Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer. - Page 29

post #281 of 300
ummmmm I want that 8 core beast
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #282 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCPUser View Post
I know what is reeeeally smart guys... let argue about phenom vs i79xx in a BULLDOZER thread.

Come guys, phenom is irrelevant to this conversion. The architecture is completely different. Past AMD CPUs can't be used when speculating on BD performance. I have said once and I will say it again...

The only similarity between phenom and bulldozer is the AMD logo. Now stop this pointless fight...
Haha, yeah, that is like comparing the horrific Netburst architecture to the Core 2's. I remember when the Core 2 came out and everyone was like "wait a second, Intel can actually make good CPU's?" It was baffling, but it happened. At this point speculation is pointless, all we know is that AMD is confident for the first time in six years and that is a good sign.

In any case, the only thing that matters is the performance to dollar ratio, people. Competition is good for the consumer, without AMD's competitive pricing, Sandy Bridge would never be as reasonably priced as it is!
Thinkpad W520
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 2720QM Quadro 2000M 8GB DDR3 1066 Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 
Hard DriveOS
500GB 7200RPM Windows 7 Professional 
  hide details  
Reply
Thinkpad W520
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 2720QM Quadro 2000M 8GB DDR3 1066 Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 
Hard DriveOS
500GB 7200RPM Windows 7 Professional 
  hide details  
Reply
post #283 of 300
its all gonna come down to price/peformance ratio for most of the sales i reakon.

and then theirs the high end ones who are gonna try beat each other with a raw chicken till 1 dies
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 4.4ghz Asus p8z68-v PRO EVGA gtx 460 EE + ESC 450 4gb ddr3 gskill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 x 1tb samsung spinpoint windows 7 2 x 19" LCD 1440 x 900 :( Razer Black widow 
PowerCaseMouse
Silverstone strider 1000w Plus 600t  Razer Naga 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 4.4ghz Asus p8z68-v PRO EVGA gtx 460 EE + ESC 450 4gb ddr3 gskill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 x 1tb samsung spinpoint windows 7 2 x 19" LCD 1440 x 900 :( Razer Black widow 
PowerCaseMouse
Silverstone strider 1000w Plus 600t  Razer Naga 
  hide details  
Reply
post #284 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post
See, this is denial, you're just convincing yourself that you're not seeing a lucid fact that's right in front of you;

I'll take two high-end processors from both companies;

The Intel i7 960 vs AMD PII 1100T

Price: $290 vs $220
Cores: 4 vs 6 More cores. Check.
Non-Turbo Frequency: 3.2Ghz vs 3.3 Ghz Higher CPU freq.
Turbo Frequency: 3.46Ghz vs 3.7 Ghz Check.
Manufacturing Tech: 45nm vs 45nm
L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB vs 6 x 512KB More L2 Cache. Check.

Performance* (winner underlined):

Sysmark Overall: 238 vs 204
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Bench - Retouch: 15.0s vs 18.4
DivX 6.8.5 Encode (Xmpeg 5.0.3): 32.3s vs 35.5s
x264 encode, 1st pass: 85.8 vs 89.2
x264 encode, 2nd pass: 31.6 vs 29.5
Windows media encoder: 24 vs 28

Total: 5 vs 1 (slightly) poorer performance. Check.

Summary: The 1100T's more cores, higher frequency and more L2 cache, when compared to the i7 960, did not prevent it from performing slightly worse than the i7 960 in most cases.

*Visit here for more comparisons. The i7 965 EE is equal to the i7 960 in terms of performance when at stock

Look I am really not trying to be an ass hat but what point are you focusing on?
This is not a well thought out discussion. It's not good to keep shifting the goal posts.

First: you say that AMD had always had more cores more cache and had always had a higher clock.

We came back with evidence that they had not, I gathered more information about most of the old and new i7 range and proved that they had the same amount of cores and cache.
Which in the E range the Intel's had more cache.

