CPU theater...a show or......

[SyPheR]

Hi all,

Somehow I have my big doubts about the reality of the whole fighting situation between Amd vs Intel. Let's face it....with nowadays nano technoligy capabilities it would not be hard for one of these hightech companies to just make a big step forward in development. They all do it step by step. Now you gotta ask yourself a question.....why not do bigger steps instead of leaps of 200 mhz progress per cpu or why bring dual core first instead of getting the quad core instead cause it's not a really big difference in technoligy. Ibm (a big cpu developer?) allready has proven how easy it is to make bigger steps in technoligy with it's Cell Cpu that has even 8 cores instead of 2 cores. So is this not just a hoax going on here to keep the people happy in believing all this? I've read somewhere that Intel for example allready has a 10 Ghz cpu developed. Now I'm not really sure if this is really true but to be honoust...I would not find it unbelievable if this is really true. So does the question who is the best...amd or intel really excist? I think we are a bit fooled. That's just my opinion. I would like some opinions about this. Some other point of views. I could be wrong (maybe) ps: excuse me for my bad english as I'm from The Netherlands

 

[nobly]

There is no such thing as the best.
AMD and Intel will fight it out for a long time. Sometimes AMD will lead, sometimes Intel will.

Its hard to make a big step forward. It takes years of research and development. Its not just one day engineers figure x and y out and the next day a whole new revolutionary product comes forth. I'd bet that Intel worked on Conroe for 2-3 yrs at least. And it takes a long time, especially when things get that small. You have to start worrying about the physics of it all, the physical limitations of the silicon... There's much more to it than meets the eye.

Intel definitely has the jump on AMD with its 45nm manufacturing that's coming up. Its just cuz they have more $ to throw at it. Does that make them better? Maybe... maybe not. Depends on what you, the consumer, wants. You want an efficient chip right now? Go get an Athlon64. You want a foot heater? Go get a p4 Prescott. (I've actually recommended them for that purpose to people).

If they did bigger steps you wouldn't see the selection of processors you do now. You'd see less... and they'd probably be overpriced more than they are now. Releasing things in 200Mhz steps eases chips into the market. They keep pushing the technology envelope. If they didn't we'd all be stuck in the Pentium 100Mhz age.

Please, everyone stop comparing Cell to an x86 chip. They are NOT the same. They will NEVER be the same. You cannot do that comparison. As for the Cell's 'cores', I prefer to call them execution pipes, because they are nothing w/o the SPE which does all the work.

 

[mpjesse]

Ugh... not another one of these threads.

Why does everyone with an opinion feel it necessary to express it with their own thread?

Your's is just one of 800 identical threads. No offense, but I'm tired of reading the same crap.

/me goes back under his rock

 

[LithiumSunset]

It's true that the battle for supremacy will never end. Especially as long as we have such defunct people in these forums who haven't a clue as to how to act INTELligent. I mean, INTELligence is where it's at these days.

Intel has made great strides in getting itself firmly planted into our living rooms. I see more and more media machines with the ole Intel logo on them. Their marketing seems to be headed that way.

It seems interesting to me that although Intel has made what appears to great strides in the development of their processors and yet, in some threads it's embraced while in others, it's totally flamed by the same people. I bet most fanboys have the opposite machines in their homes. Probably the biggest AMD fanboy is sitting there flaming Intel to death while using Mom and Dad's Intel machine. hehe :tongue:

 

[SidVicious]

Consider that 10 years ago, 33 more MHz out of a CPU was a quantum leap foward, we'll probably see CPUs scale by hops of 333MHz in late 2006 and 2007.

Even then, the MHz race is a thing of the past, the current fad is multi-core CPUs, the overhyped "cell" processor is a proof of that new direction.

You need to keep in mind that the "cell" processor is not based on the x86 legacy and therefore incompatible with current software without the help of an emulator.

Same goes for an hypothetical 10GHz CPU, even if it were possible to make such a (x86 compatible mind you) CPU, the sheer cost in R&D would'nt make that piece of hardware viable on the current market.

The market account for a lot in computer hardware development, even if a manufacturer were to relase a dirt cheap, x86 compatible, 8 core CPU running at 10GHz each, the human (be it the programmers who code the software or the users using the said software) would be the limiting factor, such an endeavour would be a financial disaster for whoever drop such a bomb on the current market.

 

[SyPheR]

Nevermind guys...I'm sorry but I had a bit too much beer last night and you are right. It just takes time to develope a cpu...that's why they always downclock their cores to make profit of it for a longer period of time. God blesh overclocking

 

[Crashman]

Both AMD and Intel have been known in the past to hold their technology back for as much as six months, to "milk the cow" on what's already available. ATI and nVidia have done the same thing. It turns the business into "progressive steps" rather than "leaps and bounds".