# Intel responds to Barcelona benchmarks



## Deleted member 3 (May 24, 2007)

In response to AMD's Barcelona benchmarks Intel demoed its V8 platform. Two quad core Xeons at 3GHz with 16GB RAM score an impressive 4933 pixels per second in POV-Ray. In comparison AMD's quad quad core Barcelona (16 cores total) score just over 4000 pixels per second. Even though AMD did not mention the clockspeed and said the final version will run faster AMD still uses 16 cores while Intel uses 8. Of course Barcelona is not yet a final product, Intel is not impressed though.
Besides that Intel also demoed a Penryn which outperformed the current top of the line quad cores by 40%, quite impressive.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## jaydeejohn (May 24, 2007)

What GHZ? Which povray was used? System to system? I knew my dad had a reason telling me to not hunt in the dark.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

Damnet, Intel, back off! You can't even see the bottom of your coffers. Give AMD a break.


----------



## d44ve (May 24, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Damnet, Intel, back off! You can't even see the bottom of your coffers. Give AMD a break.



Why should they give them a break?

This is business.


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 24, 2007)

the true winner of these battles is the consumer, keep up the good work intel


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

d44ve said:


> Why should they give them a break?
> 
> This is business.



Right. If you want them to destroy AMD and start gouge prices, good for you.  I'll keep hoping with a plea for mercy.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

jocksteeluk said:


> the true winner of these battles is the consumer, keep up the good work intel



Except AMD continues not to gain an edge, and they really need one soon. If AMD falls, who's going to compete with Intel at the consumer level?


----------



## d44ve (May 24, 2007)

AMD is not going out of business anytime soon. 

It takes a lot for a company of that size to go out of business


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 24, 2007)

no one really cares about this anyway. I never saw the barcelona benchmarks either.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

AMD could be forced to downsize, cut costs where possible, etc. ATI didn't impress after all the hype, and AMD really needs to have the better chips to start filling in the debt they acquired buying ATI.


----------



## Fox34 (May 24, 2007)

Remember, AMD has ATI, so that will keep them intact even if they cant get a leg up on the processor market. If they stop making proccessors I may cry   Its those stupid core 2s(yes they are amazing although) they kinda threw AMD out and that was the start fo the downward spiral, even thoug my next upgrade will be a dual core opteron. AMD


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

ATI isn't exactly getting AMD to soar at the moment.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 24, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> no one really cares about this anyway. I never saw the barcelona benchmarks either.



If you don't care you shouldn't reply. Imagine everyone (1000-1500 people logged on at once) posting "I care" or "I don't care", quite some spam there.
If you haven't seen the AMD benchmarks, look them up.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 24, 2007)

I kind of agree with GJSNeptune, if intel has the monopoly then prices will soar. I like AMD's cheap efficient processors, until C2D they rocked. Still rock for price/performance IMO.

I don't wish they would back off, I wish AMD would just hurry up with some new stuff, something not even close to A64 architecture.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

Haha. AMD _hurry_.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 24, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Haha. AMD _hurry_.



Sad thing is, it will probably be a while.... unless they have something realllly tricky up their sleeve and not letting anyone know of future designs. That would be awesome. All of a sudden BAM, new badass cpu that intel didn't know about.

I can dream


----------



## Ripper3 (May 24, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> I kind of agree with GJSNeptune, if intel has the monopoly then prices will soar. I like AMD's cheap efficient processors, until C2D they rocked. Still rock for price/performance IMO.
> 
> I don't wish they would back off, I wish AMD would just hurry up with some new stuff, something not even close to A64 architecture.



Again, a win for the consumer. Before Intel came out with the C2Ds, you couldn't find a dual core for less than about £120, unless you bought used, and even then, price differences were little. Now you can grab a 3600+ for around £45 (and Ebuyer has an AMD t-shirt for £10  http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/114785 - be warned, OEM, so no manual, cables, or HSF at all).
Now, we have DDR2, and cheap-as-chips (no pun intended) Dual cores.
Intel IS kind of worried with AMD's price points, to the extent that there are E2x00 C2Ds with 1.6 and 1.8GHz, at 800FSB and 1MB L2 (Which currently cost about £60 for the E2160).

