Originally Posted by Rompf
Very interesting thread!
But im still wondering was it better to have made multiple cores on a processor or had gone down the 1 core path?
from what i have read 1 core makes for better speed but multiple cores makes for better multi-tasking.
I wonder if amd and intel would have gone with 2 lines of processors, one with multi-core and the other with single-core and still have had a success with both >>.
Intel was headed down the more GHz path with the netburst arch, does no one remember that and the huge performance AMD had at lower GHz?
Intel knew what the P4 was gonna be and PD, they used them while they had to as they had already switched gears and started design on conroe.
From there you can see how they molded the two archs together and took a bit of info from their competition.
Certain fundamentals to engineer what is needed will take 10+ years, but for most arch they for Intel at least seem to roll in about 3-5 year intervals.
And don't forget they have more then one arch they work on at a time here so even if one does flop like Netburst, at most it adds a couple years to introduce an arch they have looked at and now will perform better.
It doesn't all boil down to straight speed, but more efficiency of time used during clock cycles. The more operations an arch can do per a cycle the faster it will be even if at a slower speed/cycle rate.Edited by rx7racer - 8/8/11 at 1:00am