Intel Unveils New Chips to Battle AMD 247
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that chip giant Intel hopes to get back on track in their continued market share war with AMD when they unveil a new line of chips at their upcoming twice-annual developers forum. From the article: 'AMD, once content to mimic Intel's advances, has set the technological pace in recent years with innovations such as putting two processing cores in a single chip -- moves that have helped it gobble market share from its much-larger rival.'"
Which innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
So did SUN with their UltraSparc platform. But for the consumer market this really was something new.
Cfx
Re:Which innovation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:5, Informative)
The Wright brothers didn't demonstrate publicly because they were in it for more than a hobby. Not being an independently wealthy tinkerer, they wanted to make their living making airplanes, and realized that they had the only viable design anyone had come up with, so not trusting the patent system, held out until they could secure agreements with various military organizations. They were engineers more than scientists.
Much of the "evidence" of earlier flight, including claims that Ader flew in the late 1800's, was concocted to try to overturn the Wright brothers' patents on their system of differing the angle of attack of the two wings in order to bank the plane. (Almost no one had banked planes before, either... most others were still thinking of planes like ships that would use the rudder to steer, which at those speeds every pilot now knows would lead to a stall.) Newspaper reports from before the patent battle clearly admit the Wright brothers unique invention, while those after the patent battle try to find almost anyone else to assign the invention to. As most know, though, the Wright brothers won every patent battle they faced and the only "evidence" of earlier flight lies in retellings of myths on sites like wikipedia.
Re:Which innovation? (Score:4, Interesting)
But it was the Wright's analysis of the bird flight, and the realisation that you have to have bendable wings and tail/front flaps to get to a controlled flight, that was really new. Ironically it was this idea that was published in the patent application of 1904, which enabled the other flight pioneers to get their planes ready until 1910.
Re:Which innovation? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:5, Informative)
TRANSPUTER (Score:5, Informative)
Re:TRANSPUTER (Score:2)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:2)
That sound interesting. Does anyone know how well it works?
It sounds fast, but it could act like a beuwulf cluster of 386s.
Re:Which innovation? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Which innovation? (Score:2)
Not Just Cell (Score:2)
A breakthrough in microprocessing, the UltraSPARC T1 processor features SPARC-based CoolThreads technology and a revolutionary eight cores--each having four threads--for a total of 32 threads that work simultaneously so many tasks are performed in parallel with no waiting. The chip saves energy, while increasing system throughput and employs Sun's radical CMT processor architecture to keep pace with the multi-threaded application environment of the Internet.
Breakthroughs Unique in the UltraSPARC T1 Processo
Re:Which innovation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Each Cell SPE is simply a highly-optimized vector unit with 128-bit registers. It is capable of operating on 4 32-bit operands per cycle, just like SSE2/3 and Altivec. The difference is, eache SPE runs an independent task, while the Altivec / SSE units execute vector instructions in parellel with normal operations. However, the SPE is cut down: it has no branch prediction hardware or out-of-order execution, and depends on the main processor filling and emptying its Load
If you think the speed makes it innovative, think again: neither the Cell SPE nor its predecessor, the Emotion Engine, are IEEE754 compliant for 32-bit floating-point operations (for speed reasons). Cell can do IEEE754 compliant 64-bit floating point, but at an estimated speed hit of 10x, which makes it just "competitive" with existing solutions.
Sony / IBM actually inflate the performance numbers of the SPE, advertising it as 25.6 GFLOPS. But this doesn't take into account that the two pipelines of the SPE are NOT flexible, and can only perform certain types of instructions. The "Even" pipe can do arithmetic, and the "Odd" pipe can do Load / Store / Permute / Branch. Thus, the maximum arithmetic thoroughput per SPE is cut in half, to 12.8 billion arithmetic operations per second, and the double-percision performance is just 1.28 billion arithmetic instructions per second.
It's a nice idea for a media processor, but the complexity guarantees it will have a hard time finding buyers, and programmers for the Playstation 3 will be slow on optimization.
