Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Indeed, but what's really important is who got to market first, and Intel beat AMD by a huge leap. That wasn't really necessary in terms of performance, only when the Phenom II X4 940 came out did Intel have competition against any of their 45nm products, but it had a dramatic effect on power consumption.

---

Originally posted by Sophocles:

---

Interesting (yawns to self) debate, but no one has really provided any links to verify just who was the first to design a 45nm CPU. If I had to choose sides I would have to go with Intel since there were rumours that go back at least a year before they released their first which was in turn released more than a year before AMD released on. Any company can spin a yarn about having a working processor but until they actually release one it is all vapor, smoke and mirrors. AMD announced that they were going to release one in 2007 but it was a year later before it happened.


AMD indeed was the first to release a true monolithic Quad and I expect more first from AMD because they are true innovators. Without them many of us would still be running some variant of the P4.

AMD's first 45NM chip was released in November of 2008 or about 8 months ago. By then I had already replaced my 45NM E8400 with an E9650 and Q9550 EO stepping. In the end however none of it matters. All that I want to know is which overclocks the best and provides the most performance. I don't overclock for sport I do it for practical reasons such reencoding Blu-Ray to fit on a standard single or dual layer disc.

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/605178/am...-45nm-cpus.html

Quote:

---

Intel first to demonstrate 45 nm silicon

---

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-a...30.html

---

Quote:

---

And Intel intends to keep its lead: While a 32 nm technology
is currently developed in its research labs, the company today announced that it is holding the first working 45 nm silicon in its hands.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

if amds was fulyl working itd be up for retail buy.

---

Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

AFAIK the latest batch of Phenom I X4s still available has had a lot of bugs fixed, OC a little better, and perform decently. I think for the right price they can still be a somewhat good purchase. Sure they suck power, but if that doesn't matter to you then by all means consider one.

EDIT: Also consider how decent the 7750BE is. Just think of that in quad core.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Realistically, the triple core Phenom IIs beat out pretty much all the Phenom I Quad cores even in multi-threaded applications, they're worthless, leave them behind. You can't buy many of them in the UK any more, and the 9950BE at one site is practically the same price as a Q8200 at another...
The 7750BE is a decent dual core, but a Quad core, again it would be outclassed. Most of the reviews can't get the 7750s to overclock at all well, and Russ has had his fair share of problems with that, so they're really judged on stock merits alone, which isn't great, since even with the cache advantage of having the quad's full amount as a dual core, they're at the low end value sector of the market. Great if you paid the £45 for one and got it working as a quad core, but for those who didn't, it's just a dual core. One worth having, but I still disagree with Shaff that these are the world's best CPUs just because a small proportion of people can get quads out of them.

Russ: Read any reviews lately? You're not alone in not being able to get past 3.2Ghz with your 7x50.

---

Quote:

---

Intel didn't demonstrate anything! By their own words:

---

Quote:

---

In contrast to AMD?s focus on design, Intel is clearly playing to their long standing expertise in material sciences and manufacturing. On Thursday, Intel held a briefing to demonstrate their advances at 45nm. While most people have read that Intel recently booted four operating systems on the first silicon from the 45nm shrink of the Core microarchitecture (codenamed Penryn), what is more interesting is the underlying silicon that Penryn was fabricated on. Intel?s presentation described advances in their 45nm process; the first commercial manufacturing process to use high-k gate dielectrics and metal gate electrodes. The combination of the two will give Intel a significant advantage for the lifespan of their 45nm process, by substantially reducing leakage and improving performance. This article focuses on the background, technical details and importance of Intel?s 45nm developments.

---

Originally posted by Sophocles:

---

@Russ

Quote:

---

Intel didn't demonstrate anything! By their own words:

---

Actually they did, now you provide a link where AMD demonstrated an early working unit.

http://blog.pcnews.ro/2006/01/26/intel-f...ing-45nm-chips/

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/..._technology.htm

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT012707024759


They had one in the market by January 07.

Quote:

---

In contrast to AMD?s focus on design, Intel is clearly playing to their long standing expertise in material sciences and manufacturing. On Thursday, Intel held a briefing to demonstrate their advances at 45nm. While most people have read that Intel recently booted four operating systems on the first silicon from the 45nm shrink of the Core microarchitecture (codenamed Penryn), what is more interesting is the underlying silicon that Penryn was fabricated on. Intel?s presentation described advances in their 45nm process; the first commercial manufacturing process to use high-k gate dielectrics and metal gate electrodes. The combination of the two will give Intel a significant advantage for the lifespan of their 45nm process, by substantially reducing leakage and improving performance. This article focuses on the background, technical details and importance of Intel?s 45nm developments.

---

Don't get me wrong I'm still a big supporter of AMD. Remember when you were rooting for Intel and I recommended that you consider AMD? Back when I had three AMD rigs with two that had dual core Opterons?

---

Quote:

---

With your above examples, the first two pertain to memory chips (SRAM), not microprocessors.

---

Quote:

---

Here's a link from Dec. 2006 on the Barcelona Quad.

---