Slashdot Mirror

As for CnQ, I haven't been able to measure any difference in idle power usage whether it's on or off.

If anyone took the care to notice AMD Opteron still beats Xeon. Dual-core Xeons will then be trumped when dual-dore opterons come out in 2007. Check the site http://multicore.amd.com/en/Products/Availability/

Seems to fit all your requirements.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_12264_12262,00.html

There's at least one on ebay for $150.

[*] Here, and all through the BKDG. What do I win?

[*] Here, and all through the BKDG. What do I win?

That sounds like it's the old price; AMD's Processor Pricing list has the 5000+ at US$301 (processor-in-a-box price.)

OK, I could be misinterpreting things here, but I used a P4 524, which draws 84 W, whereas it looks like the 3Ghz Athlon X2 draws 110 W.

A couple of things may be at work here. First there is the AMD vs. Intel lawsuit http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl oadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf that may have loosened Dell's willingness/ability to use AMD in it's line. Second, with Dell being such a large company (the Wal-mart of computer manufacturers) that should set up an ATI vs Nvidia type competition where this quarter it's Intel, next quarter it's AMD with the fastest/best chip. Fun for all! :).

Finally, Dell has a little known linux box (freeDOS). If it can break the Intel stranglehold, maybe M$ is next and we will see preloaded Ubuntu's (sigh's wistfully). I'm all a tingle with these fantasies :)

No.. The Blue Pill refers to creating undetectable malware using AMD's Secure Virtual Machine extensions (aka Pacifica) on AM2 based processors.

In short, what happens is that the malware enables Virtual Machines in the CPU by setting the SVME bit in the MSR EFER register, and puts the OS into a VM. It is then able to hook into all layers of the OS using the VM hypervisor, which controls all processing before the OS can. It doesn't need to install any files and depending on the extents that the malware author goes to hide itself against timing analysis (1:15 difference in execution latency when in VM mode vs native mode), it's pretty darn undetectable.

The question becomes, how do you get this malware to be loaded in the first place? The answer (what the OP is about) is to use raw disk access to the pagefile. By VirtualAlloc()'ing a shitload of RAM and causing all unused drivers to be paged to disk, you can edit the pagefile where those code bits have been swapped to inject malicious code. As far as I can tell, this is the part that the original post is about, not the "Blue Pill" (the AMD VM hack). In all likelihood, MS will disable these critical parts of the kernel from being pagable at all to mitigate this issue (it's already a registry option.)

AMD Virtual Machines Ref: http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/24593.pdf

Joanna's paper should be available here in about two weeks or so.

Until Intel competes on price, AMD will continue to take market share.

Yeah, sure, AMD just popped out of thin air. They were never a new company.

"On May 1, 1969, Jerry Sanders and seven friends founded Advanced Micro Devices in the living room of one of the co-founders." (source)

It's old news now: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_543~110899,00.html

and you'd need a 256-bit 1GHz+ memory interface

I take it you haven't looked at AMD's Opteron chips much, have you?

The first has been mentioned, the most recent Dual Core Processor Driver from AMD's web site.

The second (if that does not work) is to explicitly bind your game to a single core. Start the game and right away hit control-alt-delete. Select the game in the "processes" tab, right-click and select "set affinity" and check only 1 processor.

I too have an x2, nVidia video card and nVidia chipset. I had problems with Everquest2 until I installed the first, and regular Everquest until I did the second (every time you play). My wife has never had a problem with WoW.

AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core or multiple processor systems.

Stop sucking and install the MS hotfix and/or the new AMD core syncing tool

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896256
For the 32bit XP bug that hoses some games on X2

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utili ties/Setup.exe
For the AMD 'dual core optimizer' that fixes the core syncing problem with some crappily coded games.

with these two, there are no game problems with X2.

There's a press conference in 10 minutes over at AMD listed as "AMD & ATI Webcast" here.

We'll see how that goes.

There's a press conference in 10 minutes over at AMD listed as "AMD & ATI Webcast" here.

We'll see how that goes.

After the cuts

After the cuts

http://www.hypertransport.org/products/productdeta il.cfm?RecordID=65
PathScale Infiniband card. Lowest latency infiniband neworking card in existance (1.5 microseconds).

http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?si d=11429
Xilinx card

Articles about HTX and 4x4 (Torrenza) tie in:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200606070 74412.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_5730 ~109409,00.html
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/02/qanda_amd_vp_ran dy_allen/

There are many more, but this is a start.

