Slashdot Mirror
AMD Announces 65-nm Chips, Touts Power Savings
Several readers wrote in about AMD's entry into the 65-nm manufacturing generation. The company introduced four chips to be manufactured with 65-nm process in the first quarter of 2007 to replace existing 90-nm chips in their lineup. AMD is playing up the power economy of its line, claiming that even its existing 90-nm parts consume less than 50% the power of Intel's Core 2 Duo, averaged over a typical day's usage, while the new 65-nm chips will be even stingier with power. Next stop, 45-nm. The article says that AMD has a goal of catching up within 18 months to Intel's lead on the way to 45-nm technology.
Five blades, err... cores.
...but I plug my laptop in a majority of the time. I'll admit to being a AMD Fanboy, but my new system's going to be conroe based. I can't justify loosing out to the competition by supporting a chip that far behind.
Dang.... nice.
:) (when my current laptop dies or just looks old).
Looking forward to my next laptop being a 65nm Turion X2 in about 2-3 years
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
When do we say enough is enough and just stop this cancerous shrinkage? How small do transistors really have to be?!
It will probably drive down the costs of the Core 2 so many of us can justify buying one.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
I went from a pair of 2.8ghz xeons to a pair of Opteron 250HEs and its a world of diference.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
65 nautical miles per hour? That's pretty fast for a ship.
So if AMD doesn't catch up with Intel by that timeframe, they'd be pretty much screwed, wouldn't they?
Hopefully we can see some Socket AM2 65nm stuff in the retail channel soon.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Intel will be holding still for 18 months while AMD catches up.
That if you actually use it as a laptop, you won't have a problem with it burning your, er, "parts".
I've been in the market for upgrading my system. Currently, I've been running an AMD XP 2500+ [Barton Core], 1GB generic DDR Memory, Seagate 120GB hard drive and a random AGP 8X video card I found laying around [literally].
:-)
This is great news for me. I knew that if I had waited long enough that something nice would come from AMD. I've been waiting for something I can keep turned on all day without draining my pocket too much. I will definitely purchase an X2 65mn processor. I'm not one for paying enormous amounts of cash for a "high end" machine. I just want something newer than what I have. I'll probably give this machine to my youngest brother for something to learn on. He has a system, but is a really old Celeron. Older than this machine.
Also, hopefully this will launch off some nice new Laptops and HTPC machines. I'm currently looking at a Westinghouse LVM-37w3 and a nice cool HTPC to drive it would be a dream.
parent AC is knot funny
until then we get to read about AMD fanboys talking about how much better this is then Intels current line up. Completly ignoring that fact that Intel has plans for the next 18 months as well.
Wait and see what happens, in the mean time buy the chip that you need now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Intel have stolen a march at the moment, basically because they had to, but because they've seen huge improvements by revamping their architecture and going to 65 nm. AMD have been behind in going down to 65 nm (it takes a lot of effort to get the processes in place), but I was always intrigued as to what would happen if they took their existing Athlon 64 architecture, improved it and ran it through a 65 nm process. I guess we'll find out, but I'd expect Core Duo's apparent lead to be pretty short lived. There's nothing inherently brilliant in their architecture, other than them stealing a march on AMD in terms of 65 nm and adding cores like there's no tomorrow, that suggests they're going to have a lead anything like AMD had with the Athlon and Opteron over the ill-fated Pentiums. Cores is the new gigahertz.
AMD still leads Intel by a country mile on budget processors as well. I've heard a lot of price/performance arguments from the Intel camp, but it's just crap basically. The fact is that AMD still produces the most unbelievably cheap processors around, and they're not exactly miles behind the expensive stuff either. Processors like the Sempron have done an awful lot to give people budget, but fast systems.
Quite frankly, on a level playing field I think we're going to find out that Intel's Cores are not quite as good as a lot of people have been raving. AMD's architectures are just a whole lot better.
Are they going to release this for the 939 socket? There is a huge amount of people out there with these boards, and they are still making CPUs for them even though AM2 is the latest and greatest. I personally am running 939 as long as I can because I can't afford to replace all of my DDR with DDR2.
