Single-threaded performance will always be important, as it always increases performance, and, more importantly, very few tasks are "embarrassingly parallel" meaning there is a limit to increasing performance by adding cores.
At one point, that core design advantage is going to disappear, and all the other factors are going to matter more.
also is L1D in STARS exclusive to L2 ( i think it is).
You probably meant inclusive not exclusive. Now moving to an inclusive design could be one reason for smaller physical sizes.
I am pretty sure that L1 cache is exclusive in the STARS architecture. Although it is indeed inclusive in the Bulldozer architecture. L3 is exclusive in both (IIRC)
I think you are missing the point. Why aren't you saying look how high intel needs to clock fewer cores to keep up with AMD? And both statements are not very smart.
There are 2 different philosophies at play here and neither is right and neither is wrong.
One will fit your needs and one will not. Choose the one that works for you.
The question to ask is for your budget, what is the best product. Figure that out, buy it. Period.
This is obvious nonsense, my dear.
Intel needs HT to compete with AMD's number of cores ?
What in the end matters is the following :
Native thread count (HT does NOT count as it's NOT as effective, but you *could* count HT threads if your implementation requires massive threading)
Max monothread power (HT makes you lose a f*ton of that, yes it does )
Max multithread power (AMD and Intel have always been tied at every price point they fight for, with AMD paying for the spot and getting it)
Energy efficiency (Those CPU's are not designed to fit in your gaming rig, they are designed to be Server CPU's and Intel and AMD get a market share of high-end desktop out of cheaper versions of these Server CPU's)
Scalability (again these are not toys, they're server cpu mods)
And, so far :
native thread count : HT Intel > AMD > non-HT Intel
Max monothread power : non-HT Intel > AMD > HT Intel
Max multithread power : tied @ same price
Energy efficiency : Intel > AMD for 1 and 2 socket applications
Scalability : AMD >>>> Intel (yes, Intel never went past dual socket for some reason)
The future is in parallel computing, and nVidia will kill both AMD and Intel on that one, you can be sure.
In that sense, I would place the bet on AMD this time, as they have numerous time shown they are more ready for parallel than Intel.
(AMD dual core vs Core 2 Duo)
(Phenom real quad core vs core 2 quad)
(core i7 copying the multicore architecture first shown by AMD)
(Bulldozer another innovative architecture for multicore die)
Now will it make any difference ... who knows.
You have to remember that Intel only has one single thing now : the core2 core design, which it's been stretching from core 2 duo to sandy bridge and probably ivy bridge too.
At one point, that core design advantage is going to disappear, and all the other factors are going to matter more.
And while they are able to copy multicore designs from AMD, they still release it much later (ideas from the phenom 1 were not integrated in Intel products until the i7 - read actual quad core architecture, imc, ht (rebranded quickpath but who cares)).
The only reason I would bet on Intel is because I know they don't mind getting their hands dirty to keep the business running
^ No, AMD had the idea for a CPU+GPU since at least 2006. So Intel actually stole AMD's idea. (Unless someone can show me that Intel had CPU+GPU plans before AMD.)
^ No, AMD had the idea for a CPU+GPU since at least 2006. So Intel actually stole AMD's idea. (Unless someone can show me that Intel had CPU+GPU plans before AMD.)
^ No, AMD had the idea for a CPU+GPU since at least 2006. So Intel actually stole AMD's idea. (Unless someone can show me that Intel had CPU+GPU plans before AMD.)