What is Digg?124 Comments
- JaySherman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+130AMD deserves way more recognition than intel, While intel was busy with its nonsesical marketing campaigns AMD was designing the standard for 64 bit computing, and intel had nothing to do but to implement it.
- ChrisMorrell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+86I cannot wait to see AMD finally competing against Intel again. The K8/P4 days were entertaining with AMD in the lead but now AMD potentially has a beast under wraps and Intel could once again be on the short end of the performance race. Wish I had the money to make a Barcelona based test-bed to go along with my C2D test-bed.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -8/+81Give credit where credit is due... Intel may have had their missteps over the years, but Core 2 has been a resounding success.
Intel's primary advantage over the next few years, as I see it, is from a process technology point of view. They implemented 65 nm technology 1 full year ahead of AMD, and just as AMD is about to ramp up, they're quickly jumping to 45 nm. Regardless about how you feel about AMD and Intel's design of processors, Intel has the edge for now for harnessing Moore's Law. - afx1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+73You had me at nested paging tables...
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45@arsenic: And Xerox made the first GUI, and look at where they are now.
- Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41I'm an AMD fanboy but I will believe it when I see it. I hope they can compete with Core 2 Duo.
- jmpcrew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34Apparently not a lot...
"Barcelona blacks out power to individual portions of the chip that are idled, from in-core execution units to on-die bus controllers. This hasn’t made it into PCs before because it’s very difficult to manage light switches for several “rooms” individually and to make sure that, like a refrigerator light, whenever a door is opened, the light is on as if it’s been burning the whole time. Power savings from these schemes are dramatic. If Barcelona lacked this feature, it would still be a green CPU." - bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Stupid Sun jumping ship right after Intel's latest and greatest comes out. These two companies change places every couple years, but they never change prices. They really want to blow money on Intel after how good AMD has been to them all these years? They'll be sorry.
- Mikesnav, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37Article: "Unlike Intel’s Core, Barcelona gives each core dedicated L2 cache..."
Wow, that's pretty much what all dual core chips have done, with the exception of Core2.
One of Core 2's selling points, and unique features is the shared L2. Just like Barcelona's shared L3. - Jon211, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29@FoxHoundAdmin
From your link:
Intel P4 may refer to:
* Intel Pentium 4, a 7th generation Intel CPU design
* Intel 80486, a 4th generation Intel processor design
I think it was obvious which one he was referring to. - StatusQuoRules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25@ FoxHoundAdmin
Hello? Pentium 4 Vs AMD64 (P4 vs K8) - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Please no fanboyism or flaming, just an answer.
It's all x86 (m)architecture, so does this mean that Apple could move over to a new uber AMD chip if it were benificial over the Core 2? I realize there would be inherent motherboard and chipset changes, but wouldn't Universal Apps still run? - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I don't understand why people are digging you down, Mike. You are absolutely correct.
Shared L2 isn't something that cripples Intel's Core 2. It is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a more logical architecture that prevents data from being duplicated in different caches. It allows for coherency using the L2 cache rather than having to access the slower bus below the separate L2s when the two CPUs need to access the same data in memory.
AMD's Barcelona will have a shared L3, which will serve the same purpose. - tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@squenix1221
Universal binaries have not been "optimized", but compiled for both architectures. Big difference. Apps could probably be optimized a tiny bit for AMD specifically, but they would run just dandy on an AMD processor as they are. Universal binary means PPC and Intel, but would better read as PPC and x86. They use "intel" because that is all Apple uses.
Basically, yes, Apple could (they won't) hop over to AMD processors in a second with no problems.
Don't forget that people have been running the hacked OS X86 on AMD processors for over a year now... - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21@hkid: "I'm not a processing genius so I'll risk the digg down and ask, what does this mean in real life?"
You say that like people here actually know what the hell they are talking about. If you come here often, you'll see more often than not that the people who actually make an informative and accurate post get modded down, while fanboy "$BRAND_NAME RULES!!!11!" posts get modded up.
Anyway, back to being "on topic"...
Whoooyahhh AMD rules! Suck it Intel! - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Gotta back up laughingman on this one.
Intel is aiming at AMD's profit margins, and planning to put them in the hurt. Aquiring ATI is a big deal, and Intel knows that AMD can't keep pace on the fabrication level. In addition to that, intel has been making R&D into the descrete graphics market potentially attempting to cut AMD/ATI out of the picture even further. This "war" isn't going to be about performance, it's going to be about price, profit and power. The bottom line is that intel can muscle through several more poor quarters than AMD and still poor money into fab and R&D.
I'm going to say it this way, when AMD puts out a stellar processor i'll believe it when i see it. Other than Hypertransport, (which is idealogically an PPC trait and not an AMD creation) AMD has really only come up with, x64. Notably more compatable than intel's IA64 but x64 has performance drawbacks that IA64 does not, mostly all those rotating GP registers in IA64, but i don't think intel can force the market that is coming out of x86 into a paradigm shift. AMD has never really put out a processor that "trashed" an entire architecture like what intel has done with AMD's current lineup, that's why there's a big fuss about core 2, as long as i've lived all i've seen out of AMD is marginally better performance at a slightly lower cost, but nothing to write home about.
