Intel Corp (INTC)

[rudedog]

re: I am starting to get the whiff of troll from your posts
Let's keep it clean. I was invited here separately by several apparently respected members of this forum. I have no ax to grind. You and others can make use of what I post or ignore it.

I would question your motives if I were not such a nice guy - I know several people who are running the Phenom II 940 chip at 4G on air with a 5% increase in vCore. That may not be something AMD wants to sell, but it is certainly not delusional, or playing games, to think that it could be done since it has been done. Your language is not designed to encourage a facts-based dialog - why are you so eager to squash this discussion?

I had a Conroe E6300 which was a 1.8G part. A little research now tells me that this was actually the low end of the launch, with the high end a 2.9G part. That throws a little cold water on my rough and ready analysis and lends some credence to the idea that significant clock gains are not as easy as in past generations, as suggested by wbmw and EP.

I think wbmw's read is informative - AMD could do higher speeds, but with marginal gains for a lot of work. I don't have the knowledge to evaluate how much effort those kind of things would take.

And re:

P4 nearly doubled clock the first year.
What universe do you live in?

Willamette came out at the end of 2000 at 1.4G and 1.5G. Willamette transitioned in 8 months to Northwood, which by January 2002 was at 2.3G, and by summer, 2.8G. So maybe that's not double in a year - I was going from memory rather than looking it up. I guess you could argue that P4 included a number of transitions, so the progression of P4 clock (which continued through the Prescott 3.8G HT parts) should be subdivided. But that probably doesn't mean an alternate universe, and it doesn't (in itself) make my analysis silly. The position that current technology makes similar gains unlikely today for either AMD or Intel seems more facts-based.