Does RAM have anything to do with the proccessor or MB?

Locked
User avatar
klinky
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 12:23 am
Location: Cookie College...
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by klinky » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:03 am

Well, Athlon is a more "elegant" solution you could say.

Pentium CPU has done the following:

Add more CPU stages.
Pumped up CPU clock
Pumped up FSB clock
Pumped up cache
Enabled Hyperthreading


They've basically been inflating the cpu up overtime to get it to perform properly. Only recently has it really started to pay off. When the Pentium4 was introduced it was horrible. Especially when the OEMs wanted to match it up with PC133 SDRAM. :x

The Athlon/Opteron/Athlon64 I think are positive ways in which CPUs can be designed. There are many more tweaks to the core that can be done besides just throwing more mhz or cache at the problem :|

Pretty soon Intel will have to develop something more innovative and it's not named Itanium. -_-

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:55 am

the Black Monarch wrote:
I have personally seen a grand total of ONE (1) PC company commercial in which the clock speed was brought up. Fry's brings it up more often, but they don't make the PCs. Aside from that, all the IBM/Gateway/Dell/Whatever commercials that I've seen just said the model name and not the clock speed

I suggest replacing hertz with instructions/second as the standard by which CPUs are judged.
Well I assure you, there are plenty of commercials with it. Stuff like "with the lightning fast Intel 3.0 Ghz Processor."

As for replacing the number...it won't ever happen. Intel is in control...they make the rules. Although I hear they might go to model numbers like we do for the Centrino since it's like 1.6 Ghz, but outperforms the 2.2 Ghz P4 Mobile...which furthers my argument that the PIII architecture was superior.
the Black Monarch wrote:It wasn't just marketing. The higher clock speeds get the job done just as well as your much-lauded efficiency (maybe slightly less, as 2.25 Ghz x 9 inst/cycle > 3.06 Ghz x 6 inst/cycle, but you get my point). If designing something to be inefficient on purpose indirectly allows for superior performance, then why not do it? In the world of computing, you want miles per hour, not miles per gallon.
No I agree..as I've said (MANY) times...it's Performance = speed * instruction/clock. If you raise the frequency, you also raise performance. Basically what I was getting at is that Marketing and design agreed to this decision since they could get the performance (from speed) AND the consumers would see continual "improvements" since they would see the frequency. It was a VERY wise decision and even I will admit that. I was just getting at that I dislike making inefficient designs since I am an engineer and making an unoptimized design (i.e. 7 extra pipeline stages) just feels weird.

the Black Monarch wrote:I have my eye on a $250,000 paycheck in the next few weeks. It might not happen, though. I'll keep you posted.
Wow, that's a lot of money.
the Black Monarch wrote:What's the functional difference between the K6 and the original (non-XP) Athlon?

If the P6 core only executes 3 instructions per second, and the P7 core (Pentium 4) executes 6, and the Centrino is based on the P6 core, then how could a 1.6 gig Centrino perform like a 2.4 gig Pentium 4? The math just doesn't add up. George now says that the Centrino is based not on the P6 core, but on the upcoming Pentium 5! I think you should ask your AMD buddies if this is the case and they didn't correctly hear which core the Centrino team was modifying.
The easiest way to answer this is with a quote:

"The P6 architecture emerged with the Pentium Pro, a server chip, and was adapted to the Pentium II, the Pentium III, the Celeron family and Xeon server chips. "

It's ADAPTED from..it's not the exact same thing. The foundation may remain the same, HOWEVER a big thing we're not taking into account here is transistor technology. Obviously we've gotten quite a bit better from 18 nm, 13 nm and so on and thus speeds have increased as well. Also, let's say they take the same P6 architecture foundation, which was fairly efficient and made improvements to it in terms of speed...this would make it decently fast (1.6 Ghz and so on) AND efficient.

I never said the PIII was FASTER than the PIV. I am basically getting at...clock for clock, the PIII is better performance. Basically what it does in 1.6 Ghz compared to what a P4 can do...the P3 kills it. Thus the P3 can scale (in performance) to that of a P4 with a higher clock. Make sense?

