. He always has been. They pay him well.

When socket 754 was released he bitched that it was too little too late. When socket 939 came around he said it was too expensive. When dual cores were made public, he said it was overkill. Then when AM2 was released he said itr was not worth anything over 939. And now he is spewing more FUD. It is the same Ed he always was. An Intel !!!!!!.
 
Drexion said:
Intel just didnt surprise AMD, they surprised nearly every one. No one was really expecting them to come back with such a bang, conroe procs just totally annihilates everything else out there today. Its not just next gen, its like next-next gen yet available next 2 weeks. :eek: .
Click to expand...


Considering that still to this day there havent been any fair apples to apples comparisons. And everything that has been made public was either done by big money sites that were overseen by Intel ,or by extreme overclockers, also financed by Intel.....
 
I don't think AMD was blindsided.

AMD knows what Intel is doing and vice versa. It's just how the industry works.

Intel will be King for a while and then it will be AMD's turn again. :p
 
but AMD's "turn" seems to be coming so far off... late 2007 at best....

and by then Intel will have Conroe successors all over the place.... and be on a better manufacturing process...

not to mention that AMD can't survive an Athlon XP style price war from now until then... (especially since it doesn't look like they'll have a knock out punch like the Athlon 64 again)
 
My, that wasn't biased at all. :rolleyes:

I love how people just ASSUME everything, thinking they know what's really going on. Let's face it, as consumers we know jack SHIT.
 
If anyone was blind sided it was Intel because they were getting beaten down by AMD for a while. Not that AMD is bad, I absolutely love AMD, but when people are saying "whats AMD? Are they new? These are faster then Intel?" theres an issue. I have faith that AMD will rise up again, especially after there attack with the AMD 64, anything is possible for them.
 
reddhaus said:
I don't think AMD was blindsided.

AMD knows what Intel is doing and vice versa. It's just how the industry works.

Intel will be King for a while and then it will be AMD's turn again. :p
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Drexion said:
Intel just didnt surprise AMD, they surprised nearly every one.
Click to expand...
"blindsighted" isn't very accurate, unless you count over 2 years of seeing where Intel was heading as a surprise.

The announcement of Tejas cancellation (death of NetBurst) was the first notice, the rise and performance demonstrations of Dothan then Yonah were the next huge clues and then there was the miscellaneous chatter by Intel over the years of CPU power (65W... targetted 2 years ago). It's been 11 months since Intel introduced NGMA and 5 months since AMD said "Intel has no idea what we have". Well, we know what both of them have now. :p

BTW, you can look up that Conroe was the replacement for Tejas (and several correct rumors like significantly shorter pipeline) as far back as 2004. AMD should know more than the average Joe who reads up on this kind of stuff. IMO, the problems are problems AMD doesn't want to discuss. Ed brings up at least one with the transistion to 65nm. By the time AMD has a next-gen core, so will Intel (Nehalem).
 
Everyone was blindsided.

AMD, like everyone else, was expecting Tejas and Jayhawk to come to fruitition. The K8L project was probably designed as a response to Tejas and so AMD took their time, knowing the weaknesses of the NetBurst uarch. Fortunately for Intel, and unfortunately for AMD, Intel had the resources for multiple design teams.
 
Yeah, I don't even read OCers.com anymore. It all comes across as an "I told you so" to both AMD and Intel at times. I think he genuinely believes that he should be running both companies.

Case in point:
"And if that holds true, I don't see how Hector Ruiz remains president of the company two years from now. If the message about momentum shrivels so easily, odds are somebody's going to shoot the messenger."
 
pxc said:
"blindsighted" isn't very accurate, unless you count over 2 years of seeing where Intel was heading as a surprise.

The announcement of Tejas cancellation (death of NetBurst) was the first notice, the rise and performance demonstrations of Dothan then Yonah were the next huge clues and then there was the miscellaneous chatter by Intel over the years of CPU power (65W... targetted 2 years ago). It's been 11 months since Intel introduced NGMA and 5 months since AMD said "Intel has no idea what we have". Well, we know what both of them have now. :p

BTW, you can look up that Conroe was the replacement for Tejas (and several correct rumors like significantly shorter pipeline) as far back as 2004. AMD should know more than the average Joe who reads up on this kind of stuff. IMO, the problems are problems AMD doesn't want to discuss. Ed brings up at least one with the transistion to 65nm. By the time AMD has a next-gen core, so will Intel (Nehalem).
Click to expand...

