What is socket am3

The AM3 socket also allows AMD to further increase the CPU bus speed — the rate at which the processor can internally manage data — compared to older sockets.

Second, performance with the AM3 processor will be reduced on the older chipset. First, like the previous designs, socket AM3 utilizes a zero insertion force ZIF protocol, meaning the chip will simply drop into place once correctly positioned on the motherboard, reducing the chance the CPU could be damaged during installation.

Second, the design of the sockets is so similar that CPU coolers designed for the older chipsets can be used on AM3 motherboards and vice versa. All of these processors are for desktop only and are manufactured on a nanometer process.

That was the sixth generation. They can't execute x86 instructions effectively, so they break it down to RISC type operations, and then execute it. They pay the penalty of adding additional stages in the pipeline which slows down the processor greater branch mispredict penalty , adds size, and uses power. If they are equal, why would anyone take this penalty?

Admittedly, the terms aren't carved in stone, and the term can be misleading, as it's not necessarily the number of instructions that defines RISC. Even so, there are clear differences. RISC has fixed length instructions. CISC generally does not. RISC has much simpler memory addressing modes. The main difference is, RISC does not have microcoding to execute instructions - everything is done in hardware.

Obviously, this strongly implies much simpler, easier to execute instructions, which make it superior today. However, code density is less for RISC, and that was very important in the 70s and early 80s when memory was not so large. Even now, better density means better performance, since you'll hit the faster caches more often. This article is also wrong about 3D Now! In reality, 3D Now! Games, or other software that could use 3D Now! It was relatively small to implement, and in the correct workloads could show dramatic improvements.

But, of course, almost no one used it. The remarks about the dual bus are inaccurate. The reason was that motherboard bus speeds were not able to keep up with microprocessors speeds starting with the DX2.

Intel suffered the much slower bus speed to the L2 cache on the Pentium and Pentium MMX, but moved the L2 cache on the same processor package but not on the same die with the Pentium Pro. The purpose of having the separate buses was that one could access the L2 cache at a much higher speed; it wasn't limited to the 66 MHz bus speed of the motherboard.

The Pentium Pro was never intended to be mainstream, and was too expensive, so Intel moved the L2 cache onto the Slot 1 cartridge, and ran it at half bus speed, which in any case was still much faster than the memory bus.

That was the main reason they went to the two buses. That was as far as I bothered to read this. It's a pity people can't actually do fact checking when they write books, and make up weird stories that only have a passing resemblance to reality. And then act like someone winning this misinformation is lucky. Good grief, what a perverse world Yes you are correct on the bus issue.

You can patent and trademark a slot design.