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

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

 

[n7]

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.

Golden 😀

Haha 🙂

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

The funny thing is how although AMD is always playing the catchup game, they continue to pwn Intel's CPUs even while "behind".

What do you have to say to that?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

That what's called selective memory.. "bona fide" my arse you spread FUD like porky and dothan.

Why do I care if the chip is smaller certainly has'nt droped the prices?
Who got 1Ghz 1st?
Who 64 bitness on desktop?
Who's got HyperTransport link for I/O?
Who's got on-board mem controller for 30ns latency?
Who can share data between cores vs. over slow arse front-side bus?
Who uses 1/3 the heat and power?
Who's faster?
Who started power optimizations like PowerNow and Cool and quiet?

Nemo dat quod non habet non compos mentis!

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

That what's called selective memory.. "bona fide" my arse you spread FUD like porky and dothan.

Why do I care if the chip is smaller certainly has'nt droped the prices?
Who got 1Ghz 1st?
Who 64 bitness on desktop?
Who's got HyperTransport link for I/O?
Who's got on-board mem controller for 30ns latency?
Who can share data between cores vs. over slow arse front-side bus?
Who uses 1/3 the heat and power?
Who's faster?
Who started power optimizations like PowerNow and Cool and quiet?

Nemo dat quod non habet non compos mentis!

i agree

but what the hell does that mean 😀

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

LOL. Who reached 1ghrtz first as Zebo pointed out? Using direct clockspeed to point out Intel as superior is pretty humorous. So I guess that slow FX-57 gets trumped by that blazing fast 3.06 Northwood right because it is over 200mghrtz faster! :roll:. It will be interesting once FAB36 is rolling (starting at 65nm no less) next year. Intel has some advantages and AMD has some advantages, life goes on.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

That what's called selective memory.. "bona fide" my arse you spread FUD like porky and dothan.

Why do I care if the chip is smaller certainly has'nt droped the prices?
Who got 1Ghz 1st?
Who 64 bitness on desktop?
Who's got HyperTransport link for I/O?
Who's got on-board mem controller for 30ns latency?
Who can share data between cores vs. over slow arse front-side bus?
Who uses 1/3 the heat and power?
Who's faster?
Who started power optimizations like PowerNow and Cool and quiet?

Nemo dat quod non habet non compos mentis!

i agree

but what the hell does that mean 😀

Don't talk out of your ignorance !ss about computers whenyour computer literacy is less than that of a squirrel whose !ss has been shaved and taught to walk backward?

I am just kidding and joking and directly musing on the latinus quod

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not comparing to AMD at all. They were two separate statements each comparing to thier predecessors from the same company. You chose to compare them.😉


Again Back to intel.

My northwood hit 3.8 years ago before I burnt it (NSDS) and that's exactly what Intels fastest chip is out today. I was faster.

Nevermid the fact people arnt buying 3.8 chips by-in-large but instead 3.0's and 3.2's so what has Intel given the consumer at these price points? $200-$300?

A chip that's slower, hotter, uses more power, is more prone to throttle than northy and SSE3. That's a good trade off alright. I don't think so. Only an intel fanboy would'nt see prescott as a failure. Anand, Scott and just about every other reviewer says so in so many words. Just look how the "old" 3.4 gallian is those tests dominate it and a 3.4 northy was'nt *that* much slower. For two years intel has not been excelling all that much, just admit it.

- Enhanced Pentum M (Dothan) core.

Oh yea baby.... bring it to the desktop with some bleeding edge A64 enhacements like memcontoller, dual core, and 64 bitness, and we'll have a very different conversation.😀

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: 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:

Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when it was all about the clock speed, Intel broke 2ghz before AMD reached 1.6ghz. When it came to die size, Intel got to 90nm before AMD. AMD always is playing the catch-up game.

That what's called selective memory.. "bona fide" my arse you spread FUD like porky and dothan.

Why do I care if the chip is smaller certainly has'nt droped the prices?
Who got 1Ghz 1st?
Who 64 bitness on desktop?
Who's got HyperTransport link for I/O?
Who's got on-board mem controller for 30ns latency?
Who can share data between cores vs. over slow arse front-side bus?
Who uses 1/3 the heat and power?
Who's faster?
Who started power optimizations like PowerNow and Cool and quiet?

Nemo dat quod non habet non compos mentis!

i agree

but what the hell does that mean 😀

Don't talk out of your ignorance !ss about computers whenyour computer literacy is less than that of a squirrel whose !ss has been shaved and taught to walk backward?

I am just kidding and joking and directly musing on the latinus quod

Pretty good...

Means: he can't give us what he does'nt have because he's not of sound mind.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
- 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.

Yep, but the zealots here will continue to whine about Prescott. So there's no use in pointing out any facts.

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.

Some here just refuse to give credit where credit is due. And that isn't going to change, unfortunately. Anyone who says the transition to 90nm was a "step backward" is a total idiot.

P.S. Who is talking about Pentium D on 65nm? I highly doubt we'll see the same chip with a simple die shrink. Look for something a whole lot better the next go around.

 

[Zebo]

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?

