By M. Coleman (not verified) on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 11:58pm.
I just read some very interesting information where Intel ADMITS that their technology has been *behind* AMD's processor for the last 5 years (remember, AMD introduced the Opteron processor in 2003). Take a look at these links:
I think it's really interesting that Intel just NOW figured out (over 5 years later) that the integrated memory controller was the future instead of the *outdated* FSB. Intel has been simply double and quad-pumping the FSB in order to acheive high enoguh performance. Intel HAD to make their CPU caches 6MB and 12MB because of the latency involved in using FSB. AMD has not had to change their cache sizes much since 2003 as they realized that it didn't give any additional performance for their processors due to them already being optimzed due to having an integrated memory controller.
Intel simply waited 5-6 years to use AMD's idea of an integrated memory controller and try to think of something BETTER rather than something ORIGINAL. Also, if anyone hasn't noticed yet, AMD actually partners with many different companies, such as IBM, in order to help them produce better processors. Intel does their R&D all "in-house", which it can do since it's about 10 times as big as AMD.
My point: Intel ADMITS that their use of the outdated FSB has hampered their processor performance. So again I ask...if AMD had the BETTER technology, then WHY hasn't their market share increased much? Because Intel wanted the masses to think that AMD is simply an "off-brand" company that knows nothing about how to make a CPU. In a nutshell, Intel HAD to double and quad-pump the FSB in order to keep up with AMD processor performance because it simply had its head in the sand with its pants down when it came to processor technology.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Intel ADMITS their processors were inferior compared to AMD!!!
I just read some very interesting information where Intel ADMITS that their technology has been *behind* AMD's processor for the last 5 years (remember, AMD introduced the Opteron processor in 2003). Take a look at these links:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780925-7.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/intel_csi_kanter/
I think it's really interesting that Intel just NOW figured out (over 5 years later) that the integrated memory controller was the future instead of the *outdated* FSB. Intel has been simply double and quad-pumping the FSB in order to acheive high enoguh performance. Intel HAD to make their CPU caches 6MB and 12MB because of the latency involved in using FSB. AMD has not had to change their cache sizes much since 2003 as they realized that it didn't give any additional performance for their processors due to them already being optimzed due to having an integrated memory controller.
Intel simply waited 5-6 years to use AMD's idea of an integrated memory controller and try to think of something BETTER rather than something ORIGINAL. Also, if anyone hasn't noticed yet, AMD actually partners with many different companies, such as IBM, in order to help them produce better processors. Intel does their R&D all "in-house", which it can do since it's about 10 times as big as AMD.
My point: Intel ADMITS that their use of the outdated FSB has hampered their processor performance. So again I ask...if AMD had the BETTER technology, then WHY hasn't their market share increased much? Because Intel wanted the masses to think that AMD is simply an "off-brand" company that knows nothing about how to make a CPU. In a nutshell, Intel HAD to double and quad-pump the FSB in order to keep up with AMD processor performance because it simply had its head in the sand with its pants down when it came to processor technology.