The Athlon 64 has made AMD hugely profitable this year

No, Athlon 64 made AMD gain market share, if you look at the numbers spinning off their memory division made them the most profit (they cut their cost of sales almost in half).

All modern cpus have bugs. It is common practice to work around them in the compiler rather than retape the chip, an expensive and time consuming process.

Here's a link listing some of the errata known for Athlon processors (counting up to at least 154):
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf

This has been brought up many times. Every chip has a sheet of bugs and the core duo is no exception. Though if you had actually read the sheet you'd notice that almost all of the bugs were found during intel testing and most involved extremely rare scenarios. The amount of bugs reported show only that intel is conducting serious testing. As for not fixing the bugs, do you think AMD is fixing all of the bugs its processors have? http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf There are a number of bugs still in amd processors and even a few are not planned to be fixed. However this is really negligible concern to anyone.

I'm the one that hosted those. I took them down because you can get PDF's from AMD's site now of the presentation: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/InvestorRelatio ns/0,,51_306_14047,00.html

Potential Effect on System: Data corruption leading to eventual system hangs and failures. Long term component reliability problems due to bus contention.

Suggested Workaround: Disable the internal USB controller. An external PCI-USB adaptor can be used if required.

Resolution Status: Fix planned for future silicon revision.

I am now liking the Hurricane LX800. This has a fanless Geode LX, which I think has the nx-bit. It has 2 ethernet and 4 USB-2 ports, onboard video, and much more. It uses only 5.3 watts. Works up to 85 C (that is really hot!). Rated with a 100,000 hours MTBF. With no disk, and 2 USB flash sticks in a RAID/mirror, I should not have hardware failures very often. And it seems the price is under $400.

I assume the "new" ultra-low power chips the OP is talking bout are the Intel will have the L2400 running 1.6Ghz at 15W and the U1400 running 1.2 GHz ~6W http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/bod y_view_core.htm AMD has for some time now had available a 1GHz processor running 6W, and a 1.4GHz running at 16W as part of their Geode line. http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863_10837,00.html So AMD was ahead of the game on this one, but their chips are getting "consistently hotter"? I just think that comparison reeks of easily refutable fanboy dogma.

The Sempron processors are their low end, all sub-$100 from a quick glance at Pricewatch.

Just go to AMD's Enterprise site root and you can guess correct link to Pacifica - AMD's Virtualization Solutions - which is linked from AMD's Business Solutions page.

Their webmastering team needs a spanking though.

Just go to AMD's Enterprise site root and you can guess correct link to Pacifica - AMD's Virtualization Solutions - which is linked from AMD's Business Solutions page.

Their webmastering team needs a spanking though.

Just go to AMD's Enterprise site root and you can guess correct link to Pacifica - AMD's Virtualization Solutions - which is linked from AMD's Business Solutions page.

Their webmastering team needs a spanking though.

You can test it by yourself:

1) Go to http://www.amd.com/
2) Search for "Pacifica" (their upcoming enterprise technology for virtualization)
3) Click on the first link that their search engine returns ("AMD's Virtualization Solutions - Optimizing Enterprise Services")

You get a HTTP 404 error. It has been like this for two months now! What an embarrasment for their marketing dept...

And there's no mention of the estimated launch date of Pacifica processors anywhere on their site (or it's simply too hard to find). People are trying to make spending plans here and one can't get reliable information from AMD about one of its most important enterprise technologies planned for release this year!

They just look amateurish. Sad to say that, since they still have technological advantage over Intel and taking care of good marketing would seem to be a matter of some very simple steps.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl oadableAssets/So32v64-56k.wmv

Nice comparison concerning current 32-bit applications/limitations over 64-bit. If this video is TRUE, then I won't bother with a PPU - my Athlon 64 3000+ may already to be able to handle those extra physics calculations while any WELL-PROGRAMMED game will use any extra resources I have available for extra object/texture/physics rendering.

Sorry, IMHO, PPU is at a loss. Mod down at will.