I mean, really, can you really break down a game into more than a few concurrent tasks without going crazy trying to synchronize it all? In addition, how many of those independent tasks can be designed with few or no branches? In your average code, branches make up about 20% of instructions. With an 18-cycle penalty per-branch, you'd have to keep those SPE branches under 1% of all instructions to avoid a serious performance loss.
Re:Which innovation? (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.com.com/PlayStation+3+chip+goes+easy+o n+developers/2100-1043_3-5476933.html [com.com]
Don't know if the above link says this, but I googled it up, and lets hope it is right.
Intel giving in to the pressure (Score:2, Informative)
Well, I don't wonder. It's all looking like good old IBM vs. Amdahl again. Surprising though that Intel seems to think they need to resort to FUD already. Perhaps they really think the heat is on.
Re:Intel giving in to the pressure (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Intel giving in to the pressure (Score:3, Funny)
Probably because everyone wants to know what Apple will be using on their computers a year from now
Innovative dick comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is that innovation?
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Cfx
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to be mistaken for extreme programming. It's based on CSP (Communicating Sequential processes) - Occam, c++csp, jcsp etc. support this model originally made for transputer.
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
If they made their processors slower, then they would be "innovating"? What do you want processors to do, really? EVERYBODY wants their CPU to be as fast as possible. If you could choose between two identical CPU's, but one of them were twice as fast as the other, which one would you choose? the slower one? I doubt it. So why are you then whining as if making CPU's faster is a bad thing, since everybody wants faster CPU's? What benefit would there be in having slow processors?
And they have been doing pretty interesting things in order to make it faster. Pentium Pro with the on-die cache, SIMD, multithreading etc. etc.. Hell, even Cell with it's SPU's was designed the way it is, so it would be as fast as possible. But according to you, that's not innovcation?
Uh, they are still comparing performance, the means to get performance has just been changed that's all. They are NOT adding cores for the sake of adding cores. They are adding cores in order to increase performance.
But since you apparently think that making CPU's faster is not the way to go, why not share ith us what YOU want processors to do?
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't to say that I agree with the grandparent, though. Intel's Pentium-m processors are pretty nifty...lower power usage, high performance (compared to a P4).
So, while it may not be some amazing quantum leap, I'd say that Intel is showing plenty of innovation, at least from the standpoint of the consumer market.
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2, Redundant)
To get out of bad analogies, of course more MHz == more speed. The question is, though, if there are
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2)
Yes there are, and Intel and AMD are pursuing them as we speak. But even that isn't good enough for the GP, who is now whinio
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Also take a look at Via's new chips and boards, particularly the Epia series of boards. They're ideal for media centre applications, since the chips run very cool but quickly enough to do the necessary work.
P
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2)
They are doing just that. And they are doing that because the excessive heat was killing performance. They couldn't make it faster because it was running so hot.
My A64 3200+ has exactly ONE fan cooling it.
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2)
Furthermore, why aren't EVERYONE buying ferraris/lambo/porsche/etc? I mean, they want the fastest car possible right? Or why aren't ev
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2)
Lower power consumption? Lower heat output to the point where I don't need a Rube [xbitlabs.com] Goldberg [silentpcreview.com] Device? [swiftnets.com]
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Up till now, pushing Mhz has likely been the cheapest way of ramping up speed.
At the end of the day, I couldn't give a crap whether or not my CPU that performs X teraflops does it by running a "dumb" core at extreme speed, or runs a really complex core at slow speed.
Now is the time to get into the nitty gritty of making chips more efficient, now we've exploited the cheap and easy ways...
smash
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
You might not care at the end of the day, but at the end of the month when your power bill comes in you might care at least a little bit.
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there's been tons of innovaton at Intel. Even just looking at the CPU side, between the speeds you list:
Intel gambled on Netburst, which was designed to get faster rapidly, and scale all the way from the 1.4 GHz at launch to 6 or 7 by now. Yes, they lost, but that doesn't mean that they weren't innovative - it's just that their process teechnology couldn't keep up, and failed to meet predictions. That's not the CPU designers' fault.