It will give you every answer possible, except that one your looking for.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"nansistor"
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Is anyone as tired of software companies eating up the gain in hardware performance as me? And for what? How about someone writing better software, not just new software. I got sick of buying new hardware just to open the same document because the O/S or new Office suite was bloated/full of shit/required way more horsepower just to do the same task. No Vista for me. I'll stay will XP and Linux on my (older) machines. And if MS forces people to go Vista, I'll go Linux or BSD. If I get new hardware, it will be to make these systems faster, not make new software, doing the same job, run the same speed.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
HT also shines as memory sizes grow larger. One of the problems with the current generation of workstations is that few have enough (and fast enough) memory and memory bandwidth to keep a single core, let alone several, at 100% utilization all of the time. A dual core duo system with four cores, however, would benefit immensely with something like HT and multiple banks of memory.
Like adding a massive parallel vector coprocessor with the Fusion ?
up, that'll definitely differenciate them from Intel. And that's also why they need to catch-up with 45nm soon, in order to be able to cram all this on a single die.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Great. Smaller manufacturing processes are the root of all good. Well, in microchip land, anyway.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It doesn't matter, eventually linux will be the same.
I have a 500MHz Pentium III laptop I use, which was fine with Windows 2000. After they EOL'ed it, I switched to Linux. I am currently running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with Xfce), but as even Firefox and Thunderbird are getting bloated, it's sluggish. I even maxed out the ram (576MB), which helped a little, but I'm going to have to replace it soon.
Any suggestions on laptops with decent linux driver support that wouldn't crap out after 3 years? I'm spoiled by these old Thinkpads.
Will the War in Iraq get better or worse in 2007? Vote here
FTFA:
``AMD's 90-nm/65 watt Athlon 64 X2 chips consumed 47.6 percent the power of a 65-nm Core 2 Duo chip, the company said. A 35-watt X2 consumes 73.3 percent of the power of the same Core 2 Duo.''
So the 35-Watt X2 consumes 1.53 times as much power as the 65-Watt X2? Something is wrong there...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Well the good news is that the 65nm processors will not cost more than their siblings. For example, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in both 90nm and 65nm will sell for $301 in quantities of 1000.
"What Andy [Grove] giveth, Bill [Gates] taketh away."
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
It's about time AMD is getting down to 65nm. Intel has been on 65nm for a long time now and Intel is almost down to 45nm soon.
I am very pleased that AMD are touting power efficiency.
Intel already has a quad-core CPU. AMD don't have any quad-core CPU, they just have dual dual-core systems.
But other than that, I pretty much agree. As has been said for many eyars, brand loyalty is a socially acceptable version of battered spouse syndrome. Products should always be objectively evaluated for suitability to a task. Sometimes one chip is better for a certain task. Sometimes another chip is better. Sometimes the CPU doesn't really matter at all.
Features or efficiency. That's just how it goes. If you want software that does more nifty shit, you have to be willing to throw more horsepower at it. Lynx uses less memory, disk, etc than Firefox, however you certainly aren't going to see me switching. It's not like there is some magic programmers could use but don't to write fast, feature rich software.
Now maybe you long for the days of spartan computing, maybe you want to do nothing but scroll text really fast. That's fine, there's stuff out there to accommodate you. However that's not what most of us want. I want a feature rich system, I want my computer to be everything, do everything. Well for that I need hardware, and I'm willing to pay for it.
It would be like trying to compare frame rates between Ultima 1 and ES4: Oblivion. When you get down to it, Ultima 1 probably has a frame rate as fast or faster than Oblivion. Ultima 1 wouldn't have any trouble running at 30fps or more, even on 286 hardware. Oblivion can run under 30fps, even on an 8800GTX. However you are dealing with a totally different level of graphics. Ultima 1 was made to run in CGA which is 2D, 2-bit (4 colour), 320x200. Oblivion is full 3D with amazingly high geometry, 128-bit FP colour, 2560x1600 with anti-aliasing. Despite the speed being around the same, there is a difference.
