AMD's Quad cores have large advantages over Kentsfield - Page 3 - Overclock.net

selectodude · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice

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

I don't think AMD even has an ES.

Jori · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by selectodude

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.

They have dedicated L2 cache, and shared L3 cache, which im sure could very well be implemented with on the chip HT link, if at all possible. AMD does not need large cache's. Intel does. Why? Simple, the FSB. It takes longer for the RAM and CPU to communicate with each other, so build a CPU with alot of cache helps alleviate that problem. AMD on the other hand has a very very fast and efficient way to communicate with RAM and CPU's. So thus, they dont need that much cache. Also effictively, each AMD dual core CPU in 4x4 will have a 2000mhz bus speed, that is 1000mhz each CPU, they dont even have to worry about bandwidth.

And Swayne, the initial testers of the Kentsfield said that the Kentsfield was being limited a bit by the FSB.

edit: Also remind you, this is talking about 4x4, not their quad cores due out in 2h' 07.

lol and PwnJohnson, I hope that is sarcastic.. Because Intel is switching to a "copy" of Hyper Transport, called CSI-Interconnect. I think that alone says they realize that AMD has had a superior way of having a system communicate, and they want in on it as well

FrankenPC · 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.

Yeah, why hasn't Intel gone to some kind of on chip, unified memory controller? Isn't it a better design?

Chosen · 10-28-06

Well put jori.

Jazino · 10-28-06

its funny how people are so bent on defending their chip maker. its silly really, AMD ruled for a while after Intel did, now it looks as if it may be Intels turn for a while. these threads alsways have potential but people get so fired up in proving others wrong.

swayne · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori

And Swayne, the initial testers of the Kentsfield said that the Kentsfield was being limited a bit by the FSB.

o i was unawhare of this and yes its true amds memory controller and whatnot is very efficiant i wish intel would stop beeing so cheap and make one

Jori · 10-28-06

Thats where CSI comes in, I think the expected ETA* for it is in either 2007 or 2008, but dont quote me for that.

selectodude · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori

Thats where CSI comes in, I think the expected DOA for it is in either 2007 or 2008, but dont quote me for that.

Do you mean ETA?

I assume that CSI isn't going to be "dead on arrival".

Sideburns · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCZedd

Hmm I see what he is saying, all data must pass thro the first cpu

I think AMD will be able to make it so it doesnt have to pass thro the 1st cpu to be executed. Also isnt this just the same with Kentsfield, as it has an FSB bottleneck which they had to overclock to get C2D/C2Q to work (266MHz from 200MHz)?

They didn't overclock anything...*****.

It's called advancing in technology.

Why run a 200 FSB with ram that goes up to DDR2 1066? You can obvs increase it.

266, is the same as 553 or whatever it is...

It's like a Pentium with a 100Mhz FSB or whtaever...same thing. They increased the FSB as they could to improve performance.

Jori · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by selectodude

Do you mean ETA?

I assume that CSI isn't going to be "dead on arrival".

lol I was thinking Date of Arrival, o well. Yes I mean more like ETA

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

10-28-06	#25 (permalink)
Jazino PC Gamer Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 2,615 Rep: 140 Unique Rep: 119 Trader Rating: 23	its funny how people are so bent on defending their chip maker. its silly really, AMD ruled for a while after Intel did, now it looks as if it may be Intels turn for a while. these threads alsways have potential but people get so fired up in proving others wrong.

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