AMD / Intel Future

[Apokalipse]

LOL, not true

Because the current athlon64 have 12 pipeline stages, Yet it performs worser than C2D

but not because it has a lower amount of pipeline stages. How much do you know about CPU architecture?

The Pentium 4 had a 31 stage pipeline.

The more stages an instruction has to go through in the pipeline, the longer it takes to come out the other side.
One of the biggest reasons for the C2D's performance is that it can process four instructions per clock cycle. K8 can do 3. But K10 is increasing it to 4.

 

[maroon1]

but not because it has a lower amount of pipeline stages. How much do you know about CPU architecture?

Where did I say that short pipelines means that the processor is worser ?

Just read my post, I said that is not always true that having longer pipelines means that the processor is inferior

The Pentium 4 had a 31 stage pipeline.

The first P4's had 20, but later revisions (perscott and cender mill) had 31

 

[Apokalipse]

Where did I say that short pipelines means that the processor is worser ?

LOL, not true

which you then edited to add the "always"

Just read my post, I said that is not always true that having longer pipelines means that the processor is inferior

Overall yes, but having shorter pipelines does make a processor better.

The first P4's had 20, but later revisions (perscott and cender mill) had 31

And even the early Pentium 4's weren't very efficient.
The later Pentium 4's were extremely inefficient.

As I said you need to look at overall performance

And the overall performance of K8 isn't that far behind C2D, despite only having a 3 IPC pipeline.

However K10 will increase it to 4. and combined with the other advantages it has, makes it likely to perform better overall than the C2D.

The current AMD Athlon64 have 2GHz HT, yet C2D that have 800MHz FSB outperforms it !!

Yes, because the C2D can process more IPC.

But that is besides the point. When I said:

a pipeline that retains its 12 stages (instead of C2D's 14 - lower is better)

you said:

LOL, not true

then you edited it to:

LOL, not always true

and now you are backpedalling.

Intel doesn't need to make a lot of improvement for core architecture because it is superior to K8
It is AMD who need to make a lot of improvements.............

On what? K8? or K10?

K10 already has been improved over K8 by a lot, including, but not limited to, increasing the IPC to 4. All that AMD needs to do is get them manufactured and shipped. And they are in the process of getting that done now.

One of the improvements that Intel has made for Yorkfield is the addition of SSE4 instruction, more cache memory, 45nm die shrink (which means that Yorkfield will run at higher clocks yet consuming less power), ......... and that's not all

a die shrink, an instruction set and extra cache is not much in relation to architectural changes.

 

[veg1992]

um... back to the question at hand...

... thats already answered too:

amd has quad-cores comign out next quarter
intel already has one and are releasing them next quarter as well.... but they will only be Extreme Editions

 

[maroon1]

Apokalipse,

LOL !!

I edited my previous post 2 times. In the first edit I added the word always before I even read your reply.....

And the overall performance of K8 isn't that far behind C2D, despite only having a 3 IPC pipeline.

E6550 has 667Mhz slower clock speed than 6000+, yet it performs as good as 6000+ if not better

Here is a review for E6550 if you don't believe that......
Welcome to AnandTech.com [ Article: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts]

Don't tell me that K8 isn't far behind Core 2

a die shrink, an instruction set and extra cache is not much in relation to architectural changes.

Thats your opinion.... but I don't agree with you

First: Die shrink is big improvement. Die shrink allows processors to produce less heat, which means processors can run easily at higher clock and have better overclocking

Just look at TPD that 45nm Xeon have in this thread......
http://www.techist.com/forums/f78/intel-leaks-45nm-xeon-clock-frequencies-148553/

45nm quad cores can have Thermal Design Power as low as 50W !!!

Also, 45nm quad core will run beyond 3GHz. The first 45nm Yorkfield that will come out on Q4 2007 will have clock speed of 3.33GHz

Second: You claimed that the extra cache is small improvement !! But extra L3 cache that K10 have is small improvement in my opinion. When Intel added L3 cache for some of the P4 extreme it barely made any difference..........

 

[Trotter]

OK, enough of the fanboyism.

Intel and AMD are moving to more cores on each die instead of pushing pure speed.

AMD is also working on integrating a graphics core onto the CPU die, which is called "Fusion."

Times are a changing. intel has the advantage right now, and we'll see what happens when AMD releases K10 later this year.

 

[Vaanish]

As an AMD fan, I realy fear for them if Phenom cant compete with nehalem, never mind Penryn. They really have to produce something special after taking such a punichment from intel this past year.

 

[tommyboy123x]

I was actually wondering which one would be favorable on wall street but from what i can tell since Intel has done so well with the c2d, its lowered the price of AMD - so rly how much worse could AMD do in the next years? lol. Even if they perform the same, more ppl will buy amd than in the last year(s) making it the favorable buy?

I managed to make a few hundred when the dual cores were released and it was the first time i ever bought stock short term

question - i've always bought the stuff extra little things, ex: SLI, high wattage psu, low latency memory, etc. just to both make me feel better and take advantage of the technology while its there... i have two 6800gt's, overclocked memory, etc So anywayas, will quad core be worth it? I mean will vista / xp support it right out of its release?

Also are we going to see an increase in onboard memory now that this x64 stuff has finally smoothed over a little nicer / gotten into everyones lives thanks to windows? I have 3gb of memory and it is ALWAYS 90%-100% full when i'm using photoshop + premiere + after effects + ultra on vista x64 ultimate... what i'm trying to say is people like me, consumers, are demanding more power to run the overpowered applications [with serious memory leaks] .

 

[Apokalipse]

Apokalipse,

LOL !!

I edited my previous post 2 times. In the first edit I added the word always before I even read your reply.....



E6550 has 667Mhz slower clock speed than 6000+, yet it performs as good as 6000+ if not better

which is still less than a 4/3 performance advantage (dividing the IPC of the Core 2 by the IPC of the K8)http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3038

Don't tell me that K8 isn't far behind Core 2

Because you won't listen?
Alright.

Thats your opinion.... but I don't agree with you

Here we go...

First: Die shrink is big improvement. Die shrink allows processors to produce less heat, which means processors can run easily at higher clock and have better overclocking

Die shrink is not an architectural change. It's making what you already have smaller.

45nm quad cores can have Thermal Design Power as low as 50W !!!

as low as. Meaning, on the low-end chips.

Also, 45nm quad core will run beyond 3GHz. The first 45nm Yorkfield that will come out on Q4 2007 will have clock speed of 3.33GHz

And that will have good competition from a 3GHZ Agena, which not only has a 4 IPC pipeline, but also only 12 stages, a better caching system, a faster HTT bus, better virtualisation, branch prediction, prefetching and latencies (especially between the cores)

Second: You claimed that the extra cache is small improvement !! But extra L3 cache that K10 have is small improvement in my opinion.

the significance of the L3 cache is not the amount. It's the fact that it's a third layer, shared between all four cores (on the one die)

When Intel added L3 cache for some of the P4 extreme it barely made any difference..........

The Pentium 4's caching system is not exactly like AMD's is.

It's not just that it will have L3 cache that will make a difference, but how it is used.

Now, I wonder where exactly your argument is going?

All I said was that AMD will have four cores on one die, and now you're touting the Core 2 as the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Nagasama]

Don't tell me that K8 isn't far behind Core 2

k8 isnt that far behind core 2. really. its not. but sliced bread is delicious.