Reply 40 of 158, by Disruptor
TrashPanda wrote on 2022-10-17, 12:22:
Ah I see another person who hates netburst but fails to realize that the majority of what netburst achieved went on to be integrated into the P3 architecture to become Core series of CPUs. Netburst wasn't a total failure, it was just implemented in a manner it wasn't compatible with and against the stupid speed race of the times.
Netbursts pipeline was a total fail that even got worse up to the 3.8 GHz Preshot with its 81 W power consumption in idle and 148 W maximum.
Of course the future SSE units, second core and hyperthreading could be added to P6 microarchitecture too, but due to Netburst's clock frequency madness the P6 architecture just has survived in mobile market.
The P6 architecture was quite successful in mobile market: Tualatin -> Banias -> Dothan -> Yonah (Core)
The reunification with the desktop line has been done with the Core 2 architecture, named Conroe. It shifted the mobile / core architecture to 64 bit.
Still the Netburst technology is for me a no go due to the immense high power consumption. This was because Intel relied in branch prediction and long pipelines to achieve clock frequency up to 10 GHz. Hyper threading just has been a way to reuse execution units in case of a pipeline stall; however it has prepared the path to multiprocessing on the desktop.
And everything past Netburst is too new for me.