AMD striking back?

http://digitimes.com/mobos/a20061003A2005.html

"Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is proceeding to switch 90% of its desktop-processor production to the 65nm node by the end of 2007"

I'd been told that AMD wouldn't even have their 65nm chips out until late in 07. Guess we'll see how well the core duo competes with AMDs 65nm dual core chips.

I guess you had disinformation about the availablility if they will be having 90% pf production to the 65nm chips by the end of 07, they would need to have them out by the middle of 07 at the latest to do that.

Correct me on this if I'm wrong. but shortly after the Orchard Tree gang moved(a.k.a Apple for those of you who are stupmed ) away from the PPC chips, didn't IBM claim to have created 29nm chips?? I haven't investigated further, but Jobs musta wished they'd moved their arses sooner. Quick Jobs it's not too late to change back

Originally Posted by WDT

Correct me on this if I'm wrong. but shortly after the Orchard Tree gang moved(a.k.a Apple for those of you who are stupmed ) away from the PPC chips, didn't IBM claim to have created 29nm chips?? I haven't investigated further, but Jobs musta wished they'd moved their arses sooner. Quick Jobs it's not too late to change back

IBM has always been ahead of the game with their chips. Just recently has their architecture started to show its age.

I'm excited that AMD isn't falling behind as I was told before. This means that quad-core processors will be affordable soon, and not so power hungry as to not be able to stick them in a notebook.

Still, it will take more than 65nm chips to really catch up with the Core architecture. Like a new architecture on AMD's side.

I got the feeling that they'd be creating all-new chips with the AM2's.

Originally Posted by System_159

I'm excited that AMD isn't falling behind as I was told before. This means that quad-core processors will be affordable soon, and not so power hungry as to not be able to stick them in a notebook.

Quad core??!! So what now? We've left the MHz wars and moved onto the scaling wars.
Innovation's what we need nowadays from evolution of technology. As intel has just shown with it's new Core2Duo, not just that but the ability to propely make use of it. Parallel programming hasn't really hit mainstream yet so dual core processing power is almost wasted on the desktop market imo; quad core?? Well I hope that IBM join the fight with a revised architecture based on their 29nm process. That'd be cool.

Originally Posted by WDT

Quad core??!! So what now? We've left the MHz wars and moved onto the scaling wars.
Innovation's what we need nowadays from evolution of technology. As intel has just shown with it's new Core2Duo, not just that but the ability to propely make use of it. Parallel programming hasn't really hit mainstream yet so dual core processing power is almost wasted on the desktop market imo; quad core?? Well I hope that IBM join the fight with a revised architecture based on their 29nm process. That'd be cool.

Well, I'm not technically sure if it'll be considered quad core by all. They way they're phrasing it is that it's a dual core of a 64bit processor. I could be wrong though(I am a lot ).

As for the architecture stuff. I don't know a whole lot about all that stuff, but I do know that the aging design of the IBM chip is one of the reasons Apple switched to Intel(some of the others being; dual boot with Windows is easier, increase in sales because people will see the "Intel Inside" logo, etc...).

I also read that AMDs new chips will be starting out around 2.7ghz, though I can't remember where(I think digitimes.com).

Well, the best thing about all these new advances is definately the price drops that we'll see on all the older(but still quite good) stuff.

Some multithreaded games run twice as fast as they should on dual core (I have to "Set Affinity" to one core from Task Manager to run them normally), how would they run on a quad core processor?

Originally Posted by System_159

but I do know that the aging design of the IBM chip is one of the reasons Apple switched to Intel

"aging design of the IBM chip", and yet the x86's design can be traced all the way back to 1972.

Originally Posted by maxorator

Some multithreaded games run twice as fast as they should on dual core (I have to "Set Affinity" to one core from Task Manager to run them normally), how would they run on a quad core processor?

The problem there isn't the multithreading (I'm not sure if those games are actually multithreaded), it's that the TSC (I think that's what it's called anyway, the timestamp on the core) isn't always on sync, so the programs run faster than they should.

AMD released a patch (well, the Windows equivalent of a patch) for the Windows API that fixes this problem. I can't recall the name at the moment, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Originally Posted by WDT

Innovation's what we need nowadays from evolution of technology. As intel has just shown with it's new Core2Duo,

ITYM Core2, Core2 Duo is just the version with two cores on the die.

Also, all these cores aren't really all that relevant for the desktop (I love dual-core for compiling stuff, the write-compile-test cycle is much faster), but rather for the server market, where more processors is a Good Thing. For the home sector, it's not all that relevant.

These aren't that many cores though, OpenSPARC (aka Sparc T1 aka Niagara) can run 32 threads concurrently, though I'm not sure how many cores it has.

I think they best way to utilise the power of multi-cores on the desktop markets is to use them for the GP units.. Anyone notice how that side of desktop evolution is headed down the same path as the CP units?? If the cell was, say used as the GP units for the PS3 and the cpu was just a single/dual core it's be out ages ago as it won't be the hell to work on that it is right now.