Thanks for the nod DAPUNISHER, at least someone reads it. I wanted to raise the issues of Intel's behaviour, and how they playing the "Me too" card.
Firstly before anyone points the finger and proclaims that I am an German AMD Nazi fanboy ( I?m not, I?m English and ?fair minded?) think again. I own a 2.8C mainly because it multitasks far better then my AMD rig.
Mhz matter : Yes, AMD?s number scheme was a scheme in there view to cover up for that fact that the K7 design could not clock up as quick or as far as the netburst designs. In several interviews Intel ppl claim Mhz is all that matters and ?Speed demon? CPU?s are far better then ?Brains? CPU?s ( Mhz over High IPC). My sig is taken from an interview in 2003 where an Intel man is asked about netburst and where its heading?
64 bit: In intel?s view, you didn?t need it, you know what, I agree, but then they quickly went ? Yeah me too?. Panic tactics? Or maybe ? Aw just to se sure we?ve got the bases covered? .
Hypertransport : Oh all of a sudden a point to point is needed, fair enough.
Memory controllers : Yes they are going to start to implement them in future cores, how do I know this, well a worker in the D12 fab told me (BTW if any one you would like to request the transcripts of our conversations do let me know, saved them for a bit of fun)
Dual Core : They never intended to go to dual core?.Really. Last minute ? Oh Prescott?s dropped us in it?. What some of you don?t understand is that Intel had Tejas, Nehalem, and I forget the other project waiting in the wings for the desktop and serve space until 2007. Nehalem was ment for 2005 and for a start, yes a starting speed of 10.25 Ghz. When netburst was scraped , they paniced and said we?ll do what IBM, AMD are going to do. They never ever wanted to go dual core that early. Seeing them @ IDF hearing them talk as if they had it in all in the bag the whole times is B.S. For those who don?t agree with me then why has they slapped two Prescott cores together and called a ?huge step forward?. How efficient and??..Clever that was of them. I thought the point of dual cores was efficiency, no more need for high Mhz.
AMD on the overhand designed the K8 with dual core in mind from day one and was mentioned in 2001. Back in the days when all you heard from Intel is ? Mhz this, Mhz that, speed matters?. AMD quietly got on with it, kept its mouth shut which I think personally is half there problem and went about business like it was nothing.
Yes, there first attempt will nothing more then two Venice?s with some modification to the memory controller and a few more registers etc. But we?re talking about AMD here, they don?t have billions in the bank, they can?t set up a separate design team and start a new core from scratch for the first round of dual cores.
And might I say, what a great core to do it with. Beats Prescott so that?s adequate enough.
And if parelisim is what there after with dual cores, why the hell have they taken HT away from it? I know they need the EE to have a selling point over the regular chips but really ? £1000+ . Why don?t they just add more cache and maybe a speed bump ? make HT more accessible to mainstream users. But then again, 2 extra logical cores may not provided that big a boost over a normal dual core non HT Smithfield, who knows.
On that note im going to watch top gear, laterz
Thus far it seems to be working, targeting a more profitable market segment and increasing the profitability of existing ones with products that lead in performance and features. 
Facebook
Twitter