|
INTEL Core 2 Duo Knocks Out AMD Athlon 64
|
View this Thread in Original format
| E2EK1EL |
 
Wow the new INTEL chip is pretty sick. For the last 2 yrs , AMD has been killing INTEL without even trying. July 24 2006, Intel has lauched a totally new CPU that destorys AMD's Anthon 64 chips and put it to shame.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/
In 2007, AMD will launch their new CPU, do you think AMD will take the lead and crush Intel again? |
|
|
| DanR |
AMD's new chips will be quad core, and they're just around the corner. Intel is stuck on two. 4>2, therefore AMD>Intel.
Disclaimer: I have no clue what I'm talking about :) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| Moore's Law is on the verge of being violated (if it hasn't already been). |
|
|
| DanR |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Moore's Law is on the verge of being violated (if it hasn't already been). |
Violated in the sense that they will be adding too many transistors, or not adding enough? My guess would be the former, and considering that IBM (if I am not mistaken) has developed 15nm technology, as long as mass production is viable and heat issues addressed, the latter shouldn't be a problem for some time. We'll be on 45nm in the next couple of years (http://eetimes.com/news/latest/show...cleID=191800073), which will buy time ;) |
|
|
| daves |
Chipzilla has finally gotten their act together... it's good that they were able to bring it on now, AMD needs Intel's products to be tougher so that they are forced to become more innovative.
it's just another turn of the cycle. |
|
|
| DanR |
| quote: | Originally posted by daves
Chipzilla has finally gotten their act together... it's good that they were able to bring it on now, AMD needs Intel's products to be tougher so that they are forced to become more innovative.
it's just another turn of the cycle. |
Which brings up an interesting topic. Would technology prosper more with or without corporate competition? |
|
|
| Floorwhore |
| *moved to hardcore g33k squard forum* |
|
|
| 7-4-7 |
"prosper?" when something can do something else 1-1 billionth faster than the other, thats not about prosperity. This boils down to consumer competition not corporate. Consumers are told to want the next and best thing, and when you get it, you are already told that yours was all of those things, but its a long drive from Best Buy and your technology is old.
Who needs this type of pace; besides the corporations, their accountants and the Jones' who always need the next 'best'. Technology already controls our lives, and now it controls our buying habits and our finances. |
|
|
| DanR |
| quote: | Originally posted by 7-4-7
"prosper?" when something can do something else 1-1 billionth faster than the other, thats not about prosperity. This boils down to consumer competition not corporate. Consumers are told to want the next and best thing, and when you get it, you are already told that yours was all of those things, but its a long drive from Best Buy and your technology is old.
Who needs this type of pace; besides the corporations, their accountants and the Jones' who always need the next 'best'. Technology already controls our lives, and now it controls our buying habits and our finances. |
Right. Consumers want the latest 5GHz processor (for the sake of argument). Whichever corporation can effectively mass produce this 5GHz processor first at a cheaper price would be outdoing the competition. The market is driven by money (hence corporate competition - my terminology is wrong?), and we're on the same page with that. But that's not to say technology (research included) is not prospering behind all of the money and politics... the fast pace can have its benefits. In order to develop the best electronics, materials, etc., companies are forced to be exploring matter and finding new ways to manipulate matter at smaller and smaller scales. Being able to do so will allow us to tap into other areas such as medicine. A cure for cancer, I'm sure, will be welcomed by all. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by DanR
A cure for cancer, I'm sure, will be welcomed by all. |
By everyone except the corporations developing it. Why develop a one-time cure when you can develop a medicine that keeps customers coming back for more? |
|
|
| DanR |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
By everyone except the corporations developing it. Why develop a one-time cure when you can develop a medicine that keeps customers coming back for more? |
We can only hope there are good-hearted people with enough power and control to do the right thing. Companies fueled by greed aren't exactly the best places to be looking... |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by DanR
We can only hope there are good-hearted people with enough power and control to do the right thing. Companies fueled by greed aren't exactly the best places to be looking... |
Most are fuelled by greed though. |
|
|
|
|
