Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[pgerassi]

Snowrider:

All this 45nm prowess you talk about, yet Intel can't make a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD decoder without using a third party:

HD DVDa and Blu-Raya support with an optional third-party decoder.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20080107comp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20080107m

Could this be an ATI decoder? Which is why they don't want to name the third party. If it was nVidia, I think they would have named them.

Your first link still talks of the QX9770 which is still not released and won't be until later this quarter (it was supposed to be available at CES now).

Later this quarter, Intel will continue its progression of leading-edge technology leadership products:
o The Intel® Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Processor (3.2 GHz/1600 MHz

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/ces2008/CES_FactSheet.pdf

In fact, today they only released slower Penryn based duals and quad cores. Real good 45nm production. Having to ship slower ones, so the sweet spot must be lower than the old bins. Typically not done for a "good" process according to Intel boosters when AMD did it.

The second link also shows dual core processors not yet available. Intel just says "January 2008". And the "new" quads core CPUs are "Q1 2008". 16 45nm CPUs announced, no higher speed ones yet available. Real good process, eh?

So the Xbit labs article compares shipping and available A64s against not yet available Penryns (Wolfdale). And why do their power tests use the old A64 6000 and not the less power hungry and faster 6400? Likely Intel strongly suggested them to do it.

Anandtech's link just compares the, later to be available, Penryns against the current Meroms.

The fourth link is just a rehash of Intel's press release. They announced CPUs that are not yet available. This is a classic paper launch. I just looked at Newegg and none of the announced CPUs were for sale.

<sarcam on>Real good 45nm process.<sarcasm off> Can't get enough to have availabilty upon announcement. Intel boosters used that to denounce AMD's 65nm process, so you shouldn't have a problem when the shoe is on the other foot and the same argument is used to denounce Intel's 45nm process.

That does not mean the few that Intel makes available to reviewers are bad, just that they can't make enough for a hard launch.

Pete