INTEL MULTICORE APPROACH NEEDS PSYCHOANALYSIS

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Actually everyone can understand what they did.
If there is no need to get rid off the FSB yet, then they simply wont do it, simple as >_>
 
Whatever that dang article was bout

Intel instead of ditching there fsb doubled it - DIB (dual inline bus) and it acutually managed to outperform an AMD system with similar specs, altho the power and heat was extreme as ever (shows the aging P4 fsb).
 
Correct, with DIB they EASILY have enough headroom to make it with quad-cores until 2008 then the FSB many people seem to hate even though it still does provide sufficient bandwidth will die.
 
Calling all AMD Fanboys! Calling all AMD Fanboys!

Technology Coordinator present and accounted for.

The article makes a great point. I can understand Intel using the FSB in the first dual cores, but moving forward they must change their approach. Intel's design gives you the benefits of two processors, but AMD's design gives you the advantage of Dual Core, there is a difference.

With Intel's current design they will need to make drastic improvements to the FSB, improvements that AMD has already implemented with HT.
 
Whatever that dang article was bout

Intel instead of ditching there fsb doubled it - DIB (dual inline bus) and it acutually managed to outperform an AMD system with similar specs, altho the power and heat was extreme as ever (shows the aging P4 fsb).
Click to expand...

Only benches I've seen are of 3.46GHz 1066MHz Bently Xeon w/ DDR2 533MHz FB-DIMM's and Dual INDEPENDENT bus's, compared to 2.4GHz Opterons w/ DDR400. Their FB-DIMM's are their saving grace, and even then the Xeon's are only about 5-12% faster. Once Socket F comes out, and you throw in DDR2-800, the Xeon will go right back under the table where it belongs.

I think Intel is in a temper tantrum and the reason they won't resort to On-Chip Mem Controller, is because AMD already uses it. It's kinda like the reason Intel won't touch SOI, because IBM has so many patents on SOI and Intel isn't too fond of IBM.

I concur, wtf did that article say?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Intel has the on-chip memory controller while AMD only has an on-die memory controller (yes, there is a difference).
The Dempseys I think you are talking about are faster even at non-memory-depending benchmarks...
 
Intel has the on-chip memory controller while AMD only has an on-die memory controller (yes, there is a difference).
The Dempseys I think you are talking about are faster even at non-memory-depending benchmarks...
Click to expand...

If you're referring to "On-Chip = Northbridge and On-Die = CPU", keep that sh*t to yourself. As for Dempsey, every application is "memory depending", regardless of how little or great. And as I said, Socket F > Dempsey.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Whatever that dang article was bout

Intel instead of ditching there fsb doubled it - DIB (dual inline bus) and it acutually managed to outperform an AMD system with similar specs, altho the power and heat was extreme as ever (shows the aging P4 fsb).
Click to expand...

Only benches I've seen are of 3.46GHz 1066MHz Bently Xeon w/ DDR2 533MHz FB-DIMM's and Dual INDEPENDENT bus's, compared to 2.4GHz Opterons w/ DDR400. Their FB-DIMM's are their saving grace, and even then the Xeon's are only about 5-12% faster. Once Socket F comes out, and you throw in DDR2-800, the Xeon will go right back under the table where it belongs.

I think Intel is in a temper tantrum and the reason they won't resort to On-Chip Mem Controller, is because AMD already uses it. It's kinda like the reason Intel won't touch SOI, because IBM has so many patents on SOI and Intel isn't too fond of IBM.

I concur, wtf did that article say?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

INTEL TIMINA - A COPPERMINE CELERON WITH A RAMBUS MEMORY CONTROLLER ON CHIP - YEARS BEFORE AMD (NOTHING NEW)

CSI - COMMON SYSTEM INTERFACE (REPLACES FSB)

SOI - NOTHING WRONG WITH PENTIUM M'S AND THEY DONT USE IT AND THERE COLDER THEN THE AMDS, INTEL DONT NEED IT

SOCKET F - YEAH AND CONROE WILL BE OUT THEN TO WHIP THEM WITH DDR2-800, DIB AND QUAD CORE.
 
Apache, I sense you're a nicely cooked Intel Fanboy, cheers for your effort though. BTW: I already knew about your great CSI, and no, Conroe will not beat Socket F or Socket AM2, sorry to burst your happy bubble fanboy. BTW: CSI is only planned for Xeon's and Itanium's as well as released in 2008, that leaves your Conroe out of the fun, 🙁.

P.S.: Several revisions to HyperTransport are in development, which is going to put CSI to shame, another sad moment 🙁.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Intel has the on-chip memory controller while AMD only has an on-die memory controller (yes, there is a difference).
The Dempseys I think you are talking about are faster even at non-memory-depending benchmarks...
Click to expand...

If you're referring to "On-Chip = Northbridge and On-Die = CPU", keep that sh*t to yourself. As for Dempsey, every application is "memory depending", regardless of how little or great. And as I said, Socket F > Dempsey.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Once again you show how small your knowledge is, sorry.
 
Wow, Ycon, you stupid Intel Fanboy Newb. Please refrain from posting, I think I lost a few IQ points by reading your google.com knowledge posts.

Piddy: I am not an AMD Fanboy, I simply promote the technology that is better right now.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Wow, Ycon, you stupid Intel Fanboy Newb. Please refrain from posting, I think I lost a few IQ points by reading your google.com knowledge posts.

Piddy: I am not an AMD Fanboy, I simply promote the technology that is better right now.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Click to expand...
ok sorry man :cry:
 
I am not an AMD Fanboy, I simply promote the technology that is better right now.
Click to expand...

Excuse me to barge in but... you really got this funny, fan...ny way of promoting it.
Aren't you being a little biased by any chance... on your own right, of course?! :)


Cheers!
 
I don't mean to disrespect you joset, and I won't, but I want to know what post I said that was a fanboy one, because stating FACTS and FANBOYISM are 2 different things.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Why would we need someone to "promote" "better" technology to us?!?
That evades me all the time. If the technology is _better_ it doesn't need promoting anyway.

About how Intel Dual-core is "bad", a simple test on my Pentium D 930:

D:_ISO_>gogo -b 256 -m s -q 0 test.wav test.mp3

encode test.wav to test.mp3
GOGO-no-coda ver. 3.11 (Jan 10 2003)
{ 100538/ 100538} 100.0% ( 78.14x) re:[00:00:00.00] to:[00:00:33.61]

test.wav is 43min 46sec (441.8MB)

Encoding speed was 39x on my Pentium 630 with the rest of the system unchanged -- I just upgraded the CPU. Speedup? Figure it out yourself.
 
By "Promote" I simply mean to express my views, I am not flaunting it off (at least I hope I am not). I didn't say Intel Dual-Core was bad, I said that it was inferior to that of the Athlon 64 X2's.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 
Once Socket F comes out, and you throw in DDR2-800, the Xeon will go right back under the table where it belongs.

I think Intel is in a temper tantrum and the reason they won't resort to On-Chip Mem Controller, is because AMD already uses it.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it... for instance.

And, should I thank you for not disrespecting me?


Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom