backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by josmala.. on May 28 at 4:57 PM

A few preliminary benchmarks are in, but the picture is still cloudy over "Woodcrest" performance

The Tech Report's Scott Wasson had an incredible opportunity to sit down and benchmark Intel's upcoming Woodcrest processor in a dual server configuration.  Intel's Woodcrest processor, as we've previously covered, is the upcoming Socket 771, 65nm dual core server processor for Intel servers.  Intel gave the media a preview of Woodcrest outperforming AMD Opteron by 33% in synethetic benchmarks during IDF, but today The Tech Report has a full scale analysis using its own benchmarks.  The review was still done under the watchful eye of Intel employees during a reviewer's workshop, but the publication was able to conduct its own benchmarks.

Absent from the benchmarking suite was the application that Intel used to demonstrate a 33% victory at IDF, dual Woodcrest 3.0GHz processors manage to squeeze by with 15% victory over dual Opteron 285 however though.  SPECapc on 3DStudio MAX put the Woodcrest processor at a much higher advantage performance, but most other benchmarks that Wasson ran only put Woodcrest in the 5 to 10% favored range.  The only benchmarks that gave Woodcrest considerable advantages were SiSoft Sandra artificial benchmarks.

When the power consumption between Opteron and Woodcrest were compared, Woodcrest had slightly lower power consumption, particularly when idle.  Intel's "33%" estimates from IDF obviously extrapolated the 10-15% performance victories to a performance-per-watt scenario.

We were a little surprised that Intel only provided Opteron 285 CPUs for comparison, since Opteron 290 processors have been available for several weeks already through the correct channels.  To be fair, neither Woodcrest 3.0GHz nor Opteron 290 have been officially announced yet. 


Update 05/23/2006: Scott Wasson tells me that Intel did not supply the Opteron 285 processors, and that the CPUs were actually tested independently in The Tech Report labs. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dissapointing
By akugami on 5/23/2006 5:37:20 AM , Rating: 4
From a 30+ percent advantage to a mere 5-10% and 15% in a few select applications is a huge drop. While this would give Intel the lead again, it's not the Athlon killer we were lead to believe initially. Still, we'll need to wait for more sites like Anandtech, [H], Xbitlabs, etc to benchmark these before coming to a more solid conclusion.




RE: Dissapointing
By nrb on 5/23/2006 6:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
We're talking about Woodcrest vs Opteron, here - server CPUs. The speed advantage Conroe will have over Athlon 64 has been independently verified and really is the 20%+ originally announced.


RE: Dissapointing
By Griswold on 5/23/2006 6:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ah really, what is the difference between opteron and athlon64 again? :P You could argue the test suite is different, but then again, they didnt even test real world server applications.

Nope sorry, with these figures and a woodcrest running 400MHz faster than the 285, I really want to wait for real benchmarks conducted by reputable sites.

I have little doubt that core 2 will be faster than what AMD has been offering for months, but with previews like this one, things appear in a new light.

Let's wait and see.


RE: Dissapointing
By GoatMonkey on 5/23/2006 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
I would bet that Hypertransport would account for the difference considering that they are comparing dual processor machines.


RE: Dissapointing
By Griswold on 5/23/2006 11:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yea more HTT links. But that doesnt translate to higher IPC. Which was kinda my point.


RE: Dissapointing
By josmala on 5/28/2006 4:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
No the difference is not only that in those comparisons.

Woodcrest vs opteron

Server apps.
Both have TWO processor chips which to syncronise between.
Woodcrest syncronises through chipset while opteron goes directly to other cpu core.

Consider this, path from one cache to other cache in woodcrest, is
prosessor1->chipset->processor2->chipset ->processor1
Opteron:
processor1->processor2->processor1

conroe vs A64

Desktop apps.
No multiple dies to syncronize with
Advanced prefetcher on conroe has dedicated the memory controller bandwith to its self instead of having larger risk of conflict with other die in woodcrest.