 

[Bona Fide]

Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: n7The funny thing is how although AMD is always playing the catchup game, they continue to pwn Intel's CPUs even while "behind".

n7, it's so simple! AMD has to be "behind" to give Intel an a*s rimming 😀

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

If you feel you were wrong in your post than apologizing is the right approach. Lord knows, I have apologized before on the forum (and on the main anandtech page,😱). I often discover I am talking out of my !ss. Admitting to being wrong with honest humility is the most freeing experience I have discovered. It allows for growth and wisdom.

However, if you feel your post was accurate or misunderstood don't be shy about stating your reasons. I enjoy a good debate (I try to get rid of the idea of win/lose but rather use Covey's win/win model) but don't enjoy trollism. /rant

 

[GuitarDaddy]

"Untrue. Intel has ALWAYS been technologically ahead of AMD. Back when"


I just love to quote out of context🙂

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

If you feel you were wrong in your post than apologizing is the right approach. Lord knows, I have apologized before on the forum (and on the main anandtech page,😱). I often discover I am talking out of my !ss. Admitting to being wrong with honest humility is the most freeing experience I have discovered. It allows for growth and wisdom.

However, if you feel your post was accurate or misunderstood don't be shy about stating your reasons. I enjoy a good debate (I try to get rid of the idea of win/lose but rather use Covey's win/win model) but don't enjoy trollism. /rant

Well initially I thought my post(s) contained valid irrefutable (sp?) data, along with a bit of opinion. I didn't mean for it to get this out of hand, and that only happened because my information was incorrect. So yeah, I'm sorry for that bit.

Still...somewhere you have to accept the statistics. Intel has always outsold AMD [to my knowledge], and they have a larger hold on the CPU market. AMD is like DFI; they cater to the gamer and enthusiast. An elite group, to say the least. Intel is the everyday man's processor. It does what it's supposed to, and does it well. Intel outperforms AMD in the office division consistently, and that's where it counts. Most people use computers for work or some type of productive venture. So, Intel has a strong clientele now, and it will really take something big for AMD to get a chunk of it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

If you feel you were wrong in your post than apologizing is the right approach. Lord knows, I have apologized before on the forum (and on the main anandtech page,😱). I often discover I am talking out of my !ss. Admitting to being wrong with honest humility is the most freeing experience I have discovered. It allows for growth and wisdom.

However, if you feel your post was accurate or misunderstood don't be shy about stating your reasons. I enjoy a good debate (I try to get rid of the idea of win/lose but rather use Covey's win/win model) but don't enjoy trollism. /rant

Well initially I thought my post(s) contained valid irrefutable (sp?) data, along with a bit of opinion. I didn't mean for it to get this out of hand, and that only happened because my information was incorrect. So yeah, I'm sorry for that bit.

Still...somewhere you have to accept the statistics. Intel has always outsold AMD [to my knowledge], and they have a larger hold on the CPU market. AMD is like DFI; they cater to the gamer and enthusiast. An elite group, to say the least. Intel is the everyday man's processor. It does what it's supposed to, and does it well. Intel outperforms AMD in the office division consistently, and that's where it counts. Most people use computers for work or some type of productive venture. So, Intel has a strong clientele now, and it will really take something big for AMD to get a chunk of it.

Hard to compete when intel blackmails AMD's clients not to buy thier chips. AMD tried to give HP 1 million processors for free..alas HP said no because intel threatend them.

Intel has a unique position. They know AMD can't make all an OEM's processors so they can threaten them with up to bankruptcy by withholding intel chips if they dare buy to many AMD products.

Sh1ts about to hit the fan though in the courts so this won't be the case anymore soon.

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

If you feel you were wrong in your post than apologizing is the right approach. Lord knows, I have apologized before on the forum (and on the main anandtech page,😱). I often discover I am talking out of my !ss. Admitting to being wrong with honest humility is the most freeing experience I have discovered. It allows for growth and wisdom.

However, if you feel your post was accurate or misunderstood don't be shy about stating your reasons. I enjoy a good debate (I try to get rid of the idea of win/lose but rather use Covey's win/win model) but don't enjoy trollism. /rant

Well initially I thought my post(s) contained valid irrefutable (sp?) data, along with a bit of opinion. I didn't mean for it to get this out of hand, and that only happened because my information was incorrect. So yeah, I'm sorry for that bit.

Still...somewhere you have to accept the statistics. Intel has always outsold AMD [to my knowledge], and they have a larger hold on the CPU market. AMD is like DFI; they cater to the gamer and enthusiast. An elite group, to say the least. Intel is the everyday man's processor. It does what it's supposed to, and does it well. Intel outperforms AMD in the office division consistently, and that's where it counts. Most people use computers for work or some type of productive venture. So, Intel has a strong clientele now, and it will really take something big for AMD to get a chunk of it.

Hard to compete when intel blackmails AMD's clients not to buy thier chips. AMD tried to give HP 1 million processors for free..alas HP said no because intel threatend them.

Intel has a unique position. They know AMD can't make all an OEM's processors so they can threaten them with up to bankruptcy by withholding intel chips if they dare buy to many AMD products.

