Leaked Intel Roadmap Details New Fall Core CPUs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]I'm a bit disappointed by this road map to be honest. I'm waiting for a Nehalem based Hexcore processor from Intel that is actually reasonably priced(sub $400) before I ditch my Q6600 and build a new rig. I was hoping the Phenom II x6 would push Intel but it doesn't look like that is coming any time soon.[/citation]

This is just the mobile roadmap, nothing about desktop here (not that the article says that).
 
[citation][nom]frye[/nom]This is just the mobile roadmap, nothing about desktop here (not that the article says that).[/citation]
Ah, missed the big "Mobile" in the title of the picture. That makes more sense then. Thanks!
 
a 15W chip... now that's 1337!!! I wanted to work for intel since I was in college, but the only thing I would probably come up would be a 1000W chip lol. Goooo Intel GOooooOO
 
I was kinda hoping by the title, this would mean more desktop cpu's. Oh well i guess. Atleast AMD might maybe do somethin about it in 5 years 😛
 
To the point, AMD needs to up the ante on their CPU roadmap, especially in their mobile lineup. It is without a doubt that Intel is dominating the desktop and mobile line up with AMD staying alive by being the value leader and not by pure performance. I have to say that I am extremely impressed with what Intel has managed to pull with their CULV processors and this roadmap I begin to wonder what relevance Atom will be in the near future.
 
[citation][nom]djdarko321[/nom]Fanbois need to do some research and not let their alligator mouths overload their tadpole asses seriously. the IMC allowed the Athlons to do that to Intel in the P4 days. they simply removed the slow middle man (FSB) from a not so gr8 chip and increased memory bandwidth which in turn yielded more performance per watt. hence the HyperTransport as AMD calls it. the conroe comes in 06 (and always used a FSB) and destroyed everything AMD had. Christ, they just caught up on quads LMAO. (till u OC a C2Q and they lose again) they needed the 6 core Phenom II to atleast jump in the lower level of I7 performance. (quads at that) WE NEED MORE COMPETITION as Ive stated numerous times to be able to advance so we arent stuck on this "budget" mindset of schemes the market put on us (points at INTEL for their BS marketing gimmicks), but more competition wont happen as Intel holds the cards due to instruction set licensing. (like BS theyre doing due to AMD and Global Foundries Fab's) Go back in time even further and research it urself, the Am386..a perfect clone of Intel's 386 ruled ok by courts in 1991 with the help of IBM. original? NO... Intel has always had too much a stranglehold on the market which in turns makes us reap the benefits of 3 - 5 yrs ago ...... Phenom a true quad core? lmao TLB and too many probs allowed C2D's even to beat them. (not the core 2 quads lol the duo's) crappy proc w an IMC got smoked by a proc w a FSB still and thats still hilarious to me. but ima stfu now go on w ur fanboi war[/citation]

Actually the IMC didnt have to much to do with it as you stated. The Athlon XP was able to the P4 just fine & the Athlon XP was also runing at much lower clocks Hence the PR ratings from AMD. It was pretty sad that a 2ghz CPU was able to smoke a 3.2Ghz P4 in most everything. When AMD came out with the Athlon 64 with IMC the gap grew even bigger in favor of AMD.

Oh & no I am not a fanboy of AMD I have 6 computers & all of them have Intel inside. I just have been around in the service industry to actually know enough about this.

Thanks
That is all
 
instead of calling this 'leaking' it should just be called 'releasing' as I doubt intel "accidentally" lets the information get out time after time after time... it seems more like viral advertising to me.
 
[citation][nom]unrealpinky[/nom]To the point, AMD needs to up the ante on their CPU roadmap, especially in their mobile lineup. It is without a doubt that Intel is dominating the desktop and mobile line up with AMD staying alive by being the value leader and not by pure performance. I have to say that I am extremely impressed with what Intel has managed to pull with their CULV processors and this roadmap I begin to wonder what relevance Atom will be in the near future.[/citation]

The Atom will be dead soon, living in name only. Core i3 processors already have better performance per watt, meaning they will work better at similar power-use levels. CULVs will probably take over in that space soon.

Low-Voltage processors will take over in the ULV markets. And full-power processors are already taking over in the LV markets. (HP's 2540p elitebook has changed over, for example).

Power management on Intel platforms has progressed nicely. Sadly, AMD seems years behind in that respect, as you can save 50$ but lose 50% of your battery life and 10-15% of your performance in laptops. They don't have any MID processors that I know of.

Honestly, the only "metric" that I have seen AMD competitive in is the "performance per dollar spent" and that only really means a lot in the desktop market.

On the positive side for AMD, their desktop products are competitive with Intel. A 6 core 1090T processor performs favorably in all real world benchmarking.
 
Well, the CPUs look good, but nothing revolutionary. Intel is now just milking the cow called the Core series by shuffling clock speeds and adding or subtracting features like HT, triple channel mem. controller and turbo boost, which we have been hearing about for the last 2 years. They have already many overpriced processors (Talking about i7 980) which don't give the performance for their price compared to slower Intel processors and AMD processors. Well, let's see what AMD has got for the future and hope that it at least brings their performance levels at least comparable to if not at par with Intel processors. That would bring the prices to more sensible levels.
 


