Quote Originally Posted by mesyn191 View Post
5yr.? Source please.
Thats generally about how long each major revision lasts generally speaking (or atleast these last couple of years it has been)


Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.
K10 and K8 are pretty much identical iirc the only thing that seperates them is the cache sizes, latency and instruction sets but the basic building blocks are the same which is why their IPC is almost identical. K8 to K10 chips are about as similar northwood to prescott/pressler. Ya its a different chip but its more or less the same.

As far as conroe vs p3 ya you could make that arguement as well but the chief difference would be conroe's out-of-order read/write in its internal pipeline plus a whole bunch of tweeks.


I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...
Ive seen a couple crysis benchmarks and those are threaded, frankly I would like to see a world of warcraft comparison as that is probably the most highly threaded game I can possibly think of.


Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.
Lynfield is identical to Bloomfield with the exception that lyn is strictly dual-channel and in addition it incorporates a PCI-E controller on-die like Phenoms do


AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.
Again I agree, but Nelhalem is a step in the wrong direction. By all accounts it ought to slaughter Penryn by 30% or more because the main bottle-neck for C2Ds was the available bandwidth between the cores / memory. So one would think that there would be a difference between dual and tri channel. So far its only a measly 200 points... thats NOT a good sign.

Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.
Ya again I agree, the problem is that Intel is betting the farm on the programs actually being there for this CPU to shine, so far it hasnt happened nor does it look like it will anytime soon.