Regardless...I will be the first to admit that I mainly know about things from PIII and on. I just graduated a year ago and all...I don't know THAT much about the past other than what you guys read too.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:59 am

klinky wrote:I think one could point out that there is a problem when your *NEW* 1.8Ghz CPU runs like your *OLD* 1Ghz CPU.

But one could also say that there is a problem if your old CPU could have never gotten above 1Ghz. So say your new cpu can go all the way up to 4Ghz, but it performs about as good as your old processor did @ 2.5Ghz. Well still that's a improvement because the old one would have never been able to reach 2.5Ghz.

Intel is currently sticking with it, their parts in the high-end while semingly brute-force have worked and the Pentium4 continues to scale well. The P4 3.0C 800Mhz cpu, depending on which benchmarks you look at meets or beats the Athlon XP 3200 400Mhz cpu. Of course the Athlon is running @ 2.2Ghz. Still one could say the Athlon is flawed for not being able to go higher. If it could run @ 3Ghz like the Pentium4 could, then it would be the undoubted performance leader. But currently it can't :P.

Also it should be noted that the Athlon XP 3200 is $445 compared to the $415 Pentium4 3.0C. Though if you look at the sub-$100 market. I'd much rather have a Athlon 2600(2.133Ghz) over a Pentium4 1.4Ghz.


:| It's a matter of opinion.


~klinky
Nail on the hammer...very nice post...you covered things fairly well. Again, as I have said...the P4 DOES scale quite well. They can reach pretty good frequencies to make-up for their inefficiencies. And as you said, our 2.25 Ghz processor is CLOSE to a 3.0 Ghz part which furthers my argument about performance.

At the same time, with AMD...yeah our processors don't scale to say 3.0 Ghz...if anything it's reaching the end of it's life. It was never meant to be designed to meet those frequency demands. So I guess you could call it a flaw, but I know for a fact WAY back when K7 was being designed we had a top frequency in mind...you have to design that way...and it's meeting and even slightly exceeding it (b/c of transistor innovations).

That's the reason we're now launching NEW processors in the Opteron/Athlon 64. I do hope that makes sense. Now I know someone will say something about the Opteron not operating at a faster frequency and again I point you to the equation about performance.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:03 pm

klinky wrote:Well, Athlon is a more "elegant" solution you could say.

Pentium CPU has done the following:

Add more CPU stages.
Pumped up CPU clock
Pumped up FSB clock
Pumped up cache
Enabled Hyperthreading


They've basically been inflating the cpu up overtime to get it to perform properly. Only recently has it really started to pay off. When the Pentium4 was introduced it was horrible. Especially when the OEMs wanted to match it up with PC133 SDRAM. :x

The Athlon/Opteron/Athlon64 I think are positive ways in which CPUs can be designed. There are many more tweaks to the core that can be done besides just throwing more mhz or cache at the problem :|

Pretty soon Intel will have to develop something more innovative and it's not named Itanium. -_-
Again...yup...nail...hammer...etc.

Basically my point the entire time about performance is that me, as an engineer, can't design something inefficient...it would just feel so wrong. That's the main reason (and the life-style/work-style) I joined AMD. As you stated, we make tweaks to the core and design improvements instead of throwing frequency and cache at the problem. Given, Intel is succeeding with that methodology ($$$ wise).

Another thing that *must* be noted since well...it makes us look good :) :) :) is that Intel has 10x the people and 10x the money that we do. It sure does say something about us when we've got aorund 27% of the US market and a great deal more in Asia and Europe.

I know this'll sound like bragging, but I am only trying to state fact, but...I've *heard* that at Intel, the people doing my job or other design jobs...they have at least two people for that equivalent. I also know for a fact that Intel is VERY fervent about getting ex-AMD employees since we are more than qualified (having 10x people and all). Given we love getting Intel people too...but yeah...so if I get laid off...maybe you'll see me start arguing the Intel point :-P. I'd like to think I wouldn't since I am an engineer and can see inefficiency regardless...but then again it's about $$$. And since I have felt this way prior to even working at AMD...(shrug)

I guess those last 2 paragraphs are useless...they just make me feel good :).
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

User avatar
the Black Monarch
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:29 am
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV
Org Profile

Post by the Black Monarch » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:25 pm

As for replacing the number...it won't ever happen. Intel is in control...they make the rules
Asphalt and poppycock! Intel can't decide what you measure your CPUs with! It's just like model numbers (3200+ etc.). Let's pretend that one instruction per second (ye gods!) is arbitrarily and drunkenly named a "crap." Suddenly, instead of a 2.25 Ghz CPU or a 3200+, you have a 20.25 Gigacraps cpu. Now imagine that a poor dumbass customer is strolling down the aisles at Fry's looking for a CPU. They see a 3.06 Gigahertz Intel chip right next to a 20.25 Gigacraps AMD chip. What looks more impressive? You said yourself that customers equate bigger numbers with performance...

Seriously, you should talk to the Marketing guys about this!
like we do for the Centrino
Last time I checked, you guys didn't make the Centrino :P

Yes I know what you meant, but it sounded funny the first time I read it.
Wow, that's a lot of money
Your observation is most profound and stimulating.
Basically what it does in 1.6 Ghz compared to what a P4 can do...the P3 kills it
Except that they never made a 1.6 Ghz PIII :P Therein lay its inherent flaw.

And on top of that, I'm pretty sure I saw some benchmark tests wherein a 1.4 gig PIII (the fastest PIII ever) marginally outperformed the 1.4 gig P4. And I think it may have been on the AMD website, no less... but my memory has been screwy lately so I wouldn't put much stock in it.
I don't know THAT much about the past other than what you guys read too
Basically, until you joined, AMD just copied whatever Intel was working on and modified it to work with Intel's previous chipset (i.e., the copied the Pentium and made it work with 486 motherboards, copied the PPro and made it work with Pentium boards, etc.) They weren't the creative bastards that they are now. I could spin you some yarns about Cyrix chips, but they wouldn't consist of much except "they sucked worse than the Intel chips they ripped off"
Now I know someone will say something about the Opteron not operating at a faster frequency and again I point you to the equation about performance
How many instructions does the Opteron execute per clock cycle? It must be a lot to make up for clock speeds even lower than the Centrino's...
As you stated, we make tweaks to the core and design improvements instead of throwing frequency and cache at the problem. Given, Intel is succeeding with that methodology ($$$ wise).
It also succeeds performance-wise. You seem to acknowledge that fact well but rarely bring it up...
Ask me about my secret stash of videos that can't be found anywhere anymore.

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:18 am

the Black Monarch wrote:
Asphalt and poppycock! Intel can't decide what you measure your CPUs with! It's just like model numbers (3200+ etc.). Let's pretend that one instruction per second (ye gods!) is arbitrarily and drunkenly named a "crap." Suddenly, instead of a 2.25 Ghz CPU or a 3200+, you have a 20.25 Gigacraps cpu. Now imagine that a poor dumbass customer is strolling down the aisles at Fry's looking for a CPU. They see a 3.06 Gigahertz Intel chip right next to a 20.25 Gigacraps AMD chip. What looks more impressive? You said yourself that customers equate bigger numbers with performance...
Uhm...no...model numbers were adopted to counter this and it has only mildly suceeded. The conumer is programed that GHZ = Performance...that's how it is...putting instructions into the equation is (I know how insulting this sounds)...too much for the consumer. Up until the P4, the trend WAS that speed = performance because the architectures were efficient enough..it's not the case anymore. However, since consumers have been used to this...they still believe it.

If you can figure a way to make the consumer educated...that'd be lovely...
the Black Monarch wrote:
Basically what it does in 1.6 Ghz compared to what a P4 can do...the P3 kills it
Except that they never made a 1.6 Ghz PIII :P Therein lay its inherent flaw.

