[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpg "Wikipedia ALL THE WAY", Hey man no need to get angry @ me. I'm just saying that intel is my choice... Hey man Market Capitalization refers simply to the value of a company, that is intels $150.5 billion & AMD US$13 billion.... & the Revenue is defined as the amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period(Intels $34.2 billion USD in 2005 Against AMD $5.85 billion Revenue in 2005)

Angry? lol I think you read too much into it. I thought you were stating that as revenue and I just knew there was no possibility to have that much market growth among such large companies. I personally don't have a favorite and look at specific chips when I buy. I could careless who makes them, I just want the best for my cash. For now, it's AMD. When Conroe comes out, it should be Intel again unless things don't go as planned or it's overpriced.

 

[ICYUNVME]

As far as whos the better Intel or AMD who really cares man. To each his own. I think that Intel is finally starting to get thier ducks in a row but they went way off the beaten path with netburst. Now they are starting to see the error in thier ways and correcting it. Will this next crop of chips make up for it? Not even close. Are they attempting to get headed down the right path to that end? Yes. I also agree that until AMD and Intel make the same chip with the same core and architecture then there is no way in hell anyone on the face of this planet can put any type of comparison together of the two. I am impartial to either chip company I just want a good chip for a decent price. Now the way I see it is this whole shake up at Intel with the new logo and new architectures for thier chips is representative of the fact that AMD was getting way to much market share with thier chips. You can deny it all you want but even I admit that AMD just has better architecture and instruction sets with thier chips IMHO. This is not to say Intel are crap they just went a different direction than AMD and now are realizing the short commings of it and are moving on. I can't wait to see what this does in the next 3 to 5 years for chips from both companies. See the direction Intel is taking now is gonna ratchet up the competition between the two companies meaning better cheaper chips for what ever your choice is. This is just the way I see things so pls dispence with flamming it pls lol.

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICYUNVME As far as whos the better Intel or AMD who really cares man. To each his own. I think that Intel is finally starting to get thier ducks in a row but they went way off the beaten path with netburst. Now they are starting to see the error in thier ways and correcting it. Will this next crop of chips make up for it? Not even close. Are they attempting to get headed down the right path to that end? Yes. I also agree that until AMD and Intel make the same chip with the same core and architecture then there is no way in hell anyone on the face of this planet can put any type of comparison together of the two. I am impartial to either chip company I just want a good chip for a decent price. Now the way I see it is this whole shake up at Intel with the new logo and new architectures for thier chips is representative of the fact that AMD was getting way to much market share with thier chips. You can deny it all you want but even I admit that AMD just has better architecture and instruction sets with thier chips IMHO. This is not to say Intel are crap they just went a different direction than AMD and now are realizing the short commings of it and are moving on. I can't wait to see what this does in the next 3 to 5 years for chips from both companies. See the direction Intel is taking now is gonna ratchet up the competition between the two companies meaning better cheaper chips for what ever your choice is. This is just the way I see things so pls dispence with flamming it pls lol.

It wasn't so much that they say the error of their ways as it was the simple fact that they couldn't push the processor speeds any higher because the technology isn't there yet. Instead of struggling to find ways to go above 4 ghz, they're redesigning them to be more efficient in order to be competitive. Luckily for Intel, they have the manpower and money to move quickly on new projects.

 

[ICYUNVME]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472 It wasn't so much that they say the error of their ways as it was the simple fact that they couldn't push the processor speeds any higher because the technology isn't there yet. Instead of struggling to find ways to go above 4 ghz, they're redesigning them to be more efficient in order to be competitive. Luckily for Intel, they have the manpower and money to move quickly on new projects.

I can see where your comming from guess I should have mentioned that in my opinion they made an error lol.

 

[HrnyGoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori And who's to say AMD wont be breaking out 3.0+ chips stock when they find it necessary though?

AMD will have to develop their 65nm tech first. 3GHz would really be pushing the limits of 90nm.

 

[Jori]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HrnyGoat AMD will have to develop their 65nm tech first. 3GHz would really be pushing the limits of 90nm.

Which will likely be out *near* the time the Conroe is released, whether it be before or after. But also what about all the new 3700 SD's that have been clocking like crazy, or the Opteron's? The ability is definately there, it just needs to be pushed.

 

[J3r3my]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowmelder That means it would theoretically run as a Athlon64 clocked at 3.54GHz, assuming we multiply by 12 and divide by 9 (or multiply by 1.3 repeating).

And that would mean Conroe will run at 5.31 Pentium GHz

 

[HrnyGoat]

That is if it actually does in fact do 12 operations per clock. It would be a good move for competion and technology's sake, though. The CPU market has really stagnated and bringing a 12-op chip into the market would hopefully reignite the competion and advancement of technology.

