Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Note to AMD: We don't care (Score 1) 206

by mhectorgato (#16399501) Attached to: AMD Unveils Barcelona Quad-Core Details
I agree that AMD solution is better for high-end processing. But what percentage of customers need that extra few % of performance that a true QC would derive vs 2xDC? What percentage of customers need the extra % of performance of Core2 2xDC vs Core2 Quad?

This is definately a marketing move, this will sure help regain market share. But it's also a technical move, due to the fact if I bought a Xeon5100 server, When this system starts to bog down, I can go from 4 cores to 8 cores relatively painlessly.

This is also only a stop gap solution, as Intel is coming out with a true QC later in '07. They are already working on a replacement technology for the current FSB, like AMD's approach - CSI (I believed it was named)

Intel is working on multiple fronts simultaneously - 2xDC; QC; multiple FSBs on server mobos; 45n; Geneseo, CSI, etc ...

Although I'm a self-pronounced Intel fan boy, I can clearly see the technical superiority of AMD's approach. Intel also is following AMD's lead, as well as the other way around.

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?

Working...