Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anusha" data-source="post: 2097044" data-attributes="member: 828">I was kinda thinking about this and figured this actually shows a weakness of AMD.Look at it like this. In the K8 days, when Intel were moving so fast from 90nm to 65nm without staying long enough in one process technology, I used to blame Intel, saying that they will run out of ability to miniaturize the chips after some point, as rapidly as they would want. AMD were optimizing their 90nm tech for a long time, and actually broke the 3GHz mark on the K8. Most people didn't think they will reach that far, especially on the dual core. But AMD really did drain the juice out of their 90nm tech. That was really admirable. (they released the 6400 X2 at 3.2GHz for crying out loud!)Intel moves from one process tech to another fast because they can, but doesn't optimize one tech as much as AMD, as long as AMD. That is what I feel at least. However, we can't forget that Intel is still using lots of old technologies, such as FSB and MCH. Even without using the superior techs like HTT and IMC, Intel have managed to outperform a CPU that uses all those superior techs....and by a heavy margin as well.Don't you think that is more admirable? Isn't that optimizing? Isn't that what should be done? I mean, bringing all these new technologies into the salad and if they can't really deliver the expected gains, why bother at all. Athlon64 was a really good core. Why did they have to design Phenom if it is was slower clock to clock to the A64? They could have just moved to 65nm and release the A64 at 3.4, 3.6 and even higher clocks. It is like paying for a Ferrari 430 compared to resurrecting a crappy Supra from the junk yard and optimizing it to perform better than the Ferrari. Though the Ferrari will sound great on paper (specs), it will not be any better than the Supra.Just my thoughts......</blockquote>

Verification: Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom