- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
And, just because, let's add the original Core series, like Conroe, to the mix.
No, I am not interesting in comparing performance or features, that is obviously futile.
What I am most interested in, is whether the microarchitecture has changed radically over the generations?
What I've heard is that Intel hasn't truly re-engineered the architecture since Pentium M/Yonah and Nehalem (the latter borrowed from both the P6-derived Yonah and Netburst architecture), at least not to the same degree. I understand they have iterated and enhanced the architecture, but... can the entire recent "Core" series be said to be related to the original Nehalem architecture?
I guess my main question is whether one could say Intel could radically re-engineer the architecture to be a totally new design, and not one that is iterative of past designs?
No, I am not interesting in comparing performance or features, that is obviously futile.
What I am most interested in, is whether the microarchitecture has changed radically over the generations?
What I've heard is that Intel hasn't truly re-engineered the architecture since Pentium M/Yonah and Nehalem (the latter borrowed from both the P6-derived Yonah and Netburst architecture), at least not to the same degree. I understand they have iterated and enhanced the architecture, but... can the entire recent "Core" series be said to be related to the original Nehalem architecture?
I guess my main question is whether one could say Intel could radically re-engineer the architecture to be a totally new design, and not one that is iterative of past designs?