Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Intel's Core architecture cannot scale with clockspeed

The fundamental problem with Intel's architecture is the FSB bottleneck. This is well understood.

As Intel increases the clockspeed of its CPUs, it hits two walls. The first is the heat density -- Intel CPUs are running at high temperature -- near the edge of silicon meltdown. The second is the FSB -- Intel systems simply do not have the bandwidth to handle the demand of modern multitasking computing paradigm.

As Intel increases the clock speed by going to 45nm, the CPU tries to do more, but the FSB is the limiting factor. With Intel's primitive design, all communications, even core-core cache coherence traffic have to funnel through the front side bus. Thus, it is entirely possible that Intel CPUs demonstrate lower performance at higher clock speed, due to the fact that higher frequency Intel CPUs generate more traffic jam on the bus. We have seen SpecInt_rate benchmarks where a 1.86GHZ Intel quad is faster than a 2.13 GHZ Intel quad. We identified the cause of the problem to the cache size, but the real fundamental problem is bandwidth limitation. Intel uses large caches to hide its bandwidth constriction for small benchmark programs. In real applications where memory and bandwidth requirements are higher, Intel architecture is simply choked.

I heard that a professor lecturing in computer architecture at the Tel Aviv University gave Intel engineers a C+ on the Core 2, largely due to the double cheeseburger multi-core design.


Blogger Andy said...

That's why he works in a university. Because he isn't good enough for Intel.

Glueing has nothing to do with fundamental arch.

Links to 2.13ghz losing to 1.86. Not that it matters. Barcelona is still getting trampled on.

8:34 AM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Andy said...

In real applications where memory and bandwidth requirements are higher

You are confusing real applications to spec benchmarks. Intel does badly in spec, in comparison to real work applications.
spec_fp is the only thing AMD can get near Intel on. It's not even a real application.

8:43 AM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Sharidouche must be in a panic for real news. This is a reapeat post from when the C2d was first released and shown beating the AMD CPU's silly.

11:01 AM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

Yes, Intel is so desperate that the last processor they released is a "Black Box Edition" that doesn't come with a heatsink because you have to water-cool it.

Intel can't even make a quad core! AMD has the best technology. They purposely limit their processors to 2ghz because that's what the market wants. The market doesn't want more performance than Intel. The market wants barcelona to be just a little bit slower than Intel. So that is why AMD doesn't have faster processors.

The market also doesn't want to run 'real' applications. Everyone knows that data centers are for running artificial memory benchmarks. That is why AMD invented HyperTransport, its what the market wants.

The market also isn't ready for anything faster than the 8800 series, that's why AMD PURPOSELY made the 2900 slower!

Also, AMD stock holders don't want a profit, that's why AMD made their stock drop from $40 to $12, it's what the stockholders want.

Face it, AMD delivers whatever the market or stock holders want.

Buy AMD slightly lower performance, imaginary, non-overclockable(market don't want it), high efficiency, low yield processors.

11:05 AM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Not to mention the end of C2D technology is on its way out soon to be replaced.

But as typical Sharidouche loves to be fixated on the past....

1:21 PM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Bubba said...

Hey Dumbfuck, silicon melts at 1414C (2577F).

Wanna try that again?

6:32 PM, October 03, 2007  
Blogger Louis said...

"Hey Dumbfuck, silicon melts at 1414C (2577F)."

Nice... Sharidouche do you care to comment on your pathetic lies? Or are you going to hide from your own comment forum?

9:19 PM, October 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home