I'm not sure why TFM didn't link to AMD for their disclosure of the problem, but here it is: http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13965,00.html

Please, no more myths about Intel power hungry designs. Core Duo fixes this for good:

AMD Athlon64
Freq: 2.0 GHz
Tcase: 70 degC
TDP: 89 W

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf

Intel Core Duo Destkop (Yonah)
Freq: 2.16 GHz
Tcase: 100 degC
TDP: 31 W (scale to 70deC like AMD puts you at about 20W).

http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/3 0922102.pdf

Look, if you can't pony up for the dual-core Athlon, and the doubled up GeForce 7900, don't take it out on the game developers. Come on out of the stone age, why don'tcha.

I just have no tolerance for people that let their technology sit around for months without upgrading.

These might help :

http://www.amd.com/

http://www.intel.com/

Hastening the launch date by a couple of weeks isn't too significant, but AMD certainly deserves to be congratulated for (apparently) leaving DRM out of their AM2 microprocessors. In contrast, Intel has succumbed to RIAA/MPAA pressure and betrayed their customers by stuffing Treacherous Computing down their throats.

I'm also happy to see that AMD has not put DRM into its AMD Live! technology, which competes with Intel's DRM-ridden Viiv. I'm sure AMD is taking a lot of heat from the entertainment cartel for not handcuffing users, and I hope they'll continue to keep their products DRM-free.

And let's not forget that AMD has been supportive of LinuxBIOS by actively ensuring that their motherboards can run it.

Ever wonder why Apple choose Intel, not AMD for their x86 products? Especially that 32 bit wanna-be dual core, when AMD's design is so much better?

My answer is that there were two categories of chips in the running: computer chips and potable product chips. By combining both chips in a deal, Apple could leverage much better pricing and have more influence over whoever was their supplier. It's a little known fact but AMD also have an ARM like product based on the MIPS architecture (Alchemy AU1200) which has media extensions. My speculation is that AMD and Intel were both in the running. However AMD lost because its MIPS product was weaker than the StrongARM product, but the Intel CPU was good enough.

The AMD guys certainly don't seem to be sure that AMD64 satisfies this. See this trail.

Further, I suspect that none of the processors support atomic writes of 64-bit values that are not aligned on an 8-byte boundary. If your code has not been written to ensure that values are always on appropriate boundaries (and it's very easy to get this wrong, even if you're aware of the issue), this will probably bite you. At work, we run a lot of software on both Intel and Sparc processors. It is far from unusual to hit SIGBUS exceptions on Sparc because code was written from Intel processors and doesn't worry about writing to unaligned addresses.

Matt

I want to know what X86 cpu they are using that only uses one watt!

I would guess one of those AMD Geode processors:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863_13022,00.html

AMD Geode GX
http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863,00.html

This is truly the stupidest post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Are you high? Almost every business, big or small, has a public fax line you retard. And they print that number on business cards, email signatures, the contact page of their website, and everywhere else they put their contact information.

Here are some fax numbers for you:

http://www.ibm.com/contact/us/
http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom
http://www.intel.com/intel/location/USA.htm
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_ 52_3592_712,00.html

Obviously, the "Fortune 100" companies you've worked for were much bigger than these petty little corporations who have publicly available fax numbers. Since I work for a company that sells fax service among other things, I can tell you there are actually just a few (hundred thousand) more businesses out there who publicly publish a fax number.

Feel free to actually go to the websites of a few of the 99 or 100 Fortune 100 companies that you have never and will never work for and see if they have a fax number available online. Ass.

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds. But I'm going to speak my thoughts come hell or high water and you can choose to be a yes-man (or woman) with nothing to add to the conversation or just beat me with a stick.

I believe that AMD had this technology [wikipedia.org] before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD [pcworld.com] that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation [amd.com] along with their pdf [amd.com] a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.

Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE [wikipedia.org] processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.

The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds. But I'm going to speak my thoughts come hell or high water and you can choose to be a yes-man (or woman) with nothing to add to the conversation or just beat me with a stick.

I believe that AMD had this technology [wikipedia.org] before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD [pcworld.com] that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation [amd.com] along with their pdf [amd.com] a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.

Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE [wikipedia.org] processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.

The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds. But I'm going to speak my thoughts come hell or high water and you can choose to be a yes-man (or woman) with nothing to add to the conversation or just beat me with a stick.

I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation along with their pdf a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.

Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.

The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds. But I'm going to speak my thoughts come hell or high water and you can choose to be a yes-man (or woman) with nothing to add to the conversation or just beat me with a stick.

I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation along with their pdf a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.

Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.

The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.