[projectile]

Originally Posted by chennhui

that is like saying C2D is cosmetic makeup from P3...

C2D is totally new core... with alot of new structures and technology... specially its pipeline

C2D approach is a totally different from P3 and P4...

Its a 2 different story from P3/P4

[Kube]

Lol. Interesting story there. Core 2 is indeed a 'derivative' of P3, in that P3 was the one that started the Core trend.

Intel's 2 design teams worked on different architectures. One was Netburst, which became the P4 design, and one was the P3 architecture, which became the Pentium M design.

As we all know, Netburst crashed and burned (literally). However, Intel's salvation came in the form of Pentium M. The guys that did the Pentium M design were on the right track. So Intel gave the go ahead, and they came up with the Core architecture. Core 2 was merely an evolutionary improvement of that architecture.... much like Athlon X2 was an improvement over Athlon64.

So you see... Intel could've come up with Core 2 years ago too... but they delayed... all for a Pentium D.

Why do I have faith in AMD? They have planned far, far, far ahead. Fusion, Torrenza, Hypertransport Consortium, etc. If AMD were to fall, years of innovation and planning would go with it. And we'd be stuck with the Intel ways of just getting more profit next quarter.

[shard]

I wish the industry will have as much faith in AMD as some of the people in this thread:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=AMD:US

[projectile]

Originally Posted by Kube

Lol. Interesting story there. Core 2 is indeed a 'derivative' of P3, in that P3 was the one that started the Core trend.

Intel's 2 design teams worked on different architectures. One was Netburst, which became the P4 design, and one was the P3 architecture, which became the Pentium M design.

As we all know, Netburst crashed and burned (literally). However, Intel's salvation came in the form of Pentium M. The guys that did the Pentium M design were on the right track. So Intel gave the go ahead, and they came up with the Core architecture. Core 2 was merely an evolutionary improvement of that architecture.... much like Athlon X2 was an improvement over Athlon64.

So you see... Intel could've come up with Core 2 years ago too... but they delayed... all for a Pentium D.

Why do I have faith in AMD? They have planned far, far, far ahead. Fusion, Torrenza, Hypertransport Consortium, etc. If AMD were to fall, years of innovation and planning would go with it. And we'd be stuck with the Intel ways of just getting more profit next quarter.

I have seen the whitepapers... I dun see any huge same thing inside C2D...

C2D is more of a totally different CPU...

Other than cache, the pipeline approach for C2D is totally different... they used Macro Fusion for running same instructions...

[chennhui]

Yes. Finally someone gave an accurate fact. That summarized the essential development work for both company. If you dont believe it, heading to anandtech for some advanced reasing...

As a end-user, we like a better balance between this two giant company.

Originally Posted by Kube

Lol. Interesting story there. Core 2 is indeed a 'derivative' of P3, in that P3 was the one that started the Core trend.

Intel's 2 design teams worked on different architectures. One was Netburst, which became the P4 design, and one was the P3 architecture, which became the Pentium M design.

As we all know, Netburst crashed and burned (literally). However, Intel's salvation came in the form of Pentium M. The guys that did the Pentium M design were on the right track. So Intel gave the go ahead, and they came up with the Core architecture. Core 2 was merely an evolutionary improvement of that architecture.... much like Athlon X2 was an improvement over Athlon64.

So you see... Intel could've come up with Core 2 years ago too... but they delayed... all for a Pentium D.

Why do I have faith in AMD? They have planned far, far, far ahead. Fusion, Torrenza, Hypertransport Consortium, etc. If AMD were to fall, years of innovation and planning would go with it. And we'd be stuck with the Intel ways of just getting more profit next quarter.

[reddevil0728]

wah tio liao

[projectile]

AMD plans ahead...

Maybe...

When they have the time and effort to improve their platform(Chipset) when Athlon was a hit, instead they said they are not interested in designing Chipset. And they would like 3rd party to provide them.

I only can say that is a very wrong deicision.

1) Having 3rd party to design chipset, the standard is not totally maintain by AMD.

2) Only the 3rd party will gain more experience in chipset development

3) Custom specially coporate level will perfer a complete solution.


I not a Intel fan nor AMD. But my current SAP server runs on AMD system. Within 3 mths of purchase. 5 broke down due to chipset issue(Nvidia).

If my system were to go "Live".... having such issue is a BIG NO to me...

[catacomb]

Originally Posted by projectile

AMD plans ahead...

Maybe...

When they have the time and effort to improve their platform(Chipset) when Athlon was a hit, instead they said they are not interested in designing Chipset. And they would like 3rd party to provide them.

I only can say that is a very wrong deicision.

1) Having 3rd party to design chipset, the standard is not totally maintain by AMD.

2) Only the 3rd party will gain more experience in chipset development

3) Custom specially coporate level will perfer a complete solution.


I not a Intel fan nor AMD. But my current SAP server runs on AMD system. Within 3 mths of purchase. 5 broke down due to chipset issue(Nvidia).

If my system were to go "Live".... having such issue is a BIG NO to me...

AMD server was never meant for durability.. no need SAP.. Exchange 2003 brought down one of mine

[hwmook]

Originally Posted by projectile

The reason why AMD lags behind is they keep on to the past glory for too long...

During the black-out peroid for Intel, it was a good time for AMD to keep carry on their resarch, improve and ramp up production.

Talk is cheap, do you know how much does research cost? Even at their peak, Intel still control much of the OEM market which is the largest segment and also AMD doesn't have the necessary capacity to ramp up production, remember how AMD CPUs was constantly low stocks in SLS. Without the means and access to huge funds that intel did, AMD already did make the most out of what they could. Like others has mentioned, Intel has 2 design teams and each design cycle take approximately 5 years so intel could afford to have a new design every 2.5 years while AMD is stuck with 1 design for 5 years. This is a fact that you conveniently ignore and slam down on AMD. you might not be an Intel fanboy but you certainly sound like AMD hater.

[hwmook]

Originally Posted by projectile

I have seen the whitepapers... I dun see any huge same thing inside C2D...

C2D is more of a totally different CPU...

Other than cache, the pipeline approach for C2D is totally different... they used Macro Fusion for running same instructions...

There is no such things as a completely new design, each one is based on something done before and improve on and so is just a derivation of the previous and only a matter of how much changes. C2D has a lot of improvements from P3 but its still based on P3 as everybody would tell you that.

[Kube]

When I said Core was derived from P3, I didn't mean architecture. I meant the fact that the team emphasized more on instructions per cycle, than higher clock speed (netburst). Not sure if I got that right though...

[chennhui]

Nice one...

Originally Posted by hwmook

you might not be an Intel fanboy but you certainly sound like AMD hater.

[Kube]

I say... if AMD manages to pull K10 and Fusion off... salute them. This will be the stuff of legends.

[crimson- (x3m)]

Very informative , kube!! thanks!!

[Shamino]

Originally Posted by weib

commercial advancement vs technological advancement.
AMD taking a path for greater glory, ultimately i would think AMD would prevail if they hold true to their values. But it'll come at a cost of course.

you're makin it sound like the Kentsfield dont work like quad cores while in reality they run their 4 threads great.

For almost any company, $>tech, if its safer, makes more money, faster to market, its a no-brainer. AMD woulda done the same given the chance.