AMD won't go out of business for a very very long time. They're not earning as much as Intel, but when you're earning a few BILLION a year, a company doesn't have to worry much about tying afloat, unless their expenses sky-rocket. With Dell having chosen to start using AMDs, and their love of ATis on their laptops, they're getting richer by the day, and enthusiasts still turn to AMD in most cases, so they have a huge fan-base still.

Also, what are you saying? Intel has a BRILLIANT competitor in VIA! C7 at 3.6GHz could beat a C2D hands down!  (Well, probably not...)


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

Ripper3 said:


> AMD won't go out of business for a very very long time. They're not earning as much as Intel, but when you're earning a few BILLION a year, a company doesn't have to worry much about tying afloat, unless their expenses sky-rocket.



Please inform yourself. But here I'll do it for you. AMD posted a $611 million loss for Q1. They aren't _earning_ anything, because they're still in the red. They only brought in $1.23 billion, so there goes your billion*s* understanding. They have A LOT to worry about.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 24, 2007)

what barcelona benchmarks?? Link please


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (May 24, 2007)

I am in shock by all of this.  All the "AMD better do something quick" attitudes.  AMD held the performance grown forever and a day with the Athlon 64 (K8), and the original Athlon (K7) did quit well too.

AMD isn't going anywhere.  The performance grown may change heads from time to time, but it will eventually go back to AMD and from there Intel again.  Just chill people, that's the nature of the business.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> I am in shock by all of this.  All the "AMD better do something quick" attitudes.  AMD held the performance grown forever and a day with the Athlon 64 (K8), and the original Athlon (K7) did quit well too.



In other words, because of the past, they're going to be just fine in the present and future. Right. "They lead with a previous dominating chip, so duh, they'll be fine competing with Intel's dominating chip no matter what they dish."



ChaoticBlankness said:


> AMD isn't going anywhere.  The performance grown may change heads from time to time, but it will eventually go back to AMD and from there Intel again.  Just chill people, that's the nature of the business.



Yeah, we'll see.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 24, 2007)

Intel owned the market even when A64s and AXPs were dominating, so it's natural to worry when Intel is so far ahead.

It would be like a Linux user witnessing MS come out with a more modular OS lol.


----------



## FAXA (May 24, 2007)

I've seen allot of cheaper systems starting to ship with AMD Athlons - especially the X2 versions. I think that AMD would be in allot more trouble if Dell hadn't started shipping their systems with AMD CPUs. 

I do think that AMD will have a comeback sooner or later, its the way things work (usually). Just like AMD used to be in Intels shadow all the time, then they brought out their Athlon 64s and the two companies swapped places, but AMDs shadow was quite small.

The last time Valve released their average system data thingy, AMD were on top. I think this will happen again, some time in the future for sure.


----------



## DaMulta (May 24, 2007)

If Intel wasn't kicking the snot out of AMD right now CPU's would be high dollar still.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 24, 2007)

Actually, AXP's owned P4's also. The trend didn't start with A64. I miss my good ol AXP at 2.7ghz.

EDIT: ^^^ Uh, Intel is kicking the snot out of AMD right now, and Intel CPU's aren't exactly cheap.


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (May 24, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> In other words, because of the past, they're going to be just fine in the present and future. Right. "They lead with a previous dominating chip, so duh, they'll be fine competing with Intel's dominating chip no matter what they dish."
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we'll see.




Ok, worst case scenario...  AMD goes bankrupt...  INTEL goes full monopoly.  

Oh wait, what's that..?  Oh look, it's the SEC here to break Intel up into 4 smaller companies.  The world will keep turning man, and we'll continue to receive high performing parts.  

(Quick example, once upon a time in the US there was *1* phone company!)


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

So what? Intel would eventually buy them back, just like at&t.


----------



## Zero Cool (May 24, 2007)

my A64 X2 4600+ stock still owns. I am waiting for the barcelona for my next uprgrade... no need for intel here


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (May 24, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> So what? Intel would eventually buy them back, just like at&t.



Have you ever heard of Verizon?  Or perhaps the dozens of VoIP providers out there?  

Also AT&T, isn't even AT&T anymore...  SBC bought AT&T and changed their name to AT&T.  Furthermore AT&T has very little VoIP infrastructure...  they're fighting an uphill battle as they're so late getting in on it, and for the record VoIP is the future of the "phone".  

Worst case scenario there, they get too big and we bust them up again and have to repeat the process every 20yrs.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

VOIP is not the future of the phone. Phasing out landlines is the future.


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (May 24, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> VOIP is not the future of the phone. Phasing out landlines is the future.



I'd agree that's the longterm future.  We still have some time before that day, until then VoIP on broadband connections will eat away your copper phone line business.

I long for the day my cell phone has perfect digital signal everywhere.  lol


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

'Eh, not that many landline providers aren't involved in the wireless industry. Mostly rural ones, really.


----------



## Fox34 (May 24, 2007)

What about the griffin too? The new notebook proc I'm pretty sure AMD is releasing, is this going to have any effect on intel right now? (but intel does have their core 2's in notebooks)


----------



## W1zzard (May 24, 2007)

d44ve said:


> AMD is not going out of business anytime soon.
> 
> It takes a lot for a company of that size to go out of business



intel won't let amd die .. if amd goes out of business intel has a monopoly => bad => antitrust

intel is 15 times bigger than amd .. you think they care much?


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> intel won't let amd die .. if amd goes out of business intel has a monopoly => bad => antitrust
> 
> intel is 15 times bigger than amd .. you think they care much?



Still, I don't like Intel being all arrogant, even if it's warranted.


----------



## Assimilator (May 24, 2007)

If K10/Barcelona isn't a Core2 killer - and from what I've seen, it's not going to be - AMD is up s**t creek without a paddle.

The fact of the matter is that the Core2 architecture has the potential to last as long as the original Pentium/P6 architecture - 5 years - and Intel is already well on the way to rolling out their 8-core, 45nm processor in 2008.

Dark times ahead for AMD, methinks.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

Assimilator said:


> Dark times ahead for AMD, methinks.



Your avatar made that really creepy.


----------



## kwchang007 (May 24, 2007)

Fox34 said:


> What about the griffin too? The new notebook proc I'm pretty sure AMD is releasing, is this going to have any effect on intel right now? (but intel does have their core 2's in notebooks)



hate to say this, but griffin does not stand much of a chance against core 2 laptops.  the current turion chip is based on the original atholon i believe (k7 or something like that).  griffin is based on curent gen athlon 64 chips (if im thinking of the right amd next-gen mobile chip).  my chip can beat pleanty of a64's, even with the crap ram i have.  core 2 is just way to fast for amd to catch up to right now.  now these benchmarks, if they are true, we better hope that amd used chips in the <1.5 ghz range, so it can still fuel pleanty of competition.  that and amd's product still is not final, so it may not be as efficent as possible yet, also k10 may be able to hit higher clock speeds than core 2 (highly doubt that myself, but i can hope) while not having such a horible problem as netburst (god...i hate those huge pipelines, we will only be able to make a decision as pre-release chips are given out to certain sites, and once k10 comes out itself.


----------



## v-zero (May 24, 2007)

AMD really have jumped into a big puddle of crap in the last year. Their decision to buy ATi has killed their profits (I don't think AMD really reaslised just what a mess had been made of R600, and that the product was so far from release), and Dell has eaten all of their production capacity. Hence they have angered the channel which was their most loyal customer base, and now face lower margins due to a ferocious price war with Intel.

Also, now that AMD have to carry the burden of uncompetetive performance in both the Graphics and Core Proccessor sectors there is a long arduous road back, twice as long as would have been faced as a CPU manufacturer alone. And with Barcelona not looking like a solution to the Core2 line, and a decent refresh for lacklustre R600 a long way off, AMD is looking stagnant.


----------



## Fox34 (May 24, 2007)

So, from the facts of this thread, the Barcelona does not look to promising as compared to the core 2 and the griffin wont be either, also they released that crap 600, all their new products do not meet par..........AMD is screwed..and the Barcelona is a quad core and basically the answer to the core 2, the core two is a dual core for the most part as the Barcelona is a quad core, AMD had to use 4 cores to beat Intel's dual core in a sense. 


Poor AMD


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 24, 2007)

Well shit, way to air-tight yourself.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2007)

Actually Dan, Im talking about the numbers of that 8 core vs 4 core server proc. In my opinion, I wouldnt think too many people would care about that, unless everyone here is going to start running out and getting all kinds of server parts to build a computer with. If thats the case, then I would be wrong. However, I dont see that happening. So, way to go with the nice rhetoric.

C2D just happened to come along at a great time and give AMD a nutkick. After a few years of consistently getting beat, Intel had a separate team working on some new things and taking some of what AMD had going for it and integrated it into its new processor. The result? An AMD bitch smacking. Now, Im a huge AMD fan and I like what they have done. However, if they think they can be like Intel, get beat a little bit (like before they had their success and before they bought ATI or merged) and then take the best of C2D and then come back, that isnt going to fly. Intel is a huge company with plenty of money to burn. Waiting was a good strategy for them. They offered new chips, little speed bumps and then a couple years later, they blew the processor market away.

Barcelona, Kuma and Phenom looks like they are going to be awesome processors with the ability to compete head on with Intel. Also, they should be offered at a decent price level as well. The best thing to come from C2D, to me at least, is the price wars. 

I dont see AMD faltering soon, but they may wish to change their strategy a bit.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

What procs are Kuma and Phenom?


----------



## a111087 (May 25, 2007)

READ this:
"    The objective of our demo was to show performance scaling from our current dual-core processors to our upcoming quad-core processors within the same thermal envelope and drive home the point through a real-world demonstration that customers could expect to see 2x the performance without an increase in power consumption. 
    At some point before our launch you can plan on us showing a demo of our parts vs. Intel's high-performance processors. 
    One thing to note, the system we showed, while it was a 4P, it was running *only 6GB* of memory."
that was the response from AMD posted on the same source of the original article

Intel forgot to mention that they used almost *3 times more RAM than AMD*
One more thing, "...*Intel's chips is 150W versus 65W for AMD*...", same source.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

So the benchmarks aren't even legit?


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2007)

No, they are probably legit, just they used more ram. 

Im not gonna try to cloak and dagger this, but right now, Intel seems to be doing everything right.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

well if they used more ram that would completely change the benchmarks


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2007)

Hmm...yeah it may. But we still cannot overlook the fact that with 10more giga of ram and 8 less processors, Intel managed to score better in this benchmark. Not saying Im a fan of Intel, Im just pointing it out. Im sure, if AMD used 16GB of ram, they would be back on top, however, I dont feel the performance delta would be large enough, say, twice as many pixels per second as one would think with twice the processors.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

thats a good point behind the core count. But since thats the whole point behind the Barcelona so they should have kept the RAM count the same.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2007)

Fox34 said:


> thats a good point behind the core count. But since thats the whole point behind the Barcelona so they should have kept the RAM count the same.



I highly doubt RAM size makes that much of a difference. Plus, you should also consider that Clvoertown has been available for half a year already and Barcelona isn't as of yet. Shortly after Barcelona Intel will also introduce the new Xeon MP's, which should be Barcelonas target. Tigerton will have the same amount of cores and features CSI. At that time both should be compared, since those 2 platforms are in the same market.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

So basically Intel was just evening the playing field when they ran the benchmarks


----------



## tkpenalty (May 25, 2007)

jocksteeluk said:


> the true winner of these battles is the consumer, keep up the good work intel



At least intel is honourable, using straightforward tactics.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

Intel just needs to give AMD a break because if AMD loses out, we as consumers are screwed if theres no competetor. Yes it would be a monopoly but Intel would find away out and sell for as high as prices as they want./


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

Intel doesn't care about our wallets. Corporations don't mind kicking people in the face when they're already on the ground.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

which is why we need AMD still going


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

Right. Just saying, Intel doesn't need to give them a break to save us. They don't care about us.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

Yea and I guess you have to see it from both sides, why should Intel do that when its a buines and they make money, pretty straightforward. But for us consumers we Need AMD to live sowe arent going to pay an arm and a leg for a proc


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> They don't care about us.



Michael Jackson?


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Michael Jackson?



Schwa?


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

wtf?


----------



## suraswami (May 25, 2007)

Last I heard that Intel stole few bastards from AMD and got out with Core 2.

What ever Intel releases I will not even think of buying in my dreams.  I am a strong supporter of AMD.  All my PCs are AMD.  I wish I got a AMD at work!!

Remember those days when AMD was under dog to Intel and was making CPUs for Intel?  Remember how bad they were treated??


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2007)

suraswami said:


> Last I heard that Intel stole few bastards from AMD and got out with Core 2.



Luckily you agree that the people at AMD are bastards


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

So are you saying that Intel had engineers from AMD help make the core 2


----------



## Zero Cool (May 25, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Luckily you agree that the people at AMD are bastards



lol

bastard:
One born without married parents.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

Zero Cool said:


> lol
> 
> bastard:
> One born without married parents.



It's also a fun word to sling at people, irregardless of their parents.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2007)

Zero Cool said:


> lol
> 
> bastard:
> One born without married parents.



bas·tard      /ˈbæstərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bas-terd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.	a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
2.	Slang.
a.	a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person: Some bastard slashed the tires on my car.
b.	a person, esp. a man: The poor bastard broke his leg.
3.	something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.
4.	bastard culverin.
–adjective
5.	illegitimate in birth.
6.	spurious; not genuine; false: The architecture was bastard Gothic.
7.	of abnormal or irregular shape or size; of unusual make or proportions: bastard quartz; bastard mahogany.
8.	having the appearance of; resembling in some degree: a bastard Michelangelo; bastard emeralds.
9.	Printing. (of a character) not of the font in which it is used or found.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> bas·tard      /ˈbæstərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bas-terd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> *a.	a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person*: Some bastard slashed the tires on my car.



Bingo!


----------



## d44ve (May 25, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Bingo!




I dont think you really get the humor and irony of my signature


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

d44ve said:


> I dont think you really get the humor and irony of my signature



No, I did. Maybe you didn't get mine.


----------



## d44ve (May 25, 2007)

No, I understand what you are TRYING to do.

You are from OHIO....I understand you cant comprehend some things lol


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

Ok besides highjacking this thread lol. So does someone have a link to the benchies, like the most legit link?


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

d44ve said:


> No, I understand what you are TRYING to do.
> 
> You are from OHIO....I understand you cant comprehend some things lol



You're the one giving possession to 'quote.'


----------



## suraswami (May 25, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Luckily you agree that the people at AMD are bastards



YES, they sent all the BASTARDS into INTEL CAMP.  THEY are called TORPEDOS.  Eventually they will did their grave and INTELs


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

lol the quote thing in Neptunes sig is pretty funny


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2007)

That is a new one to me, about AMD building chips for Intel (while back) and also about a few folks from AMD coming to Israel to work on a second chip for Intel.

The story reported, in MaximumPC and CPU magazine and at least a dozen others, is that Intel, shortly after AMD released the 64 processor, had two independent teams working on the next P4 successor chip (or whatever PX chip it was). One team came with Netburst, and of course, we all know how that ended. The other team started over from scratch. Something unheard of. They built off the centrino technology and pentium M technology and thus C2D was born. The only thing Intel lacks to completely compete with AMD is integrated memory architecture. Apparently, this is coming in the Penryn. AMD better take a few queues from Intel and try some of their new architecture out.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> That is a new one to me, about AMD building chips for Intel (while back) and also about a few folks from AMD coming to Israel to work on a second chip for Intel.
> 
> The story reported, in MaximumPC and CPU magazine and at least a dozen others, is that Intel, shortly after AMD released the 64 processor, had two independent teams working on the next P4 successor chip (or whatever PX chip it was). One team came with Netburst, and of course, we all know how that ended. The other team started over from scratch. Something unheard of. They built off the centrino technology and pentium M technology and thus C2D was born. The only thing Intel lacks to completely compete with AMD is integrated memory architecture. Apparently, this is coming in the Penryn. AMD better take a few queues from Intel and try some of their new architecture out.



Centrino isn't a technology, it is a label for a system that has a certain set of hardware. Pentium M wasn't exactly from scratch either, it's based on the Tualatin. As for AMD making Intel chips, new to me as well. They did make Intel clones until Intel launched the Pentium. They kept using it's socket for a long time though.


----------



## suraswami (May 25, 2007)

I think they made their 386 & 486 processors.  Some had encryption of 'AMD' on it.  Google for history of AMD and Intel and you can find answers to this.


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 25, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> That is a new one to me, about AMD building chips for Intel (while back) and also about a few folks from AMD coming to Israel to work on a second chip for Intel.



Check out this thread, or this reply to that thread.


----------



## suraswami (May 25, 2007)

Ha Ha our friends already wrote about this few days ago!!!!


----------



## v-zero (May 25, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> That is a new one to me, about AMD building chips for Intel (while back) and also about a few folks from AMD coming to Israel to work on a second chip for Intel.
> 
> The story reported, in MaximumPC and CPU magazine and at least a dozen others, is that Intel, shortly after AMD released the 64 processor, had two independent teams working on the next P4 successor chip (or whatever PX chip it was). One team came with Netburst, and of course, we all know how that ended. The other team started over from scratch. Something unheard of. They built off the centrino technology and pentium M technology and thus C2D was born. The only thing Intel lacks to completely compete with AMD is integrated memory architecture. Apparently, this is coming in the Penryn. AMD better take a few queues from Intel and try some of their new architecture out.



Close. Intel set two teams running in parallel to design the next architechture to come after the Pentium-3 set. The Israeli team started from a base on the P6 architechture, the other team started almost completely from scratch in designing the Netburst architechture - there was 'some' previously designed basis for Netburst though.
Intel went with Netburst, as preliminarily it portrayed a product whose scalability far outreached the P6 based design. However, they soon found a use for the Israel based designs in Laptop computers.

We all know the story from here. K7 fell to Netburst (just) but AMD's tweaked K7 (K8) had a much better IPC than Intel could cope with, especially since Netburst fell short of their original expectations after it was revealed that the ultra-long pipeline shift and over-complex design lead to massive electron leakage, and reduced scalability.
And so, seeing this Intel turned to the Israeli team and said: "We want Pentium-M, but with two cores, in a desktop - and we want a slightly longer pipeline to give us much better clocks" - and that's what Core2 became (well, massive oversimplification, but that's the gist).


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

So the core2 is a modified M with long pipe lines..but the core 2's perform extremely well at a much lower clock than a higher clocked AMD, so adding the longer pipe line to give a higher clock doesn't make to much sense at seeing the Core2 default clock speeds, but after seeing the over clocks that people have done with the core 2's, that makes it sensible.


----------



## a111087 (May 25, 2007)

what about the power consumption, 65W isn't 150W, AMD's 16 cores consume way less that intel's 8 cores


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

Yea I was gonna say something about that, those Intels with freakin cook


----------



## bigboi86 (May 25, 2007)

K7 kicked Netbursts ass. AXP's were way better, except for multitasking, which intel had hyperthreading.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2007)

so I wasnt too off base with my memory recollection. Still AMD could learn a few tricks from Intel with its C2D stuff. I think we will see great improvements from both camps.


----------



## Fox34 (May 25, 2007)

Think AMD will start making their architecture somewhat like the core 2?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 26, 2007)

I thought C2D used shorter pipeline then P4??


----------



## Fox34 (May 26, 2007)

hmmm, we should verify if it does or not


----------



## kwchang007 (May 26, 2007)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I thought C2D used shorter pipeline then P4??



yes it does c2d uses a 14 stage pipeline while the p4 uses a 30 stage pipeline


----------



## trt740 (May 26, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I highly doubt RAM size makes that much of a difference. Plus, you should also consider that Clvoertown has been available for half a year already and Barcelona isn't as of yet. Shortly after Barcelona Intel will also introduce the new Xeon MP's, which should be Barcelonas target. Tigerton will have the same amount of cores and features CSI. At that time both should be compared, since those 2 platforms are in the same market.



Yes the ram would make enought difference would most likely make them run neck and neck. We are talking 900 pixels after all.


----------



## Fox34 (May 26, 2007)

So the core 2 has a smaller pipe line, why would they do that? And that sounds like the reason they have the lower overall clock.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (May 26, 2007)

for what u get for ur money, it surely kicks ass


----------



## Fox34 (May 27, 2007)

Bah, I'm an AMD fan boy though


----------



## kwchang007 (May 27, 2007)

Fox34 said:


> So the core 2 has a smaller pipe line, why would they do that? And that sounds like the reason they have the lower overall clock.



core 2 duo has a "small, fat pipe" which is much better.  a longer pipe can run a higher clock, yes but a short pipe has many more advantages. a short pipe takes less time to "fill" b/c it is shorter (im kind of peicing what i have heard together, if i am wrong, please tell me) and it takes less clocks to load the pipe up.  also, when the branch predicter predicts the wrong next insturction, the whole pipe has to be flushed, so a long pipe her is worse.  also, core 2 can process 4 instructions at once compared to pentium m and p4's 3 instructions at once, plus the whole macro ops thing.


----------



## Fox34 (May 27, 2007)

Yea the shorter pipeline with a higher "bandwhidth" makes sense of the core 2, lower clock but still high performence


----------

