Date: 02/06/08 (Computer Geeks)    Keywords: no keywords

AMD makes a 45 nm comeback against Intel's Penryn
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/05/analysed-amd-nm-comeback-vs

Best case, of course, is Bloomfield Nehalem out - probably at not much more than 3.2 GHz, but a fast 4-core, 8-thread monster with native integrated memory controllers, QuickPath and 3-channel DDR3-1600 memory subsystem. Expect it to be at least as fast as a 4 GHz Yorkfield, and twice that in memory benchmarks.

Talk about Yorkfield, that is the "worst case". Assume that Intel doesn't move at all - they could still use the existing steppings to ship 3.6 GHz / FSB1600 (multiplier 9x) Yorkfields without any problems.

Let's give AMD a headstart then. How would a 3.2 GHz DDR2-1066 45 nm, 6 MB cache Phenom, AMD's best case this September, compare with Intel's 3.6 GHz FSB-1600 Yorkfield, their worst case that same month?

Based on the existing benchmarks, a 2.6 GHz DDR2-800 Phenom 9900 is, on average, 15%-20% behind 2.66 GHz FSB1333 Yorkfield Q9450. Assume that, on aver age, the above mentioned 3.2 GHz 45 nm AMD part would perform some 35% better than the Phenom 9900 - a generous allowance, shurely. Also, give the 3.6 GHz Intel, say, 30% extra over the Q9450.

The result, after a bit of rounding: Intel would still be some 10% - 15% faster, except for the memory benches. And that ignores completely at least two major steppings they'd do in such period of time on the Penryn dies - if the 65 nm history is any guide, we should expect at least a 10% direct frequency jump at the same voltage or even TDP in that process, with corresponding high-MHz yield increases.

Source: http://community.livejournal.com/computergeeks/1149480.html