While games are teh most pronounced difference, it's still there with other apps. Comparing Office to an old text mode Wordperfect app is meaningless. Ok, maybe for what you do you don't notice any difference, but many of us do. As a simple example, take a highly accurate, learning, in-line spell checker. I love that feature. Well, guess what? That takes resources. You couldn't do that on a really old computer, it just lacks the resources.
So if you are happy with what you have now, great, stick with it, but don't get mad that people want to find ways to use the new power. I do not buy a new graphics card to get higher and higher frame rates, 60fps is enough thanks that's all my screen does. I buy it for more an more features, at the same framerate. Likewise with processing in my computer. Everything is plenty fast now, my computer responds near instantaneously for normal tasks. So what I want is for my computer to do more. I want it capable of doing more complex things. In 1996 my computer played little postage-stamp sized videos, and used nearly 100% CPU to do it. Now it plays fullscreen HD videos and uses nearly 100% CPU (well ok, of one of the cores) to do it. I'm not pissed that it hasn't changed, I'm pleased with the increase in quality, the increase in features.
I take it those 2.8GHz Xeons were based on the old Netburst Architecture (P4). ;-)
AMD did better with the Opteron, but the new Xeon 5100 are Conroe-based.
Conroe vs. Netburst = massive improvement
C - the footgun of programming languages
The good stuff is AM2-only: 65nm and virtualization extensions.
I'd rather see less dense microprocessors. The problem is this big chip manufactuerers make these super dense mammoth race car processors, it concentrates heat in one place, requiring a CPU fan, which is a mechanical component that can and will eventually fail.
I would rather have a motherboard with a CPU design distributed, where the surface area is spread out in such a way, that is completely solid state without any moving parts to fail, namely, a CPU does no require active cooling.
The future lies in completly 100% solid state devices. What does this philosophy mean?
No CPU fans, no power supply fans, no harddrives (flash memory instead), no noise, no moving parts whatsoever. Distributed or minimized waste heat.
Reliability and shock resistance skyrocket. You can seal them inside waterproof and dust proof and fire proof boxes.
I've implemented these kind of computers, at critical network points, and literally you can plug them in FOR YEARS and forget about them.
They are absolutely silent. And absolutely low powered. And totally reliable. All of which, is a very beautiful thing from an engineering standpoint.
These guys need to hire me on their team, because the definition of what is going to be expected in computers is going to radically change in the near future. Computers are going to go under, they are going to become *embedded* in everything with no expectaions of mainenance to them at all and installed in harsh environments. They either work or they fail after decades of use (or preferably, never), and then you replace them.
Reliability is CORE, and to achieve it, computers are going to have to abandon all cruches and become purely solid state devices entombed in indestructible plastic modules.
How often have you ever reformated the drive on your wrist watch? Had to reinstall an OS on your cellphone? Had to replace the CPU fan on your calculator?
I often wondered, why in heck weren't motherboards encased in protective plastic casing, and the same for ISA / PCI / AGP / PCI-x cards. Putting a comptuer together today has become like putting together lego blocks. And each component should be as equally durable and interchangable based on standards as a lego block.
Einstein
http://anarchy-tv.com/
I was EXTREMELY pleased and happy when Intel finally took over the CPU market again with the claim of most powerful consumer CPU. AMD had been at the top for a slight bit too long...after all, what good is competition in a free market if one side is ALWAYS better?
This means AMD is trying even HARDER to make a better chip...it will release, and in a way I am hoping that it STILL isn't better than Intel. Intel continues down it's path and continues to hold the crown for the next couple years.
Then, AMD reclaims it, pushing innovation and the need to claim to have "the fastest" will be reheated again. And next time, who knows...maybe ANOTHER upstart will come around (although I doubt that) that will challenge BOTH Intel and AMD.
I am an AMD fanboi. I have bought nothing but AMD CPU's since the days of the K6, regardless of the power of other procs on the market. And yet I am still very happy Intel is holding the crown. Nothing breeds innovation like having the knowledge that the OTHER guy took the number one spot from you.
Living With a Nerd
But imagine the energy savings on a Beowulf cluster of those things!