So there it is, different benchmarks and syncronisation between multiple dies, makes the difference from conroe comparison to woodcrest comparison.


RE: Dissapointing
By proamerica on 5/23/2006 8:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
"We're talking about Woodcrest vs Opteron, here - server CPUs. The speed advantage Conroe will have over Athlon 64 has been independently verified and really is the 20%+ originally announced."

These are Dual processor systems, Intel's FSB bottlenecks shoudn't become a big issue until 4p and up.

AMD should be able to take back the performance crown just by moving their architecture to 65nm and ramping clock speed as they have said they will do.


RE: Dissapointing
By IntelUser2000 on 5/23/2006 9:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
From a 30+ percent advantage to a mere 5-10% and 15% in a few select applications is a huge drop. While this would give Intel the lead again, it's not the Athlon killer we were lead to believe initially. Still, we'll need to wait for more sites like Anandtech, [H], Xbitlabs, etc to benchmark these before coming to a more solid conclusion.


No... go read the article.


not dissapointing - it beat the AMD!
By hstewarth on 5/23/2006 9:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
I still can't believe AMD fans, even though it beat the AMD in ever test except for memory ( not even using 667Mhz ram )

This is also just a preview - so the real stuff is not release yet.


By bpurkapi on 5/24/2006 3:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
so a new car will beat an old car, how suprising! The comparisons between the chips is getting absurd. The problem is that the chips are not really comparable, the amd chip used is not exactly the correct chip to compare to a product that has yet to launch, Lets all hold our bias back until real world situations and then we can talk which one performs better. sometimes you have to patient before crowning a king of performance(%)


This explains Dell's move quite well...
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 7:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
1. This comparison of a 2.6 GHz Opteron with DDR and a 3GHz Woodcrest with FBDimms was much closer than I think anyone expected...

2. With the new lower power process and then the move to 65nm expected this year for AMD, the Opteron will quite probably maintain it's domination over 2P servers (and of course 4P will remain AMD unchallenged). However, the Woodcrest looks to be very good for the lowend 1P server space, and I expect Intel will make some nice inroads there.





By DigitalFreak on 5/23/2006 7:54:45 AM , Rating: 1
LOL


RE: This explains Dell's move quite well...
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 9:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. With the new lower power process and then the move to 65nm expected this year for AMD, the Opteron will quite probably maintain it's domination over 2P servers (and of course 4P will remain AMD unchallenged). However, the Woodcrest looks to be very good for the lowend 1P server space, and I expect Intel will make some nice inroads there.


Forever the fanboy.

Did you actually READ the article?

Is AMD going to get an instant ability to ramp clockspeed 30% by going to 65nm?


RE: This explains Dell's move quite well...
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 10:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is AMD going to get an instant ability to ramp clockspeed 30% by going to 65nm?


You should really just say no to drugs...

1. If YOU had read, you'd notice that they used the 2.6 GHz instead of the more current 2.8 GHz Opteron DC
2. Ramping clockspeed is not linear to ramping performance, so they don't need to ramp the clockspeed by 30%. They need to improve performance by 5-20% (you really SHOULD read the article you know...).
3. For every 200MHz increase, the Opterons tend to increase performance by ~7-10%. This means that...gee...at equal clockspeeds they would be performing at ~the same performance. Since the 2.8 GHz is shipping already and about to be announced (with an already tried and qualified platform I might add...), AMD needs only a single speed bump to equal and 2 to surpass the Woodcrest at 3GHz. Something tells me that it MIGHT be possible at 65nm...what do you think?
4. My main point was the power useage...at 65nm, don't you think it's POSSIBLE that the Opteron will be a little lower than their already superior power profile?


By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 10:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
??

Please explain how an identicle cpu with an increase in clock speed of say 5%, can increase its processing speed by greater than that.

So any way let's say clockspeed did ramp to 3Ghz on the AMD cpu. That's (3.0 - 2.6)/2.6. A 15% increase. That would make it match the Woodcrest on ONE benchmark. It would be behind on all the others.