The earlier processors did scale fantastically well (486 16->120 MHz; P6 150->1400 MHz) but they hit an unexpected brick wall this time, so they've gone around it with clever scheduling and power management, and doing dual core versions of what is essentially a new rev of the P6. There's plenty of innovation in that chip too...
Also, remember that during the same timeframe, they've invented and developed the PCI, PCI Express and Universal Serial Bus(es). Pretty innovative, really, IMHO.
And yes, I'm typing this on an Athlon 64 and all 3 of my home PCs are AMD-powered.
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2)
512MB L2 Cache? (Score:2)
Re:512MB L2 Cache? (Score:2, Informative)
it is 512kb & 256kb L2's.. and for the record the p3 coppermine (which is the one with 256kb L2) is not jsut another p3 "No real changes from the 600 MHz version" is completely wrong..
clock for clock the p3 coppermine is the fastest proccessor ever designed.. sure it can't do everything that the new stuff can do, but that wasn't what it was ment to do.
the coppermine was a wonderfull design and i would love to see intel bring it back from the d
Re:Innovative dick comparison (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's about time someone came up with a method to use this heat for additional productivity. Maybe the element used in heating water for an expresso machine!
Energy efficiency (Score:5, Funny)
Does this means these new multicores will fry eggs even faster? I hate it when my meal isn't done in time!
Re:Energy efficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
No - Sun manage to get four multithreading cores in their Niagra, and only run at 72 watts with 32 threads. see this [theregister.co.uk]
However, with Intel's cores, I expect be able to have a hot dinner faster than you can say Microwave".
Re:Energy efficiency (Score:2)
Oh, do you expect to fry an egg with a 31W (TDP) Sossaman [endian.net], or do you expect to do it with a (TDP not confirmed officially) 80W Woodcrest [wikipedia.org]? I can understand faboi comments like these, but for it to get modded to 4-Interesting is seriously lame.
Re:Energy efficiency (Score:2)
Advantages and disadvantages of multicore (Score:5, Informative)
* Proximity of multiple CPU cores on the same die have the advantage that the cache coherency circuitry can operate at a much higher clock rate than is possible if the signals have to travel off-chip, so combining equivalent CPUs on a single die significantly improves the performance of cache snoop operations.
* Assuming that the die can fit into the package, physically, the multi-core CPU designs require much less Printed Circuit Board (PCB) space than multi-chip SMP designs.
* A dual-core processor uses slightly less power than two coupled single-core processors, principally because of the increased power required to drive signals external to the chip and because the smaller silicon process geometry allows the cores to operate at lower voltages.
* In terms of competing technologies for the available silicon die area, multi-core design can make use of proven CPU core library designs and produce a product with lower risk of design error than devising a new wider core design. Also, adding more cache suffers from diminishing returns.
Disadvantages
* Multi-core processors require operating system (OS) support to make optimal use of the second computing resource.[1] Also, making optimal use of multiprocessing in a desktop context requires application software support.
* The higher integration of the multi-core chip drives the production yields down and are more difficult to manage thermally than lower density single-chip designs.
* From an architectural point of view, ultimately, single CPU designs may make better use of the silicon surface area than multiprocessing cores, so a development commitment to this architecture may carry the risk of obsolescence.
* Scaling efficiency is largely dependent on the application or problem set. For example, applications that require processing large amounts of data with low computer-overhead algorithms may find this architecture has an I/O bottleneck, underutilizing the device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-core [wikipedia.org]
Re:Advantages and disadvantages of multicore (Score:2)
And that support exists in just about all OS'es already
Not really. Your OS is already running several processos in the background. SMP allows for those processes to be evenly distributed to two cores. Also, if you run more than one app at the same time (like we all do, basically), you will benef
General Rant - no need for multi-threaded aps! (Score:3, Insightful)
The bolded section continually drives me nuts... NO, you don't have to have multi-threaded applications to get benefits from a multi-CPU system. When was the last time you EVER ran one program on your computer? Take a look at the Task List some day... there are probably 20-30
Pretty light reading, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what most consumers need in a computer...
