Replies to post #1930 on AMD strictly moderated (AMD)

[cruzbay]

Great article, thanks! EOM

[smooth2o]

Well, Bobs, you can either believe this *unknown* saying this pro-AMD stuff or consider what Evans says. No need to reply, I understand. AMD needs to be ahead and they will lose that advantage in Q3. Evans plans to be ahead for 1.5 years and that will take you to the beloved IMC and CSI which promises to be much more robust than HT which is what the market really needs.

Dell indicates that they are gaining MS on competitors, probably the best indication of how the Intel architecture is winning. Many here have tried to make it look like a 7% reduction due to the extra week as opposed to the 2-3% that Dell states.

Believe who you will.

Smooth

[The Duke of URL]

I am not sure I get it. About 20 years ago, I attended an Investment Banker presentation and the presenter company wanted fund a bigger bus than was available.

It all sounded good until the tests seemed to show that a huge increase in bus speed may increase over all processing speed, one or two percent, i.e. very small increase.

I know this, and I presume Intel knows this and now you know this.

Could it be the guy is wrong in his emphasis?

JAT.

[chipguy]

That article has seriously flawed reasoning. The FSB vs IMC is
simply not as big an issue as AMD partisans like to make it
out to be, especially for PCs. The Yonah stomps all over dual
channel K8 products in SPECint and SPECint_rate at the same
clock rate using a 667 MHz FSB. NGA based chips will do the
same if not better but over FP and SIMD intensive workloads
too and at higher frequencies.

[KeithDust2000]

bobs, the article is flawed. It has been thoroughly discussed on Ace´s Hardware forums if you´re interested.