Actually AMD is the only one currently with native quadcores on the market whereas Intel will have natives with the nehalem architecture. Both will need to glue them together for an octo core.
Sure, AMD does have native quad four already but only on 65-nm, right? I believe 45-nm is impressive because its virtually impossible to do using SiO2... so Intel have changed the process to use Hafnium instead.
AMD is actually very close to 6 and 8 cores. Their architecture is robust even if it isn't as efficient clock-for-clock as Intel's current stuff. AMD needs 45nm manufacturing to shrink the chips to a point where adding more cores makes sense.
Intel applies their tick-tock approach to core count increases too. Tick and they take two single-core dies and glue them together. Tock and they properly mate them in a true dual-core solution on a single die. Tick and they glue two dual-core dies together. Tock and they make a proper quad-core solution.
AMD's approach is to only ever put out a "proper" solution. This has advantages and disadvantages. The big disadvantage is cost. They're building one single die that is double the size. This double their failure rate; they're twice as likely to produce a bad die because there is twice as much surface area. The advantage, however, is that it's a more efficient solution, using less power (and producing less heat).
Intel's approach has the advantage of cost. The dual-core dies are produced separately and working ones are glued together. Their yields are the same as before, and they waste less silicon. It's especially easier to produce higher performing parts, something AMD has had serious issues with when it comes to the Phenom (and their only-true-multicore approach is probably part of the problem). So Intel can push their parts faster (and cheaper) due to better yields. They can also get their parts out far sooner, as much less R&D is required for the initial product. The disadvantage is that they're less efficient, producing more heat and drawing more power.
Anybody who simply dismisses Intel's approach just because they're gluing two dies together obviously hasn't evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. I, for one, prefer Intel's approach; at the moment, it's producing faster cheaper chips sooner at the expense of heat/power, which eventually gets corrected.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
initialxy @ Mar 18th 2008 6:58AM
wow nice, AMD is seriously in trouble. they are nowhere near 8 cores, aren't they?
broli @ Mar 18th 2008 8:49AM
Actually AMD is the only one currently with native quadcores on the market whereas Intel will have natives with the nehalem architecture. Both will need to glue them together for an octo core.
Scott Equine @ Mar 18th 2008 8:52AM
Sure, AMD does have native quad four already but only on 65-nm, right? I believe 45-nm is impressive because its virtually impossible to do using SiO2... so Intel have changed the process to use Hafnium instead.
stretchsje @ Mar 18th 2008 9:11AM
AMD is actually very close to 6 and 8 cores. Their architecture is robust even if it isn't as efficient clock-for-clock as Intel's current stuff. AMD needs 45nm manufacturing to shrink the chips to a point where adding more cores makes sense.
Jim Bob @ Mar 18th 2008 10:27AM
Robust architecture is nice and all, but they're not delivering.
Adam Zey @ Mar 18th 2008 3:22PM
Intel applies their tick-tock approach to core count increases too. Tick and they take two single-core dies and glue them together. Tock and they properly mate them in a true dual-core solution on a single die. Tick and they glue two dual-core dies together. Tock and they make a proper quad-core solution.
AMD's approach is to only ever put out a "proper" solution. This has advantages and disadvantages. The big disadvantage is cost. They're building one single die that is double the size. This double their failure rate; they're twice as likely to produce a bad die because there is twice as much surface area. The advantage, however, is that it's a more efficient solution, using less power (and producing less heat).
Intel's approach has the advantage of cost. The dual-core dies are produced separately and working ones are glued together. Their yields are the same as before, and they waste less silicon. It's especially easier to produce higher performing parts, something AMD has had serious issues with when it comes to the Phenom (and their only-true-multicore approach is probably part of the problem). So Intel can push their parts faster (and cheaper) due to better yields. They can also get their parts out far sooner, as much less R&D is required for the initial product. The disadvantage is that they're less efficient, producing more heat and drawing more power.
Anybody who simply dismisses Intel's approach just because they're gluing two dies together obviously hasn't evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. I, for one, prefer Intel's approach; at the moment, it's producing faster cheaper chips sooner at the expense of heat/power, which eventually gets corrected.