That statement would imply something new. AMD has not released any new processors. Same as 5 months ago, but with a few 200MHz bumped speed bumps. AMD seems to like being secretive. Their "new" thing isn't out yet, and it's anyone's guess as to when it will or what it will be. In either case AMD will probably wait until the Conroe launch to give Intel. the least room possible to maneuver. We do not know what AMD has.


We knew what Intel was going to do sence the Centrino came out. It was actually kind of supprising that it didin't happen sooner.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
AMD seems to like being secretive. Their "new" thing isn't out yet, and it's anyone's guess as to when it will or what it will be. In either case AMD will probably wait until the Conroe launch to give Intel.
Click to expand...
AMD has an Analyst Day every year where they are very unsecretive. :p AMD presents roadmaps and it's not "anyone's guess" on the 65nm, K8L or next gen core are due. All are scheduled to a month (December for 65nm) a quarter (Q2'07 for K8L) or half year (2H'07 for next gen... highly doubtful).

If AMD has anything "new" coming this month, it would have been on an analyst day presented roadmap in 2005 or 2006. It's not. AMD's weapon was "energy efficient" desktop processors "introduced" last month and barely appearing a couple of days ago. 4x4 is still vapor.
 
maybe AMD's big problem is that their SOI tech really doesn't work well as manufacturing processes get smaller? From what i've read, the electricity leakage gets much much worse as transistors get smaller for SOI, and that seems to be the tech that AMD has been relying on to get their procs cool and efficient in the first place....
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
AMD seems to like being secretive. Their "new" thing isn't out yet, and it's anyone's guess as to when it will or what it will be. In either case AMD will probably wait until the Conroe launch to give Intel. the least room possible to maneuver. We do not know what AMD has.
Click to expand...
Uninformed comments like these remind me of Germany in 1945. Rumors about secret weapons so powerful that they would turn the tide. When would the Wehrmacht unleash it? When Allied forces reached Berlin, of course.

Yeah, AMD is so secretive. No need to inform motherboard makers of this "new" thing or give them samples. Or give HP or MS a heads up. You'll just see it in action on the day of Conroe's launch.
 
duby229 said:
Ed is an Intel !!!!!!. He always has been. They pay him well.

.
Click to expand...


He is pretty straightforward, and I like his style. In this case, he's right though. Intel has bitch slapped AMD this round, and badly. AMD has been caught with the pants down and is fixing to grab some ankles... :D At this point they are going to beat AMD on performance straight up, and not only that, most likely it will be the CHEAPER cpu...


Just because you don't like a guy, doesn't mean he's wrong about something. The [H] is my first hit everyday, and about the only hardware forum I post in on any kind of regular basis, but I like stopping by overclockers to see what the hoopla is...


I will be building me a conroe rig in october. That will be my 6-8 month upgrade....
 
Killa_2327 said:
Not that AMD is bad, I absolutely love AMD, but when people are saying "whats AMD? Are they new? These are faster then Intel?" theres an issue. .
Click to expand...


I agree, when was the last time you saw an AMD commercial in primetime on TV? When was the last time you saw an Intel ad on TV?

Intel has the marketing down pat, it's one reason "joe sixpack" buys Intel, because he thinks his only other choice is a fruity, overpriced Mac!!!!


AMD needs to advertise better, and more often. Us hard core users know what's the deal, but we are a very small minority.
 
so at this point, is the enthusiast, and general consumer sentiment that .... AMD really does NOT have an answer for Conroe?

That is really the question at hand.... I dont want to hear about 2008 and beyond, nor do I want to hear about pre July 2006.... basically, as it stands, there is *no* answer to Conroe....
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
so at this point, is the enthusiast, and general consumer sentiment that .... AMD really does NOT have an answer for Conroe?

That is really the question at hand.... I dont want to hear about 2008 and beyond, nor do I want to hear about pre July 2006.... basically, as it stands, there is *no* answer to Conroe....
Click to expand...

$80-$130 Athlon 64's
$150-$250ish? Athlon X2's

To beat conroe? Nothing that we know of, but when I was thinking about getting a Socket A mobo and cpu for a cheap fileserver, price drops occured. You can now build a great pc for around $600(i'm talking gaming rig, x1800XT, gig 'o ram, decent hd), definitely a great answer to Conroe imo. Wait til the drops on X2's occur, tons of people will be buying them.