I'm going to tip my hat off to AMD though, i honostly think that if intel would implement an onboard memory controller, there'd be no competition. Many, of the reasons why AMD could compete is because they could use cheaper components (DDR), less cache memory (L1 & L2) and perform equal or better to intel's lineup. I honostly feel sad when i see benchmarks of an AMD rig with 1GB of DDR 333 performing better than intel's 1GB of DDR2 533 only because memory latency is so low for AMD. *sigh* it'll be another 3-5 years before intel finally moves to integrated memory controller.
Intel's already got the next architecture in the works, so we'll see how long a "new reign" may last. - DuckFOO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@happyscrappy
"Additionally, Apple buys both CPUs and chipsets (north/south bridges) from Intel, and AMD doesn't make north/south bridges for their chips, so AMD can't offer the full solution to Apple."
Since AMD bought ATI, certainly they can offer both now? - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It means simply, AMD thinks it has an answer to intel's "Core" architecture, and answer means a product that performs equally or better.
Since there are no benches for this processor, we can't know how good it is. But what it means in the big picture is that CPU's are going to get really exciting really fast. If you look at the computing industry in the last, oh 6-9 months, and you look at where we were and where we are now, it's pretty crazy.
9 Months ago DDR 667 (PC2 5200) was the fastest thing out there, Corsair has just put out PC2 10,000, or basically DDR2 1200.
We went from P4 volcanoes to breezey Core 2's.
A 750GB HDD 9 months ago was a dream.
Flash HDD give me a break, today, they're real, though notably too GD expensive.
Imagine what it'll be like in 3 or 5 years. At this rate, the machines we have today will be slower relative to their replacements than the machines we replaced with the ones we have now. It's amazing, it gets me excited, i'm a computer engineer, so i guess that makes sense. This is a happy and exciting time for me. - RealityBender, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Intel missteps was the Itanium a 64bit super-scalar computer (a very old idea of executing more instruction per clock cycle) with a L3 cache that was barley faster then Main memory so not only was it a flaw design. It ran the exist x32 software like crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar
is AMD making a misstep?
AMD is making a 64 bit Vector computer (a very old idea of creating a section of chip devote to loops) with a L3 cache that maybe barley faster than Main memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_processor
Now that i have insulted both manufacture i will get dugg down in no time - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11DuckFOO:
Yes, ATI's north/south bridges aren't quite up to snuff yet, but at some point in the near future, AMD will certainly flesh out their offerings and be able to viably offer a solution like this to companies like Apple. - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Yeah, but we can upgrade our parts at least....(I assume you are on a Mac, if you're running Linux disregard this comment)
- hkid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'm not a processing genius so I'll risk the digg down and ask, what does this mean in real life?
I'm glad AMD is trying to compete with Intel again, all companies need competition.
But what will the battery life be?
How fast will it run?
I'd like to see what this can do in the real world. - Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13It's all well and nice that it'll be great for servers and virtualization .... but will it run Crysis faster?
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I don't think it has reinvented x86. I'm not even sure what that hype word is supposed to mean. They have added new features, cores, etc... but that doesn't reinvent anything.
If they really had reinvented x86, every processor after this one would be based upon these specifications and built up from there. I highly doubt Intel would be going along with that. - jtherrien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Sounds awesome! Hopefully it'll live up to the hype.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Yes. Apple could move to this chip.
No, Apple won't be moving to AMD. One of the reasons (it would seem) Apple went to Intel is to iron out their past supply issues. AMD has huge problems supplying the number of chips they already sell. They cancelled their entire range of higher performaing larger cache chips at one point seeming to increase availability of their remaining chips.
Additionally, Apple buys both CPUs and chipsets (north/south bridges) from Intel, and AMD doesn't make north/south bridges for their chips, so AMD can't offer the full solution to Apple. - ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Good to see AMD back in the game. I wonder how well it will compete with the Core 2 Duos and its successor.
- aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14That's all well and good, but now I want an AMD Mac :)
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yes, while Intel was doing stupid-ass Itanium, AMD was creating x64.
However, Intel did create the standard for 32 bit computing.
And the standard for 16 bit computing.
And they created the most popular 8-bit processor ever (8051).
And they created DRAM (1T DRAM, the high density stuff that is the lifeblood of computing).
I cannot see how you think AMD deserves more credit than Intel. - lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9to be more realistic, just replace "spyware/viruses and DRM scans" with.... "software"
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's a double edged sword, in AMD's implementation with Hypertransport, split L2 cache can perform well, however in intel's implementation when cache must go out on the FSB to change cores that's a performance drop.
So for AMD it's good for them.
As for why they're doing it this way, i'm unsure, AMD has always had less cache, so why add even slower L3 cache to the mix, it makes more sense to quadruple your L1 cache and double your L2 rather than add L3 (except for maybe price but why add L3 then when you can add more ALU's for cheaper that will linearly scale performance). For those who are unclear on why i say this, with the current sizes of AMD caches a, 4x L1 cache provides ~25% cache performance boost. And a double L2 provides 12.5% boost in their respective caching efficiency.
