If AMD actually delivers a consistent performance boost at either figure (20 percent or 35 percent) for any type common server workload, it will be a huge achievement. Evolutionary processor designs don't typically deliver this type of speed increase across the board; such unilateral gains are typically reserved for new simultaneous platform refreshes and/or CPU architectural debuts. When questioned on how Shanghai could deliver such improvements over Barcelona while remaining an evolutionary design, AMD emphasized a number of changes the company made back when Shanghai had yet to tape out. In the rush to deliver Barcelona, Patla implied, the company had actually gotten ahead of itself, and wrote finis to the project before it should have. When it came time to build Shanghai, AMD made a conscious decision to step back, take its time, and emphasize design over speed. This slower, more deliberate design process has resulted in a better processor, with Shanghai delivering at the top end of the target specifications AMD had set for it. This is not 2007's Barcelona.
"Xerox was working in their lab on a graphics user interface, it was Steve Jobs who saw the demo and decided to incorporate it into Apple MacIntosh."
LOL....is that what they call corporate espionage and sniping another company's technology nowadays: "incorporating"?
Xerox was working in their lab on a graphics user interface, it was Steve Jobs who saw the demo and decided to incorporate it into Apple MacIntosh.
Who deserves the most credit? Xerox for experimenting with it, or Apple who actually wrote the code and came out with a working product for the masses?
Same with 64bit/32bit compatability. Intel was fiddling with it, but it took AMD to actually do it.
Also, Intel was 32bit design with 64bit extensions; AMD designed 64bit as the main architecture from the start, with 32bits only for compatability purposes. Big difference
<<I am talking about the original p7, 64 bit extensions for x86 from Intel.>>
LOL. Intel never produced P7 Yamill, but gave up on it and went with 64bit only Itanium. It was an Intel wet dream.
I said in my post many of the AMD innovations had been around earlier, mostly in niche products but P7 wasn't even a niche product; it was a lab exercise. My earlier post stands. AMD was the first to integrate all these features into a cross platform architecture, and 64 bit/32bit compatability was the ONLY product with it out the door, until Intel later copied it 100% for Core.
" In 1994 the Santa Clara team dropped all work on the 64 bit x86 processor design called P7 and started on the first implementation of the new IA-64 architecture arising from the Intel-HP alliance, a processor later known as Merced. The Merced project adopted the P7 designation, and its troubled offspring is targeted to reach the market later this year under the name "Itanium".
<<<x64 32 bit compatibility was created at Intel years before AMD ever had it. >>
What Intel product are you referring to? The only older Intel 64 bit hardware I'm familiar with is Itanium and 32 bit Pentium. Two separate products/markets. Intel always said desktop didn't need 64 bit.
Do you mean software emulation? If so, it's been around forever, but because it's so slow had very limited appeal
"An AMD spokesman confirmed today that the company has started shipping production-quality Shanghai chips to OEMs so they can make final validations."
If AMD actually delivers a consistent performance boost at either figure (20 percent or 35 percent) ..............
That sounds very familiar.... Wait, AMD claimed Phonem would beat Kentsfield by 40%. It ended up that fastest Phonem is slower than slowst Q6600, isn't it?
Plus, you left out some of the good stuff.
"For all its strengths, those of you hoping Shanghai will vault Penryn entirely and drop squarely into Nehalem territory may well be disappointed. AMD told Ars this week that Shanghai is explicitly and directly targeted at Intel's quad-core, Penryn-based Harpertown processor. When queried on how the new chip will perform against Dunnington, AMD stated that relative performance between the two should be "good," but didn't indicate any miracles would be forthcoming. As for Nehalem, AMD emphasized the fact that Intel's next-generation processor will initially only be available in single and dual-socket configurations, while it intends to offer Shanghai in 1P, 2P, and 4P systems straight off the launchpad. Read between the lines, and the company is saying: "Don't look at our 1P or 2P performance, because we may well get slaughtered." AMD also has its own Dunnington competitor in the works, but don't look for the chip anytime soon; Sunnyvale's hexa-core processor won't arrive until Q4 2009."