According to AMD, the principal difference of its quad-core processors from Intel CPUs on Kentsfiled/Clovertown cores to be launched in Q4 2006 is their native quad-core design — all the four cores are located on the same die and share the cache. But Intel only "glues" two dice from the existing dual-core family (Conroe/Woodcrest) to accelerate the launch of this product. As in this case processors have to interact via the external bus and the chipset, this approach resembles the one in Pentium D. It's certainly far from being technically elegant.Read on over here.
AMD K8L architecture discussed
Posted on Tuesday, Sep 26 2006 @ 02:15 CEST by Thomas De Maesschalck
Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.
|Re: AMD K8L architecture discussed |
by Anonymous on Tuesday, Sep 26 2006 @ 04:09 CEST
|"not technically elegant"|
Ok we're buying cpu's here, not Mercedes. Does it WORK any better? If so at WHAT? You folks do realize that Conroe is so much faster than the K8 as it is, that even if the K8L quadcore is 10% faster in its implementation of quad processing, it is STILL going to be behind the game.
When AMD had speed to show, they showed off their chip (A64 back in the day) to all who wanted to see it's performance. They did this LONG before there were any chips you could buy. Now they are quiet. Of course they say this is because it's all a big secret. Fact is, the only time a tech company is "secret" is when it doesn't have anything to show.
Of course they are welcome to show folks and prove me wrong. But that's not really gonna happen. K8L is TALK. And that of course is cheap.