*scratches head* I've never really understood L3 cache computer engineering has shown in the desktop industry (in particular) that L2 cache is as far as you can go and see a performance difference, who knows?! - logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Talk about a programming nightmare."
Actually, it should be pretty transparent on the application level. Threaded programming is threaded programming; the only difference is how many threads you can run at once. The "programming nightmare" is on the OS level, where the threads get sent off to the different cores.
Still, I agree that it's nice to see AMD worrying about power consumption. 700W power supplies are expensive... - TiMMY8765, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7is this K8L? or K10?
- dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@xnacoder
he is getting dugg down for implying that it will run hotter than what is currently out there. people who are digging him down might understand that with the current processors coming out (basically anything after the P4), power management (and therefore heat output) is one of the primary concerns.
basically it was a retarded question. if it was a real question it would have been phrased differently. you got dugg down because you didn't understand it was retarded. - Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope AMD can produce a competitive CPU, not because I'm a fanboy, but because solid competition will keep prices in check over the long run.
- firstc624, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i would say that some would argue that we are slaves to these machines. think about it. how often are we on a pc during the day, digging, browsing, editing...etc
so you could argue that we are slaves to the machines, not in the matrix sort of way though :-) - phlux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wouldnt be so fast to make any judgements in this arena.
Sure there will always be advancements in tech - apply moores law to tech in general rather that the density of chips...
When I was *working at intel* I was inquiring about the possibilities of dual core systems and was treated as blasphemous and that was in '99.... (that and multiple graphics busses (hello PCIX SLI))
Trust me - optical processors are next - and optical multi core will set new standards hopefully getting to PIPS in the next 5-7 years.
it will be a see-saw between these two - but just sit back and enjoy it rather than get any sort of hype from it... - KayIslandDrunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm with you, I felt kind of burnt when they displayed the 4x4 which was supposed to be so awesome. Anyway my Opteron is still kicking some ass
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@realitybender
What about Itanium 2, (the fixed version of IA64) it on the other hand though not as well known apparently does very well in the niche market. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@xnacoder
Because he didn't RTFA - g3r4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Not Just" being the key, as it adds those nifty power saving features, and it also adds individual L2's with a shared L3.
- Duositex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3128 bit floating point operations 80% faster than previous technology? Sounds an awful lot like that acquisition of ATI is going to pay off because if that doesn't stink of GPU technology I don't know what does.
- iofthestorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I think if anything x86-64 could have been called reinventing x86 but this?
- iwod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i think the title is very misleading: AMD reinvents the x86.
They did add a lot of things and improve on FP. Ok. May be FP will trounce intel. It will out perform Intel in all area. But this is another topic and for benchmark to prove.
BUT the fact is that AMD DID NOT REINVENT the x86. If you call that reinvention then I suppose Intel Reinvent the x86 with C2D as well? And Netburst 4 years ago another reinvention? or K8 with better efficiency per clock another reinvention? So we basically reinvent x86 every 2 - 3 years.
K10 ( the official code name now i suppose instead of the K8L ) will be very very good when it comes out. But it is still features and extension to x86. - pazmanpro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have not been blown away by the Duo Core 2s. I use and Turion 64 X2, and have been pleased by the performance. Maybe, its the chipsets, i don't know. Even though, i would not write off AMD just yet. They have created great chips before, maybe they can do it again.
Intel plays dirty though, and AMD should concentrate on creating great chips rather than competing with Intel. Intel beat out Motorola in the processor fight when Motorola was concentrating on beating Intel. - fremeer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Real life terms means less heat and power use. Also because of this and a new design it means more power. Good for AI and stuff in games as well as programs like photoshop and encoders
- zachlutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That is a really good point laughingman11. This sounds like a really impressive offering from AMD though. With your point taken into consideration though, maybe AMD won't be the low-cost leader. If AMD is indeed faster though, it will have to catch the attention of companies such as Apple.
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Don't listen to squenix, he's clueless.
Intel and AMD both use the x86 architechture (meaning they both read the same instructions). Very few programs ever need to be optimized for a specific chip, because it can break compatibility among chip revisions, even from the same company often. You need SSE3 capable processors to run Rosetta (non universal apps), but even old PCs can run OSX and it's universal apps. Also, you can currently run any universal app on AMD processors with a cracked copy of OSX, it's been done many times. So to answer your question, Apple could at any time switch to AMD and it would be transparent to end users, unlike the switch from PowerPC. I don't think they'd ever do it, because right now Intel has the best small form factor package. Current Macbooks run Intel processors, Intel wireless, and Intel graphics. I'm sure that it's a package deal agreement with Intel to keep costs low, so I doubt they will switch in the foreseeable future. - lucid270, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@RealityBender
Itanium = VLIW
Itanium != Super-scalar
There's a difference. - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+280% speed up in floating point? gosh my vst plugins are sure going to like that, as opposed to core duo that would give me almost no edge on a three year old athlon XP, as I couldn't care less for multiple cpus, or dual or whatever. Single threads only here.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is