Intel plans to unleash the first quad core CPU (Kentsfield) within one year. The switch to 45 nm in 2007 will enable eight cores and up to 12 MB L2 cache (Yorkfield) per CPU. We x-rayed the complete CPU roadmap.
Intel plans to unleash the first quad core CPU (Kentsfield) within one year. The switch to 45 nm in 2007 will enable eight cores and up to 12 MB L2 cache (Yorkfield) per CPU. We x-rayed the complete CPU roadmap.
remember how Moore's Law applies to Intel; they'll probably end up running into problems with the 45 nm process just like with the 65 and have to scrap all 45nm processors until even later than that......IMO, I really don't think they have the 90nm process on the desktop processors down yet due to how hot they run.......I dunno, I'm skeptical there....as for AMD, the sky's the limit if they can overcome their previous financial woes, and I would like to see if they would come out with such a small process, yet keep the temps down and do a quad-core with massive amounts of L2, and still have an on-die memory controller....now that would be impressive!
Tis a shame really......doesn't AMD have the 65nm process down-pat though? Figured they would have tried to do this on the same package with that process. Oh well, still I think AMD will perfect the process and have a high-quality quad-core solution out, even if it does take some time. The only way I'll turn to the "dark side" is if they can successfully get an on-die memory controller, plenty of L2 cache, and 4+ cores on the same package, all while keeping temps down close to what AMD could muster. Only then would I be tempted to go with Intel.....oh well, I'm picky, lol
killswitch83 wrote:Tis a shame really......doesn't AMD have the 65nm process down-pat though? Figured they would have tried to do this on the same package with that process. Oh well, still I think AMD will perfect the process and have a high-quality quad-core solution out, even if it does take some time. The only way I'll turn to the "dark side" is if they can successfully get an on-die memory controller, plenty of L2 cache, and 4+ cores on the same package, all while keeping temps down close to what AMD could muster. Only then would I be tempted to go with Intel.....oh well, I'm picky, lol
time will tell I guess.......
Just be glad you don't have to switch to Intel due to a problem with software/hardware. I'm building my dual-core Intel system tomorrow. Intel mobo with Intel proc - funny that the Intel boards can oc, still trying to figure out how that affects the warranty.
However, I'm keeping my dual-core Opteron as well. I'm getting rid of my dual Xeon system. So I guess that's ok.
I'm hoping that 2007 will be a good year for AMD and Intel.
Well, if any if what's on their roadmaps hold water, you know there's bound to be some interesting things to happen in '06! Looking forward to M2 (or AM2, whatever, lol) when it comes around
killswitch83 wrote:Tis a shame really......doesn't AMD have the 65nm process down-pat though? Figured they would have tried to do this on the same package with that process. Oh well, still I think AMD will perfect the process and have a high-quality quad-core solution out, even if it does take some time. The only way I'll turn to the "dark side" is if they can successfully get an on-die memory controller, plenty of L2 cache, and 4+ cores on the same package, all while keeping temps down close to what AMD could muster. Only then would I be tempted to go with Intel.....oh well, I'm picky, lol
time will tell I guess.......
AMD won't be switching to 65mn untill toward the end of '06!!!! (if I remember correctly, they only bought the FAB equipment this year)
They will always be behind Intel.....Intel will be on 45mn when AMD gets to 65mn......or there abouts......
BTW Intel will be doing something similar to AMD with their memory setup ;) Also they will be shorting their execution pipeline, this will mean more effecient cpu's........I'd keep an eye on Intel from now on ;)
Windows XP Home supports 1 CPU, 2 Logical cores, or 2 physical cores
Windows XP Pro supports 2 cpu's, 4 logical cores, or 4 physical cores
Its important to remember that CPU is a centeral processing unit, and is not the same thing as a Core. A single CPU can be made up of any number of cores, as a core is nothing but the "core" exicution units.
"Don't open that! It's an alien planet! Is there air? You don't know!"
