Nehalem is the CPU which needs a smaller heatsink, right?
Then we've got one in our test room
The heat sink looks radically small when compared to a Presshot's heatsink... yet it doesn't get that hot either when I test it with HotCPU.
No, the Nehalem-based CPUs currently are the Intel Core i7 range (socket 1366), Intel Core i7 range (socket 1156) and Intel Core i5 range (socket 1156). The stock heatsink for the Core i7 920, at least, is larger than the stock heatsink for my Q6600.
The Wolfdale CPUs had smaller heatsinks (the E8XXX series in particular).
That is the here and now and only taking into account the maximum performance you can get from the CPU.
It does not take into account the upgradeable of the platform, the cost for performance nor the reasons how they got that architecture to perform so well.
DDR3, 3 PCI-e slots, Crossfire and SLI support, SATAII (SATA3 coming soon), USB3 coming soon.
Core i9 CPUs scheduled for Q1 2010.
I'd say the platform is rather upgradeable, wouldn't you? And that's just the X58 platform, the P55s (the mainstream segment) are even more so.
As for the cost for performance, I refer you
here.
As for the reason why the architecture is performing so well versus the Core 2 architecture, I refer you
here.
But hey, if you like buying pirated DVD titles from the guy on the street corner then by all means go for it.
Don't really see the relevance of buying pirated DVDs being brought into an argument regarding superior architectures
The post I made is to give BACKGROUND and HISTORY on why intel is bad.
I did not challenge your views on Intel's background and history, but rather your claim that AMD has a superior architecture.
Did you read the part about benchmarks and kids with too much money ?
I did. Did you read my link where the 3.4GHz PhenomII gets outperformed consistently (save for one test) by a lower-clocked Intel Core i7? If AMD did have a superior architecture it should've been the opposite. And classifying people who bought Nehalem-based CPUs (which includes me) as "kids with too much money" is a bit presumptuous I'd think.
Intel did not just copy the integrated memory controller concept from AMD with the Nehalem CPUs as you stated ("the same old intel junk with an integrated memory controller"), it has many new architectural changes. I ask you to please peruse the links that I provided.
It's a good thing Intel's R&D department magically made the Core i7 CPUs faster in benchmarks ("getting slightly better benchmark scores" as you said) and real-word applications (I refer you to the links provided) as that encourages AMD to remain competitive which is good for the consumer
EDIT: In the past (thinking Athlon vs NetBurst P4) AMD did indeed have a superior architecture, however since the introduction of the Core 2 architecture the balance has shifted.
Sign up with Google