So even if my pc that costs $600ish aint as good as your conroe, it probably costed half the price and can play many games on high settings, talk about a deal.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
That statement would imply something new. AMD has not released any new processors. Same as 5 months ago, but with a few 200MHz bumped speed bumps. AMD seems to like being secretive. Their "new" thing isn't out yet, and it's anyone's guess as to when it will or what it will be. In either case AMD will probably wait until the Conroe launch to give Intel. the least room possible to maneuver. We do not know what AMD has.


We knew what Intel was going to do sence the Centrino came out. It was actually kind of supprising that it didin't happen sooner.
Click to expand...

AM2 processors are new, albiet not by much, but new nevertheless. Actually the FX62 was/is quite a chip.
 
Killa_2327 said:
$80-$130 Athlon 64's
$150-$250ish? Athlon X2's

To beat conroe? Nothing that we know of, but when I was thinking about getting a Socket A mobo and cpu for a cheap fileserver, price drops occured. You can now build a great pc for around $600(i'm talking gaming rig, x1800XT, gig 'o ram, decent hd), definitely a great answer to Conroe imo. Wait til the drops on X2's occur, tons of people will be buying them.

So even if my pc that costs $600ish aint as good as your conroe, it probably costed half the price and can play many games on high settings, talk about a deal.
Click to expand...

point taken, smart man

hopefully AMD doesn't bleed too much into the red, without them, we'd be using the functional equivalents of Williamettes
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
point taken, smart man

hopefully AMD doesn't bleed too much into the red, without them, we'd be using the functional equivalents of Williamettes
Click to expand...

Uhhh... *shudder* Willamette... *yeck*
 
AMD is not stupid... they know where their bread and butter is...

Lets educate:

AMD developed a SERVER architecture and adapted it to the desktop for you guys. Alot of people forget this...

Intel has developed another desktop architecture. As long as intel keeps pumping R&D into itanium, you will not see an intel desktop chip that competes with opteron in large servers... Big companies don't like overlap. Opteron is not a competitor to the conroe arch. it is a competitor to Itanium. Opteron scales very well, it is a true 64bit platform... it is everything in the server world that conroe is not and wasn't intended to be.

Conroe will go anywhere intel desktop chips are already going. And with vista release on the horizon, intel better prove that 64bit as a memory address extention only, is good enough to maintain that status quo.

conroe is wicked fast 32bit, but scale beyond 2 cores and then add in true 64bit support requirement and AMD still looks good on the back ends.

And before you give me talking points about how it's all RISC internally and EMT64 is just as good, ect... lets see some real benchmarks... as of yet the NDA isn't even up yet, and intel has done their very best, so far, to draw attention away from 64bit. It is certainly widely known that EMT64, currently, does not offer many % performance benefit (if at all), where AMD64 shows improvement all around... those DEC Alpha engineers were not put to waste.

I am not trying to tell you to pick sides... but that, I beleive, intel has done a good job *hyping* this release, where it looks to be the same old intel achitecture with just a better CPU, and in the server world, intel needs more then a faster 32bit CPU to make people want to chuck their opteron systems...

Now, if news was broken that intel, suddently stopped production and R&D on all itanium line... then AMD might be queued to worry that intel had a killer new serverside arch on the way.
 
Yashu said:
AMD is not stupid... they know where their bread and butter is...

Lets educate:

AMD developed a SERVER architecture and adapted it to the desktop for you guys. Alot of people forget this...

Intel has developed another desktop architecture. As long as intel keeps pumping R&D into itanium, you will not see an intel desktop chip that competes with opteron in large servers... Big companies don't like overlap. Opteron is not a competitor to the conroe arch. it is a competitor to Itanium. Opteron scales very well, it is a true 64bit platform... it is everything in the server world that conroe is not and wasn't intended to be.

Conroe will go anywhere intel desktop chips are already going. And with vista release on the horizon, intel better prove that 64bit as a memory address extention only, is good enough to maintain that status quo.

conroe is wicked fast 32bit, but scale beyond 2 cores and then add in true 64bit support requirement and AMD still looks good on the back ends.

And before you give me talking points about how it's all RISC internally and EMT64 is just as good, ect... lets see some real benchmarks... as of yet the NDA isn't even up yet, and intel has done their very best, so far, to draw attention away from 64bit. It is certainly widely known that EMT64, currently, does not offer many % performance benefit (if at all), where AMD64 shows improvement all around... those DEC Alpha engineers were not put to waste.

