PICS: of intel's soon to be 65nm procs

[RichUK]

Here ... scroll down a bit

dunno if repost or what just thought i would share

EDIT: you can use this to translate website language converter .. just enter the jap address in

 

[Bona Fide]

That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

Actually, it is pure truth. Intel has already been working on 65nm tech for the last year or better. AMD is just starting to work that way.

Don't get your panties in a wad. AMD will have 65nm also, it's just that Intel will have it first (as usual )

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

Actually, it is pure truth. Intel has already been working on 65nm tech for the last year or better. AMD is just starting to work that way.

Don't get your panties in a wad. AMD will have 65nm also, it's just that Intel will have it first (as usual )

Exactly. Intel was the first to commercialize 90nm chips, and then AMD started using it. Look at the AMD 90nm processors. They wipe the floor with the Intel 6XX series chips. But before the AMD 90nm were out, Intel had some amount of pride. Same will happen and continue to happen unless AMD puts more effort into developing next-generation chips, instead of just improving their current ones. How about an affordable dual-core CPU?

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

Actually, it is pure truth. Intel has already been working on 65nm tech for the last year or better. AMD is just starting to work that way.

Don't get your panties in a wad. AMD will have 65nm also, it's just that Intel will have it first (as usual )

Exactly. Intel was the first to commercialize 90nm chips, and then AMD started using it. Look at the AMD 90nm processors. They wipe the floor with the Intel 6XX series chips. But before the AMD 90nm were out, Intel had some amount of pride. Same will happen and continue to happen unless AMD puts more effort into developing next-generation chips, instead of just improving their current ones. How about an affordable dual-core CPU?

Affordable dual-core is coming to AMD on Aug 1st, and my panties are not in a wad, just because Intel went to a new fab process first doesnt mean anything unless the chip is actually faster and we dont know that yet. And Intel can do that cuz they are the much larger company with more money for R&D and new tech and such

 

[ZobarStyl]

I'm not sure where the 'step-behind' statement is coming from, unless you're talking on a purely process level. Prescotts are universally agreed by people who aren't Pabster to be worse than Northy's, but at that time even 130nm based Athlon64's were more than happily competing against both P4 variants. Hell, even the last FX-55 chip was shipped initially as 130nm; it's not nearly as important to drop the process if your chips still have some room to clock, thus why AMD hasn't had to worry about it.

Cliff's: nice way to start out at AT, bona fide; just jump right in with pure flamebait.

 

[Jeff7181]

I'm sure AMD doesn't mind if Intel is first to market with 65nm chips if the transition goes as "well" as it did from 130 to 90 for them.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

Actually, it is pure truth. Intel has already been working on 65nm tech for the last year or better. AMD is just starting to work that way.

Don't get your panties in a wad. AMD will have 65nm also, it's just that Intel will have it first (as usual )

Exactly. Intel was the first to commercialize 90nm chips, and then AMD started using it. Look at the AMD 90nm processors. They wipe the floor with the Intel 6XX series chips. But before the AMD 90nm were out, Intel had some amount of pride. Same will happen and continue to happen unless AMD puts more effort into developing next-generation chips, instead of just improving their current ones. How about an affordable dual-core CPU?

No, not exactly. The 130nm FX55 is still faster than any Intel single core chip. The 90nm Prescott were a step sideways from the 130nm Northwoods, and that's saying it nicely.

The 90nm X2s will probably still be faster than 65nm PDs in terms of performance. The new process might help with power and heat issues but intel messed up 130 -> 90, they could very well mess up 90 -> 65

However it is true that intel has always been a step ahead in terms of shrinking die size, its because they've got more money, not necessarily better chips.

 

[fatty4ksu]

Incredibly technology on the way from Intel.

Thanks for the link/pics.

 

[TraumaRN]

Apparently the trolls are out in force in this thread,

I agree with bunnyfubbles, you make a valid point that prescotts were a sideways step from the northwoods, I myself have a 2.6 northwood OC'ed to 3.0, and that has served me quite well for almost 2 years now, however I'm going to end up switching to X2's sometimes in Sept/Oct, because I can get the most from such a CPU, however if Intel managed to control heat, power consump etc with this switch to 65nm and the processors offer better performance then I would consider a switch back to Intel....

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

i seem to see better performance in standard computing with the p4 ht processors than i do with the a64. i don't know why. but in games i can agree the a64's do better. when will intel get its act back together and make good chips?

 

[fatty4ksu]

Originally posted by: SuperTyphoon
i seem to see better performance in standard computing with the p4 ht processors than i do with the a64. i don't know why. but in games i can agree the a64's do better. when will intel get its act back together and make good chips?

I agree. My 1.8 ghz Willamette had as good performance as my 3000+ AMD 64 when it came to video encoding/multitasking.


However, when I moved from 1.8-3000+ my 3dmark 2001 score went from 8000 to 1400.

Huge gaming improvement.

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
My 1.8 ghz Willamette had as good performance as my 3000+ AMD 64 when it came to video encoding/multitasking.

So bad it's going in the sig.

 

[fatty4ksu]

Just giving a personal opinion. No harm intended. I even included my HUGE gaming increase w/o changing my video card.


Take care.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Just giving a personal opinion. No harm intended. I even included my HUGE gaming increase w/o changing my video card.