Not to mention that Woodcrest will not be standing still while Opteron ramps in clock speed.

Really Dude, I don't understand where you come from. Why so much grasping at straws? Are you hurt somehow that Intel has a superiour cpu? Do you need some kind of validation that you bought the right computer?



RE: This explains Dell's move quite well...
By defter on 5/23/2006 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. If YOU had read, you'd notice that they used the 2.6 GHz instead of the more current 2.8 GHz Opteron DC


Uhm 2.8GHz DC Opteron doesn't exist. In fact, 2.6GHz DC Opteron was just launched last month.

Second, it's quite silly to compare mid-2006 Intel CPU to possible December-2006/Q1-2007 65nm CPUs from AMD. Considering the low power consumption of Woodcrest, Intel could easily increase clock speed of the Woodcrest in the latter half of 2006 if necessary.


RE: This explains Dell's move quite well...
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhm 2.8GHz DC Opteron doesn't exist. In fact, 2.6GHz DC Opteron was just launched last month


At the end of this article...

"We were a little surprised that Intel only provided Opteron 285 CPUs for comparison, since Opteron 290 processors have been available for several weeks already through the correct channels"



By ShapeGSX on 5/23/2006 1:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Opteron 285 is $1051.
The Xeon 5160 will retail for $851, according to a number of sources.

They were already in the wrong price range.


By ianwhthse on 5/23/2006 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
And from the ORIGINAL article,
quote:
"After the workshop, we returned to our labs and attempted to configure an Opteron-based test system as closely to the Woodcrest system as possible for comparison. We were able to get pretty close, but we wound up using different hard drives and a few things like that, as you'll see on the next page. I don't believe these differences are likely to have affected the results of the few benchmarks we ran, fortunately."


And at least newegg, froogle don't sell the 290.


RE: This explains Dell's move quite well...
By hstewarth on 5/23/2006 3:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
This has absolutely nothing to do with Dell with AMD. Dell thing is likely becausse of Law suit. Dell will have these processors also. Lets just wait to see when 667Mhz ram chips are out and real tests are done.


By Viditor on 5/23/2006 6:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dell thing is likely becausse of Law suit


Lawsuit?? Ummm...what could Dell have to do with an AMD/Intel antitrust suit over things that took place in the past? (Unless you know of a new lawsuit?)


Oh It's fair
By vingamm on 5/23/2006 8:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
I have seen it said here that the comparisson is not fair. a little Edjumication is needed here. I am sure most of the people here are AMD fans (I am definitely one). The tests I read proved one thing to me. Intel is scrambling. They released a processor they claim to be 33% faster than AMD's current offering. That would be standard. It would be faster than this generation and as fast as probably the next generation processors that AMD could produce. But, So far it is smoke and mirrors (like usual) from Intel. I am not really a fan of either chip I lean towards the one that is going to give the best long term performance. And what I see is Intel desperately trying to keep pace with AMD in this market not the future. They will have to come up with something a lot more speedy if they want to challenge AMD's next Server chip. I am thinking the 290 is just as fast as the "woodcrest" and we also have to consider that AMD is getting these perfomance numbers and significantly lower MHZs. Meaning cooler running chips. Power wise, That is just not a big enough advantage for me. Here is the bottom line for me folks. It is nice to see Intel push ahead in this race, but I do not see a significant enough advantage for mr to go running into my CIO's office and scream "We have to buy all new servers NOW!!!!" And gentlemen that is what counts. By the time my company is ready to make the move to upgrade, intel will be sucking wind again. And (dag I almost forgot), this is a dual proc setup. Why only dual proc? I would love t see the numbers on systems with 4 Processors. This as been speculated where AMD will have a significant advantage over Intel because of the on-die memory controller. I want to see those numbers.




