Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 08, 2006, 08:38:48 am
-
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9509
I think Intel is finally on the right track when it comes processor design. Of course we will have to wait for the actual chip to be released, but the details look promising.
A four-issue-wide, 14-stage main pipeline — This will obviously be a shorter pipeline than the 31 stages in Netburst processors, much closer to the current Pentium M and Core Duo CPUs, as expected
This alone is a massive improvement on the P4.
Gelsinger pinpointed Conroe’s TDP, or thermal design power, at 65W
Another major improvement. At least this one is going to be less than 100 watts......
-
:sigh:
More money. =/
-
I heard about this yesterday. That article only shows half the story. This is a K8 killer:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1
The expected prices are actually very good for this kind of performance, although it's going to be another six months before it comes out:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=787
-
Will these be able to run 64bit based aplications?
-
Give it time, I'd hate to see a Pentium 1 fiasco happen with a chip that's as promising as this one.
Give it more time, and AMD will have a similar, but not exactly the same processor, offering near the performance as these Intels, give or take some, and have a lower price.
-
Give it time, I'd hate to see a Pentium 1 fiasco happen with a chip that's as promising as this one.
Give it more time, and AMD will have a similar, but not exactly the same processor, offering near the performance as these Intels, give or take some, and have a lower price.
Intel are the ones to raise the technological bar, but amd are the ones to make the most out of it in terms of "bang for buck"
-
I think it's more like a tug o' war... Intel advance their CPU tech, then two years later AMD outdoes them. Then Intel outdoes AMD a couple of years after that.
AMD has been leading for quite a while, by abandoning the 'more MHz is better' mentality and making CPUs that don't need stupid clock speeds. Now Intel has re-evaluated their own chip designs and discovered an old architecture that can benefit heavily from newer tech and allows them to beat AMD at their own game.
The next year or two belongs to Intel. Then AMD will deliver another breakthrough and rule again. And so the cycle repeats.
-
I like the trend towards lowering power consumption.
I dread the day needing a 1kW PSU's to power our rigs is common-place...
The fact that we already HAVE 1kW PSU's is scary enough...!
It's impressive they keep managing to draw so much more performance out of the architectural cesspit that is x86.
It's a pity Itanium wasn't an open design, it had a lot of potential and could have done better. I really want x86 to go away and be banished to the land of emulation. It is a horrible architecture; Hell, it's not even really an architecture, more like a set of workarounds to workaround some other old workarounds!! ;)
But it works and, like Windows, it's what almost everyone uses... (Even Mac users now, the poor bastards :P)
-
hehe i read this on MSN or something like that yesterday. What was funny was that the one high-up from AMD said something to the effect of "they're comparing this new technology to THEIR processors, not ours. if they compare it to our processors, it probably won't seem as advanced as they think it is anymore"
basically saing Intel's stupid, and not comparing it to the real competition, cause if they did, they'd notice that AMD still outperforms them.
i thought that was funny ;)
-
I like the trend towards lowering power consumption.
I dread the day needing a 1kW PSU's to power our rigs is common-place...
The fact that we already HAVE 1kW PSU's is scary enough...!
It's impressive they keep managing to draw so much more performance out of the architectural cesspit that is x86.
It's a pity Itanium wasn't an open design, it had a lot of potential and could have done better. I really want x86 to go away and be banished to the land of emulation. It is a horrible architecture; Hell, it's not even really an architecture, more like a set of workarounds to workaround some other old workarounds!! ;)
But it works and, like Windows, it's what almost everyone uses... (Even Mac users now, the poor bastards :P)
you'll need those 1kw to power those quad SLI nvidias, though!
-
(Even Mac users now, the poor bastards :P)
x86 FTW!
-
Hopefully this will encourage competition, and better processors at lower prices..
-
Has it in the past?
-
AMD can probably get away with selling processors at lower prices because they have someone to compete against. They can figure out how to do what Intel's do and produce them at a lesser cost. Also, with the amount of advertising Intel does, AMD can save costs by not advertising as much.
But yes, we do need a new architecture, as we keep hitting the limits of x86. But, it's like trying to convince America to convert to the metric system. It may never really truthfully become the standard. Both standards will be used every day, but really who knows which standard will be dominant in the end.
-
just when i finally switch over to amd intell gets better, this sucks :D
-
I would say "Wait & See", wait for real tests of it
-
it occured to me that in the test, the intel machine was using better ram. is it enough of a difference to skew the results?
-
Of course.
-
As I've said before, the x86 can't be that bad an architecture if it still outstrips all the others.
And yes, low price is considered an important benefit. No point having a CPU twice the power of a similar x86 if you can get 4 x86s for the same price.