And on top of that, I'm pretty sure I saw some benchmark tests wherein a 1.4 gig PIII (the fastest PIII ever) marginally outperformed the 1.4 gig P4. And I think it may have been on the AMD website, no less... but my memory has been screwy lately so I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Well again...it's not an inherent flaw and you haven't disproved anything. Centrino Architectures ~ PIII. This is a well-known fact in the architecture field and if you choose to ignore it fine...I don't really care.

As for benchmarks, I disagree. I am an architect and KNOW (because I have seen the designs of these architectures)...speed for speed, the PIII is A LOT better and more elegant. Think what you want though.

Again you haven't really rebutted the main point and well...not that anyone could since it's been well-accepted...this is a pretty pointless argument....i don't know why I replied.
the Black Monarch wrote:Basically, until you joined, AMD just copied whatever Intel was working on and modified it to work with Intel's previous chipset (i.e., the copied the Pentium and made it work with 486 motherboards, copied the PPro and made it work with Pentium boards, etc.) They weren't the creative bastards that they are now. I could spin you some yarns about Cyrix chips, but they wouldn't consist of much except "they sucked worse than the Intel chips they ripped off"
Actually, I already knew that...the K5 and all that. Actually, we didn't just copy them like...well in a bad sense. That was what the government MADE Intel do. Intel was a monopoly and to have competition they were forced to give us designs (so that theere would be a competitor). Then for the K6....they screwed up and didn't give us the design. We sued them (since they breached the contract), won and made our own chip K6 and K6-2, which may not be the greatest chips, but considering it's our first and the first time we had to do a major design...I think we did a great job. The rest is history. I do find it funny that Intel created their own enemy in us...they could've just continued giving us the designs :-P

The K7/Athlon...I think it speaks for itself...10x less ppl and money and we still keep up...sort of :).
the Black Monarch wrote:How many instructions does the Opteron execute per clock cycle? It must be a lot to make up for clock speeds even lower than the Centrino's...
Well considering I'm not on the Hammer team or even if I was..I didn't design it...I wouldn't know. We work on a "need-to-know" basis...I don't need to know it...so I don't. I'll probably find out the details when you guys do...like when I read a site :). The most private thing I have is the Hammer debug stuff and Hammer Instruction set.

And who said the clock speeds were lower than the Centrino (1.6 Ghz)? You must've read something odd.
the Black Monarch wrote: It also succeeds performance-wise. You seem to acknowledge that fact well but rarely bring it up...
Uhm...I mentioned it quite a few times...the whole performance = speed * instructon/clock and thus..if they get a REALLY fast speed (like 3 Ghz), they can be comprable or beat a slower frequency with more efficient core....it's just simple mathematics. I was only getting at (the ENTIRE time) that it's an inefficient design and the frequency is not the only indicator...as demonstrated by 2.25 Ghz parts being comprable....

As for this discussion...as I have stated already...we've gotten QUITE off-topic and I know this'll sound mean, but I don't really see it going anywhere...it's been quite circular...if you reallyi wanna discuss it just create a new thread or something...I am kind of getting sick of answering the same questions...take that as you may (like if you're gonna say "ooh I win" or something)....

/me sleeps
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

alternatefutures
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 2:43 am
Org Profile

Post by alternatefutures » Fri Jun 13, 2003 2:00 am

dwchang wrote:Well I assure you, there are plenty of commercials with it. Stuff like "with the lightning fast Intel 3.0 Ghz Processor."
The reason I perfer Dell over Compaq/HP, Gateway and IBM is because they were the ONLY one who DIDN'T describe the Celleron as "super fast". I figure the other companies obviously must really be clueless about PCs if they think the Celeron is fast. With me, advertising is more likely to screw you over than make me want to buy your products (hell, the commercials for Old Navy make me want to burn down their stores).

But yeah, every PC company that advertises Intel products cites the Hz rating. I'm not going to fault them for that, as it does seem reasonable (although the whole Willamite core was a big exception). But, now you can fault AMD for something similar as their PR ratings are, in comparison to the Intel rating system, overinflated.

