keithlm :
Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that Intel created something and then abandoned it for years and didn't bother using it one their mainstream processors until another company showed them that it was in fact a good idea. But somehow that is "spin".
Sadly... nothing you said supports your implied argument. It's still not important.
And yes... you are delusional.
Well Intel did not feel they needed an Integrated Memory Controller. And in fact they were right. Intel did not beat K8 by using an IMC and a Point to Point interconnect. Intel beat K8 using a P6 derived processor (see Intel Core 2) which relied on a Front Side Bus and a chipset (Comprised of a North bridge which housed the Memory Controller and South bridge).
This format was enough to allow Intel to regain the performance lead.
That having been said Intel is a Corporation and wants to dominate all the markets in which it's products are sold. So Intel brought back the idea of an Integrated Memory Controller (which they still used on several of their products such as the X-Scale lineup). They dubbed this new architecture Nehalem (which is, for the most part, a Core 2 with a point to point interconnect and an IMC). This is meant to increase performance in MP systems (high end server/workstations). When many nodes (CPUs) are connected together.. the bottleneck becomes the communications protocol used (formerly referred to as being a Bus). Intel rectified this with QPi. But having a single memory controller in an I/O Hub also posed another bottleneck. Therefore Intel opted to integrate the memory controller into the processor. This allowed the processor to communicate directly with the memory rather than doing so through an IOH. When you have something to the tune of 8x Quad Core Processors attempting to access memory through a single IOH.. things are bound to get pretty crammed.
So Intel brought back the Integrated Memory Controller out of sheer need in order to compete with their competitors.
Now having stated all that.. I still have to ask. What is your line of reasoning? How can you reason that "intent" somehow diminishes accomplishment. Please share this with us all (I've only asked about 3 times now).
AMDs accomplishment when it comes to an IMC is to have it used across their entire product line (even when not specifically needed).
PS. I'm not delusional. I stick to the evidence.. you're the one attempting to straw man the argument with unreasonable claims. You might also want to refer to the definition of the word "Delusional" as it suits you perfectly:
de⋅lu⋅sion
/dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
Use delusional in a Sentence
See web results for delusional
See images of delusional
–noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion:
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.