RE: Oh It's fair
By vingamm on 5/23/2006 8:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
Typos and more typos, I meant to say I am definitely not an AMD fan,


RE: Oh It's fair
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 8:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
Good post vingamm...you touch on something that most (not all) posters here haven't had the opporunity to deal with and that is buying servers in the corporate world...
For a company to change server vendors (unlike in the consumer market), there has to be a very distinctive and long-term reason to make the change...
AMD has "come of age" in servers, and without a compelling reason (like maybe a 30-40% speed increase, a solid upgrade path, and power savings over a few %) it's highly unlikely that they will do so.
On top of that, it will be well into next year before Woodcrest is even finished with being qualified as a mission-critical platform...

To answer your question on the 4P platforms though, Woodcrest will not be a 4P chip until well into next year...so you have quite a wait ahead of you...:)


RE: Oh It's fair
By zsdersw on 5/23/2006 10:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget.. new platforms from AMD (K8L) have to go through that qualification process too.


RE: Oh It's fair
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 10:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't forget.. new platforms from AMD (K8L) have to go through that qualification process too


An excellent point Z...though I would add that as K8L is not a new generation of CPU, the qualification period is significantly less. But you are quite right...


RE: Oh It's fair
By zsdersw on 5/23/2006 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
Unless there's identical chipsets and identical platform components, I doubt the K8L's similarity to K8 is enough to make the qualification period significantly less than that of Woodcrest.


RE: Oh It's fair
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 12:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless there's identical chipsets and identical platform components, I doubt the K8L's similarity to K8 is enough to make the qualification period significantly less than that of Woodcrest


Actually, for qualification they can use data for existing systems. For example, Paxville was qualified very quickly as was Nocona (even though they had significant changes) because most of the data was already there from previous platforms.
In addition, the RAS features of Opteron have become quite superior to that of Xeon (which gives many more handles on the functioning of the chips). Woodcrest is supposedly set to improve their RAS, but not quite up to Opteron levels (yet...).


RE: Oh It's fair
By zsdersw on 5/23/2006 1:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't mean that K8L will take significantly less time than Woodcrest.


BS
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 9:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the power consumption between Opteron and Woodcrest were compared, Woodcrest had slightly lower power consumption, particularly when idle. Intel's "33%" estimates from IDF obviously extrapolated the 10-15% performance victories to a performance-per-watt scenario.


Did you read the article you posted about?

Where do you see 10-15%?

I see the Woodcrest putting the Opteron to bed on every single test, sometimes by 40% or more.

The smallest advantage Woodcrest posted was 13% - in only one test.




RE: BS
By hstewarth on 5/23/2006 9:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
AMD did win on the memory test - but they were testing with the wrong memory - 533Mhz memory instead of 667Mhz. Not sure if 667Mhz memory would make the Woodcrest win.


RE: BS
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 10:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares about a memory test? The opteron was smoked in every application test.


RE: BS
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The smallest advantage Woodcrest posted was 13% - in only one test



WME = 110 vs 104 = 5.45%



RE: BS
By blackbrrd on 5/23/2006 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 3
What the tests did show was that Woodcrest scales much worse than Opteron. If you look at some of the tests, Woodcrest is running loops around the Opteron in single threaded apps, but if you scale them to multithreaded the margin of victory gets close to 0% (5% or something, hardly significant).

Obviously a quad core version of woodcrest wouldn't do any good, it would be severly bandwith starved.

This is Intels push for superiority in the server market, if they can't pull it of now, they are sitting ducks until AMD releases K8L in 6-12 months time.

None of these tests were proper server tests though, except for the rendering stuff, there was no database/application/webserver tests, which is the interesting part. I bet anandtech will have a review.. but when? ;)


RE: BS
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 1
That shows nothing about scaling.

They are different tests, you can't extrapolate from one test to another.

That's like sating a Ford F350 is a faster racecar than than a Porche 928 because it can pull a house trailer better.

Two different situations tha aren't comparable.


RE: BS
By dgingeri on 5/23/2006 4:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

That shows nothing about scaling.

