🚀 go-pugleaf

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:myARc.6864$va2.6359@fe1.texas.rr.com...

> No.  I've been saying that transistor for transistor, the AMD core runs
> hotter at lower core speeds than Intels.


And that would be very incorrect.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2026&p=3

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16952

>And that AMD, rather than work
> on that issue at mask level to *allow* use of higher clocks with lower
> temps, simply chose to spread into 64 bit.  And, as you say, use onboard
> memory controller.

WTF are you babbling about? "spread into 64 bits"

LOL!


> Intels Prescott die is 9 nanometer, AMD's 64 bit is 11.  The technology
> exists to run at higher freqs with lower temps.  Intel is still pushing
> that end and hasn't yet gone to running the same sort of functions that
> AMD uses now.  WHEN Intel does, they will have a similar level of
> performance per clock, and a much faster clock.

Intel is also considering multiple cores because they know that they can't
scale the Prescott and have already cancelled Tejas, the so-called P5. Your
Prescott is hobbled by current leakage and will _never_ scale.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15760
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/15/cx_ah_1015tentech.html

> And it bothers me that the 64 bit processor is outperforming the 32 bit
> processor by only 18%.  Even with running under a 32bit opsystem, I'd
> think that the AMD 64 should be performing some 30 to 40% faster.

Why? It's a 64bit chip that is capable of running 32bit code. 64bit
capability has _nothing_ to do with the chips performance. Absolutely
Nothing.


You really have no clue what you are talking about!