AMD question?

[Nitestick]

General, you know what he meant so why the cynicism?

 

[Whirlwind]

I really can't believe how many people are either all AMD, or all Intel.

I have only been around here for a short while, but I have really noticed that most people seem to be "fanboys" of one or the other of those processors.

How many people actually don't care what CPU it is, as long as there is alot of bang for the buck so to speak. I guess I fit in here.

Sorry if I was wrong to post this in this thread.....if so just ignore this....lol.

PS....I don't see anything wrong with being a "fanboy" by the way.

I guess I just don't care who makes something as much as I care if it works good.

 

[Ste]

NOT being a Fan Boy, further more NOT being a fair weather Fan boy is even better.

 

[LoTeX]

I'm a Fanman. Kneel before me, earthlings!

 

[TriEclipse]

You can have the fastest CPU...but if your system architecture sucks and your chipset supports bunk in features, what have you got? High-speed bunk.

Of course, Intel has been cramming it down our throats for years that SPEED IS EVERYTHING!!! FASTER FASTER! MORE HEAT! MORE POWER CONSUMPTION! FASTER! FASTER!

...This might be a good marketing ploy for the uninformed masses...but we (or most of we) know better...

System architecture sucks? Bro, Intel has a much better architecture than AMD right now, in case you hadn't noticed. How do you think a 2.13Ghz Core 2 Duo beats on the 2.6Ghz AMD FX-60? And bad chipsets? Have you seen the 965P and 975X chipsets? 90% higher FSBs are something that AMD's HTT rarely reached, and thats with a architecture that doesn't even have a FSB to stress! Compared to the Core 2 Duo, even the best Athlon 64s were dud overclockers.

Its interesting that you talk about more heat and power consumption from Intel while Intel's processors have a TDP of 65W while AMD's X2s have a TDP of 85W. And its laughable how perfect the timing of that comment is since AMD just released their 4x4 systems which have a TDP of 250W simply from the processors. Compared to the Kentsfield's 130W, which delivers better performance.

Apparently, the "informed" are not quite as informed as they might think.

...You make it sound like making things smaller isn't important.

Oh its important, very important for the future.

However, when all you're doing is literally making the processor smaller, there is no use to it. A 65nm Athlon 64 X2 4000+ performs the same as a 90nm Athlon 64 X2 4000+, the only improvement is a new 65W TDP instead of the 90nm's 85W.

The same goes for Intel. Intel's transition from the 90nm Prescott to the 65nm Ceder Mill was just as useless as what AMD just did. The performance didn't really improve and the Thermal Wall was still there.

65nm by itself does little for the processor, you have to have accompanying architecture changes that take advantage of the extra space. AMD's move to 65nm is very logical from a business point of view, as they will need the smaller process size for their K8L processors in the future. However, these present processors are useless. For example, the Ceder Mill was a 65nm Pentium 4, no improvements. However, the Core 2 Duo is a 65nm processor with major improvements, and this wipes away the competition. AMD's move was one to just make the processor smaller, no use at all.

65nm Athlon 65 Brisbane processors are pointless from a performance point of view. All I ask is that no one say, "Zomg! AMD's 65nm processors are teh shex!" I'm not dissing the move to 65nm, just the notion that these present 65nm processors will provide better performance.

 

[Apokalipse]

AMD is doing a lot more than just shrinking to 65nm.
among other things, AMD is going to improve transistor design, architectural efficiency, add shared L3 cache, put all four cores on one die, and add a fourth instruction decoder per core.

 

[Nitestick]

TriEclipse i believe your post was intelligent but entirely misdirected. ShoobieRat didn't make any statements worth arguing with. did he say Intel processor architecture was poor? no.

by system architecture i presume he was referring to everything but processor architecture.

System architecture sucks? Bro, Intel has a much better architecture than AMD right now, in case you hadn't noticed. How do you think a 2.13Ghz Core 2 Duo beats on the 2.6Ghz AMD FX-60? And bad chipsets? Have you seen the 965P and 975X chipsets? 90% higher FSBs are something that AMD's HTT rarely reached, and thats with a architecture that doesn't even have a FSB to stress! Compared to the Core 2 Duo, even the best Athlon 64s were dud overclockers.

as i recall it was a 2.4GHz e6600 that shamed the FX60, not the e6400. the K8 processors were never considered great overclockers, overclocking does not even factor in this argument. as you said FSB is a moot point as the HTL bypasses the need pretty much.

in any case. i think we can tie up this off topic nonsense now. anybody who talks about people being fanboys here is just using it as an excuse to get up on their high horse and push their own agenda.

for the record AMD does not have anything for release until perhaps this time next year. the combined complex/simple fourth decoder should prove interesting.

that's the end of this discussion because i don't want to see a return of the Conroe wars from a while back.