tweaktown.com— Using an Intel P35 "Bearlake" motherboard, we test performance of 1333MHz FSB processors such as E6750 and E6850 on the new DDR-3 capable platform.
Mar 13, 2007View in Crawl 4
@lobofaniaYou have to realize that i'm a die-hard intel fan. And i know full well that R&D and fab wize AMD doesn't hold a candle to intel. I'm merely saying, if intel really wants to seperate the gap, then that's what they need to do. I'm critical of intel, because i like intel, and i know they can do better than this.
The problem with integrated memory controllers is they waste a lot of diespace doing something that locks a chip into a generation. For example, when AMD was struggling to get more performance out of the original Opterons, it was often cited that many applications were memory bound, the DDR memory controller just couldn't keep up with Intel's DDR2 memory controllers. Putting in a new DDR2 controller means respinning their entire CPU core, which can cost hundreds of millions in validation. Leaving the controller on the chipset allows Intel to update the controller without updating the chips, which means when one part of the equation gets old, toss it and get a new one, which is exactly what Intel has always done. Multichip packaging brings an interesting new idea to the party of having a memory controller (with a really wide bus) connected directly to the CPU core but not losing performance to wire delay going out to the DDR RAM, but I don't believe Intel is there yet either (even though they've demoed a Pentium M processor with a northbridge and voltage controllers on the same package). Intel's decision to stay the course and simply bring out faster RAM seems to be working for them.
danknerdMar 14, 2007
lol
Closed AccountMar 14, 2007
Works and looks perfectly fine on latest Firefox with AdBlock Plus installed.
phyltreMar 14, 2007
When you say interrogated, do you mean integrated?Because that would make you not crazy.
lobofaninaMar 14, 2007
Phyltre Thanks for the correction, I'm not crazy. (Nothing sounds crazier than saying that though)
yellowbookMar 14, 2007
... and you need AdBlock Plus so that you see the content hidden amongst all the ads
lucid270Mar 14, 2007
There were ads?/yay adblock
maninblac1Mar 14, 2007
@lobofaniaYou have to realize that i'm a die-hard intel fan. And i know full well that R&D and fab wize AMD doesn't hold a candle to intel. I'm merely saying, if intel really wants to seperate the gap, then that's what they need to do. I'm critical of intel, because i like intel, and i know they can do better than this.
geminitojanusMar 14, 2007
The problem with integrated memory controllers is they waste a lot of diespace doing something that locks a chip into a generation. For example, when AMD was struggling to get more performance out of the original Opterons, it was often cited that many applications were memory bound, the DDR memory controller just couldn't keep up with Intel's DDR2 memory controllers. Putting in a new DDR2 controller means respinning their entire CPU core, which can cost hundreds of millions in validation. Leaving the controller on the chipset allows Intel to update the controller without updating the chips, which means when one part of the equation gets old, toss it and get a new one, which is exactly what Intel has always done. Multichip packaging brings an interesting new idea to the party of having a memory controller (with a really wide bus) connected directly to the CPU core but not losing performance to wire delay going out to the DDR RAM, but I don't believe Intel is there yet either (even though they've demoed a Pentium M processor with a northbridge and voltage controllers on the same package). Intel's decision to stay the course and simply bring out faster RAM seems to be working for them.