Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
I'm following the George Patton philosophy. We're not going to defend [trash], we're just going to attack, attack, attack. We're going to attack ...everywhere. We're not interested in defending. Somebody asked [Patton], "Hey, should we dig a trench or a hole?" He said, "You do that, you die." Same thing here.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 6/22/2006 09:02:00 AM
17 Comments:
hint... go to google, enter
"I'm following the George Patton philosophy"
click "I'm feeling lucky"
No wonder Google is so many people's best friend...
click "I'm feeling lucky
Hmm, that was too easy.
Sorry, this is off topic but am really curious to get the Dr.S opinion...
If yields for Intel's "Core" micro architecture are as bad as you have stated, why would they release their highest clocked and highest FSB chip (Woodcrest) first?
Wouldn't it make sense to release the lower quality chips first, the ones with imperfections, vs. the ones that have to be almost perfect?
Or does this mean Intel is gonna flood the market with Conroes on July 23?
Thanks.
whoops, looks like good news day for AMD at the inquirer
i like the title of this one "Help! My MacBook goes moo", bascially Apple having problems cooling the core duo
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32582
AMD dell hookup much bigger than expected
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32536
65nm opterons improve on power efficency, according to AMD
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32585
If yields for Intel's "Core" micro architecture are as bad as you have stated, why would they release their highest clocked and highest FSB chip (Woodcrest) first?
Woodcrest will clock at various speeds, as low as 1.8GHZ. The fact Intel release Woodcrest first proves that yield is low, so Intel has to do the low volume chips first.
The reason for Woodcrest release is also the official statement from Intel that says "AMD beat our @$$ on the Server Front and we need to make a new product to beat their 5 year old product, but we hope it can beat it because so far, it isn't"
AMD launch "Anti-Hyper-Treading" ?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060622143710.html
Well, the performance war is not settled yet..
How about a comment or 2 about what you've said.
AMD over Intel architecture
'Intel CPUs have none of the above. In Intel architecture, all communications happen on an external shared bus controlled by an external chipset manufactured on 130nm process. The fastest future Intel bus has a bandwidth of 10.6GB/s, less than the bandwidth required for DDR2 800MHZ(12.8GB/s).'
Is that why they tried to partner up w/ Rambus to solve the bandwidth/bus bottleneck issue?
"Woodcrest will clock at various speeds, as low as 1.8GHZ. The fact Intel release Woodcrest first proves that yield is low, so Intel has to do the low volume chips first."
This statement shows you have no comprehension of Silicon manufacturing - stick to 64bit analysis.
The reason for Woodcrest release is also the official statement from Intel that says "AMD beat our @$$ on the Server Front and we need to make a new product to beat their 5 year old product, but we hope it can beat it because so far, it isn't"
This is a far better analysis than sharikou - the biggest performance delta is in servers). I would add 2 things:
1. Server products generally have better margin so it helps the bottom line quicker, too...
2. The release dates are really only 1-2 months apart for the various products so it really doesn't make a huge difference (you don't fix a yield issue in 1-2 months as it takes more than that amount of time to get a single lot out of the fab which is another reason why the "bad yield" theory is crap)
I was a bit concerned on seeing an INDEPENDENT review of Conroe vs AMD's chips at this website...
Conroe seems to be beating AMD by a mile.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=265&type=expert&pid=13
Do you guys see something wrong in these results? IF they're true, AMD may not retain its performance per watt lead for much longer.
PS: I'm not an Intel fanboy, btw.
"I was a bit concerned on seeing an INDEPENDENT review of Conroe vs AMD's chips at this website..."
Is there a reason for them not to use the same memory modules for testing?
Other than that, we see Conroe outperforms the same class of A64 about 15%, which is 1) what I've been predicting since beginning, 2) way below the initial round of Intel-prepared benchmarks.
"PS: I'm not an Intel fanboy, btw."
Yeah, I believe that, but you better know that somebody wouldn't take your words not matter what you say, as long as you don't praise AMD.
I was a bit concerned on seeing an INDEPENDENT review of Conroe vs AMD's chips at this website...
Conroe seems to be beating AMD by a mile.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=265&type=expert&pid=13
Do you guys see something wrong in these results? IF they're true, AMD may not retain its performance per watt lead for much longer.
PS: I'm not an Intel fanboy, btw.
How dare you say that ? Don't you know that PCPer.com is also an Intel paid "pumper" ? Everybody is a paid Intel "pumper". Only Sharikou knows the truth.
My advice for him and his followers is to create a broterhood and commit mass suicide when Conroe wipes the floor with AMD.
Conroe won this around. No doubt.
AMD has really good yield
http://www.virtual-hideout.net/articles/AMD_AM2_3500+_Overclocking/index5.shtml
Look at how AMD 3500+ being overclocked to FX-57 level. I need to hunt down a ML-44 and undervolt it to MT level!
Do you guys see something wrong in these results? IF they're true, AMD may not retain its performance per watt lead for much longer.
PS: I'm not an Intel fanboy, btw.
That test looks ok to me. Conroe is 65nm and will have the performance/watt lead until k8 rev g is coming later this year.
And who coined the phrase "With friends like this, who needs enemies.."
That's what Dell is thinking of the channel stuffer Intel.
todospara1/chicagraf0 here
About Patton and Attacking:
"I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything, we'll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose"
That is the speech quoted in Patton, the movie, given in 1944 in England.
You may see it here
Post a Comment
<< Home