For users that don't need speed there are plenty of options that are available to them! but surprise, many will still tend to get something faster than they think they'll need, and complain how slow their computer is in a years time!

All of the form factor and heat data is nice, but let's be honest most users don't need a lot more speed. What they do want are affordable computers. Intel hurt itself by severely overpricing it's chips in the past and still needs to bring the price down or they will continue to lose customers.

So you think the issue of speed and core density is important to desktop users?

You are MISSING the point!

The market they are fighting over is the server market where server consolidation both in terms of physical form factor and in virtualization is driving the market.

Its time some folks wake up to the fact that desktops used for games and chatting are not the focus of the developers!

No matter if Intel beats AMD on performance, AMD will still probably sell the more economical chip, preventing Intel from attempting to sell their chips at a higher price then they already are. So no matter who makes the faster chip, the consumer wins in the end.

The world needs a competitor to Intel. With AMD offering a serious threat, and IBM being the wolf in sheeps clothes lurking in the shadows, this means competition is good for the comsumer.

You pays your money and makes your choice.

Simply moving to 65nm, (which is going to take upto a year), is not going to improve performance, only power consumption.

There are no other changes. By the time AMD get to 65nm, it's likely Intel will be on a 45nm process, as their transition is already under way. (Intel have been at 65nm for over a year now).

"Simply moving to 65nm, (which is going to take upto a year), is not going to improve performance, only power consumption."

Are you some kind of moron ?
Less power = cooler running = chip can run faster. Do you get it yet ?

"By the time AMD get to 65nm, it's likely Intel will be on a 45nm process, as their transition is already under way. (Intel have been at 65nm for over a year now)."

So you can see the advantage of doing this, yet you scorn AMD for doing it yet praise Intel for doing it. You really are a strange fanboy troll.

You might get a noticeable performance boost from 65nm CPU's when running synthetic benchmark software but it's extremely unlikely you will get a noticeable performance boost in real world applications and games. Considering how cool AMD's 90nm CPU's run currently, the 65nm process by itself is only useful for laptop computers where battery life is most important.

"Are you some kind of moron ?
Less power = cooler running = chip can run faster. Do you get it yet?"

No wonder 'new math' was declared a failure...
IF ONLY it were that simple!

"Are you some kind of moron ?"

You obviously are thou, as it's nowhere near as simple as you suggest.. Tea break is over, time to go back to your shelf stacking job..

*sigh*

Your're right. Moving to 65nm doesn't do much. They already *have* the edge in performance/watt. And will continue to do so even when Intel hits 45nm.

More efficient CPUs, HT... They have the edge already. Their quads will outperform Intel and *still* operate at 95W, while Intel has to go to 45nm to even come close.

Microns don't mean s*** when you can't design an efficient CPU to save your life.

I would disagree, AMD's inital quad offering will be 2 X2's on 2 sockets, using a new mobo.

Intels inital Quad Core will be 2 Core Duo's on a single substraight.

It's only when the real quad cores come along with 4 cores on a single die will the true TDP be lowered, and Intel are much closer, as you need a smaller process to achieve that.

You are confused like a lot of people who post here but not all

Intel duel core = duel core on chip
Intel quad core = 2 x duel core on chip

Amd duel core = duel core on chip
Amd quad core = quad core on chip
Amd 4x4 = 2 x chips on motherboard

lmao...

You have no idea what AMD's quad is, do you?

If I meant 4x4, I would have said so.

Take a look at lost's post below, man. Wow.

You've basically repeated what mark just said. Intel quad core is in fact two Core 2 Duo processors (each of which is a dual core processor) on a single chip and AMD's initial quad core offering is two AMD dual core CPU's on separate chips as was stated before your post.

Ya know...for someone "smarterthanme", you might want to try reading.

You are referring to the AMD 4x4. This is a *different* product than the AMD quad.

I never brought up the quad, lost defended my post based on what I said, not on what Marky decided would better favor his flawed viewpoint.

K8L Codenamed Barcelona:

AMD's new processor is a bona fide quad-core part, with all four cores integrated onto a single die and sharing a 2MB on-die L3. Each core has private 512KB L2 and a 64KB L1 caches. In contrast, Intel's quad-core Kentsfield part is a dual-chip module (DCM), where two Core 2 Duo dies are sandwiched together and put into the same package without sharing a cache.

I'd love to know where you get your info. From Mark?

Did I say it was simple ?

The benefits of smaller 65nm among other things is a more power effient chip. Using less power means it generates less heat, and if it generates less heat then you can make it run faster. Or do you deny it, and think im incorrect ?

Of course they are also making more cores per wafer, and so should be cheaper.

"Tea break is over, time to go back to your shelf stacking job.."

Ha !! You dont know me or my line of work. But as a rule I try not to argue with idiots. You just bring the conversation to your level and then beat me with experience.

All quad core means is that you have four CPU's in your computer. AMD's 4x4 solution is still quad core if you have both CPU sockets populated even though all four cores are not on a single chip. You can already buy a motherboard from Tyan that can have two AMD Opteron dual core CPU's installed for a total of four cores and since Opteron processors have three HyperTransport links per processor, the two CPU's can transfer data between each other at up to 24 GB/s.

The only thing so far that will make AMD's CPU's with four cores on a single chip better than 4x4 is the fact that it has such a huge shared cache.

I'm running a K8N-DL Motherboard, with two Opteron 285 series CPU. They are Dual core 2.6, that would be a 'Quad-Core system'. But it by no means a 'Quad-Core Processor'.

I've had this setup for just over a year now... So this 4x4 is nothing new. If your looking at the Tyan boards, they have boards that take up to 4 800 series Opteron CPUs, you could have 4 times 2 Cores, So 8 cores. You can't call that a 'Otca-Core Processor', it's an Eight-Core System.

It all comes down to what you consider a quad-core, I think your looking at it as a system, and not as a single CPU.

Still withing the CPU there are two ways to get a quad-core processor, one way, as the Core 2 Quadro, you brige two Dual Core processors together. The other, the way both AMD and Intel are getting to, is to have all for cores on a single die. Both a technicaly a 'Quad-Core Processor', but only the 4-core on a single die can be considered a 'True Quad-Core'. Otherwise it's just two chips 'glued' together. =)

PS: Some of those Tyan boards are just nuts, I wish I could have one of those Quad CPU 800 Series Opteron boards, and put four dual core Opterons in there... Man that would be sweet. =)

Quad core by AMD is NOT simply 4 cores!!!!

Their bus configuration is much different with a variety of mechanisms to minimize contention issues between the 4 cores for system resources!!

And neither AMD nor Intels current versions address the bus contention issues!

Find out what you guys are talking about!

If only this were the real issue...

What will prove to be a much more significant issue as the two companies increase the density of cores is the bus structure.

As they add more cores both AMD & Intel face bus bottlenecks. thus the limitation of multi-core design. (And heat issues are ALREADY out of control with lower density core configurations! Especially in blade and 1-2U rack space servers requiring additional spacing betwen units to accomodate increased cooling needs!!)

Currently both manufacturers' dual core CPUs share memory and I/O buses that were designed for a single CPU. Every time you add a core, contention for access to memory and peripherals increases, lowering the benefit of the additional core.

And neither AMD's current design of using memory controllers for each pair of cores that access a set aside block of memory, nor Intel's single controller that sees the entire address space can deliver anywhere near linear performance gains from additional cores.

So, with all due respect, the die size is not that great an issue.

What will be significant will be to see the effectiveness of AMD's quad core redesign (Hypertransport serial bus) in their attempt to potentially provide each core with near contention free access to system resources and peripherals.

And right now it appears that Intel is well on its way to add cores and speed and cache beyond what AMD has planned.

It will be interesting to see how the market reacts and perceives a higher core density (say 16 cores in a 4way Cloverdale config)from Intel's Core Micro-architecture versus a design limited to 4 or 8 cores from AMD Quad core architecture.

So die process size is not really the central issue on which to make decisions.

Intel can do anything they want, but people that want quality will stick with AMD!

Edit: I have to add this, seeing how to many people cry; IMHO!

Say What?

hope you don't kiss ya mother with that mouth.

by calling the new AMD chips "Brisbane" they will oviously run way too hot during the day,
way too hot at night especially when sleeping
Be way too expensive
with fancy advertising of pretty women wearing bikini's and drinking cokes.

God, that is such an irrelevant comment.

Since when AMD is about quality ?
AMD products were cheaper because they are manufactured with lower quality components.
Whoever wants quality buys Intel and nowadays with Core 2 Duo CPUs Intel has a better product that's cheaper than equivalent AMD offers that anyway have a lower performance.

"AMD products were cheaper because they are manufactured with lower quality components."

really now?
where did you get this information?

i think your brains muffled with corporate $hit.
don't get pulled in by the marketing.
AMD's "quality" is on par with intels or IBMs

These AMD chips could take the performance crown back from Intel for a bit, but Intel is already starting to plan 45nm, so it might not last long.

Don't forget that AMD CPUs have a built-in memory controller, eliminating the need for the "Memory Controller Hub" chip you see on Intel boards. This reduces overall system power consumption considerably.

the north brigde on the core duo that i have built run as hot or hotter the the cpu