That's exactly what you would expect in a demand-driven market: the price is based on actual performance. Maybe buyers really do know what they're doing after all. I guess most chips are bought by either OEMs or computer nerds and neither group is going to be fooled by marketing terms or misleading specs.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I love when AMD has to invent specific test conditions to win via marketing.
"Testing all day."
"Typical usage model."
*yawn*
Get back to us when you have a better design, and not a better marketing department.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
AMD's argument goes like this: modern desktop and notebook processors constantly scale up and down between full speed and an idle state, which AMD has branded "Cool 'n' Quiet". At a given time, pushed to full load by an application, AMD's chips run hotter and consume more power. But across a typical computing day - where a user might check his email or surf the Web - the processor idles more often then not. At idle, AMD's 90-nm Athlon 64 X2 consumes 7.5 watts. Its latest 65-nm chips idle at 3.8 watts. By comparison, the 65-nm Core 2 Duo idles at 14.3 watts. "
Ok, so AMD's spin is that their old processors take less power so long as you don't use them?
Not to mention the fact that they don't know the difference between power and energy, this just sounds pathetic.
use opera seriously, it has lower footprint than alternatives.
T or X series Thinkpads still rock. My T40 is almost 4 years old, has taken a lot of abuse and I have no intention to replace it.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The best example I can think of is (on Solaris, but it applies to Linux and Windows as well) is the web. NCSA Mosaic (yes I used it) was a nice, clean browser, that had very few features. No tabs, no flash, no java, no javascript, etc. It was great at displaying hypertext though, and even supported some simple features like inline graphics and various fonts etc. (And could use helper applications for things like audio, postscript, etc.) Back in 1993 this configuration ran comfortably on a Solaris machine with as little as 16 MB. (On Linux, even as little as 8 MB.)
... and... etc. So now firefox typically is consuming ~1GB RAM, and I periodically have to restart it just to convince it to give me back some memory.
... it crashes fairly consistently for me.)
.... and all that stuff sucks up machine resources like crazy. :-)
Fast forward to today. Now we have tables, flash, java, and that "goodness" (for some value of "goodness"). Oh yeah, and caching, lets add that to boost speed up. And alpha blended PNGs, and
Is this annoying, hell yes!
Do I want to go back to using NCSA Mosiac? Hell no! (There is Opera, but well, that's another issue
A lot of these features add little value beyond aesthetic appeal, but we've become used to them, and frankly, most users are unwilling to go backwards to get them.
I will remind everyone that FreeDOS 1.0 is available, and you can download older versions of Linux and such, so that you can run your ancient software on the latest platforms, and see it go blazingly fast. But even so, most people won't like the result -- the masses want eye-candy, and ease of use, and
FWIW, I think some of my "largest" contributions to projects I've worked with have been "negative lines of code". I.e. by simplifying a project or removing redundant/duplicate code, I've probably removed many thousands of lines of code from the operating systems projects I've worked on. But program managers and marketdroids dont' care about that -- they can't sell "runs in 20% less memory than the last version" as easily as they can sell whatever new feature they're hyping.
Intel introduced the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 chip on the 65 nm process in December of 2005, and in a volume processor, the Core Duo, in January 2006. If AMD will have their 65 nm processor in Q1 '07, that puts them 12-15 months behind.
If they're 18 months behind on 45 nm, then they have a real problem... That actually puts them farther behind Intel than they are now.
Unless they mean they plan on being at 45 nm within 18 months of TODAY. Which, if Intel's roadmaps holds accurate as well, would have AMD only about 6 months behind Intel.
Unfortunately for AMD, Intel is not only getting their 45 nm process done, they're also working on their next-generation core, Nehalem. Which means that by the time AMD comes out with 45 nm of their current architecture, Intel might already be onto a more efficient core.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Sure, performance per watt can be better, but i tend to look at absolute values instead when i measure current.
I have an "old" athlon 64 3400, which handles my current load fine. How much power does it consume at idle and under full load? My guess is that it consumes less than these new chips, or very close. If someone has found out these values, please post them.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I'm running a 14", Core 2 Duo T7400 with 2GB of RAM, everything (including OpenGL/Beryl and wireless, bluetooth is detected but I haven't tested it) running perfectly and natively under Kubuntu 6.10 on a Compal HGL-30 from powernotebooks.com.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
AMD cut prices by an average of 50% on processors using 732/939 sockets in order to push AM2 out the door, not to compete with Intel on ticket price. you seem to know about this push in your second paragraph, but completely ignore it as the cause for the price cut. was it some other-worldly coincidence to you that they happened at the same time?