 

[Cheetos316]

That's funny how they're going to produce a chip that'll do twice the number of ops/cycle than the P4s. Seems like the new race is to increase the number of ops/cycle which then leads a decrease in ghz. Kinda funny because Intel was shooting for the fastest ghz at first and now shooting for was slower ghz.

 

[Jori]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetos316 That's funny how they're going to produce a chip that'll do twice the number of ops/cycle than the P4s. Seems like the new race is to increase the number of ops/cycle which then leads a decrease in ghz. Kinda funny because Intel was shooting for the fastest ghz at first and now shooting for was slower ghz.

Not necessarily. Its unconfirmed how many op's it will do, but it is confirmed it will be using more than the Pentium 4. So until its out all we can do is speculate.

 

[Remonster]

I just revisited this thread and thought that some of you guys needed reminding that AMD's socket AM2 has a 1333MHz FSB (although they don't call it an FSB) and their Windsor and Orleans cores are going to be 65nm.

And I totally agree with that comment on CPU tech stagnating, I mean graphics cards have been doubling in performance every generation PLUS we now have CrossFire, SLI, SLI x16 and even QUAD SLI, as if our GPUs were the problem

back when I got my P4 530 in June 2004 it was top dog (as far as the 500 series, I know the 530 was bottom of the 5xx series) and they already had the 570 3.8GHz, today there is nothing faster than the 3.8 from Intel and all they have accomplished is added another meg of L2 cache and created their 6xx line. Now this is not considering the dual cores which are also kind of stagnating but Presler is a move in the right direction for sure.

 

[Ropey]

I personally believe that with this (Conroe) architecture Intel moves to parity with AMD. Intel has not dealt with the legacy memory controller issue and still is relying on the memory controller (which handles data communication between the CPU and RAM) being situated in the Northbridge. Until Intel moves this controller onto the processor die they will not be able to surpass AMD to any great degree.

AMD's next architecture (.65nm) will show the Intel deficiency to an even greater degree. Intel’s new Conroe architecture vs AMD’s new architecture (when released) will show this view out in my opinion.

R

 

[dpg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey I personally believe that with this (Conroe) architecture Intel moves to parity with AMD. Intel has not dealt with the legacy memory controller issue and still is relying on the memory controller (which handles data communication between the CPU and RAM) being situated in the Northbridge. Until Intel moves this controller onto the processor die they will not be able to surpass AMD to any great degree. AMD's next architecture (.65nm) will show the Intel deficiency to an even greater degree. Intel's new Conroe architecture vs AMD's new architecture (when released) will show this view out in my opinion. R

Ok, I think i can live another year or two...J/k

 

[sccr64472]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey I personally believe that with this (Conroe) architecture Intel moves to parity with AMD. Intel has not dealt with the legacy memory controller issue and still is relying on the memory controller (which handles data communication between the CPU and RAM) being situated in the Northbridge. Until Intel moves this controller onto the processor die they will not be able to surpass AMD to any great degree. AMD's next architecture (.65nm) will show the Intel deficiency to an even greater degree. Intel’s new Conroe architecture vs AMD’s new architecture (when released) will show this view out in my opinion. R

You're in for a surprise then. Conroe will be faster than anything else on the market for a little while.

 

[game]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472 Not gonna happen, not with a shorter bus length. 4 ghz proved hard even for the old architecture with the longer bus length and is the whole reasoning they're scrapping the design. They simply couldn't hit higher speeds, so you have to work on efficiency (ops/cycle) instead.

Remember that this new CPU thingy is based on the 65nm process, so who knows how much you could overclock it!

 

[Mjolnir]

I say thank gawd for both companies.

Without AMD being the hungry young pup nipping at Intel's heels, they'd be more inclined to be even more bloated and stagnant than they are.

Having these two companies fighting over us is a good thing.

 

[HrnyGoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ropey I personally believe that with this (Conroe) architecture Intel moves to parity with AMD. Intel has not dealt with the legacy memory controller issue and still is relying on the memory controller (which handles data communication between the CPU and RAM) being situated in the Northbridge. Until Intel moves this controller onto the processor die they will not be able to surpass AMD to any great degree. AMD's next architecture (.65nm) will show the Intel deficiency to an even greater degree. Intel’s new Conroe architecture vs AMD’s new architecture (when released) will show this view out in my opinion. R

Not necesarily. Simply sticking the memory controller on the die isnt gonna improve anything. It has to do with how well the memory controller is designed, and if Intel can design a good memory controller, it shoudnt be a problem as long as the FSB has sufficient bandwidth to feed it.

 

[Chillaxed]

then there is the question of how much bandwith it can actually output and all that stuff

 

[J3r3my]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillaxed then there is the question of how much bandwith it can actually output and all that stuff

Well if its running at 1066MHz FSB thatll give it 6.8GB/s of bandwidth.

 

[pauldovi]

Ehhh, the Conroe will not support current mainboards because of the voltage regulator. It is designed to work with the 975X chipset, but motherboards are going to have to be updated with a new voltage regulator.