Really though, the problem AMD had was not the Hz rating, it's the fact that you found Intel processors in Dells and AMD chips in the bargain basement store brand area. You guys better get IBM visibly selling Athlon 64 systems for you to get a good reputation with the general public. When I say a chip is made by AMD to non-techies thy look at e funny as if because its not Intel, which is the only brand they've really heard of in regards to CPUs, it must be crap. Plus your prices only serve to bolster that idea (but please don't change them!)

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:59 am

alternatefutures wrote: With me, advertising is more likely to screw you over than make me want to buy your products (hell, the commercials for Old Navy make me want to burn down their stores).
That's the same thing those commercials wanna make me do too...SO f'ing annoying...as for Dell...I'd never buy a computer from them (and not only b/c they only carry Intel). Their parts are WAY to cheap and bad in quality. I'd prefer to just build it. If I were to buy from an actual company though, probably Alienware or another one of those Tier 3 people. They use quality parts.

alternatefutures wrote: But yeah, every PC company that advertises Intel products cites the Hz rating. I'm not going to fault them for that, as it does seem reasonable (although the whole Willamite core was a big exception). But, now you can fault AMD for something similar as their PR ratings are, in comparison to the Intel rating system, overinflated.

Really though, the problem AMD had was not the Hz rating, it's the fact that you found Intel processors in Dells and AMD chips in the bargain basement store brand area. You guys better get IBM visibly selling Athlon 64 systems for you to get a good reputation with the general public. When I say a chip is made by AMD to non-techies thy look at e funny as if because its not Intel, which is the only brand they've really heard of in regards to CPUs, it must be crap. Plus your prices only serve to bolster that idea (but please don't change them!)
Overinflated? Hmm...I guess you could assume that for some of them, but at the same time, it's been accurate for others. I'd be lying if I told you how they come up with that stuff. My guess is marketing (shrug). I don't think I need to tell you why we do that though...I mean a 2.25 Ghz sounds SO much slower than 3.0 Ghz when it's not THAT much worse and is comprable.

As for price, well...as Klinky/Kthulu (sp) has said...$ for $ though, it's a good deal (well not the insanely high end). I know what you mean about "value" segment, but at the same time, we do have entries in the "High Performance Desktop." This is all in our roadmaps btw...I know public perception is different, but that's why Intel has 73% of the market...we aren't as "known" and only are among PC enthusiasts and educated consumers. Price != performance...although I do see your point.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

User avatar
the Black Monarch
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:29 am
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV
Org Profile

Post by the Black Monarch » Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:51 pm

dwchang wrote: Uhm...no...model numbers were adopted to counter this and it has only mildly suceeded. The conumer is programed that GHZ = Performance...that's how it is...putting instructions into the equation is (I know how insulting this sounds)...too much for the consumer.
But the consumer doesn't automatically know that gigacraps would have anything to do with instructions. All they'd know is that your numbers are bigger than Intel's, and both start with "giga". So they can either choose the bigger number, or they can decide to educate themselves. Either way, you win.
dwchang wrote:Up until the P4, the trend WAS that speed = performance because the architectures were efficient enough..it's not the case anymore. However, since consumers have been used to this...they still believe it.
Thank you for reiterating a history lesson that we've gone over a few dozen times already.
the Black Monarch wrote:And on top of that, I'm pretty sure I saw some benchmark tests wherein a 1.4 gig PIII (the fastest PIII ever) marginally outperformed the 1.4 gig P4.
I'm sorry, that was supposed to be "was marginally outperformed by"
dwchang wrote:Well again...it's not an inherent flaw and you haven't disproved anything. Centrino Architectures ~ PIII. This is a well-known fact in the architecture field and if you choose to ignore it fine...I don't really care. As for benchmarks, I disagree. I am an architect and KNOW (because I have seen the designs of these architectures)...speed for speed, the PIII is A LOT better and more elegant. Think what you want though. Again you haven't really rebutted the main point and well...not that anyone could since it's been well-accepted...this is a pretty pointless argument....i don't know why I replied.
I don't either, since I was never disagreeing with you in the first place. I'm just passing along to you what I've seen and heard and waiting for your explanations.
dwchang wrote:Actually, I already knew that...the K5 and all that.
You said you didn't...
dwchang wrote:Well considering I'm not on the Hammer team or even if I was..I didn't design it...I wouldn't know. We work on a "need-to-know" basis...I don't need to know it...so I don't. I'll probably find out the details when you guys do...like when I read a site :). The most private thing I have is the Hammer debug stuff and Hammer Instruction set.
Oh. Damn.
dwchang wrote:And who said the clock speeds were lower than the Centrino (1.6 Ghz)? You must've read something odd.
Opterons go as low as 1.4 gig; Centrinos go as high as 1.8 gig with 2.0 in the very near future.
dwchang wrote:Uhm...I mentioned it quite a few times...the whole performance = speed * instructon/clock and thus..if they get a REALLY fast speed (like 3 Ghz), they can be comprable or beat a slower frequency with more efficient core....it's just simple mathematics. I was only getting at (the ENTIRE time) that it's an inefficient design and the frequency is not the only indicator...as demonstrated by 2.25 Ghz parts being comprable....
Really? What a shock! I must have missed that during my web research and the first fifty dozen times you explained it!