Take care.

You're telling me that you got better results on a nonhyperthreaded 1.8 Willamette than on any AMD64 chip? That makes no sense. The 1800 Willamette has no hyperthreading does it? How in the world could it possibly keep up with an AMD64 3000+?

Tell me how the 1.8 Willamette kept up with the 1.8 AMD64 in anything (especially without hyperthreading). If you can't give a reality based answer than maybe you will begin to see why people accuse you of trollism.

 

[Zebo]

I don't care about this kinda stuff since I don't do the books at intel or AMD.

All I care about is performance, price, heat, power, features in that order. Meaning what cha gonna do for me?

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
I agree. My 1.8 ghz Willamette had as good performance as my 3000+ AMD 64 when it came to video encoding/multitasking.

muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't care about this kinda stuff since I don't do the books at intel or AMD.

All I care about is performance, price, heat, power, features in that order. Meaning what cha gonna do for me?

:thumbsup:
I totally agree on that.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'm sure AMD doesn't mind if Intel is first to market with 65nm chips if the transition goes as "well" as it did from 130 to 90 for them.

Truth. Intel 90nm was a big step backwards for consumers. Higher power sucking, higher temps, trottling issues, and lower performance Mhz vs Mhz compared to 130nm Northwood.

AMD 90nm seems exact opposite from 130nm Clawhammer.

 

[coomar]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
I agree. My 1.8 ghz Willamette had as good performance as my 3000+ AMD 64 when it came to video encoding/multitasking.

muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

i thinking there were 2 northwoods glued together or something

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Is that sarcasm or purely ignorance?

Actually, it is pure truth. Intel has already been working on 65nm tech for the last year or better. AMD is just starting to work that way.

Don't get your panties in a wad. AMD will have 65nm also, it's just that Intel will have it first (as usual )

Exactly. Intel was the first to commercialize 90nm chips, and then AMD started using it. Look at the AMD 90nm processors. They wipe the floor with the Intel 6XX series chips. But before the AMD 90nm were out, Intel had some amount of pride. Same will happen and continue to happen unless AMD puts more effort into developing next-generation chips, instead of just improving their current ones. How about an affordable dual-core CPU?

No, not exactly. The 130nm FX55 is still faster than any Intel single core chip. The 90nm Prescott were a step sideways from the 130nm Northwoods, and that's saying it nicely.

The 90nm X2s will probably still be faster than 65nm PDs in terms of performance. The new process might help with power and heat issues but intel messed up 130 -> 90, they could very well mess up 90 -> 65

However it is true that intel has always been a step ahead in terms of shrinking die size, its because they've got more money, not necessarily better chips.

Intel>AMD in some things

AMD>Intel in others

You cant say its the best because Intel wins out a lot of times, gaming isnt everything.




I think 65mm will be a new start for intel, new cores.

DDR2 prices are already close to DDR1 prices, Intel motherboards are coming down in price (Even though they have the best chipset)

Hopefully we can get another great core out of intel like the northwood.

As long as their prices are okay im fine.

I dont mind if a get a cpu thats a little on the hot side but somthing thats gonna be extremly hot I dont want.

Intel no longer has heat issues though, not with the 6 series.

When your ocing, its a different story, they will eat through XP-90s.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'm sure AMD doesn't mind if Intel is first to market with 65nm chips if the transition goes as "well" as it did from 130 to 90 for them.

Truth. Intel 90nm was a big step backwards for consumers. Higher power sucking, higher temps, trottling issues, and lower performance Mhz vs Mhz compared to 130nm Northwood.

AMD 90nm seems exact opposite from 130nm Clawhammer.

To say that it was a big step backwards is a falsehood to say the least; whether or not you think they did enough is debatable is non-sensical.

A) The transition from 130nm to 90nm went well enough for Intel. It's pretty clear that they have architectural issues that were causing problems.
B) Even with the delays, Intel was still into 90nm significantly before AMD. Whether or not it did anything for the masses doesn't really matter to Intel, it added money to their bottom line.

People forget that a corporation's obligation are towards it's shareholders not it's customers. Regardless, here's what 90nm brought you as a consumer:
- Higher clock speeds than Northwood and higher absolute performance. Whine if you want about Prescott being slower clock for clock, it isn't really relevant since the fastest Prescott is faster than the fastest Northwood.
- 90nm Celeron is much faster than 130nm Celeron.
- Dual core processors, not commercially feasible on 130nm.
- Enhanced Pentum M (Dothan) core.

Your problem is that you base your statement in comparison to AMD; I think the three bullets above pretty clearly show you that Intel's move to 90nm was a good thing for them and you. Whether it 90nm could have been a leap forward instead of merely a step forward is debatable, but 90nm definitely was not a step backwards.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
That's my problem with AMD. They're always a step behind. I'm sure once they develop 65nm chips, they'll regain the crown. But until then, they'll be behind.

Hahahaha, this is a good one. :laugh: How many times AMD had to regain anything in the past few years?:laugh:

Zero. :laugh:

 

[secretanchitman]

65nm? damn, im still with my 2.4C from like 2 years ago. well, here we go with the intel vs. AMD wars again...*sigh*

but if i had to pick...go intel! hehe...boo gay-MD!!