Sandy bridge, Ivy bridge, Haswell and the mess of Intel processors feature list

Written by Gionatan Danti on . Posted in Hardware analysis

User Rating:  / 36
PoorBest 

Conclusions

Let me be clear: I have nothing against Intel. They design superb CPUs and they are the technology leader of not only x86 processors, but the entire CPU and CMOS industries.

However, they use their relevant market positions to justify an over-fragmented product line. It is almost impossible to tell if a specific Intel CPU has (or not) a single feature without consulting Intel own ARK database (that, for the record, it is very usable).

AMD is not without sins, either. In the past, AMD tried to use similar strategies, for example limiting their first Socket-754 Semprons to 32-bit code (disabling AMD64 extensions). However, to their merit, they quickly realized that a similar market segmentation is of no help, and lift the 64-bit code restriction. Now they are more or less obscured by Intel CPU performance and so they have no interest in further handicapping their offer, so even a low-end CPU core as Jaguar supports most of the same ISA extensions supported by high-end Piledriver chips, except for FMA/XOP (but, being a completely different architecture with different targets, it is quite understandable. Current Atoms, by comparison, are much behind flagship Core chips).

I very well understand that the situation will hardly change. However, let me rant about this :)

 

Feel free to discuss this article with me writing at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. of using the comment system.

Have a nice day!

Comments   

 
#1 Anastasia Roupakioti 2014-04-21 17:51
Very insightful article! Absinthia Stacy
 

You have no rights to post comments