poopeater said:
It doesn't matter. The 'problems' you speak of do not show themselves in any way shape or form in Intel's silicon. For you to call Intel Silicon 'low quality' just because it doesn't have some feature, which has no impact whatsoever on the actual product, is simply idiotic.
So, if Intel can beat AMD in EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY using their 'crappy' silicon process, then what does that really say about AMDs products? Even with all the svelte and sexy technology that they supposedly use, they can't turn out a product that competes in the same arena.
It realy depends on the market.
At this moment, in the desktop and laptop market, using both single and dual core tech intel is no doubt the leader.
Even the lowest end core2 cpu's can rival amd's FX62 top desktop part.
SOI is a nice tech allowing AMD to push their cpu's higher, but core2 definately proves there are other ways. Core overclocks way higher then any AMD cpu to date.
As for AMD's integrated memory controller. It is the way of the future, intel already acknowledged that and they are working on their own IMC, but in the mean time FSB tech , FOR DESKTOPS, isn't dead yet. Again core 2 proves this.
However, in the server market, opeteron is and will remain king.
Simply because current intel tech isn't scalable. Kentsfield, intel's quad core server chip, returns to the old and slow "glue 2 conroe cores on the FSB" way. a 2way 8 core system will have 2 sockets for 2 kentsfield cpu's wich are again merged on the front side bus ..
Those awesome kentsfield cores will be starved to death on an overcrowded FSB.
AMD has ccHT to connect cpu's together trough a ringbus, wich makes the systems scale very good.
Socket F K8L is even rumoured to have ccHT2, allowing p2p connection of upto 16cpu's (quad core ? = 64cores )
there's no way a FSB based system can match this.