<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
Spare me how you always judged everyone and thought you were the right person. I could very well right now link you to what you said once in your "departing and sad thread", but I am a fair player and will leave that in the past for now, unless you provoke me to. And for someone who drops by once per millenia to post "correction" facts, you sure do have nerves to judge. I just love talking about you indeed, because it only reminds me of the wussy who couldn't stand fanboys, who preached Intel so much. Of course I like to get on your back. I'd gladly get off soon though, depending on how you are willing to react.
The reason that I do not post so often is because I do not go on the computer so often anymore. Also, the majority may not be always correct. I did judge a lot of people, because they all had the same ideas and beliefs about AMD. You're not going to tell me that everything I said before was wrong, are you? Some of the "fanboyish" comments I made in the past have turned out to be true. In general though, I made comments like that because I was shocked to see such a negative attitude and outlook towards Intel in the forums, which was so far from the truth, since in real life, Intel was doing great, and was, in a lot of ways, exactly the opposite of that attitude and outlook. To be fair, yes I was somewaht fanboyish, and quite often was angry, and did not think straight, which led me to some fanboyish comments. I have admitted before that I have a preference towards Intel, since Intel's products suit my needs more than AMD's do. It's sad that some of the people who accused me of being a total fanboy never admitted their own bias or fanboyism.
<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
One quote of mine does not equal the myriad of quotes you did for Intel my good bud.
Additionally I say this with all due honesty, that Prescott is a great evolution with much better process technologies. Where is it not that much?
It will easily scale to 5GHZ, no doubt, it has even more future-proof features, improved HT and others.
It has new features and HAS new process advancements (the PHYSICAL claim I said). So, why am I being overenthusiastic? I know it has trouble lately, but I'll be damned if one extra stepping won't turn it into a real player.
Please, lest we forget, you were far worse. You were literally traumatized by AMD fanboys.
Future-proof technologies? Like what? I'll admit it, Prescott will be a great evolution, BUT ... Intel is starting to hit alot of bumps and problems moving to the 90nm, and soon to be 65nm process. Consider that Intel is achieving incredible clock speeds on conventional silicon without SOI or low-k (on the 0.13 process). I knew that Intel would eventually hit some problems, after all, they are human
. On the 0.09 process, Intel is implementing low-k and strained silicon, but strained silicon ONLY allows for more frequency; it does nothing for leakage, if only worsen it. Low-k does reduce heat and leakage a bit, but Intel ran into some trouble with the low-k, and recently switched low-k suppliers as it found out it would not meet it's future needs. It's fortunate that Intel was able to predict more problems with their current low-k; thus the need to switch to another supplier. Also, leakage remains fairly constant on a particular process, so, for example, if on 90nm process, Prescott dissipates 20W of leakage, then it will dissipate that amount whether it;s running at 3Ghz, or 5Ghz. Also, IIRC, Prescott's dissipation increases only about 14W/Ghz (based on some Intel figures I read somewhere a while ago...need to dig up the links). All Intel needs to do is ti find an efficient way to cool Prescott. Plus, we already know that Intel is working on a core revision to reduce the leakage. No doubt Dothan was delayed because Intel wanted to revise the core to minimize leakage as much as possible.
<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
Smaller die? Any proof so far? It will after all have an extra 512KB L2, alone cache takes a great amount of space. THEN it has extra Trace Cache space, and possibly extra L1. Furthermore HT is refined, and new instructions are introduced. Frankly if its die is not that of NW or closely by, I'd be surprised.
I realize it will use a higher percentage. However being a 0.09m component at 1.2V, the process technologies should have alleviated most heat problems. I would assume it would churn out 70W at 3.4GHZ, not more. I didn't expect that a higher utilisation of ressources meant ~30W more. Heck, just WHAT ARE those extra resources? I know HT will be refined, but it still has 6 pipes, nothing more nothing less, it's a matter of using them more often. The cache as you explained, is not that heat expensive.
AFAIK, Prescott's die @ 90nm is about 103 mm or so. That is smaller than Northwood's die @ 130nm. I mean, we have to compare them this way, since I doubt we'll be seeing Northwoods @ 90nm.
Voltage and heat dissipation do not always relate to each other. For example, the original Pentiums needed a ton of voltage, but those CPU's were damn cool, and had low dissipation. The extra resources are the improved HT, along with several undocumented improvements, as found by <A HREF="http://www.chip-architect.com/" target="_new">Chip Architect</A>.
<i>Originally written by Eden</i>
I used to strongly believe in both Intel and AMD. But recently AMD's doings have done nothing to show me they are willing to remain in the desktop game (I could care less about them later on if they do fail at desktop performance and no longer compete there but rather in servers, just like I could care less for Sun's achievements, as server CPUs don't matter to me, Opteron or SPARC or whatever). Opteron is doing great selling to supercomputer labs. I believe it is their lifeline really. Athlon 64, is simply NOT going to save them. No matter how much better it is, it won't. It is not future-proof in any way, both feature-wise and Physically-wise. And you of all, I'd expect to have learned that.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mean I am completely leaving out hope for AMD. Few weeks ago I stated it's their end for sure, after hearing about their losses. But reading about Opteron's recent acquisitions by supercomputer labs, and some possible speed limits broken, I have slightly more faith. Doesn't mean I think AMD will bash Intel out. What I believe in my heart is that AMD is not anymore as good as before, and while I will keep hope, I simply won't look at their products for future-proofness any soon. So that means Prescott or Tejas for me, very likely so. (not to mention the ridiculous 3 sockets introduced in one year for A64)
As a trick question, suppose that the planets aligned on Sept. 23rd, and Athlon 64's performance is monstruous, able to beat Prescott by 10% or more, would you buy the AMD system? In fact, suppose AMD's reign continued for a few more model grades. Would you?
Guess you see why I am more enthusiastic about Intel, all the while without being biased
I must agree with you there. I don't know about you or anyone else, but it's been obvious for months now that Intel has had a comfortable lead over AMD.
The K8 is just a patched up K7. It will have trouble competing against Prescott and Tejas, especially the high end server-variants of them. AMD's K8 needs to be a substantial success, or else they're finished. that doesn't mean bankrupcy, maybe them selling off their CPU business, or being absorbed by another company. Heck, even Intel may try and keep AMD alive. Intel loves having AMD around because they get the benefits of a monopoly with hardly any of the negative aspects. Plus, they can't be branded as a monopoly.
- - -
"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram