Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 17 Jan 2007.
That must be about the most comprehensive review I've ever seen of such a minor change to a processor ever!
It's nice to know that the consumer isn't likely to see any immediate benefit from moving to 65nm, but then again, if we loose out now to make K8L cheaper (due to a workign FAB process when it enters production) then it's prob not a huge issue. Alas to it's the same as has been going since Core 2 was released though - AMD just can't compete on price per performance.
I think, and I know alot of the general tech press agree, that if K8L doesn't do something magical, I can see it being AMD's Swan Song.
Shame, AMD need to focus on solving their latency problem on 65nm and on getting their next generation out.
They've shown intel all along that they can do low powered CPUs (this one would be great for a HTPC IMHO) but they now need to do better Performance.
I really hope AMD has something up their sleeves.... K8L better be good or else Intel will dominate AMD once again... and if Intel launches some 4+ core CPUs little before AMD launches the K8L?
Well there is at least the fact that for now, 4x4 and core 2 quad are radically different system models.
On the face of it, I can see AMD's solution being the faster, mainly because of the improved memory bandwidth, but Intel could theoretically do the same thing to make a dual quad core system. Not to mention that (so far) there don't seem to be any problems with having 4 processors all comunicating via the FSB anyway.
And as the Q6600 (i think that's right) should be with us pretty close to K8L, at a competative price point (based on Q6700 vs EX6800) AMD are really going to have a fight on their hands.
Intels are simply superior on every single thing at the moment. Hopefully AMD will figure out a way to beat atleast the goddamn E6400... It would be bad for the customers if there was only one large manufacturer dominating the markets.
um... E6300 beats E6400 already because the 6300 clocks as high as the 6400 in most cases for less money, the same reason why no-one interested in overclocking would buy a 6700
lol, I was thinking the same thing as your first comment - though I do appreciate bit's (/Tim's) thoroughness on the issue.
It's worthwhile to note that this is actually the performance lag that AMD grew up on but sad that they've abandoned the old price model (almost as good performance for a much better price). Maybe having been the performance leader went to their heads, maybe the acquisition of ATI cost too much - whatever the problem - If they went back to the old price model I'm sure they'd be fine but at the moment...
Separate names with a comma.