I am not trying to tell you to pick sides... but that, I beleive, intel has done a good job *hyping* this release, where it looks to be the same old intel achitecture with just a better CPU, and in the server world, intel needs more then a faster 32bit CPU to make people want to chuck their opteron systems...

Now, if news was broken that intel, suddently stopped production and R&D on all itanium line... then AMD might be queued to worry that intel had a killer new serverside arch on the way.
Click to expand...

But there have been benchmarks released for 64-bit on Woodcrest (which is same march). All this FUD about Intel not having a "true" 64-bit architecture is laughable. The only benefit other than users with more than 3G per process memory requirements to 64-bit is more registers. EM64T has the same number of registers, so your arguments are ridiculous.

What's happening is the AMD !!!!!!s are trying to salvage something, and now they're reverting to "but AMD makes SERVER and Intel only makes workstation chips!" nonsense. Problem is that when Woodcrest is established and shown to be clearly the better 2P platform, you'll have to further narrow your mantra to "well, it's better for 4P systems!". Then, of course, you'll be shocked to learn that Opteron will soon lose that crown as well because the FSB architecture can be hacked to scale to at least 4P systems. Then what will your comback be? "But it's got HyperTransport, and that sounds futuristic!" or "But what about 8P systems!? People NEED 8P systems!".

Give me a break. Most people who bloviate on these boards don't even care about servers.
 
so your arguments are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

dude, man...

EMT64 on intel is not the same as AMD64... this is well documeted, and the benchmarks back it up... on linux and windows x64, there shows no improvement on intel platform currently and there is marked (25%+) improvement on AMD64...

hell, look at the recent H benchmark test of vista ready PCs... intel EMT64 only shows an improvement on one single benchmark... and on all others the results are the EXACT same as 32bit. AMD64 shows a performance increase all around. If the implimentation is the same then explain these results... and it's not just the H benches... like I said, on linux AND windows... benchmarks show EMT64 is mostly emulation + memory address extention.

You can go on all day about internal RISC and micro ops... and registers... all that stuff is fine, except the benchmarks show that EMT64 is not a full implimentation... the documentation shows that EMT64 is not a complete implimentation.

and if intel did the same thing with conroe then it is a huge mistake. x64 vista will eventually allow the masses to gain a performance increase on their athlon64s... for free, basically...

Intel, once again, gives us the same thing... a faster 32bit CPU on the same platform.

Also, are you trying to say that the arch. will scale evenly to 4 cores? I am not sure... currently with opteron, I can have a dual socket system... with 4 cores... and run 4 processes at full speed... I am not sure you can even do this with current SMP xeon even with 2 processes... I think you lose a measurable % with every added processor over 1 on the xeon platform.

Buisness isn't all games... like I said... it's great intel has a fast new 32bit CPU... but as long as they are develping itanium, they are not going to overlap and compete with themselves in that market!
 
Yashu said:
dude, man...

EMT64 on intel is not the same as AMD64... this is well documeted, and the benchmarks back it up... on linux and windows x64, there shows no improvement on intel platform currently and there is marked (25%+) improvement on AMD64...

hell, look at the recent H benchmark test of vista ready PCs... intel EMT64 only shows an improvement on one single benchmark... and on all others the results are the EXACT same as 32bit. AMD64 shows a performance increase all around. If the implimentation is the same then explain these results... and it's not just the H benches... like I said, on linux AND windows... benchmarks show EMT64 is mostly emulation + memory address extention.

You can go on all day about internal RISC and micro ops... and registers... all that stuff is fine, except the benchmarks show that EMT64 is not a full implimentation... the documentation shows that EMT64 is not a complete implimentation.

and if intel did the same thing with conroe then it is a huge mistake. x64 vista will eventually allow the masses to gain a performance increase on their athlon64s... for free, basically...

Intel, once again, gives us the same thing... a faster 32bit CPU on the same platform.

Also, are you trying to say that the arch. will scale evenly to 4 cores? I am not sure... currently with opteron, I can have a dual socket system... with 4 cores... and run 4 processes at full speed... I am not sure you can even do this with current SMP xeon even with 2 processes... I think you lose a measurable % with every added processor over 1 on the xeon platform.

Buisness isn't all games... like I said... it's great intel has a fast new 32bit CPU... but as long as they are develping itanium, they are not going to overlap and compete with themselves in that market!
Click to expand...

Are we talking about two different things or are you using a red herring?

