OSNews

You do realize Yonah is a notebook chip and the other chips in that review were not. That it was able to perform reasonable close to an equally clocked desktop dualcore processor from AMD does nothing to support an opinion of it being an overpriced piece of junk.

>So far latest yohan benchmark show that intels processors are still overpriced pieces of junk:

Go you, so for twice the price, you get a slight advantage...And one is a laptop proc while the other is the desktop one.
So if "intel piece of junk" are overpriced, what are the dual core amd ones?

competes with PR. Promising it will make the next and greatest thing , while currently delivering nothing. When I will see any intel processor showing comparbale performance to amd offers I will believe it . The article tries to stress advantage of intel in manufacturing proccess which is irrelevant for the bottom line of the user (which is performance and price/performance ratios) .

So far latest yohan benchmark show that intels processors are still overpriced pieces of junk: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

Piece of junk?

You sir, are a "I don't have a f*cking clue, try-hard techie" idiot on the highest level.

Without competition, everyone has to pay more. Did you even reach puberty when PIII was the only CPU that took the ladder? Do you remember what happened when AMD's K7 came along? Prices dropped.

Mobile CPUs have restricted requirements that are dictated by the application. They have to operate in tighter spaces, lower voltages, etc.

Desktop CPUs have less stricter thermal requirements, they don't need to save power, and they ain't designed/made to handle temps of 100deg/C. So efficiency is not a primary goal.

If you bother actually READING the article and carefully looking at the benchmarks, you'll see both the Pentium-M and K8 solution are pretty much even in overall performance.

The Athlon64 may win here, and the Pentium-M may win there, but overall, its not gonna be clear as night and day. It'll be highly dependent on the application being used.

And this is to be expected...

A64 (or K8) used the K7 as its basis. Obviously modified slightly, tweaked for more performance and added AMD64 capability.

Pentium-M used PIII as its basis (but heavily modified with some P4 features and power saving features).

If you look in the past, PIII vs Athlon, you'll see the Athlon (K7) will win in FPU intense apps.

Today, Pentium-M vs A64 is no different.
We're just repeating history all over again.

AMD will just edge out, but overall, most people won't be able to tell the difference. (Not like the P4 vs A64 difference).

This isn't just a PR exercise, its an admission from Intel that they are getting their asses handed to them by a competitor with a pretty good design, but is much smaller than them. (both in manufacturing and marketing resources).

Did you know the original Intel P7 project (not later Itanium) involved having a 32bit CPU with 64bit capability? Ironically, this is what the AMD's K8 is!

If you think about it, it felt like Intel made a major mistake. If they followed on with the original P7, we'd have a very different story today. (There would be no inefficient Pentium 4 or the ridiculously expensive Itanium).

Oh well, at least they're throwing the P4 out at the end of 2006!

Itanium would still be be here, Intel was working on Merced ever since they came out with the P6 (Pentium Pro) core.

While you are more or less correct about most of what you have said, I have to be nitpicky about three things:

1. Efficiency with desktop CPUs is just as important as mobile CPUs -- the Pentium 4 is a result of Intel ignoring this, and now look at what's happening.

2. The Pentium M might be more or less clock-for-clock with the Athlon 64, but ...
2a. The Athlon 64 has an on-die memory controller, and much, much lower memory latencies than the Pentium M (and Yonah). This is a major benefit when it comes to certain applications.
2b. The Pentium M (and Yonah) have absolutely no 64-bit capabilities. This is an automatic win for the Athlon 64 in terms of 64-bit code. Also, A64 + 64-bit code automatically leaves the A64 winning most benchmarks against the Pentium M running 32-bit code.

3. The K8 is much, much more than a "tweaked slightly" K7 core. Come on, you're a smart guy ... do some research please.

The derision of the P4 is undeserved. Prescott might have been silly, but the original P4 wasn't exactly a bad design. It was simply one that was optimized for scenarios that the market moved away from. Raw multimedia performance became less important, as GPUs offloaded geometry-processing and video decoding. Integer performance remained important, because game engines moved to more complex physics, and more complex culling algorithms to keep the GPU fed. Most importantly, the bottom fell out of the power situation.

The P4 managed to keep Intel on top for quite awhile during the K7 era. If the leakage current situation hadn't become so bad, the P4 would be at 5GHz as they expected, and still be a performance leader. If AMD64 hadn't taken off so well, Intel wouldn't have had to invoke the sub-par 64-bit support in the Prescott core. Really, the only thing bad about the P4 that its designers could have anticipated at the time was that it never really made sense as a server processor.