They are different tests, you can't extrapolate from one test to another.

That's like sating a Ford F350 is a faster racecar than than a Porche 928 because it can pull a house trailer better.

Two different situations tha aren't comparable.


huh? this has nothing to do with it. these chips are set up to take the exact same market, the exact same duties, and the exact same pricing.

on top of that, this test wasn't very fair in terms of clock rates. the 2.8Ghz dual core Opterons are out there and are being used, which this test is using the 2.6Ghz chips. So, when the advantage gets down to 5% or less, which it does in several of the server multi thread apps, that means that the Opteron would certainly match, if not beat, the performance clock for clock.

On top of that, this is testing with 4 banks of 533Mhz FB-DIMMs, while the opteron system only had DDR-400 memory. The new Opterons will use DDR2-800 memory long before Woodcrest comes out, as well as getting to 3Ghz, or even 3.2Ghz, as AMD's roadmap has shown.

If you want to use automotive analogies: we're talking about comparing a 1974 semi being put up against a 2010 model semi. Which one will haul more cargo? Which one will do it faster and with the best fuel economy? These answers will have to wait for the release of Woodcrest and whatever AMD has out at that point.


.
By hans007 on 5/23/2006 5:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
this is not really a fair comparison as the woodcrest systems were all fb-dimm based.

there will no doubt be systems using standard ddr2 registered memory using different chipsets.


the fb-dimm systems allow much much more memory, but lower end servers probably wont need fb-dimm, which probably adds latency etc.

most of the benchmarks also were not server type apps, like say server webpages, or performing dB queries.




RE: .
By JackPack on 5/23/2006 7:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, FBD using DDR2-533. Hardly a fair comparison.


RE: .
By Viditor on 5/23/2006 7:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the fb-dimm systems allow much much more memory, but lower end servers probably wont need fb-dimm, which probably adds latency etc


Actually it improves the latency...from Intel:
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/emea/eng/...

1. Provides over 3 times higher memory throughput† allowing for superior application responsiveness
2. Enables increased capacity and speed to balance capabilities of dual core processors
3. Allows for Intel® I/O Acceleration Technology to more quickly access and process data
4. Performs reads and writes simultaneously; eliminating the previous read to write blocking latency


RE: .
By Furen on 5/24/2006 12:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
Jeez, dont complain about QUAD FB channels, would you rather have two chips be insanely bottlenecked by dual DDR2 667? That would pretty much make dual buses useless. Also, 667MHz FBs are not broadly available...


Tech report revview
By crystal clear on 5/23/2006 9:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
I read the so called exclusive review or preview blah blah.
The review gets very low grades from me-doesnt impress me at all.
Can u guys at Daily Tech check up with Intel about this & why you were not given an opportunity to conduct your tests.
Faking reports/research is not New-not that I am implying that site is faking.
I take my news only from reputed sources-the rest are all blah blah.




RE: Tech report revview
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 9:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Put down the crack pipe please.

Tech Report is one of the most respected tech sites on the net.


RE: Tech report revview
By cciesquare on 5/23/2006 12:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
I dont usually stand up for a paticular site if you look at my past post BUT in this case i will.

I read a lot of tech sites, anandtech, xbit, hardocp, and even toms hardware, so i know about a particular review when it comes out. So I know if one site's review looks fishy while the other few are in line. I have been to the tech report since 2003, and i can assure you they are legit. There is circle of friendship so to speak between anandtech, tech report, hardocp, xbit and more. IF the tech report were to publish bogus material anandtech would have pointed it out. Why else would they continually link to The Tech Report?

Just because the website doesnt look fancy doesnt mean it writes crapy reviews. Looks arent everything....im sure you dont need me to tell you that.

I respect The Tech report that is why i have to correct you buddy.


