Yea, so you are saying that Nehalem isnt following in the same footsteps that AMD started with K8?
Please for future references i am not a fanboy and as such dont feel bad about anything. It actually made me quite happy to see Intel bring out another great performing architecture. I just thought i might bring in a bit more constructive post to this thread then another "ROFL!!! GO Intel!!! AMD SUXS ASS!!!".
Here are some quote's from the article that i think you might find interesting after finding my post so funny.
Nehalem implements a very Phenom-like memory hierarchyWhile Intel did a lot of tinkering with Nehalem's caches, the inclusion of a multi-channel on-die DDR3 memory controller was the most apparent change. AMD has been using an integrated memory controller (IMC) since 2003 on its K8 based microprocessors and for years Intel has resisted doing the same, citing complexities in choosing what memory to support among other reasons for why it didn't follow in AMD's footsteps.and finallyIt was at the same dinner that Pat mentioned Intel may do a chip with an integrated memory controller much like AMD, but that an IMC wouldn't solve the problem of idle execution units - only indirectly mitigate it. With Nehalem, Intel managed to combine both - and it only took 6 years to pull it off.
Pat also brought up another very good point at that dinner. He turned to me and said that you can only integrate a memory controller once, what do you do next to improve performance? Intel has managed to keep increasing performance, but what I really want to see is what happens at the next tock.
Bookmarks