Now

The 1100T's more cores, higher frequency and more L2 cache, when compared to the i7 960, did not prevent it from performing slightly worse than the i7 960 in most cases.


Let me break this down for you.

Yes the 1045,55,90,1100 have more L2 cache in general, but even you could figure out that it is purely due to core count.


As for performance, put that very same 960 and 1100 in 6 threaded apps and see how much of a difference it makes.
On this point you make an Ok argument but since most commercial software isn't written for 6 cored processors then it makes the point null and void.

But once the 1100T gets chopped back to 4 threaded apps then the i series walks all over it in most cases. But even then that is synthetic and more often than not it doesn't translate well in the real world.



Now SHHHHHH let me let you in on a little secret, it has been like that for the past 2 odd years, you seem to forget that the 1100T is made of the same stuff the as the other PhenomII's. So why would the performance be any different?

Also add to that Intel is a generation ahead of AMD in cpu design, so for you to make a fair comparison you need to put PhenomII against CORE 2 Duo/Quad.

Edit:
I can see what you are talking about, but it then boils down to architecture and process. Then it's Intel.
The price difference is between the two here in AUS is more like.


AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE-$269.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00

So a saving of $80 in favor of AMD, which doesn't look to fantastic but when you know that the next step down is

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE-$229.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $120
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $96

Then move down a few more AMD rungs.

AMD Phenom II X6 1075T-$215.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $134
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $110

The savings keep coming.

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T-$189.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $160 "a new SSD anyone?"
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $136

But yeah when you look at it from an overclockers point of view, and with a little tweaking to the lower end 1055T and the 1075T here and there the price difference is a little better.
I wouldn't say that I am in denial, my machine does what I want and at a quick pace, it doesn't leave me wanting at all.

But the whole PhenomII architecture means Buckley's when it comes to the "new" Bulldozer architecture. Which we as a PC enthusiast community only know tid bits of information about the new Bulldozer CPU's. So we cannot say much at all.
Edited by smash_mouth01 - 3/22/11 at 10:02pm
post #285 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by smash_mouth01 View Post
Look I am really not trying to be an ass hat but what point are you focusing on?
This is not a well thought out discussion. It's not good to keep shifting the goal posts.

First: you say that AMD had always had more cores more cache and had always had a higher clock.

We came back with evidence that they had not, I gathered more information about most of the old and new i7 range and proved that they had the same amount of cores and cache.
Which in the E range the Intel's had more cache.

Now

The 1100T's more cores, higher frequency and more L2 cache, when compared to the i7 960, did not prevent it from performing slightly worse than the i7 960 in most cases.


Let me break this down for you.

Yes the 1045,55,90,1100 have more L2 cache in general, but even you could figure out that it is purely due to core count.

As for performance, put that very same 960 and 1100 in 6 threaded apps and see how much of a difference it makes.
On this point you make an Ok argument but since most commercial software isn't written for 6 cored processors then it makes the point null and void.

But once the 1100T gets chopped back to 4 threaded apps then the i series walks all over it in most cases. But even then that is synthetic and more often than not it doesn't translate well in the real world.

Now SHHHHHH let me let you in on a little secret, it has been like that for the past 2 odd years, you seem to forget that the 1100T is made of the same stuff the as the other PhenomII's. So why would the performance be any different?

Also add to that Intel is a generation ahead of AMD in cpu design, so for you to make a fair comparison you need to put PhenomII against CORE 2/Quad.
No, my argument was always focused; cores, clocks and the amount of L2 caches do not dictate performance. Do not try to predict, or claim how BD is going to perform.

