Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
gwai lo said:
Logan321 said:It's alright, Apple will hype that 20% up to 1 million percent for their macintels.
Realistically, a price per performance/watt is the comparison that needs to be made... and not just the cpu itself, but supporting hardware. Admittedly, once AM2 comes out, there will be less differences between the systems, b/c the same ram can be used for both. And once ddr2-800 is available, that may boost it up in AMDs favor as well, though Intel will probably support it once it's readily available anyway.
I'm not an AMDroid by any means... I just like supporting the little guy. Makes the competition work harder. Same reason I won't shop at wal-mart.
After your panties have dried up, and you've settled down somewhat, you can bet your ass Intel has what it takes to bring down any competitor. For a long period of time they had marketing monkeys dictating where the Intel ship should be going, but now that the real captains have taken over, I'm pretty confident they know what they're doing.FreiDOg said:Wait, Intel is saying their next chips are going to faster than the competition?
Stop the presses!!!!111elven11!!!.
...
SKy042 said:Price per performance/watt is like a ricer saying that his Honda 2000 makes 100HP/liter as an excuse for why he got beat by a 3Mpg 502 Chevy Big block....it's a lame argument unless it's still faster overall performance/watt regardless.
1c3d0g said:After your panties have dried up, and you've settled down somewhat, you can bet your ass Intel has what it takes to bring down any competitor. For a long period of time they had marketing monkeys dictating where the Intel ship should be going, but now that the real captains have taken over, I'm pretty confident they know what they're doing.
serbiaNem said:According to Tom's Hardware (eh..), socket AM2 with DDR2-667 is no faster (maybe a little slower) than what is out now. This is with unproven hardware though, so take it with a grain of salt.
You're absolutely right. Many/most of the single-cores, and even an X2 3800+, will be around 30W on AM2 when it launches. And this is without needing to migrate to 65nm, let alone 45nm.HmmmDonut said:Only 20%? That seems very small for a new arch. I seriously expecting 30% increase over A64's.
Plus AMD roadmap suggest that will hit PM tdp with the 90nm process. There is supposedly a X2 that will have a tdp of only 30w and this on the 90nm process. AMD is matching tdp on a larger process.
um. Keep in mind that the Conroe series has 4x the cache that the AMDs have and have 4 issue core instead of 3. Also, you are comparing AMD's LV cores with Intel's high voltage cores. When they release LV Conroe cores, then compare them with AMD LV cores.mavalpha said:You're absolutely right. Many/most of the single-cores, and even an X2 3800+, will be around 30W on AM2 when it launches. And this is without needing to migrate to 65nm, let alone 45nm.
Duke3d87 said:um. Keep in mind that the Conroe series has 4x the cache that the AMDs have and have 4 issue core instead of 3. Also, you are comparing AMD's LV cores with Intel's high voltage cores. When they release LV Conroe cores, then compare them with AMD LV cores.
One of the most interesting things about the new processors is their heat dissipation. Dual-core CPUs with F core stepping and up to 2.6GHz frequency and 2x1MB L2 cache will boast maximum 89W TDP. The today’s processors with similar technical specifications demonstrate 110W TDP at 2.2-2.4GHz core clock rate.
AMD managed to reduce the power consumption by optimizing the transistor leakage current.
ok and? They are still hitting a process limitation and have to work a lot harder to get it to work well. When you start adding more cache, you use more die space and then it costs more to produce your processor. Shrinking the die is a lot more about performance. It's also a big business move.Raudulfr said:Nonetheless...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060215195420.html
Who needs 65nm?
(Up to 2.6GHz, that's FX-60 to ya)
Raudulfr said:Nonetheless...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060215195420.html
Who needs 65nm?
(Up to 2.6GHz, that's FX-60 to ya)
They can also make a processor with 16 MB of L3 cache (dual core) based on netburst operate within 140 watt territory. That's 16 MB total at 140 watts. I believe that's a bit more then AMD's cache. And this is netburst we're talking about.savantu said:Because Intel can get with a 65nm cpu at 65w the performance of a AMD FX62 at 125w....
Besides , 65nm brings a lot of cost savings for Intel..
StealthyFish said:lol, and i'd believe an increase in performance around there... the pipes on it are 12-16 task...... how many does the X-2 have? please tell me? 17. Conroe is also supposed to come out with the top end at 1333mhz fsb and 3.3ghz clock... higher clock than any X-2 and less pipes than that X-2
Wrench00 said:Man I just have a hard time believing 20% increase..
Donnie27 said:I think it has more Pipes or 14 for Conroe and 12 for X2. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surpised if AMD didn't add at least two pipes for K10.
Buckus said:At least it doesn't have a 31 stage pipe. That's like trying to drink a Big Gulp through a 3 foot straw: It takes forever to get to your mouth.
I will belive it when I see it.serbiaNem said:According to the front page, Intel estimates that its next generation will beat AMD's offering by 20%. I sure hope so, maybe we can get some lower prices and faster chips soon.
empoy said:I suggest that we should have a sticky topic for Intel microarchitecture tutorials
I see a lot of mis-informed souls.
serbiaNem said:What would be the point? It seems like goin the larger pipe route would just kill the latency advantage AMD has built up.