AMD releases dual core

[David Lindon]

Looks good

 

[mr.monger]

i read somewhere that the fx-57 is coming out l8r this yr. i think itll be dualcore and itll run at 2.8ghz. if anyone has heard of this plz tell me if itll be dualcore.

 

[Computergen1]

thatd be sick!!!! fx 57 as if the fx 55 wasnt enough!!!!

 

[SSE4]

Maybe you are the one who should get your own opinions checked out. You are the one who should learn something. Don't go around insulting people when they have said nothing to you. Damn Intel fan boys.

You don't even have a right to talk. You don't know anything. You are proven wrong constantly, but you're too dumb to even notice.

Oh, by the way Computergen, it doesn't matter how long I've been at "this" forum genius, being on this forum isn't an indicator of overall intelligence in regards to computers. You frequenting a computer forum doesn't make you better. You're still dumb. Everyone knows that the Smithfield isn't even meant to compete, except you and Giancarlo. Because Giancarlo is legally retarded, and you're a fanboy. (Not like Giancarlo isn't mind you)

Said nothing to me? You've insulted the intelligence of countless people with your stupid "pwns" bs. It's competition. So the AMD dual-cores beat the Smithfield (Which is dual Prescott cores), but as it has been discussed amongst real enthusiasts, this was not a surprise. It doesn't mean AMD "pwns" Intel at all. You're talking something completely void of substantial evidence.

 

[Computergen1]

sigh im sick of people like u making the forums suck

 

[SSE4]

When you get a nice cup of "Grow the fuck up" then I'll consider your most generous offer. Thank you for populating the forum (And ruining it) with your undereducated "AMD PWN INTEL" opinion. This isn't about screaming one is better, this is about expressing your opinion on the whole picture. Sorry but it's people like you who ruin forums. Try looking at both sides of the coin before speaking.

And in a preemptive strike against Giancarlo. You're probably wrong, and are going to call me a fanboy. In your words, I'm a "dumb Intel fanboy who is stupid and speaks only lies and spreads untrue rumors" (In what you falsely assume is me hating AMD and my AMD processor). There, your input is not needed, despite ComputerGen waiting to rely on your zealously incoherent arguments to back him up.

 

[DarkBlade1]

Maybe you are the one who should get your own opinions checked out. You are the one who should learn something. Don't go around insulting people when they have said nothing to you. Damn Intel fan boys.

HAHAHHA! Intel fan boys are funny. BUT SO ARE AMD FAN BOYS! LMAO!! This in general was a good comeback. GJ. However, interesting notes come into play here. Intel's new 6XX series are very worth processors, as are the latest generations of AMD 64bit CPUs, especially the Opteron series. Now, as to technology integrated on the chip, Intel and AMD are tied. Intel has HyperThreading, and AMD has the hige FSB speed because of HyperTransport. Now, as to the midlevel architechture. The new dual core from Intel is at best SLOPPY. It is simply to 6XX cores but onto a chip with a logics controller. This is simply absurd. AMD's dual core (two cores on on die) enables the new Athlon 64 X2 to achieve the dual core principle with little to no lag from processor bottlenecking. The logic processor requires time to enable a SUCESSFUL execution of a single thread command.

Now, as far as wafer architechture, well, needless to say... 90nm is universal to both chips, so therefore, there is no comparion. Now, as to the interconnects, Intel uses Copper silicon hybrids, while AMD uses their patented SOI (Silicon on Interconnect) giving their chips less power leakage, meaning FAR LESS HEAT and energy consumption.

Now, onto speeds and effieciency. The new Intel 840 EE is FAST, no doubts there. At 3.2GHz stock speed, this CPU can burn through photoshop. HOWEVER, speed is nothing without efficiency. This comes in the form processor pipelines. Intel uses a bulky 20 PPs.. This is TERRIBLY INEFFICIENT! AMD uses a measly 8, and their width is very close to similar, NOT. AMD is at 14.4GB/sec. However, the Intel 840 EE is restricted to only 8.2GB/sec peak I/O. This is Intel's downfall, but also enables HyperThreading, so it is a trade off.

As to memory useage. Intel uses an on motherboard memory controller, making latency high, but also enabling the use of DDR2 RAM and the upcoming HSRR. AMD uses an integrated memory controller on the chip. This reduces latency to almost neglagble levels, but also forces AMD to use low latency RAM modules, aka DDR1. The memory can be written and read faster with AMD, but the memory doesn't act as fast, being only DDR1. THus, for gaming, AMD is the ONLY way to go. For multitasking however, Intel is the king of that castle.

Both CPUs present their own strengths and their own weaknesses. With Intel having a more potent punch in the market, they have a technological advantage. They estimate the move to the 65 nanometer process soon, while AMD is still trying to PERFECT the 90nm level. Both companies present excellent wafer design and features on chip, but who is the clear winner is not clear. For now, we must only wait and see what comes of these two companies future technology.

SO STOP BICKERING LIKE CHILDREN OVER AN ISSUE THAT YOU CAN'T CONTROL! YOU LOOK LIKE FOOLS TALKING OUT YOUR ASSES LIKE THIS!

 

[SSE4]

You make it sound like I don't know any of this. Oh, and the 6xx series is not very good. The NetBurst architecture is no match for the AMD64, that's simple fact. Look out, if you say Intel is good for heavy multitasking (Due to Hyper-Threading) they'll call you names as well.

Intels offer a seamless environment for normal office work and many other applications, whereas AMDs are unbeatable in gaming and other heavy (single-threaded) applications. You say nothing I don't know, it's just when I say it I'm a fanboy. They're both good processors depending on the user. And the Smithfield, is not very good and it is not meant to "win" the multi-core market, it was just released quickly so that Intel could say they had it first, and maybe grab a few sales until AMD came out with the X2.

No, we can't control it. And therefore I acknowledge both and just state facts. They however, don't.

 

[DarkBlade1]

You make it sound like I don't know any of this. Oh, and the 6xx series is not very good. The NetBurst architecture is no match for the AMD64, that's simple fact. Look out, if you say Intel is good for heavy multitasking (Due to Hyper-Threading) they'll call you names as well.

Intels offer a seamless environment for normal office work and many other applications, whereas AMDs are unbeatable in gaming and other heavy (single-threaded) applications. You say nothing I don't know, it's just when I say it I'm a fanboy. They're both good processors depending on the user. And the Smithfield, is not very good and it is not meant to "win" the multi-core market, it was just released quickly so that Intel could say they had it first, and maybe grab a few sales until AMD came out with the X2.

No, we can't control it. And therefore I acknowledge both and just state facts. They however, don't.

Well, I wasn't out to show YOU in particular, so don't be so personal eh? As far as the Smithfield goes, it isn't bad persay, but the new AMDs do beat it. And YES, Intel does excel in Multitasking and Video/Audio encoding! They are not just OFFICE processors, they are very powerful. AMD currently is running this market however (in terms of technology). The Smithfield is not Intels TRUE DUAL CORE. The next dual core will be their pride and joy. You will soon see that. As far as this goes, this debate is over. Thanks for playing.

 

[SSE4]

I agree. Presler will be something good, or at least it's looking very good (In theory). I'm very personal here, because unfortunately I don't feel the people here learn any other way. The Smithfield is definitely good for encoding and whatnot, but it certainly does fall short, and none of us expected wonders from it, especially since multithreaded support is so low. Just like in-game performance, you wont see an increase with AMD dual-cores either.

We need to wait for multithreaded applications to become mainstream before multi-core processors show their true worth. To stay on subject, the AMD dual-core offering is stomping all over the Prescott-based Smithfield, but none of us expected otherwise.