A low latency desktop that can handle about 2-3 running applications with no slowdown that runs cool and doesn't use a lot of power.
Here's what we are getting...
A high latency desktop with fat pipes that run hot, optimized for running 7-8 cpu intensive applications at once, and idles at 200 watts. Because it should take 10+ seconds to open a basic program on an out of box pc.
Re:Pretty light reading, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of that will be down to the disks, which is nothing to do with Intel or AMD.
Re:Pretty light reading, but... (Score:2)
Net power loss less than 5%...
Intel is not wrht gambling on anymore, too many false rumours... Wait for some real results before believing ANYTHING from them.
Re:Pretty light reading, but... (Score:2)
And on the other hand, I'm thinking about whether or not I can afford to get a dual-processor dual-core in my next box, so I'd love to see them move to quad-core,
you already got it... (Score:3, Insightful)
These new chips mentioned are server/workstation chips.
Also, I find your latency comments incongruous. Yes, P4 has an overly-long pipeline. But it's not user-perceiveable in terms of latency. It's only reflected in how the processor just doesn't perform as well as might be expected from the processor clocking and transistor count or heat production.
The 10+ seconds thing is more attributable to oth
Re:Number of apps depends on OS (Score:3, Interesting)
wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:5, Informative)
factorial times for "100,000!"
look at the two athlons running at 2.0GHZ (3200+ and 2400+) and notice how it is frequency dependant
P4 3.2GHz 81 seconds
athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz socket A, barton)81 seconds
Pentium 930 dualcore (3.0GHz) 82 seconds
P4 3.0GHz (laptop) 90 seconds
Pentium 920 dualcore (2.8GHz) 90 seconds
athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz socket 939, venice) 91 seconds
athlon XP 2400+ (2.0GHz) 93 seconds
athlon XP 2100+ 106 seconds
athlon XP 2000+ (1.67GHz) 121 seconds
athlon mobile XP 1800+ (1.52GHz) 122 seconds
celeron 2.7 GHz (northwood core) 130 seconds
celeron 1.4GHz (tualatin) 205 seconds
athlon 900 (thunderbird) 228 seconds
(used msconfig to disable everything)
celeron 1.1GHz 253 seconds
celeron 800MHz (win98) 333 seconds (5min 33sec)
celeron 800MHz (XP pro) 373 seconds
PIII 800 (XP pro) 378 seconds (used msconfig to kill all crap running)
474 seconds (lots of junk running)
PIII 450MHz (underclocked coppermine) 490 seconds
PII 333MHz 686 seconds
PII 300MHz 760 SECONDS
P 166MHz 2417 seconds
P 100MHz ~4000 seconds (66 minutes)
P 75MHz 5330 seconds (1:28:50)
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Opteron 146 (2.0GHz) : 43 seconds
Now I know what is the purpose of 64bit desktop CPUs - extreme Calculator performance!
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:2)
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:2, Insightful)
My test system is a Sempron 1800MHz 64-bit processor, and I wrote my programs in Python
A naive program which calculates 1 * 2 * ... * 100000 just as written takes 54s CPU time.
Another program which uses a "divide and conquer" a
Pentium M differs quite a bit my friend.... (Score:3, Interesting)
OS: Slackware Linux (Current)
Application: kcalc (Comes with KDE)
These are both ASUS laptops with PC3200 RAM:
2.8 GHz Celeron: 65 secs
1.6 GHz Celeron M: 18.5 secs
This kind of makes you wonder now, doesn't it? It appears that the Pentium M achieves *quite* a bit more per MHz then the Pentium 4.
Aside from that... the calculator in windows is obviously a joke, as the 1.6 GHz machine took 118 secs to do it in WinXP >_<
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:3, Interesting)
474 seconds (lots of junk running)
That one is interesting. So XP Pro has enough unnecessary stuff running by default to make it 25% slower??
