Originally Posted by Messiah
Looks like a common-sense way of designing the memory controller.
Makes you wonder why they didn't design it that way the first time around?
I believe that Intel was the first to have an integrated memory controller some years ago on more specialized cpus.
But it wasn't always such a benefit. It's only become one once performance required such great memory bandwidths. Even then, Intel could keep up using large caches.
But at some point, when dual core came out, that was no longer possible, a faster method was required.
But otherwise, having a separate controller had benefits that on die models lacked.
That was being able to come out with a new cpu without having to have a new controller at the same time. The opposite thing was true as well. This kept development costs and times down, allowed Intel to produce chips more quickly than the competition.
What really caused Intel to fall behind AMD for a while wasn't so much AMD having the controller on die, it was the problems Intel had gotten themselves into with the concept behind Netburst. They thought their superior proces technology would carry them way beyond their competitors, but when 90 nm hit, that high speed hurt them the most.
Anyway, that battle has been won.