engaging in conjecture....
I am anxious to see what each company has install for us.... In ANY case we all win with faster procs.
Whos says its all conjecture? Perhaps there are some folks here with some insight into the situation...
Conroe (and Penryn) are based on Yonah, which is based on Dothan & Banias. None are P4-based, and the NetBurst architecture will be put to rest after Cedar Mill and Pressler have run their course.
But that is not to say that nothing came out of of the P4 line. The P4-FSB, advanced branch prediction schemes, cache-prefetcher schemes, (all necessary for long pipelines, but still beneficial to shorter ones) among others advancements, all benefit the future.
It has become clear that the choice to go after MHz and GHz to sell more processors was a dead end on the high side due to power limitations, but perhaps in the end, intel will come out richer for the experience from some of the necessary advancements.
But for now they are reverting somewhat. Shorter pipes, lower clockspeeds, but still with better performance, and dual/multi-cores to boot. We will see this with Conroe, and then the New Battle begins in earnest, and yes, this discussoin continues.
But then look ahead even more, and after that discussion, we come along with Penryn, Nehalem, Gesher, and Intel ups the ante even more. 4 cores, Integrated everything, and more cache than AMD could ever hope for due to the 45 and 32nm processes.
for those that say AMD is doing the technological development? Where is it?? In the time that Intel has gone through the P3, P4, Banias/Dothan, and now Yonah and soon Conroe cores, what has AMD had? the current Athlon FX is the same basic core that was Palomino. yes, it has HT and an integrated memory controller, and the procesosr is now Dual core, but the core itself has not changed significantly in all that time...just advancements to allow (slightly) higher clock frequencies...where is this major advancement?
you might say that "well they're faster - there it is". ok, yes, they are faster at some things, but that's not what i'm talking about - i'm talking about technological improvements in the core itself. You say AMD has perfected what intel has done, that it has the better architecture, that it has made the leaps and bounds? well, where are the architectural advanements? the new ideas? the revolutionary changes?
Intel tried super pipelining, trace caches, prefetchers galore, not to mention the platform-oriented ideas like DRAM page awareness, and so forth, as well as mobility and business-oriented manageability functions that is possible soley due to their chipset business, all of which AMD can't hope to match. (not even going to mention the advancements in chipset archietcture and design here, since there's no competition)
AMD has done nothing but increment a 5-year old design. I haven't heard their plans for the future, but its gotta be close to time for a change soon, because intel has made some mistakes, made some wrong decisions, but is coming back with a vengence according to all the info out there, and if AMD isn't careful, a year or so from now they are going to be right back in the "also-ran" category. In mobile, desktop AND server space.
Or am I wrong? What have they done that's so much better than Intel? architecturally, Design-wise, or process wise? what are they planning on doing? you tell me. Architectural specifics, examples, hard facts. Cause i'm eager to hear.
Or just stick with the "well, they are faster on my games, and my case is still below 60 degrees, and therefore, their architecture is leaps ahead of where intel is."
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram