Intel > AMD?

[Apokalipse]

Intel has multiple teams designing processors. One stateside in the US and another in Israel. They both work on different designs.

The current Pentium 4 "Netburst" architecture was designed here while the new Pentium M was designed in Israel. Some time in the last 2 yrs it became abundantly clear to Intel that the Netburst architecture wasn't going to hit their goals. They were going to hit the wall much sooner. They promptly cancelled Tejas the next big Netburst upgrade and the successor to the Xeon.

In the meantime the Israel team delivered the Pentium M which traces its lineage not to Netburst but rather the Pentium III. The Pentium M is far more of an efficient processor in IPC and power efficiency. Intel decided that this was the way of the future because dual cores allow them to reduce their focus megahertz and just add more cores.

yes, the Pentium 3's were definately a lot better designed than Pentium 4's.
clock for clock, a Pentium 3 will kick a Pentium 4's arse.

Thus Intel's roadmap is now completely centered around dual cores and the efficient Pentium M core(Banias). They have a Banias replacement for the Netburst desktop and workstation coming. I'm assuming these chips will likely have 2-4MB of shared L2 cache and a bevvy of other nifty things. I'd love to see a new SIMD unit as well.

I'd say Intel was pressured into this, because of the competition from AMD. at least they're actually considering trying to make better CPU's instead of just cranking up clock speeds. - although the 600 series P4 is a complete bombshell

AMD has Turion coming but it is no match for Yonah which will be out Q1 2006. I'm also thinking that due to the similarities of the Athlon/Opteron to the G5 it'll be hard for AMD to patch the power efficiency of the desktop and workstation Banias Dual Cores.

I'd have to say to this guy: don't count your chickens before they hatch. people did with the X800 remember.
also, he is knocking AMD for "high power consumption" even though the opposite is true

Thus not only do I think that Intel will match AMD in speed for the most part but they will do it using far less watts than the comparable AMD part. No more liquid cooling!!

I second what Nubius said. the Athlon 64's are actually using far less power, and producing far less heat than Pentium 4's are.

I hope Intel actually does make better CPU's, so that computers will go a lot further than just who can market better

 

[DJ_Cyber]

AMD still dominates.... Microsoft in the past used Intel and produced their OS around that chip. Since the advent of the XP cpu Microsoft is now using AMD excusively as a basis for future OS's (thus the XP in Windows XP). If one of the richest companies in the world chooses AMD to base their entire reputation on then they must see something great in AMD or they would not have dropped iNTEL.

AMD does no advertising because instead of speanding 10s of millions of dollars annually for advertising they drop those funds into research in order to build a superior chip at less cost. Most Intel users are first time computer owners .... those seasoned users and techs dont buy based on brand name; they buy based on preformance and scallability. Who knows best which chip is better but the techs who work with systems everyday. And seeing that the overwhelming majority of techs use AMD what does that tell you?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[contry]

Most Intel users are first time computer owners ....

most are *rich* dudes that have been using intel all their life and dont want to change

(i got intel but im not rich and i like amd too)

 

[DJ_Cyber]

the name windowsXP has absolutely nothing to do with AMD or "XP"

it isnt based on any one chip but rather the x86 architecture, and their future OS's arent based on AMD either, but the current x86 standards and the x64 standards, and with their server OS other chips as well

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-microsoft-windows

I cant remember where I heard that but I was lead to belive what I wrote. I appreciate the clairification and guess I should research what I hear prior to discussing it.

Believe it or not I have a successful computer business and was unaware I had been misguided.

Thanks again for the heads up.

 

[Wayniac]

bah... don't worry about it, it happens to all of us once in a while. Besides, we won't tell anyone if you won't.

 

[contry]

exactly everyone is here to learn and we make mistakes a lot of times too

 

[pc_boy]

That's funny because everything I've seen of the latest CPU's including dual cores says exactly opposite of that....not only were the Intels getting stomped, but the AMD was using far less watts producing a way lesser amount of heat........and as far as "no liquid cooling" goes........I don't care how cool a CPU runs I'll always liquid cool it.........that was a pointless and stupid thing to even include in this so called 'article'

that's right, electricity is conducted faster through cooler metals, so even if CPU's run like 27 C, you would still cool it, especially if you overclock... cooler = more stable

 

[m3trj]

that's right, electricity is conducted faster through cooler metals, so even if CPU's run like 27 C, you would still cool it, especially if you overclock... cooler = more stable

Electricity is conducted with less resistance through cooler metals.

 

[pc_boy]

..whatever