Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Sat 28th Feb 2009 20:29 UTC
AMD AMD recently said that they'd be starting onto the 32nm track, beginning production around the fourth quarter of 2010. Intel, on the other hand, has already demonstrated some of its prototypes and will be rolling these babies out to the public come the fourth quarter of-- ah-- this year. AMD isn't manufacturing these chips, however, and is instead laying the load on the newborn Foundry Company, which was created with the help of AMD out of ATI.
Thread beginning with comment 351171
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: stupid
by gilboa on Sun 1st Mar 2009 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE: stupid"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I was saying is that, these days, anyway, AMD has followed in Intel's footsteps - not that AMD's products are inferior to Intel's. Intel does it first. AMD does it cheaper, later. I'm an AMD fan myself because I can generally afford it better than Intel. But there's no denying that AMD generally does what Intel did six months to a year ago. Perhaps AMD thought of it first and have plenty of plans for the future that we can't even imagine, but from a consumer's point of view, they lag behind.


Ugghh. People have such a short memory.

A. AMD was the first to introduce 64bit extension in an x86 CPU. (AKA AMD64 or x86_64.). If it was up to Intel you'd be using Itanium right now.
B. AMD was the first to introduce non-shared bus design in an x86 CPU. (The original Athlon; most notably the AthlonMP series.)
C. AMD was also the first to introduce on-die memory controller in an x86 CPU. Again, 5 years later, Intel has finally caught up. (Nehalem/Core 7i)
D. AMD was the first to introduce NUMA architecture in an x86 CPU. (Opteron/Athlon64). Intel has yet to fully caught up. (Core 7i/EP will be released later this month; Nehalem MP will be released in Q3).
E. AMD was the first one to introduce single die dual core CPU and the first to introduce single die quad core CPUs. As always, the Core 7i was the first one to achieve the same.
... and I can continue.

Granted, the Core 7i is the best single-socket-CPU right now. But many of the ideas (minus SMT) that make it so great, came from AMD. (Or actually from Alpha, but that's another matter altogether.)

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: stupid
by tyrione on Sun 1st Mar 2009 21:33 in reply to "RE[2]: stupid"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Might I add, Intel paid Compaq [DEC at the time] $1 Billion to settle patent infringements up the wazzu regarding the thievery of the Alpha architecture.

There once was a time when CPU wars existed and they were a blast to follow.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: stupid
by gilboa on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 04:06 in reply to "RE[3]: stupid"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Might I add, Intel paid Compaq [DEC at the time] $1 Billion to settle patent infringements up the wazzu regarding the thievery of the Alpha architecture.

There once was a time when CPU wars existed and they were a blast to follow.


Actually, if I can buy a 4 core CPU for 199$, there's one hell of CPU war going on - just a different type of war.

People tend to forget that 15 years ago, we paid 999$ for a 60Mhz, single core Pentium I.

Never the less, I do agree that Intel vs. AMD is somewhat less interesting CPU-design-wise.

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2