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:4, Interesting)
a very simple perfomance check i love to run on every computer i come across:
put windows calculator in scientific mode (yes, mathmatica or maple will do factorials in a fraction of the time, but try to post windows scores for comparison purposes....)
type in 100,000
hit the n! button
ignore the warnings that it will take a long time, don't even bother clicking on "Continue", because the calculation is still going.
and report how long it takes to complete a factorial of 100,000
please report what CPU you have
**64 bit XP is twice as fast
celeron 800MHz (coppermine): 333 seconds (5min 33sec)
1.4GHz celeron (tualatin) does it in 205 seconds
P4 3.2Ghz and Athlon 3200+ both do it in about 80 seconds....
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wanna compare cpu speeds? (Score:2)
IBM Power 6 @ 6Ghz (Score:5, Interesting)
Refer here [slashdot.org]
Re:IBM Power 6 @ 6Ghz (Score:5, Informative)
It's also important to remember that one of the reasons that Intel is walking away from the clock speed race is that AMD showed that it wasn't necessarily the best way to higher performance. My point is that just because the new IBM chip may have four cores and a high clock speed doesn't mean it will be any faster than a chip with AMD's architecture. No one will really know until it's released and compared against whatever else is available at the time.
Link to an article that does mention the 6Ghz Power 6:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/07/ibm_power6 _show/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:IBM Power 6 @ 6Ghz (Score:2)
So it is possible that Intel makes a 4.5Ghz P4 and AMD makes a 3.2Ghz AMD64 but the yield would be so low that you'd be paying nearly 5 digits per processor to recoup costs.
Would you honestly pay [say] $17,000 for a 4.5Ghz processor? Specially when you could get an entire 2P SMP system for that much? (and often less).
Tom
Re:IBM Power 6 @ 6Ghz (Score:2)
It only really matters when the stuff gets to market at a decent price.
love that headline... (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to "Intel aims to get further behind with new chips"?
What the hell else would they be doing??
smash.
Re:love that headline... (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition good... Sloth bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
I (this is IMHO) believe that Intel has been doing some laurel-resting for a number of years now. I do believe that they will come to bear with better stuff on a gradual basis. My only fear is that Intel will allow itself to do like GM, Ford, AT&T... allow itself to be way too slow to be quick to adapt. I personally would like to see IBM, AMD, and Intel all have truly great, smokin' processors going way into the future - it seems that it would only be good for us in the long run.
multithreaded programming (Score:2, Insightful)
bottom line, people won't see massive improvements in performance with those new multicores until ppl really get the hang on developing multithreaded soft. I better read up on the subject.
Re:multithreaded programming (Score:2, Funny)
the only thing java does well is eat memory
Keeping the options afloat (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result Intel is trying to revamp their product line to become more competitive - but to keep from losing customers they are trying to darken the sky with marketing. This will work for a while because Intel has some credibility amassed from its earlier successes.
But if they fail to deliver at least parity with the next round of designs they are going to lose market share as fast as AMD can build Fabs. And right now they are running the risk of the 'Osborne Effect' - promising new product so attractive that the company loses large sales volume on current sales.
So Intel is making some really big bets here. If we get into the same time frame in 2007 with AMD still having a clear technical lead we could see AMD and Intel all of a sudden having a 40/60 split in market share, and a duopoly where once there was a monopoly.
Intel Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Overhype (Score:2)
No news here (Score:3)
Summary: Intel will anounce new chip at upcomming event
Real World: At a future event Intel will talk about a chip that will be available some months after the event
What this means: In the future Intel will talk about the future
No news here. Tell me whan I can buy one.
I Really Wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
Naming Conventions (Score:5, Informative)
Telling a customer the difference between a Pentium D, Pentium 4, Pentium 4 EE, Celeron D is hard enough without actually having to know what chips are out and what is offering the best performance for price. It feels a lot like market saturation sometimes.
AMD at least is a little bit simpler to follow.
Re:Naming Conventions (Score:2)
Too bad most people don't think they have an alternative
If I was a consultant, marketing PC to Mac migration services would probably be a good (and easy/fun) thing to do for a bit.
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:3, Interesting)
My mid-tower puts out a lot of heat. Enough to keep my room warm, even with the door open.