Seriously, though, I KNOW you "mentioned it quite a few times." I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm just wondering why you like to praise efficiency and criticise inefficiency so much more than clock speed limits when you openly admit that both are valid ways of achieving performance.
dwchang wrote:As for this discussion...as I have stated already...we've gotten QUITE off-topic and I know this'll sound mean, but I don't really see it going anywhere...it's been quite circular...if you reallyi wanna discuss it just create a new thread or something...I am kind of getting sick of answering the same questions...take that as you may (like if you're gonna say "ooh I win" or something)....
Yes, it is becoming vey circular indeed. A brief summary of the loop:

you: performance = clock speed * instructions per clock cycle

me: Yes, you said that already. So you openly admit that clock speed is just as important as efficiency. So if both are equally important, and the Athlon XP performs about as well as the Pentium 4, why do you like the slower yet more efficent core over the faster but less efficient core?

you: I don't. Like I said before, performance = clock speed * instructions per clock cycle. Consumers equate Ghz with performance, so they stupidly think Intel's chips are better. But the Pentium 4 is so inefficient, I hate it and it sucks!

me: Even though its higher clock speeds allow it to perform on par with the Athlon XP?

you: Yeah, like I said before, performance = clock speed * instructions per clock cycle. Why are you disagreeing with me?

me: I'm not! I just want to know why you like the slower yet more efficent core over the faster but less efficient core!

you: I don't. Like I said before, performance = clock speed * instructions per clock cycle. Consumers equate Ghz with performance, so they stupidly think Intel's chips are better. But the Pentium 4 is so inefficient, I hate it and it sucks!

(repeat)

you: this argument isn't going anywhere. I'm leaving. you win.

me: I do? But I wasn't arguing!




Consider this my revenge for your impersonation of my attitude toward the RCB. Not meant to be a personal attack, just expressing how I see our conversation going.
Ask me about my secret stash of videos that can't be found anywhere anymore.

User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by dwchang » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:34 pm

Argh! Brought me back...last post I swear:

YES! You can increase performance with speed increases (i.e. P4). I never said you couldn't. I am only stating that I prefer to have an efficient core since I am an engineer. Asking me to build something inefficient (or almost all engineers) just doesn't make sense.

Basically I was getting at the fact that Intel went that way and with clever marketing was able to make the consumer thing they were buy a more efficient CPU (I'm not making this up, a number of people have already sued Intel over this).

Either way, yes I admit both are legitimate ways to gain performance, but I'd prefer to make an efficient core and then research in transistor technology for the speed increases. That's how it was done in the past (and still is for us). We design a great processor that can scale and we research the transistor techology so that each can "switch' faster and then scale the processor up (we've gone from what 750 Mhz to 2250 Mhz with it).

Happy? :)
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space

Locked

Return to “Hardware Discussion”