quote: ...but it worked at the time...
quote: Wrong, they made a clone of the 8080 with reverse engineering but they were licensed by Intel in 1982 to produce chips for them. This lasted until 1986 when Intel broke their agreement with AMD. Amd won and was awarded damages for breach of contract. Intel then sued AMD for copyright infringement in 1990, which they again lost.
quote: Wrong yet again. RISC processor was IBM's design not Cyrix's. Both Cyrix and AMD produced RISC chippery based on IBM's design. Oh and if 'that market went nowhere' you can put down your PSP, Gameboy, and DS as they all incorporate RISC designs.
quote: It's not about Intel or AMD. It's about performance. Choice of manufacturers is not a moral question.
quote: Perhaps the CPUs are going to become more like GPUs, in that both companies introduce newer, slightly better models every year and a half or so. Evolution rather than revolution.
quote: That great innovator Intel has announced improvements to its next chip...More cache, faster cache, better cache, SSE4.They have really broken the mould this time!! This is so unlike them to provide such major innovation. We love you Intel!! quote>FYI, this is in a long time that Intel made performance tweaks that would have otherwise been a simple process shrink. All the shrinks of Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4 were simple shrinks+cache. Prescott was very anticipated because of the architectural enhancements that would normally have been a process shrink, but that came out bad. In contrast, Penryn will offer performance increase what cache size increase won't be able to do it alone.
quote: thanks for the link man, its a good conroe vs penryn comparison.from the numbers i saw, the average improvement clock for clock for penryn is in the ballpark of 5%. Even more exciting, the gaming performance increase is more like 10%, with one benchmark showing a 30% increase! thats simply insane for a die shrink and a few minor improvements, but hey, i'm not complaining.