I got sick of buying new hardware just to open the same document because the O/S or new Office suite was bloated/full of shit/required way more horsepower just to do the same task. No Vista for me. I'll stay will XP and Linux on my (older) machines. And if MS forces people to go Vista, I'll go Linux or BSD. If I get new hardware, it will be to make these systems faster, not make new software, doing the same job, run the same speed.
Golly shucks, I sure agree with you! All this newfangled crap is sooooo worthless. Why, my 80486 SX/33 with 8 MB of RAM runs MS Windows 3.11 and WordPerfect just dandy, thank you! I've stayed away from them overpriced Pent - eh, what's that again?
What is this "Vista" you speak of?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
AMD had a powerful lead over Intel for several years (from when the 939 Athlon64's came out until the Core 2 Duo's came out). Other than AM2 and going to a 90nm process, AMD hasn't really changed their design in 5 years. Which means that they've probably got something pretty damn good in the works.
I just like AMD stuff. I've had 4-5 Intel chips that have broken down either from overclocking or general wear-and-tear, but never an AMD.
Plus the AMD logo is cooler.
Why would you make veiled personal attacks on my intelligence when I make the point that new programs should be coded in a way to not only add benefit, but do it efficiently so as to not require a more powerful system? Or another way, programmers should not always rely on better and faster hardware in order to release new code.
Or did I miss something? Are you really running Windows 3.1 still? No no, I get it. You were being clever! Now wasn't that cute of you.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Same for AMD.
Meanwhile, a price drop was announced by AMD around July 14 specifically stating the following:
Anybody knows if there will be any desktop boards for the TurionX2?
Couldn't find any Turion X2 boards now, and I would really like a microATX one...
the macbook, it's well priced for a core2 system good chassie and linux supports all hardware on it now,
well the webcam is not perfect yet. ok so it is not a gamer system with the intel gfx card but it has really god open source drivers
...and by the time AMD starts 45nm, Intel will be shipping 32nm. AMD isn't going to catch up to Intel, if anything Intel's new 2yr process cycle is going to cement AMD being at least one process gen behind.
Sorry fanboys, facts are facts.
consumption is a much larger issue this time around for my nue laptop. I just got a new HP Turion X2 that has a battery life of about 2 hours. If i am working, less then a hour. -Not even a full movie i bet..
My last HP notebook about 7 years ago got about 4.5 or 5 hours even with the modem running~~
A recent review i read noted the Panasonic Toughbooks being one of the best (i agree, dope machines in deed) They were getting about 4 hours. All the other duel core get approx. 2 hrs or worse. -Now i'm finding myself tethered by a power cord more than a network cable, and that is just fuct./ (!) -very interested in the wireless power info these days.
also solar/inverter manual crank/peddle/pump push/pop whatever...
Kill your TV
My point is this:
Do you remember when Windows 2000 was "good enough"?
Do you remember when Windows 95 was "good enough"?
Do you remember when Windows 3.x was "good enough"?
Do you remember when DOS 5.0 was "good enough"?
I remember all of these stages. The point is not that older software is more or less efficient, or that you are mentally deficient. (I don't actually think you are, BTW) The point is that the bar is constantly changing.
In a year or two, you'll probably be using Windows Vista. Just like you'll probably be driving a different car, and the jacket that you have today that's "good enough" will fall prey to newer stock.
It IS stupid to declare that the newer thingy represents no improvements - what you are really saying is that "Windows XP meets the bar" without acknowledging that the bar will change. New games come out that require DirectX upgrades. Office documents require newer versions of Office. Browsers come out that no longer work with your "old" Windows XP. Printer drivers come out that no longer support Windows XP.
Over time, the utility of your O/S becomes mitigated by a thousand minor factors, as it had long ago with Windows 3.11.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Any suggestions on laptops with decent linux driver support that wouldn't crap out after 3 years? I'm spoiled by these old Thinkpads.
