Last message on previous page:
Are you are trying to say that a lot of people tried to get an ODMC to work, but AMD was the first to get it right? Then I agree.

Are you seriously claiming that AMD were the first company to put an on-die memory controller on a CPU?

Hint: Intel had one on the 4004 in 1971.

Yes, a lot of special purpose ig chips include a cache controller. They are good for a K-bite or two. As far as x86 class chips, AMD is the one.

Interested in the 4004? You should read this http://www.pldos.pl/bogus/hardware [...] erview.htm
Shima did one that was similar. If you put the two together, they were responsible for everything up to the 8086.

Not perfect as of yet. Still I can happily say this, Barcelona is much better of a server chip than the Xeon and vice-versa on the other side (general computing)

is amdfangirl single? :T i think im falling in love

im kidding btw. forgot to add that this is a tech forum! not a dating site!

Sorry, but no =P (why does everybody ask me this?)
Please nobody ask me again! I don't wanna get banned again!
fangirl

MU's viper vs M5 analogy still has me giggling.

I don't think it is very fair though.

Core2's cache architecture is far superior to AMD's simple design and core2 is a wider issue ... and ideally has a higher IPC rate.

It has less complex memory control and has poor interconnect capability.

Mmmm.... well IMC is something Intel is coming back to. They had it, dropped it and now decided to do it again so its not truly Intel "replicating" it. Its just them finally realizing it will benefit them in the server market a lot.

The Split power planes. I still don't understand what that is supposed to do. If it supposed to save power, it hasnt worrked well for AMD yet.

Monolithic quad. Well Intel has a monolithic 80 core but yea this will be their first venture into mono quad. But it will also include the first mono Octo core.

Yes it will technically be Intels first time into the L3 for multi core CPUs but Intel has had on die L3 cache before on their old P4 EE CPUs. So that will be an interesting twist to see if Intel can get their L3 to a lower latency and be speedy.

The one thing I alwyas love is how a Investment Analyst knows this. WHen Phenom was released I saw a report on Bloomberg and the guy was saying how it was this and that. I can just imagine some guy writing this while he worries about his AMD stock dropping so he says that to try to boost it so he can try to sell it to make a profit.

AMD does have the advantage in the GPU market but thats something that I still credit ATI with and that Intel has yet to get into. Once Intel gets into the true GPU market, not IGP, we may see a change. As for chipset, yes AMD has the 780G which is good for a low power TiVo like system but Intels chipsets are still the best for the normal gaming PCs.

But as we know soon a lot will change. Intel will release Nehalem and AMD is supposed to release Deneb. ATI will have the RV700 out and NVidia will have the G100 out. Things will get interesting and I think its going to be fun for us. We get to talk about all the fun times and technology wars.

LOL. im sorry, i didn't mean to try to get you banned. i was only kidding btw because i got a girlfriend, and she'd kill me if she saw me posting something like that and meant it. haha.

Considering that Intel has never produced a GPU that couple be classified as anything better than "adequate" (and even that might be a stretch), I wouldn't hold your breath.

I have seen both a newer M5 and a brand-new Viper in the parking garage where I work but so far I haven't found out who owns them so I could try to get them race each other. However, I highly doubt they'd do even a stoplight-to-stoplight race. I was behind the Viper once in the parking garage and the guy driving obviously can't drive a stick. My guess is that his typical ride is something like a Prius. Yeah, I'm in a college town and those are the chosen ride of the "my farts don't stink" set just like in that South Park episode. Darn near half of the professors drive those butt-ugly things.

Core2's cache architecture is far superior to AMD's simple design and core2 is a wider issue ... and ideally has a higher IPC rate.[/quotemsg]

AMD's cache macro-architecture in the K10 is more complex than in the Core 2. The K10 has three levels of cache compared to the Core 2's two and the outermost level of cache is shared in both chips. The Core 2's caches are more effective than the K10's because they have a greater associativity, lower latency, and higher speed. Intel's prefetchers are apparently more advanced than what AMD has in the K10, but I'm not sure if that is considered core I/O logic or part of the cache itself. Whatever they are considered, they are pretty effective.

The fact that the Core 2 is a four-issue chip instead of a three-issue chip supposedly has little impact right now as IIRC typical IPC figures are somewhere around 2.0/clock so that ability to retire that fourth instruction doesn't help much when the chip can't reliably retire the third one as it is waiting for I/O or the results of a previous calculation or something else.

Those are mostly issues for multi-socket machines at the present. Benchmarks have shown that most applications do not hammer the FSB enough to significantly degrade performance even in heavily-threaded apps run on Core 2 Quads. About all you see is a _little_ better thread-for-thread scaling out of the Phenoms than the Core 2 Quads on these apps.

Lol, I have a BF who lets me date whoever I want... weird... (its more of a best-friend relationship...)

haha, Prius owners still don't realize one flaw in their eco-friendly work. It still uses energy...

AMD focused too much in one area, the Hyper Transport link... that's why everything else...

Yes, I think that's it. Despite what TC and other Intel enthusiasts like to claim, it's not all about the overclocked gamer PC. Phenom's are second best on the desktop (at least until Deneb improves things) and Intel must wait for Nehalem class server CPU's to compete against AMD.

That said, I'm a gamer and video editing enthusiast who's holding off on Phenom's right now. I'm quite happy with AMD chipsets and ATI GPU's, but I don't see a performance boost above the midrange Athlon X2 I have right now.

I'm inclined to get an 8750 this fall, especially since I have a Gigabyte 780G board that I haven't installed yet, but to spend real money on an AMD CPU, I'd want to see a 45nm Deneb quad at 2.8 @ 95 watts. I have no desire to go 125 watt right now.

No irony, I know AMD's history, I've been building my own PC's since the days when the CPU's were soldered on the motherboard. Even had an AMD 386SX-40 way back when.

Who cares about Timna? Intel's IMC didn't go anywhere at the time. It doesn't matter who comes up with an idea but it does matter who markets it and makes it work.

Intel's had great ideas that worked and AMD's had great ideas that worked. Overall, I prefer AMD because of their chipsets and the merger with ATI.

It doesn't matter that Intel came up with Timna, because they dropped the ball and didn't implement it because they could do it cheaper without an IMC. Not doing IMC worked for them then, doing it with Nehalem works for them now. Without AMD actually marketing HT, I doubt that Intel would go that route today.

Besides being history, Timna sounds like a Disney toon anyways. Nehalem sounds so much better.

Hey, Missy I thought I was your best friend and what's up with that sig?

No, really it's not a design issue. The core 2s have an ultra low D1 cache miss rate in most benchmarks. In cinebench for example, I believe they have a miss rate of 2.8 per 100. The only way to get that kind of miss rate is through superb compiling.