• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Can AMD respond to Conroe

Zefan said:
Am I right in thinking the Conroe is simply two Dothan cores slapped together? It just seems like it as dothans have 2mb cache and these have 4.
Click to expand...


no thats yonah.
Conroe addresses a few problems the dothan had and reworks it a bit.

i cant understand what the pentium d is


Tom
 
tom - very different, much more work per clock, - you should already know anyway (shorter pipeline as far as im aware)

as if amd can respond to something that doesnt even exist :/


pentium d is 2 p4s slapped together
 
I really doubt AMD don't have something up there sleeves.
there current chips on low voltages and low temps are fast. And when overclocked they are awesome.
I reckon there is a high chance that AMD have got many 'special' chips lying around that ill be able to keep up, atleast until they move onto 65nm.



As far as Pentium D vs Conroe,
Its the dualcore equivilent of Pentium 4 versus Pentium M.
More done per clock, lower voltages and temps.
But being a nice cool chip at low clocks it can be clocked up to around 3GHz without being extremely warm.
Conroe is also 65nm.
slightly faster bus speed too.
Afaik that is all that is different.
 
Zefan said:
Am I right in thinking the Conroe is simply two Dothan cores slapped together? It just seems like it as dothans have 2mb cache and these have 4.
Click to expand...

I think that's essentially it, but rather than the Pentium D where they had to communicate over the FSB (= bad) they have a direct connection in a similar way to the X2s. Each core is a bit more enhanced compared to a Dothan though as far as I'm aware.

Jokester
 
Jamie1984 said:
so what is this 65nm and 90nm people speak of? laymans terms please! :D
Click to expand...

It's the size of the smallest feature on a silicon wafer, smaller is generally better as it means you can build transistor's smaller and as a result they can go faster and use less power.

Jokester
 
On smaller fabrication processes like these they'll need to work on it a long time to get any sort of acceptable yeild chips wise. That makes a move to smaller nm very pricey indeed. Worth it for clocking and performance though :D
 
Jamie1984 said:
so, why havent amd moved onto 65nm then? or is that what they are gonna do with the next generation of cpus?
Click to expand...

AMD usually move onto the lower manufacturing process a year after Intel do, they don't have the same money or facilities that Intel has.

AMD's 65nm cores are due out in 2007 as far as I know.
 
Jamie1984 said:
so in reality Intel being the bigger company could stay one step ahead of amd? getting the gist of it i think :)
Click to expand...

If they have a decent design Intel should always be ahead of AMD, they have many many more fabs & a capital budget that AMD can only dream of.

Problem is, its been a while since they had a design that could compete although hopefully that should change soon.

Intel are installing equipment for 65nm in a number of fabs (4 at the last count) to be ready for mass production of 65nm, AMD installing equipment in 1 (the new Fab 36 in Dresden).
 
yeah you have to remember a lot of intels sales go to oem's - amd do not have the capacity to do this, and therefore, make less money generally

2007 is 65nm amd, lets hope its good :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom