Page 2 - Bus Speed Vs Processor

WOW!

You guys really went off-topic on this one. The original post was asking about bus speed and you guys took off on AMD vs the world.

Anyway back to the original post.

Both AMD and Intel have the same bus speed for the current generation of chips. both are at 200 MHz. Don't be confused by Intel's quad-pumped bus or AMD's Hyper transport...both brands work on a basic 200MHz bus.

As far as bus speed vs processor speed, you need both. That is why in overclocking you get better results by raising the front side bus...increasing memory throughput than raising the processor's base multiplier.

Holy shit archnaid, how complicated can it be to comprehend my posts? Everything I say confuses you for god sakes. Never seen anything like that in my life. Got it?

In the first bit of my post, I simply said that monopole is not a word in English as far as I know. What dragon-fly was referring to was monopoly. I was just toying around with him because I knew that it was just a typo.

Second of all, monopolies are illegal. Look it up. It's not confusing at all. The only reason AT&T took so long to get split up was because the governement and population need a stable telecommunications provider. Again, do some reading.

As for Intel having finer etching capabilities than AMD, you should be able to understand what I mean. You must etch the wafers using a fine laser. That's how you make CPUs. Intel has the capabilities to etch 65nm transistors while AMD is still stuck on 90nm, not to mention that Intel has one plant that is currently outfitted with 40nm capabilities for testing purposes.

So, in conclusion, monopolies are illegal and Intel can make processor using more refined processes because they have traditionally better at production than AMD... Should there be any confusion... I don't even know what to do then.

It's called semiconductor lithography, it doesn't use lasers (generally ultraviolet light is used), and Intel only has the capability right now to produce chips at the smaller size - it's not that AMD doesn't have the tech, they do, they just haven't been able to implement it yet. There's that whole AMD/IBM deal, remember? So, before you get pissed off and start acting all high and mighty, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about first, okay?

I thought I knew what you meant, but I wanted to clarify before discussing it. Makes sense, no?



Now, if you'd stop taking things so personally, and stop interpreting things the way you want them to be... But whatever. I'm not going to pick a fight here.

so if what you are saying is correct, what i saw in an Electrical engineering lab is the same thing intel is doing? thats quite interesting... its actually pretty basic might i add... i was sure the big companies would use some more advanced stuff but its its simply a lamp shining on a stoopid piece of glass with some odd photosensitive resin, im just going to laugh my arse off.

I know you are not trying to attack me personally, it's just that it gets kind of annoying sifting through your excessively long posts explaining how you didn't understand what people said. You've done this to me a few times now, and I've seen you do it to others. If we manage to understand people who speak other languages and use translators then I would imagine you could figure out what I mean when I say simple things such as that.

And I know that it's called lithography, but they still etch the wafers, they don't lithographatize them. linky

Oh, one last thing. I'm going to take a little of a wild guess here, but would you happen to be a little brother perchance?



Well, it's actually the same priciple but different at the same time. They start off with really precice lasers and then refine them using fliters that are 90nm/65nm/40nm wide. IBM has just discovered that if you pass the lasers through a "special" liquid you can scale this further...