Athlon XP's main opposition was the Pentium 4 Northwood. The newer-model Northwood processor ran cooler and more efficiently, to put it simply, and the Athlon XP had trouble beating it. While the Athlon XP had a higher IPC count (that is, it did more at the same clock speed), the Northwood's clock speed scaled a hell of a lot higher. The Northwood went all the way up to 3.2GHz, and the Athlon XP to 2.2GHz (3200+). The Athlon XP 3200+'s PR number was sort of misleading, as it was slower than the Pentium 4 3.2C.(Northwood core) The Willamette was older than the Palomino btw so no comparison.
Those numbers AMD used w the Athlon XP's represented which P4's they comapared to or beat.

As a result, the Pentium 4's introduction was met with mixed reviews: Developers disliked the Pentium 4, as it posed a new set of code optimization rules. For example, in mathematical applications AMD's lower-clocked Athlon (the fastest-clocked model was clocked at 1.2 GHz at the time) easily outperformed the Pentium 4 Willamette, which would only catch up if software were re-compiled with SSE2 support......
Software devs helped hinder its performance at launch due to the newer instruction sets that were introduced. (Willamette core) x87 floating point legacy was still used over sse2 coding thus hampering it.

So Gen vs Gen the Northwood and Palomino were on par. Palomino was also the first AMD chip to utilize ALL SSE instruction sets from the P3 along with 3DNOW! (which allowed vector processing) Just depended on what code the software running was optimized for.
So depends which Athlon ur speaking of truly LOL
Ive been around for awhile myself K?

And the IMC on the Athlon 64 is what destroyed the P4 in 2003 along with other additional instruction sets along with the SSE,SSE2 SSE3 MMX (these four are still licensed from Intel among many others) 3DNOW! Enhanced and AMD64, the TLB (Sledgehammer and Clawhammer in 03)...... dig deeper 😛


that is all
thanks, as you say 😛
 
AMD invent alot of thing on the processor that today intel r following like the multi core , AMD64(intel named EM64T) , hyper transport (intel named QPI) , efficiency cpu (intel was lost on the clock speed race b4) , overclock & unlocking features , CPU+GPU and more ......
who said that AMD processor has bad design must be full of crap in the head ,
we all know that intel processor and motherboard last time was old-school design that old fashino , not allow for overclock , does not have unlocking features , crappy graphic and more ......
is all because AMD in the market to push intel on today level ,
if not ... u all retarded intel fanboy will still running the over price and over heat but bad performance presscott cpu on ur crippled intel mobo .
 
IMB's Power4 chip was first dual core proc tbh 2001 :), AMD64 was AMD's iteration of IA-64 but on a x86 platform thus removing the need to recode everything again (IA-64 sucked @$$), HyperTransport (IMC) lolz the first integrated memory controller was on the Alpha 21364 DEC/Compaq in 1991, yes AMD has bad design atm YES THEY DO! or they wouldnt be using 6 cores to barely battle 4. AMD and Intel "steal" or get "ideas" from other companies technologies like IBM procs, Sun Microsystems and more.... and implement them into their own. CPU + GPU? ummm the 32nm Clarksdale procs are only ones w it atm btw .....
 
I just built a system on an AMD Athlon II X3 440. With 4 gigs of memory, Win 7 64-bit and Gigabyte board, this thing works pretty smooth. I would admit that I would love to have an i7 or i5, but when I can build a complete system for $650, I couldn't resist. I have always been a fan of AMD for being the underdog and yes right now, their cpu's don't hold a candle to Intel. Intel ticked me off with the unfair business tactics and for that, I went back to AMD.
 
This bickering is pointless! Lord Otellini will provide us with the location of AMD's base by the time Sandy Bridge is operational. We will then crush AMD with one swift stroke.
 

$650 bucks? lolz u were ripped off.

$580 could have got u this btw which wouldve SMOKED that POS AMD proc by a land slide .... especially if u OC it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.390742

 
I keep hearing this "performance" talk up about Intel.
I have never seen a difference in 3.0Ghz x4 AMD and 3.0Ghz x4 Intel.
You can yell that Intel "out performs" but that doesnt make it true.
Can we see some benchmarks? Specs? Stats?
Truth be it that neither company makes a bad product.
This sounds like a PS3/XBOX debate.
PC owners shouldn't act like 13 year olds!
 
[citation][nom]Falsepuppet[/nom]I keep hearing this "performance" talk up about Intel.I have never seen a difference in 3.0Ghz x4 AMD and 3.0Ghz x4 Intel.You can yell that Intel "out performs" but that doesnt make it true.Can we see some benchmarks? Specs? Stats?Truth be it that neither company makes a bad product.This sounds like a PS3/XBOX debate. PC owners shouldn't act like 13 year olds![/citation]

Are you blind dumb or retarded? Or all 3? seems like all 3 tbh
Are you 13? you seem it cause everyone knows that a 3.0ghz Phenom gets smoked by a 3.0ghz C2Q let alone an i7 975/965 (stock speeds non oc btw) keep ur mouth shut b 4 u show how dumb you really are k tnx
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

just one link .... see that poor old Phenom II 965 at 3.4ghz stock way down there? lmao
need more or can you not navigate Tom's at all either? "idiots make the world go around" thats for sure lol we make money off of em XD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom