Originally posted by: n19htmare
Originally posted by: RichUK
Very interesting.
This is what I love about AMD, they are so innovative.
Also I wonder if AMD plan to release this new architecture on 65nm, or plan to wait for multiprocessing on 45nm.
Innovative? they havn't really innovated anything in the past few years let alone Reverse hyperthreadeing (check Mitosis)
As far as this news goes, it's been on intels research list for a while. someone posted the link earlier on Mitosis. It basically does the same thing that AMD is just now trying to "innovate".
I was referring to AMD?s ?actual? implementation of new technology, aka an on die memory controller and the use of HT links, and therefore not carrying on using inferior data transport models, such as a single I/O bus for all communication to the CPU, namely the FSB! Yes Intel may patent quite a few technologies but that doesn?t mean they go ahead and implement them. AMD are innovative as they implemented these technologies and have been leading by example, not following behind in Intel?s foot steps.
My reference to innovation is to AMD?s implementation of such current technologies on their K8?s. In point this has evolved PC, Workstation, Server subsystem?s, where as Intel hasn?t really given us anything other than higher clocks, the inevitable die shrinks and increased level 2 cache, and of course high energy consumption and heat output, all of which hasn?t resulted to much. Meaning that system builders no longer have to build platforms with the ever restricted FSB model (more so for servers) and also Netburst Architecture with its high energy consumption and heatouput. Although the latter is soon to change when Conroe arrives, even though it still uses the FSB model.
I think you are a bit confused, as being innovative in my eyes and by my definition is to actually implement something into your end product which gets produced and utilised by the end user. Not to research and develop technologies that you never end up using then discard, and therefore do not really evolve your products.
There has been no ?revolutionary? technology IMO from either company unless you want to include dual cores as an example, but then again K8?s were designed from the bottom up with dual cores in mind. In my eyes its just more evolutionary technology from AMD that has actually been implemented and been successful.
Don?t get me wrong I have not forgotten about HyperThreading and Intels mobile arena, although HyperThreading was just a substitute and short lived until Dual Cores were released.
I hope this has come across more clear.
Facebook
Twitter