Re:Too Little, Too late? My Arse! (Score:2, Interesting)
You just made me want to go out and buy a K6 or a PIII with that dumbass comment, WTF are you on about 07-08 season!?
Upgrading is not a seasonal thing except for the uber geek desperate to get the latest and greatest and I've got news for you...that is deffiantely not thier target audience and they have not yet lost the war!
Dont get me wrong, I'm not an Intel fanboy but I think you are ill informed and probably have your hea
Re:Too Little, Too late? My Arse! (Score:5, Informative)
Ironically, the AMD64 series CPU's have no front side bus. This includes the X2 series. They have a hypertransport bus, which is similar but different. This is one of the premier reasons that the X2/Opterons scale so much better than the Intel equivalents, they do not have a saturated FSB as they have direct HTT links CPU-CPU.
Re:Too Little, Too late? My Arse! (Score:2)
Isn't the direct CPU-CPU connections and the direct CPU-Memory connections an evolution of the EVA architecture AMD licensed from DEC? Sure would seem like their long range strategy is
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but all your watts are heat.
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
so, since YOU have already upgraded, you're saying that they've lost ALL dual core sales "available"?
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
Got any proof of that?
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
Wh/Wi > Wc/Wi
So, there you have it
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, WTF?!? Are you saying that everybody who is going to buy a dual-core processor has already bought one, and next such CPU's wont be sold until 2007-2008?? What if someone decides to upgrade his computer in the summer (for example) to a dual-core machine? By your logic, he does not exist and/or he should wait until 2007/2008 because "that's when the next upgrade-sycle is in, you can't upgrade before that"?
People are upgrading their computer all the time. People are buying new computers all the time.
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, what he is saying is that the early adopters, those who have legitimate imediate need and those who purchase simply because "it's better" have already bought one and that it won't be a conventional purpose for a couple more years.
The Cycle: A concetration of buying from the early adopters, a slow dribble for awhile, then commodity buying.
Poster is not suggesti
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
There will be plenty of people buying dual-core chips even after the early-adopters have bought theirs. Some people simply didn't have the need/money to upgrade right after dual-cores were released, but they might upgrade a bit later. And new computers are being sold to compani
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
Dual cores should have been a huge generation, but they ended up being only a half generation
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
I was also dissapointed at the 800$ 4800X2, but from looking at their statements, it looks like the X2s just cost more to make.
Intel can price their dual core cheaper because they're using the new 62nm fabs. The cores take up less space on a die and therefor cost less to produce.
It's interesting that it took a (multi?)billion dollar fab for Intel to catch up to AMD. Onc
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
Unless you can get your heater or CPU to output other than 1 joule every watt, I'm going to have to disagree.
Re:Too Little, Too late? (Score:2)
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp ?artsec=17&issue=20060216 [investors.com]
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=INTC&stocktab=finance&pgid=qt qnnavfinstate [morningstar.com]
Re:Intel has unrealistic expectations (Score:2, Informative)
However, since I'm usually doing more than one thing on a computer at a time, I don't require programs to be multithreaded in order to see the benefit of multicore processors. For instance, I can transcode video while web browsing or watching HD video and still h
Re:slightly off-topic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:slightly off-topic (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2648&p=14 [anandtech.com]
To save you the trouble, "We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller. The only remaining exception at this point appears to be 3D games, where the Athlon 64 X2 continues to do quite well, most likely due to its on-die memory controller. "
So basically int
Re:slightly off-topic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:slightly off-topic - not 64-bit (Score:3, Informative)
Well, for starters the current Core Duo is a 32-bit only chip. And while 64-bit processing doesn't double your CPU speed or anything like that, there are other improvements in the AMD64 design (more registers, NX bit, etc.) that make for improvements beyond 64-bit integer processing and >4GB address space.
Comparing these two particular processor lines would be a lot like comparing 80286 processors at 16MHz with 800386 processors at the same clock rate.
Re:We need a 4 GHZ or faster CPU (Score:3, Funny)
I would imagine 5 or 10 GHz, respectivly