Originally Posted by Obakemono
Intel only applied 3D transistor tech to a modified CPU manufacturing process, 3D transistors were discovered/invented in 2007, and NOT by Intel. This is a step forward, and if AMD chooses to wait and see what this tech does, then so be it. All the AMD haters thinking that AMD should drop everything that they are doing and follow Intel's lead are thinking way wrong. AMD is making a smart move by seeing how much of an improvement this brings to the table. They are letting Intel do the field/market research for them. Smart move I think, but it does leave them behind in that specific area of CPU tech, but we still do not know what BD brings to the table.
I read that article, and didn't see any mention of Intel. Who cares who found what first, it's who is using it effectively FIRST. In this case, it's not your beloved AMD.
How is AMD making such a smart move by letting Intel further revolutionize tech, while sitting back and watching them do it?
If what Intel says it's true, and this has a 37% improvement, with half power ( You think they're just making up these number, or have data to back it up? ) how long is it going to take AMD to catch up? 3 - 5 years minimum, while Intel will continue to tweak and mature the process.
They've been talking about this tech since 2002.
Hasn't AMD fallen behind enough already?
There's a reason why beyond Ivy Bridge, Intel will ONLY be using 3D Transistors, and will no longer use the 2D Transistors being used today.
How soon will Intel use this technology?
Intel is essentially a chip manufacturer. So when it announces a new technology it's a not pie-in-the-sky idea. Intel's next-generation "Ivy Bridge" processors (which will follow its current Sandy Bridge chips) will use this 3D transistor technology exclusively. In other words, Intel will quit making 2D transistors and move completely to 3D on Ivy Bridge. Ivy Bridge will go into commercial production at the end of this year and into large production volume in 2012.
Are the AMD fanboys going to once again blame Intel for getting a head start? Remember, AMD has said "3D Transistors We Don't Need'em" when in reality, the headline should be: "3D Transistors We Don't Have'em"
I remember how arrogant AMD was when they were ahead, thinking that Intel couldn't bounce back with Conroe, and now look, they've yet to build a product that exceeds Intel's performance in the last 5 years, and counting.
ALL AMD can do is build cheap products that don't live up to Intel's performance, and they wonder why they're not making that much money. But again, it's all Intel's fault!Edited by 2010rig - 5/9/11 at 2:00pm