I'm talking about Intel's NGMA (Core 2 Duo/Conroe/Woodcrest), you're talking about old Netburst stuff. In 64-bit benchmarks Woodcrest looks like it's still outperforming Opteron in most benchmarks. There haven't been a lot of benchmarks out yet so I won't get too cocky, but I'm fairly sure Woodcrest is outperforming Opteron in most cases. Power usage is a draw since the CPU uses less power but the damn FB-DIMMs use more power.

And I'm talking about 4 _processors_. Woodcrest will most assuredly scale to 4 _cores_ (2 processors).
 
yes we are talking about the same thing...

I am not denying that this new CPU is fast...

what I am saying is that when you enable 64bit mode... you will get a measurable performance gain on AMD64, but intel will not for the most part...

Conroe may be still faster even with this leveling of the playing field... as the benchmarks you have seen may lead to... but I am just pointing out that, it would be nice if conroe showed the same type of performance increase...

in other words...

AMD64 in 64bit long mode, can handle a 64bit word length in one work cycle.
EMT64 breaks this 64 bit word length into more then one work cycle...

all I was trying to say was that in 64bit apps, the playing field will be a little more level. intel has a good new chip... but they did AGAIN what they always have done. faster 32bit CPU on same architecture.
 
Yashu , do you have any ideea what the late 2007/early 2008 Bloomfield is ? Or Nehalem ??
 
Yashu said:
...

in other words...

AMD64 in 64bit long mode, can handle a 64bit word length in one work cycle.
EMT64 breaks this 64 bit word length into more then one work cycle...

....
Click to expand...

Bat clue says you have no clue.

I would refrain from commenting on Conroe 64bit performance until we see some benchmarks.
 
fair enough. However, I am making an educated assumption because:

The benchmarks have already shown what I said to be 100% fact with current EMT64 on netburst.

Core2 is based mostly on core duo/solo that is already on the market. core is a 32bit only architecture. Unless core 2 is a completely new design from the bottom up (and it is not), EMT64 will still be just a cheap method of memory address extention for intel.

something you have to understand is this x64 stuff hit intel way by suprise... Intel put their stock in SSE... and they do SSE pretty well... that was their solution before AMD64 came about.

I know SSE is not the same... but intel created SSE to allow 128bit optimised calculations in a 32bit world..

and AMD is not innocent either... AMD has tacked on SSE support in the same way that intel has tacked on emt64...

there is a big difference between supporting the registers and the processor being designed from the beginning and built around it.
 
I have seen a couple of 64-bit Conroe benchmarks and they typically do better than their netburst counterparts. That said, the move from 32-bit to 64-bit gave AMD a larger boost than Intel's Conroe. Google around a bit; if I was able to find these benchmarks a month or so ago, I'm sure they are still out there.
 
Yashu said:
fair enough. However, I am making an educated assumption because:

The benchmarks have already shown what I said to be 100% fact with current EMT64 on netburst.

Core2 is based mostly on core duo/solo that is already on the market. core is a 32bit only architecture. Unless core 2 is a completely new design from the bottom up (and it is not), EMT64 will still be just a cheap method of memory address extention for intel.

something you have to understand is this x64 stuff hit intel way by suprise... Intel put their stock in SSE... and they do SSE pretty well... that was their solution before AMD64 came about.

I know SSE is not the same... but intel created SSE to allow 128bit optimised calculations in a 32bit world..

and AMD is not innocent either... AMD has tacked on SSE support in the same way that intel has tacked on emt64...

there is a big difference between supporting the registers and the processor being designed from the beginning and built around it.
Click to expand...
Hacked or not, the implementation is not important what matters is the resultant performance in the end utilizing 64Bit Code.

As well you got to keep in mind x87 is dissappearing with 64Bit, both AMD and Intel are moving towards using SSE instead. I wouldn't use NetBurst Architecture as a yard stick for 64Bit performance on Core 2 Duo, it's a huge assumption that it will behave the same on Core based products vs NetBurst based products.
 
yes that makes sense...

but you have the core architecture already being used in notebooks... and it is entirely 32bit.

now I thought that core2 was an enhanced version of this, not a redesign... suggesting that intel has tacked on EMT64 in the same way as they did with netburst, primarily as an extended memory adress purpose.

I understand that the final performace is the key... however, if customers are gaining performance on their existing AMD64 platforms by moving to 64bit, and the same migration on intel platform shows no performance increase... many people are going to wonder what the big deal about conroe really is... but at the same time... many people will not notice or care as long as it is faster.

I know I would prefer my processor to be able to take full advantage of 64bit word length.

