Re: Somewhat OT: Is AMD the new Intel?
From: Andrew Harrison (andrew_remove__s._harrison_at_s_u_n.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Paul Sture: "Re: foto"
- Previous message: Paul Sture: "Re: HPworld - I Survived"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:06:58 +0100
David J Dachtera wrote:
> This is just to juicy to not post...
>
What the article doesn't point out is that its the
system stupid also applies to Itanium because it is
limitted by exactly the same interconnect technology
as Nocona, worse in some respects because Itanium
has up to a ~30% higher bandwidth requirement than
Nocona.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
> ========================================================================
> TEST CENTER REPORT http://www.infoworld.com
> ========================================================================
> Monday, August 30, 2004
>
>
> ========================================================================
> * Is AMD the new Intel?
> * Opteron vs. Nocona: It's the system, stupid
> * How AMD stayed in the game
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>
> IS AMD THE NEW INTEL?
> ========================================================================
> Posted August 27, 2004 3:00 PM Pacific Time
>
> You just gotta love a Cinderella story. Advanced Micro Devices is the
> hardscrabble kid who came to Silicon Valley with a dollar and a pack of
> Luckies and ended up in a building with its name on top. AMD's rapid
> rise from startup to $5 billion semiconductor powerhouse is, as Humphrey
> Bogart's English teacher once said, the stuff of which dreams are made.
>
> For the full story:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/27/35FEamd_1.html
>
>
> OPTERON VS. NOCONA: IT'S THE SYSTEM, STUPID
> ========================================================================
> Posted August 27, 2004 3:00 PM Pacific Time
>
> If you think AMD's Opteron and Intel's Nocona -- or more formally, "Xeon
> Processor with 800MHz System Bus" -- are cut from the same 64-bit cloth,
> look closer. Yes, they're compatible at the instruction-set and register
> levels; they should be because they're both based on AMD's x86-64
> specification. But the total system architecture surrounding these chips
> -- which includes pathways to other CPUs, memory, and peripherals --
> exhibits several differences that factor into buying decisions and
> developers' platform targeting.
>
> For the full story:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/27/35FEamdoptnoc_1.html
>
>
> HOW AMD STAYED IN THE GAME
> ========================================================================
> Posted August 27, 2004 3:00 PM Pacific Time
>
> In 1999, while AMD was suffering through one of the darkest periods in
> its history, the financially strapped semiconductor maker needed to get
> the word out about its new Pentium II-compatible processor, Athlon. So
> it did what any serious company would do: It enlisted the aid of PC
> gamers, overclockers, and build-it-yourself enthusiasts.
>
> For the full story:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/27/35FEamdgrassroots_1.html
- Next message: Paul Sture: "Re: foto"
- Previous message: Paul Sture: "Re: HPworld - I Survived"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