Sh1ts about to hit the fan though in the courts so this won't be the case anymore soon.

Hopefully AMD has substance to their accusations, or this will worsen their position beyond belief. I still haven't read all of the suit, and most of it is probably over my head, but I'm gonna keep up with new developments as best I can. If AMD can pull this off, they have a good chance of sweeping Intel.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Ouch. I think I got my "arse" handed to me there. Ah well. I'm an AMD fan, just thought I had something to contribute here. Sorry.

If you feel you were wrong in your post than apologizing is the right approach. Lord knows, I have apologized before on the forum (and on the main anandtech page,😱). I often discover I am talking out of my !ss. Admitting to being wrong with honest humility is the most freeing experience I have discovered. It allows for growth and wisdom.

However, if you feel your post was accurate or misunderstood don't be shy about stating your reasons. I enjoy a good debate (I try to get rid of the idea of win/lose but rather use Covey's win/win model) but don't enjoy trollism. /rant

Well initially I thought my post(s) contained valid irrefutable (sp?) data, along with a bit of opinion. I didn't mean for it to get this out of hand, and that only happened because my information was incorrect. So yeah, I'm sorry for that bit.

Still...somewhere you have to accept the statistics. Intel has always outsold AMD [to my knowledge], and they have a larger hold on the CPU market. AMD is like DFI; they cater to the gamer and enthusiast. An elite group, to say the least. Intel is the everyday man's processor. It does what it's supposed to, and does it well. Intel outperforms AMD in the office division consistently, and that's where it counts. Most people use computers for work or some type of productive venture. So, Intel has a strong clientele now, and it will really take something big for AMD to get a chunk of it.

Hard to compete when intel blackmails AMD's clients not to buy thier chips. AMD tried to give HP 1 million processors for free..alas HP said no because intel threatend them.

Intel has a unique position. They know AMD can't make all an OEM's processors so they can threaten them with up to bankruptcy by withholding intel chips if they dare buy to many AMD products.

Sh1ts about to hit the fan though in the courts so this won't be the case anymore soon.

Hopefully AMD has substance to their accusations, or this will worsen their position beyond belief. I still haven't read all of the suit, and most of it is probably over my head, but I'm gonna keep up with new developments as best I can. If AMD can pull this off, they have a good chance of sweeping Intel.

Well I believe Anand. He's a 1st class young man.. And even he has said this stuff happens in is blog and worse.

I think AMD's 100 or so "accusations" are just a primer, they have said as much in press releases..much more to come in discovery. With any luck intel execs will be behind bars where they belong. No one is above the law in USA except the most powerful man in the world G.W.!

I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:

I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:

1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard

Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.

The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.

The list goes on and on.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: 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.

Had Intel ONLY went from 130 to 90nm it probably would have been fine, but they made some pretty major architectural changes. It would be stupid of someone to think there won't be any significant architectural changes from 90 to 65nm. For our sake, as consumers, I hope it goes a lot smoother for them than the 130 to 90 transition. It went much more smoothly for AMD because there's no significant architectural differences between the 130 and 90nm Athlon 64's other than tweaked memory controllers and the addition of SSE3 support. The pipeline (to my knowledge) remains untouched, which as we know, wasn't the case for the Pentium 4.

 

[Pabster]

This is true. Prescott was developed to reach that magical 4GHz plateau but it didn't quite make it. By lengthening the pipe and shrinking the process Intel hoped to get that 4GHz chip rolling...

And you are also correct on point #2. As I said earlier, anyone who calls the transition from 130->90nm "backwards" is an idiot. And, by the same token, anyone who doesn't believe some major architectural changes will be deployed with the 65nm process technology is also an idiot. Or maybe just a big fanboy? 😀 😛

 

[Hacp]

Wasn't all the changes Intel made to the prescott necessary in order for 90 micron to take place because of power issues? At least thats the impression I got when i read Anand's article way back.

 

[miketheidiot]

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 😀 😛)

intel going 90nm first sure helped them out alot as well huh?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: 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.

Had Intel ONLY went from 130 to 90nm it probably would have been fine, but they made some pretty major architectural changes. It would be stupid of someone to think there won't be any significant architectural changes from 90 to 65nm. For our sake, as consumers, I hope it goes a lot smoother for them than the 130 to 90 transition. It went much more smoothly for AMD because there's no significant architectural differences between the 130 and 90nm Athlon 64's other than tweaked memory controllers and the addition of SSE3 support. The pipeline (to my knowledge) remains untouched, which as we know, wasn't the case for the Pentium 4.

WQhile we're on the prescot, it should be mentioned than the switch from northwood to prescot was much more than a die shrink and the addition of some cahce, it was a substantial redesign of netburst. I'm not sure who many people remember this, but prescot was supposed to be the pentium 5.

Anyways, this time it will probably just be a simple die shrink with maybe a few mods.

also the pipeline in k8 is longer than that of k7, 12 stages vs 10 if i recall.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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:

The Pentium 4 Northwood 3.2 demolished the Athlon XP 3200+ for quite some time until AMD64 was released.