AMD's Quad cores have large advantages over Kentsfield - Page 2 - Overclock.net

swayne · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jester

Kentsfeild will choke under its own power. By using the FSB, Intel have pretty much killed it. Under full load on ALL cores, the FSB will be saturated and performance will diminish rapidly.

i dont think that the fsb will be saturated is there anyproff it has been saturated yet at all?

ELmo1989 · 10-28-06

Have to wait to see how it compares.
But that doesn't mean we need fanboy's to Say "No matter amd does it can't win"

Yes it may not be out , nor does it mean it needs to be judged.

Lt.JD · 10-28-06

Kentsfield is a stopgap measure. Intel wants to come out with Quad Core which pushes AMD even further back in the race. Yes Kentsfield will communicate through the FSB but right now it is the only Quad Core we have seen. We can wait for Q3 2007 when Intel is supposed to release a "true" Quad Core design and AMD Quad Cores are also supposed to be released and compare apples to apples

ELmo1989 · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamakazi

Just on a side note, for how many months before release was C2D compared to whatever AMD had

Point in case.

selectodude · 10-28-06

AMD's Quad Core is great and all, but they're using 2MB of shared L3 cache, which is slow and unwieldy. They won't have the 6 or 8 MB of shared L2 that Intel does, which will hurt performance. And remember the fact that Kentsfield should ratchet up the buss to 333MHz. That's darn fast.

pauldovi · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmay7

The article states what is said in the title, (ofcourse, not taking in consideration of the 9ops/12ops per cycle difference

), and the native AMD quad cores will vary from 2.6 to 3.0 ghz.

I didnt know that kentsfield just was two dualcores on one cpu

Source is here, clicky.

Please provide evidence of 9ops/12ops a cycle. Every time someone mentions this, I ask them to provide proof. No one has been able to thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamakazi

Just on a side note, for how many months before release was C2D compared to whatever AMD had

C2D was compared to AMD chips once the chip was actual produced, tested, and several samples leaked into the community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jester

Kentsfeild will choke under its own power. By using the FSB, Intel have pretty much killed it. Under full load on ALL cores, the FSB will be saturated and performance will diminish rapidly.

Anandtech has done extensive research on this and found that the FSB has not really affected the performance of the C2D. Looked for the article and I couldn't find it....

ELmo1989 · 10-28-06

All I say it that we stop judging.
I will admit Intel is has gaming king and server.
But one thing can't always win.

**RonindeBeatrice** · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELmo1989

Have to wait to see how it compares.
But that doesn't mean we need fanboy's to Say "No matter amd does it can't win"

Yes it may not be out , nor does it mean it needs to be judged.

I'm with Elmo... stop comparing apples to apple seeds... AMD will likely demo quad core chips within the month. Hold your horses.

Pwnjohnson · 10-28-06

Hehe, AMD is basically trying to squeeze all they can out of the integrated memory controller, HT, etc.. Nothing fancy really, since the FSB design is the one with much more flexibility

The_Jester · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldovi

Anandtech has done extensive research on this and found that the FSB has not really affected the performance of the C2D. Looked for the article and I couldn't find it....

Was this between Two core or Four?

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Hardware News
AMD's Quad cores have large advantages over Kentsfield

10-28-06	#19 (permalink)
Pwnjohnson Linux Lobbyist Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,191 Rep: 16 Unique Rep: 15 Trader Rating: 1	Hehe, AMD is basically trying to squeeze all they can out of the integrated memory controller, HT, etc.. Nothing fancy really, since the FSB design is the one with much more flexibility

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)