POST A COMMENT

18 Comments

Back to Article

  • archikins - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    ..not much information in your article about this except the "i hate amd" screen shot. Could you please add some more info on this? Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    What's with the "I hate amd" password... Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    It was a joke more than anything - that was his "secret" password, but he got "hacked". Reply
  • tygrus - Thursday, September 28, 2006 - link

    Was he blaming AMD that he was hacked? Implying that if it was an Intel machine with ??? tech it wouldn't.

    A real reason to hate AMD would be if AMD could beat Intel. Why would you hate someone you had beat ? Freudian slip that Intel thinks AMD can beat Intel ?

    Who's afraid of the big bad wolf :)
    Reply
  • slashbinslashbash - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    So we've got IBM at IDF saying that they're supporting Intel in this new venture to plug accelerator chips into the motherboard with cache coherency and all kinds of really big stuff, and no explicit mention of Cell? Reply
  • wien - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    Hmm. What's going on with the ads recently? When I open this page in Firefox/Epiphany on Linux, I'm instantly redirected to Newegg, Zipzoomfly or some other advertiser. Opera at least opens a new tab for the ad, but it's still mighty annoying. Reply
  • slatr - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    This makes me want to work for Intel. I am such a nerd.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    "Socket-F Opteron 285"

    No such beast exists. It'd be a 2220 or something. Either the box was Socket F and they got the name wrong, or it was Socket 940 still.

    Intel's bus licensing thing looks quite weak compared to AMD's Torrenza. Intel have more might however, but a potential 18 months to mere specification isn't a good start. Quite what advantages they'll have over HyperTransport 3 remains to be seen, but if it is competing just to be awkward then Intel haven't really matured as a company like many had hoped.

    Hopefully the benchmarking suite will be non-biased and based around sensible usage patterns. I guess we'll see soon enough.

    The new instructions will be useful if they accellerate common algorithms decently over software implementations, e.g., CRC32 was on the list. However are these sensible instructions to have? Would general purpose accellerators, e.g., TCP/IP and Encryption, be better?
    Reply
  • finalfan - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    The one advantage of fsb bus licensing is it makes the 3rd party device being able to access system memory without forcing its own memory controller and its own memory since it is connected with MCH and MCH will be able to ensure memory coherence. It makes the other devices more like a CPU than a co-processor. Reply
  • Kiijibari - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    ...without forcing its own memory controller and its own memory since...
    Nobody forces a memory controller with torrenza. It is jsut optional. Some dual Opteron mainboards also just use 1 CPU's memory, the other CPU is accesing the RAM through the coherent Hypertransport bus.

    Thus the AMD solution is more flexible.

    cheers

    Kiijibari

    P.S: @anandtech, good article :)
    Reply
  • jiulemoigt - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    Actully it's even funnier than that as all of the 1207 mobo's are dual or multi socket mobos at this point so it is most likely to be a AM2 940 pin 1000 chip or the Op 285 which is a socket 939. Any way you look at that it is questionible which is interesting since I was under the impresion that the core2 were faster than anything amd had even if the mobo chipsets have issues. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    I'm not sure if Anand already updated this, but both systems were dual socket and it was a "Socket F 2.80 GHz" processor config in the AMD unit, not AM2, Opteron 285, or some other hypothetical config to show Intel in a better light. The benchmark, on the other hand, is a different story as it could be just about anything. :) Reply
  • theteamaqua - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    this company is in big trouble Reply
  • AmpedSilence - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    Based on what?

    The Core 2 Duo is doing well and trumps AMD64 for the time being. They are releasing a quad-core almost a year before AMD.

    What are you using as a basis for this conclusion?

    btw, i have three AMD64 machines (one X2 and two AMD64's).
    Reply
  • Viditor - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    They are releasing a quad-core almost a year before AMD

    closer to a half year...at the very most it will be 7 months.

    He might be referring to Torrenza. It's probably the most underestimated and misunderstood advancement AMD has announced. Remember that there are already coprocessers that can just drop into an Opteron ssocket, and IBM is already shipping servers with HTX connections. Intel will be another 1-1.5 years before they are ready to do this...and there isn't any idea what kind of support they will end up with at that point.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    Quad-core on two dies, utilising their experience from the Smithfield panic reaction to AMD's X2. However it shows that once Intel gets woken up, they don't go back to sleep after doing 'enough', they'll continue until they have the lead.

    AMD fell asleep after dual-core, indeed after K8 considering dual-core was meant to be a possibility from day one. It is costing them now, apart from their platform work which is still ahead. I think AMD should have investigated dual-die MCMs for quad-core, instead 4x4 is a reactionary hack solution (that'll work nevertheless, and it'll have good memory bandwidth).
    Reply
  • Calin - Thursday, September 28, 2006 - link

    AMD would better ramp the 65nm technology as soon as possible - only after that, quad cores will become a real/profitable possibility Reply
  • Pirks - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link

    he's using some green smelly stuff as his basis, isn't that obvious ;)) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now