I told you what I wrote initially was a syntactical error; I mean to refer to the after 2006 era. I even corrected that 1 post after my original post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post
Well I was referring to the Phenom IIs, not the pre-2006 era where AMD had the upper hand. And it is completely relevant. It is you who is in denial. [...]
The PII 1100T has more cores, a higher clock and more L2 cache when compared to the i7 960 but it performs worse in most uses. Please tell me how I am misinformed?
It seems that you have misread my posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smash_mouth01 View Post
Also add to that Intel is a generation ahead of AMD in cpu design, so for you to make a fair comparison you need to put PhenomII against CORE 2/Quad.
Well see, that is in the root of the conversation, AMD is one generation behind.... Can they really catch up?
In any case, I was comparing to CPUs of the same generation (Nehalems vs Thubans), it is fair game... it allows us to see the tech level of both companies.
Edited by born2bwild - 3/22/11 at 9:31pm
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #286 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post
AMD is one generation behind.... Can they really catch up?
Intel did, but then again they have much much much more money.

EDIT: Think about it this way, the Pentium D was leagues behind the Athlon X2 as it was based on the Netburst architecture. The Core 2 was under development well before the Pentium D came out, now I'm not sure exactly the amount of time it was under development, but I do know that Bulldozer has been under development for five years now (that's as long as Intel QuickSync). You also have to take into consideration that there isn't just one development team, there are many teams working simultaneously on different projects.

Also look at how often Nvidia and AMD (formally ATI) flip-flop. Remember how late to the game the HD 2000's were and when they were finally released, they were terrible. Then a few years later the HD 5000's came out and dominated the initial fermi's. Now the next gen fermi's are slightly better than the HD 6000.

So just because one architecture is inferior to another doesn't mean that the next one will be.
Edited by dodger.blue - 3/22/11 at 9:36pm
Thinkpad W520
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 2720QM Quadro 2000M 8GB DDR3 1066 Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 
Hard DriveOS
500GB 7200RPM Windows 7 Professional 
  hide details  
Reply
Thinkpad W520
(6 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 2720QM Quadro 2000M 8GB DDR3 1066 Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 
Hard DriveOS
500GB 7200RPM Windows 7 Professional 
  hide details  
Reply
post #287 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger.blue View Post
Intel did, but then again they have much much much more money.

EDIT: Think about it this way, the Pentium D was leagues behind the Athlon X2 as it was based on the Netburst architecture. The Core 2 was under development well before the Pentium D came out, now I'm not sure exactly the amount of time it was under development, but I do know that Bulldozer has been under development for five years now (that's as long as Intel QuickSync). You also have to take into consideration that there isn't just one development team, there are many teams working simultaneously on different projects.

Also look at how often Nvidia and AMD (formally ATI) flip-flop. Remember how late to the game the HD 2000's were and when they were finally released, they were terrible. Then a few years later the HD 5000's came out and dominated the initial fermi's. Now the next gen fermi's are slightly better than the HD 6000.

So just because one architecture is inferior to another doesn't mean that the next one will be.
Agreed 100%.
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #288 of 300
lol. "Aims"

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger.blue View Post
Intel did, but then again they have much much much more money.

EDIT: Think about it this way, the Pentium D was leagues behind the Athlon X2 as it was based on the Netburst architecture. The Core 2 was under development well before the Pentium D came out, now I'm not sure exactly the amount of time it was under development, but I do know that Bulldozer has been under development for five years now (that's as long as Intel QuickSync). You also have to take into consideration that there isn't just one development team, there are many teams working simultaneously on different projects.

So just because one architecture is inferior to another doesn't mean that the next one will be.
Uhm. No. No it wasn't. Far from it. Netburst was meant to be the next big thing. It was a new, bold direction full of grand new ideas and the promise of fullfiling the several gigahertz dream. Unfortunately, Mr. Watts and Mr Celsius had enough of Mr Gigahertz **** and put the breaks on this "race" with AMD towards some arbitrary [x]hertz barrier, in which Netburst was aimed at winning.