I think intel has a good product on the desktop... but I am not sure it is quite as attractive in the server world *yet*. Opteron is a good product... and there aren't yet compelling reasons to convert platforms, say, if you use AMD already.

also... these coming AMD price cuts will help them some. it's not as if athlon64 is too slow to be useful yet.
 
Yashu said:
yes that makes sense...

but you have the core architecture already being used in notebooks... and it is entirely 32bit.

now I thought that core2 was an enhanced version of this, not a redesign... suggesting that intel has tacked on EMT64 in the same way as they did with netburst, primarily as an extended memory adress purpose.

I understand that the final performace is the key... however, if customers are gaining performance on their existing AMD64 platforms by moving to 64bit, and the same migration on intel platform shows no performance increase... many people are going to wonder what the big deal about conroe really is... but at the same time... many people will not notice or care as long as it is faster.

I know I would prefer my processor to be able to take full advantage of 64bit word length.

I think intel has a good product on the desktop... but I am not sure it is quite as attractive in the server world *yet*. Opteron is a good product... and there aren't yet compelling reasons to convert platforms, say, if you use AMD already.

also... these coming AMD price cuts will help them some. it's not as if athlon64 is too slow to be useful yet.
Click to expand...
Well my benches above already disprove that theory, there is performance gained with Woodcrest moving to 64Bit Extensions, regardless if they are tacked on or not.

Theoretically better is worthless, AMD has access to a 12.8GB/s of bandwidth with Socket AM2, but AMD's still loses to Conroe with it's "outdated" FSB architecture that can't even take advantage of all the banwidth Dual Channel DDR2-800 provides. Same issue applies with "true" 64Bit Support the AMD propaganda machine is churning out for AMD K8's. What matters in the end is better real world performance, not theoretically better.

Woodcrest is looking like it can take the 2P segments fine, it's the 4P -16P? or so systems that AMD should maintain a competitive edge against Intel considering Tigerton is not arriving till 2007, with Intel's MP offering still being based on NetBurst.

And it is incorrect to say there are no gains with EM64T, it just usally somewhat less I would say on NetBurst vs K8, K8 benefits a tad more, but Pentium 4's also do benefit form X86-64 too.

The price cut argument can be easily applied to basically the rest of the modern mainstream Pentium 4 90nm/65nm NetBurst based products, they aren't too slow at the majority of tasks either.

They wil help some, but for the high end desktop, above 200US AMD's price/performance is basically finished. Intel will have both the performance, power consumption, as well as performance/dollar crowns.

As well, Yonah is still based largely on Pentium M technology, with a few minor improvements, and is definitely not based on Core Architecture, it carries the Core brand name though, so that is why you mgiht be getting confused.
 
Yashu said:
but you have the core architecture already being used in notebooks... and it is entirely 32bit.
Click to expand...
Yonah is not Conroe. :p Conroe doesn't appear to be the EM64T hack that Prescott is.
 
coldpower27 said:
Well my benches above already disprove that theory, there is performance gained with Woodcrest moving to 64Bit Extensions, regardless if they are tacked on or not.

Theoretically better is worthless, AMD has access to a 12.8GB/s of bandwidth with Socket AM2, but AMD's still loses to Conroe with it's "outdated" FSB architecture that can't even take advantage of all the banwidth Dual Channel DDR2-800 provides. Same issue applies with "true" 64Bit Support the AMD propaganda machine is churning out for AMD K8's. What matters in the end is better real world performance, not theoretically better.

Woodcrest is looking like it can take the 2P segments fine, it's the 4P -16P? or so systems that AMD should maintain a competitive edge against Intel considering Tigerton is not arriving till 2007, with Intel's MP offering still being based on NetBurst.

And it is incorrect to say there are no gains with EM64T, it just usally somewhat less I would say on NetBurst vs K8, K8 benefits a tad more, but Pentium 4's also do benefit form X86-64 too.

The price cut argument can be easily applied to basically the rest of the modern mainstream Pentium 4 90nm/65nm NetBurst based products, they aren't too slow at the majority of tasks either.

They wil help some, but for the high end desktop, above 200US AMD's price/performance is basically finished. Intel will have both the performance, power consumption, as well as performance/dollar crowns.

As well, Yonah is still based largely on Pentium M technology, with a few minor improvements, and is definitely not based on Core Architecture, it carries the Core brand name though, so that is why you mgiht be getting confused.
Click to expand...

Um...weren't all Intel chips using very outdated FSB architecture up until this conroe release?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top