RE: Tech report revview
By crystal clear on 5/24/2006 1:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Faking reports/research is not New-not that I am implying that site is faking"

The above comment on mine clearly says-"not that I am implying that website is faking"
So not in anyway I accuse them of faking.
On the contrary I asked Daily tech to check/verify with Intel about this (read my comments).
That shows a cautious attitude of mine to this report.


I have not been keeping up
By Milliamp on 5/23/2006 5:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
It is hard to keep track of all the core nicknames without regularly keeping up.

Can someone give me a brief overview?




RE: I have not been keeping up
By Thalyn on 5/24/2006 12:40:22 AM , Rating: 3
Here's the skinny of it for you:-

Merom: Successor to the Pentium M, mobile market
Conroe: Successor to Pentium 4/D, desktop market
Woodcrest: Successor to the Xion, server market

They're all based on an architechture similar to the current Pentium M (Yonah, or Core if you prefer), but take cues from the both the Itanium and Pentium 4 line in order to achieve greated parallelism (4-order instead or 3), better instruction prediction and 64-bit support.

From what I've been able to gather, they're all going to be sold under the Core 2 moniker (though I've heard nothing of the server market's official name). They should all be available within the next 6 months, too, starting from the Server side and working down.

Hope that helps.

-Jak


RE: I have not been keeping up
By Thalyn on 5/24/2006 12:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Xion -> Xeon

I knew that looked wrong....

-Jak


Title
By Lonyo on 5/23/2006 8:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
SPECapc on 3DStudio MAX put the Woodcrest processor at a might higher advantage,

Mite higher?




RE: Title
By IntelUser2000 on 5/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: Title
By littlebitstrouds on 5/23/2006 9:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Two !! and three ???. Dude you need to calm down. We're talking about CPU's here not an atom bomb.


RE: Title
By dgingeri on 5/23/2006 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SPECapc on 3DStudio MAX put the Woodcrest processor at a might higher advantage,

Mite higher?


it is 'mite', as in dust mite, a very small bug that usually lives in your bed eating your dead skin cells. almost microscopic.

not that anyone really needs to know it, but I thought I'd throw that in.

at equal speeds, which the Opteron will reach 3Ghz by the time Woodcrest comes out, this description sounds accurate.


I admit it...
By dgingeri on 5/23/2006 3:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
...I was wrong about woodcrest. it seems that it will do better than the Opteron. at this rate of advantage, it will probably match the Opteron's 4-socket/8-core performance. I stated earlier that it would probably lose to the Opteron.

However.....

you must remember that this is based off P3 technology. The execution pipelines are from the P3, as is much of the rest of the structure. The P3 was their best designed ship to this point. The P4 was a horrible attempt to basically steal money from their customers, giving them much the same performance, and more power consumption, for more money disguised with a higher clock rate. I still don't trust Intel.

I haven't owned an Intel based system since my P3-450. after that chip, I started with a socket-A Athlon 800 and went up from there. I don't think I'll buy another Intel chip until well after this chip comes out. I currently have an X2-4200+ and will stick with that for at least the next year, and my next ship will be another AMD, even if the performance is lower than Intel's same priced chip. I will punish them for the P4, and their bogus marketing tactics, the only way I can, by not buying their stuff. They have lost far too much respect from me since the old Slot-1 days.




RE: I admit it...
By Phynaz on 5/23/2006 4:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The execution pipelines are from the P3, as is much of the rest of the structure.


That's not really true. While it could be said that it's design is closer to a P3 than a P4, It's really quite a bit different.

Take read at ars, they have an excellent article that shows the differences between the architectures.


By hstewarth on 5/23/2006 5:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of misinformation about Core 2 architexture, it is nothing like the P3 archetxture. Yes it has a smaller pipeline then the P4 - but its also had quad pump like the P4 - also its logical units are much more efficient.

P4 was not all that bad - for a while the speed of processors were going up and up - but year ago or so ago they met there limit.

If P3 are consider six generation architexture, p4 was consider 7 generation, the Core 2 is consider 8th generation for Intel. Complete new architexture and just at the beginning.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki