Replies to post #67345 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[KeithDust2000]

HailMary, It seems to get the highest performing gaming chip, they should open this up and see how high they can clock it.

That is exactly what they´ll do, but only for the (tiny) high-end niche.

So this theory

At the highest frequency they can muster at the highest voltage their process can tolerate, it still uses less than 65W.

is not correct.

INTEL is pushing for the 65W envelope for the rest to demonstrate performance per watt advantages over the offerings Conroe replaces/competes with, and to reduce platform costs.

[wbmw]

Re: Why is Intel constraining their next gen desktop part to 65W?

See Keith's response for something concise that I agree with. They will set their mainstream parts at 65W and make the "Extreme Edition" parts at whatever max the design is set to handle. The reason behind this (IMO) is to give the server market +1 frequency bin, while reducing costs and claiming performance/watt/$ in the mainstream desktop markets.

Re: The specs seem to lead to Intel confidence in their next gen cores.

IMO, Intel's next gen cores will be superior over K8, both in 90nm and 65nm. I think AMD has an opportunity to reclaim performance or performance/watt leadership with their 2007 core (called K8L, according to the Inq), but it will depend on which direction they go. If the "L" stands for Low power, they may claim performance/watt, while leaving Intel competitive in performance. Otherwise, they could push for performance, while giving Intel some performance/watt advantages. But either way, I don't see a repeat of Prescott, where Intel falls behind in both metrics by more than a convincing gap. I think Intel's next gen cores are what it takes to put Intel back into a leadership position. AMD won't be going away or anything, but I can see Intel gaining back plenty of lost share.