Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice

That's just a stop gap, joining two processors on one piece of silicon. Intel has done this manuever twice now and AMD stomped them for it once already... Plus AMD is just making the transition to 65nm and likely doesn't want to invest any resources in the temporary solution. They're wise in not attempting to mirror Intel's latest, but merely offering something comparable, the 4X4.

Originally Posted by HrnyGoat

They got stomped becuase it was Netburst vs K8. It wouldnt matter in the least if the Pentium D was native dual core or not. It was still Netburst and an inferior architecture. So its not really fair to make that reference.

Originally Posted by pow3rtr1p

Can't wait for the completed build. It does look like Pure Action to me. It's tall and dark and thick, and you mounted those very well.

Originally Posted by HrnyGoat

They got stomped becuase it was Netburst vs K8. It wouldnt matter in the least if the Pentium D was native dual core or not. It was still Netburst and an inferior architecture. So its not really fair to make that reference.

Originally Posted by Cheetos316

The way I see it is that there are two factors in judging how multi-cores will perform: marchitecture and inter-core communication. The X2s were superior to the Pentium Ds because of the K8 marchitecture and native dual-core. Intel woke up and solved this with C2D which has the better Core marchitecture and native dual-core, which tipped the performance scales over to C2D. Now it is going to get interesting as each will leverage their advantages to quad-core. Intel will use the better marchitecture with older inter-core communication while AMD will use the better native quad-core communication with older marchitecture. K8L will be a big improvement, but is still based off an older marchitecture - not that it's a bad marchitecture, but just not as good as Core.

Originally Posted by alk

YES. I love sparking debate!

Anyway, on topic. For those of you who misunderstood waht i was saying, I was reffering to AMD always releasing a superior processing/computing solution (ie CPU) compared to Intels latest release. NOT that AMD essentially copy Intel chips step by step and tweak them a bit! That would be called Plagourism (or however you spell it)

As far as I understand, AMD had a team of something like 13 designers working on the K8 series. Think about that for a moment. Thats not alot of people. I remember hearing it in an AMD press conference video which I have trailed the net for and cannot find. (Correct me if my numbers are out by a marginal ammount!)

The rate at which Intel is releasing new Processors is now phenomenal. Compared to the time the Pentium 4 was on the market for (Around about 4 years+) Thus AMD are taking their time releasing new CPUs. however, the exact science of creating faster and smaller CPUs is the same for all major vendors of microsprocessors, and unless the technology is there to fabricate chips at small faster speeds, neither company will outperform each other by any great deal. The situation companies find themselves in is a battle to come up with a superior design and then patent this design and make profit. AMD has perhaps been the wiser holding off and following in intels footsteps releasing CPUs with buzzwords like "Dual Core" etc, etc. However, Intel has always seemingly been at the forefront of technology, being the first to use buzz words. AMD releases products later once all the hype has died down, but having spent that extra bit of timeat the design process figuring out the best way to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the latest technological advancements in microelectronics and semiconductors.

I just get the impression that intels main selling point up till now as been getting the latest technology out there ASAP. Look at the Core2, how many people raced out and bought core2's when they realised that it was superior to AMD's top of the line at the time, yet ageing FX-60?! This forum is living proof that intels strategy also works. And the reason we buy core2? Because AMD has not released a competitor (Although some may argue that AM2 is the equivalent CPU package) and we are buying the latest, and best performing chips money can buy. What will happen if AMD release a superior CPU package? I can foresee eBay swarmed with Core2 listings right now.

This just proves that both AMD and Intels marketing strategys work very well. Personally, Ill not be upgrading my CPU for a looong time. There comes a point where you have to say enough is enough, and stick with what youve got. As an engineer, Im inclined to the frame of thought, "If it aint broken, don't fix it" or replace it in this matter. Fair enough, OC'ing is the equivalent of a free lunhc. Extra performance at the tweak of a few settings and a small (Or possibly large) investment in cooling!

Perhaps Im just a skint-flint!

Originally Posted by splat00n

I regreit not learninG　　　ウェん意後tmyx２をwwhy意s意ttyピンgティsぁんぐあげ￥＿

Originally Posted by splat00n

I regreit not learninG　　　ウェん意後tmyx２をwwhy意s意ttyピンgティsぁんぐあげ￥＿

Originally Posted by alk

I dont get it.