Intel is once again utilizing a front side bus for its next generation of processors. In fact, the plan is to use the bus to communicate between the two dual cores in their planned double double (quad core) CPU's. Sure, the front side bus is still viable, but it pales in comparison to AMD's direct connection through Hyper-Transport.
This disparity, I predict, will cause exponentially greater differences in performance between the conroe and K8L generation of processors, especially when they both move to quad core and 65nm. I would also like to keep in mind that Conroe is pretty late to the game, Pentium having been spanked viciously by AMD and the Athlon64 for the past few months (years?). Even though it will have the performance crown for a couple months, it will be regained by AMD when they release the K8L series with the on the AM2 socket and with GOOD DDR2. Hopefully by that time the DDR2 timing difficulties will be ironed out, and the Athlon will rise from the ashes, having been beaten to smitherenes for a couple of months, and cause all sorts of havoc for Intel. And yes, I do believe history repeats itself.
Then we will see who owns the crown.
This disparity, I predict, will cause exponentially greater differences in performance between the conroe and K8L generation of processors, especially when they both move to quad core and 65nm. I would also like to keep in mind that Conroe is pretty late to the game, Pentium having been spanked viciously by AMD and the Athlon64 for the past few months (years?). Even though it will have the performance crown for a couple months, it will be regained by AMD when they release the K8L series with the on the AM2 socket and with GOOD DDR2. Hopefully by that time the DDR2 timing difficulties will be ironed out, and the Athlon will rise from the ashes, having been beaten to smitherenes for a couple of months, and cause all sorts of havoc for Intel. And yes, I do believe history repeats itself.
Then we will see who owns the crown.