Perhaps this is just the natural evolution of cpus however my feeling is, if you can't beat um, join um...... 
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00796/
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00796/
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel copies AMD again???
- Thread starter HousERaT
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Location
- Brampton, Ontario
hmm so when is AMD going to put hyper-threading in their procs?
(yes i know it wouldnt be as useful in an AMD proc)
(yes i know it wouldnt be as useful in an AMD proc)
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- MA, USA
they don't need it. Hyperthreading is gonna be a moot point soon seeing there is dual core. No need for it, hyperthreading just imitated dual core. Now we can finally get a fair comparision between intel and amd. But who knows, Intel may still be not as efficent, and AMD might come out with something better
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Location
- SF Bay Area
Intel had plans for an on-die memory controller long before the A64 even debuted. They just rejected them because of RDRAM.
!! Marijuana !!
Disabled
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
what about hyperthreading on dual core to simulate quad core ?? just curious ...
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- MA, USA
useless in my opinion, yes hyperthreading was a good alternative to the cost of a dual cpu system, but now with dual core, why would you need that high of a performance.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Location
- Cincinnati
!! Marijuana !! said:
Actually that's what I thought they were doing.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Location
- SF Bay Area
It's pretty much the most pathetic thing I've heard. The same team in Israel that's responsible for the Dothan came up with a design in late 2002 that was essentially a Banias with an on-die memory controller, code named the Timna, extremely low heat output, but actually meant for a desktop...And yes, RDRAM is the main reason it never saw the light of day. Had it, you can bet very few would be using Athlon64's, at least not in the form they're in today.HousERaT said:Oh yeah..... and RDRAM was such a huge success..... mauahhahaahaha
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
If you go back far enough (and your don't have to go back very far on this one), you can find a whole lot more grievous imitation. Remember the AMD 386DX, 486SX/DX, and 486DX2? All direct, carbon copies of the existing Intel CPUs. AMD would have been more original, if they could have. They claimed they had the right to knock of Intel processors courtesy of a technology sharing agreement that Intel never intended to include entire PC microprocessors. The legal wrangling over that one was epic, and if AMD could get away with it they would still be knocking off Intel processors. At least then their customers would have a truly excellent platform on which to install their AMD silicon.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Location
- Brampton, Ontario
wasnt the only reason AMD copied intel was becuase they couldnt have a monopoly, and IBM wanted to have a backup chip maker incase intel went under? ... but i might be wrong
you got to remember, back then, amd, and intel were both MUCH smaller
you got to remember, back then, amd, and intel were both MUCH smaller
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
dicecca112 said:
because some people do more with there PC then talk on IM and browse web sites and maybe encode a few dvd or mp3's
there is always people who can use %100 of all resources given to them.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Scott9027 said:
that might be the only one with HT, i know at best buy, where i work, we just got a dual 3.0 p4, no ht
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Location
- Mississauga, Ontario
hard to see that difference when up against an X2, and hey at that price ( EE) you can get the best X2, blowing the EE out of the water. Also i could've sworn that intel ppl said that HT makes no difference when there was a thread describing the X2 vs the 830 and EE. The argument for intel was that the 830 was much cheaper than the X2, however the 830 EE was the same price. They said that they perform almost identically. Now suddenly HT makes a difference?
So whats it going to be? X2>EE>830 or EE>X2>830 or 830=EE. It seems in every thread comparing the dual cores, hardcore intel fans try opposite arguments. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
That's quite ineteresting. I've said for a long time that the P4 architecture would benefit more than the Athlon from an integrated memory controller.
Why: the P4's much longer pipleline tends to make latencies much more important to it than with other architectures with smaller pipelines such as Athlons, Pentium M's etc. That's why larger CPU aches and lower latency RAM tend to give Intel a bigger performance boost than it does for the AMD platform.
Integrating the memory conroller into the P4 platform would be rather interesting. I rather suspect that they're actually looking at doing this with the Pentium M architecture though.
Either way, I don't care which company makes a decent product so long as it's in my price range. I'll buy from either if the product is good and price competitive. ;o)
Why: the P4's much longer pipleline tends to make latencies much more important to it than with other architectures with smaller pipelines such as Athlons, Pentium M's etc. That's why larger CPU aches and lower latency RAM tend to give Intel a bigger performance boost than it does for the AMD platform.
Integrating the memory conroller into the P4 platform would be rather interesting. I rather suspect that they're actually looking at doing this with the Pentium M architecture though.
Either way, I don't care which company makes a decent product so long as it's in my price range. I'll buy from either if the product is good and price competitive. ;o)
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
However truthful that may be, you have to reject that notion for the premise of this thread to have any meaning (not that I'm saying it did).HousERaT said:You said a mouthful my friend. It's not about who makes the product, it's about who gives the best deal.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
65stang said:
AFAIK dual core xeons are still slated to have HT. Course there isnt a dual core xeon right now... There was a fairly lengthy discussion on what windows could actually support 8 logical processors. XP can support 2 sockets, 4 physical cores, and 8 logical CPUS. Something like that.
Similar threads