Core 2 arose from the Pentium 3/Merom architecture (developed by the Isreali division of Intel) in response to the essential failure of netburst. Let me say that again, Core arch arose from the need to address the shortcomings of P4, shortcomings they were only aware of until after P4 reached maturity. Essentially, P4 tried to accomplish too many things at once, and perhaps more importantly, attempted to do those things at excessive speed. Core 2 was a response to to P4, built upon the shoulders of the giant that was P3, discarding most if not all of that which differentiated the P4 architecture from that of its predecssors. Core/Nehalem/Westemere were all baby steps toward realizing the dream that was once P4, and since renamed "sandy bridge."

Sandy Bridge takes many of the things that made P4 great, and implements them well with Performance/Watt or Performance/Core as main priorities utilizing the successful evolution of the P3 arch as a backbone. It takes those ideas and concepts that made P4 great, and realizes them in an efficient, robust way.

Bulldozer may very well be an epic departure from the norm, which is said to be its saving grace, but that very grace may well be the downfall of AMD. Look no farther than P4 when you want a clear example of the folly's of opting for revolution over evolution. It all comes down to how far they've stepped from box, and how well they've built the bridge that has taken them there.

Lets hope AMD has more grace than Intel.
Edited by TheSprunk - 3/23/11 at 2:34am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon L5640 Asus X58 Sabertooth MSI 560Ti 448 Twin Frozr III PE Samsung Green Power LP DDR3 1600  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Western Digital Velociraptor Samsung F1 1TB Corsair H70 CPU Cooling 3xCougar CF-V14H 140mm Case Fans 
CoolingMonitorKeyboardPower
3x Cougar CF-V12H 120mm Case Fans Dell S2440M 21.5" 1080P  Rosewill Mechanical RK-9000BRI Corsair HX750 
CaseMouse
Xigmatek Asgard Logitech M570 Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon L5640 Asus X58 Sabertooth MSI 560Ti 448 Twin Frozr III PE Samsung Green Power LP DDR3 1600  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Western Digital Velociraptor Samsung F1 1TB Corsair H70 CPU Cooling 3xCougar CF-V14H 140mm Case Fans 
CoolingMonitorKeyboardPower
3x Cougar CF-V12H 120mm Case Fans Dell S2440M 21.5" 1080P  Rosewill Mechanical RK-9000BRI Corsair HX750 
CaseMouse
Xigmatek Asgard Logitech M570 Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
post #289 of 300
Oops, Double post
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon L5640 Asus X58 Sabertooth MSI 560Ti 448 Twin Frozr III PE Samsung Green Power LP DDR3 1600  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Western Digital Velociraptor Samsung F1 1TB Corsair H70 CPU Cooling 3xCougar CF-V14H 140mm Case Fans 
CoolingMonitorKeyboardPower
3x Cougar CF-V12H 120mm Case Fans Dell S2440M 21.5" 1080P  Rosewill Mechanical RK-9000BRI Corsair HX750 
CaseMouse
Xigmatek Asgard Logitech M570 Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon L5640 Asus X58 Sabertooth MSI 560Ti 448 Twin Frozr III PE Samsung Green Power LP DDR3 1600  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Western Digital Velociraptor Samsung F1 1TB Corsair H70 CPU Cooling 3xCougar CF-V14H 140mm Case Fans 
CoolingMonitorKeyboardPower
3x Cougar CF-V12H 120mm Case Fans Dell S2440M 21.5" 1080P  Rosewill Mechanical RK-9000BRI Corsair HX750 
CaseMouse
Xigmatek Asgard Logitech M570 Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
post #290 of 300
^ There was an internal struggle at Intel. One faction wanted to pursue the 10GHz dream of Netburst. Another faction wanted to go back to P3 style of CPUs. Remember P4 had less much less IPC than P3.

Intel was heavily marketing clock speed as performance and the masses fell for it. When that MHz myth could not be sustained any longer, Intel emphasized model numbers instead of clock speed. That is why we now have names like i7 920 / 2600k instead of i7 3.4GHz.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer.