Posted on 07/26/2006 10:56:36 AM PDT by Zakeet
Intel is set to launch its chart-topping Core 2 Duo chips later this week, but AMD seems determined to try to steal the spotlight.
Monday it dramatically slashed prices on its processors to better compete with Intel's new chips, and announced it was buying ATI. Today it held a demo of its 4x4 platform for PC enthusiasts, which is meant to deliver performance that will rival and perhaps surpass that of the Core 2 Duos.
The demo was eye catching. The 4x4 system, equipped with two dual-core Athlon 64 FX chips, clearly outpaced an identically configured PC with one dual-core chip on every test they showed, from multitasking scenarios with a game and other apps running in the background, to media file transcoding.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.pcworld.com ...
But can it fix my typos before I make them?........
Isn't innovation and competition wonderful?
4x4 leads me to believe 4 quad-core procs, which would be obscene! Still, dual dual-core procs is pretty impressive.
We're running dual dual-core Xeon procs in our Exchange clusters, and they can't be TOUCHED by apps. They just hum along. It'll be a couple years before they can build apps to utilize all that processing.
Nonsense. Video editing can use all the horsepower you could imagine.
AMD is a bit down this week, but in the long run, having separate memory channels will win, and Intel will be forced to play catchup again.
So I think you would not be interested in a P2 350 I have laying around.
For less than ten bucks,
my four by four platform does
text and graphics but
doesn't have advanced
connectivity. I don't
get hack attacks, though . . .
 |
|
|
|
Yup, the pendulum has swung in Intels favor at the moment, but I trust AMD will be hard at work to regain the lead. AMD's memory architecture is superior above 4 cores, they should get the lead back in that stage, or at least be at the same level as Intel with their large caches. Then again, Intel apparently has another memory scheme which will entail groups of 8 processors at a time... WHEW! Ain't competition grand?
The article also claims all this firepower can be had for less than a grand.
Sun makes an 8 core chip-
Each core can run 4 independant threads
showing system statistics - it sees 32 processors-
system runs at @ 95 watts
This is the T1 chip- t1000/t2000 servers since the chip
runs at 1Ghz or 1.2Ghz a single job looks slow-
as an email server or web server-it runs great
I'm in the market for a new home computer. I'm using a 1996 upgraded P3. This info is helpful.
I'm currently testing Dell's new 690 with 64GB ram on it. Talk about smoking performance!
Is that a Dell PowerEdge 6900? Dell server model numbers are four-digit. ...or did you mean something different with the "690"?
We deal with HP's Intel branded ProLiant stuff through our vendor. If I had my druthers, we'd go Opteron, but I do what I'm told.
And yes, I'm aware that graphics and video editing programs can suck up horsepower, but I'm thinking more from a business application standpoint. I don't think a single SAP front-end server could bog down a quad proc dual core system.
And yes, I'm also aware of the other processing powers out there. From a practicality standpoint, and being the server proposal guru for my company, I deal in dual/quad proc single core server systems. We have absolutely nothing that could utilize or justify payment for an 8 processor dual core configuration. Clustered dual proc single core systems are de rigeur in my build specs for heavy-duty stuff.
Bookmarking because I love this stuff. PREDICTION: We are heading into a new tech-boom, and that is just cool.
Intel already has a quad core in the works. I would not place bets on Intel being pushed off the "top dog" CPU spot for a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.