Um, a new Thinkpad? I haven't heard anything negative about the new T60 or the X series machines. Yeah, I'm a little nervous about the Lenovo switch as well. But so far they seem to be catching on to the idea that they need to keep the quality up.
AMD is supposed to ship 45nm in 18 months...and if Intel ships 45nm towards end of '07, that leaves AMD roughly 6 months behind. AMD has been used to lagging Intel in process technology, so I don't see how this is anything new.
It was very interesting that despite Intel moving to 65nm earlier (i.e. Presler, Pentium D), AMD still held the performance crown for quite a while afterwards, despite the fact that it was a 90nm implementation...the K8 design was simply that much better. Now that Intel finally got off their ass, they've got the better design with C2D. Needless to say, '07 will be an interesting year for microprocessors.
A Tech Report article on AM2 chipsets shows that the nForce 590 chipset consumes about 20 watts more than the ATI RD580 (CrossFire XPress 3200) chipset at load. However, the power-hungry nForce 590 chipset has more integrated features: 2 gigabit ethernet chips (RD580 has none), 6 SATA ports (RD580 has 4), and more RAID options. That's probably why most high-end CPU reviews I've seen have used the nForce 590 chipset.
An Anandtech article shows that the Intel 975X chipset consumes about 3-5 watts more than the more current P965 chipset for certain apps, but unfortunately they don't have "load" comparisons. The P965 chipset lacks SLI support, so that's probably why reviewers are using 975X.
So a comparison of platforms that "most people buy" should probably use the Intel P965 chipset and the nForce 570 Ultra chipset. It's too bad review sites tend to use the SLI uber-chipsets.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Most disappointing to me is that the heat dissipation of the E6300 really isn't better than AMD, despite the 65nm and the Pentium M heritage. I suspect that this is because SOI prevents a lot of electon leakage. This makes me think AMD's SOI 65nm will be a whole lot more efficient than Intel's non-SOI.
But for someone who needs a low-end dual-core, the 4200 and the E6300 are about the same on every apples-to-apples comparison, so take a look at motherboards and let that make the decision for you. If you go with Intel, make sure you get a mobo that can overclock. The 6300 can take it.
The AMD processor pricing page seems to indicate that these chips have a total of 512kb cache (2x256kb?), whereas the 90nm Athlon X2's have 1024Mb (2x512kb) cache. Is this true?
I suppose such a move would make sense for reducing power and cost.
Hmm. Well, boycotting isn't the same as disloyalty, but I sure don't care to support intel's marketing tactics. And, as noted, since AMD compares well at actual price points, both for speed and power, I'm not really taking a hit for the boycott.
All this is a big yawn. Two important metrics: Frame rates and http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/ / http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/ .
Also, you want to save big on power, try making mass storage solid state or holographic. Who cares about faster CPUs at the moment when memory needs to get faster and less latent and less reliant on pipelining and more geared towards faster random access and throughput along with faster mass storage without moving parts.
AMD: Losing in SPEC after having a huge lead and having the superior HyperTransport architecture (direct descendant of the EV7 bus from Alpha's glue-less SMP).
AMD is now a partner with WildTangent, what a joke. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
Also, AMD bought ATI and is seriously de-focused - I'm deeply saddened that Intel wont be getting the same level of competition as before because it seems to me AMD/ATI are not headed in the right direction.
PS: Ever notice Intel "VIIV" is VI IV or 6 4 in roman numerals? Lol, right.
I'm no Intel shill, but these new Conroe/Woodcrest CPUs, well, try them out. You'll see.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Nothing Intel does with regards to marketing is different in kind than AMD's approach. They may differ in the extent to which they push a specific strategy, but they both have the same sorts of plans on the table.
The history of the general purpose CPU marketplace has shown time and again that sometimes next generation processors aren't all they're made out to be. Itanic, anyone?
Itanic was certainly marketed as a next generation chip. But rather than argue whether it was or not, I'll just point out that aside from the example you yourself listed there are many others as listed in my subject line. Those are the ones I can think off the top of my head.