I would just like to get a word in before the AMD/Intel fan boys start slinging again!

Good for us consumers! I sincerely hope that in the next processor development cycle AMD can produce something really good to keep Intel honest and on their toes.

OK look... before I get accused of being a fan boy I have owned an Athlon, Athlon X2 and Opteron at home.

Having said that

*Gauntlet Voice* AMD is about to die.

*giggle*

Good Preemptive Strike, by Intel and the opening poster.

It is my belief that Nehalem will initially be released on 45nm - before moving to the 32nm process.
When are we likely to see the 45nm processors?

[Penryn is 45nm and will launch on 11/12. Nehalem will launch on 32 nm, but move to 32 nm in late 2008/ early 2009. -ed]

and one step still behind Intel, share holders won't be happy, AMD's share price will drop after today's announcement by Intel. I really hope AMD can pull a hat trick and have 45nm quad cores on the market by Q2 next year, or else it'll be clear the game is up for AMD now Intel can produce smaller (thus cheaper) cpu's.

AMD triple-core desktop cpu is a good idea for one reason. Most software (games!) can't utilize all four cores, so turn one core off, power drops, power difference can be used for overclocking, meaning games get the boost where it is really needed by getting rid of core redundancy. Still on the marketing front still it seems like a bad idea!

I just got a Q6600...

SUPREME VICTORY!

for Intel..(Killer Instinct)

This is good for me. I upgrade once a year (usually Feb) so I should be able to get a good processor for cheap since they are launching earlier.

"Most software (games!) can't utilize all four cores, so turn one core off, power drops, power difference can be used for overclocking, meaning games get the boost where it is really needed by getting rid of core redundancy. Still on the marketing front still it seems like a bad idea!"

You've got that completely arse about face, if software doesn't utilise 4 cores, it won't utilise 3 either. The fact is that 3 core processors are 4 cores that didn't meet spec, so how are they going to be good overclockers?

On the marketing front it's a brilliant idea. It means AMD can sell silicon that otherwise would have gone in the bin, they can probably price it just above a dual core, but it has 3 cores = better (in the mind of average joe - it's one louder).

I think the glaring difference between Intel and AMD is that Intel shows technologies and releases them ahead of schedual. AMD talks about technologies but releases things months later. Intel is completely smothering AMD in all price segments and it looks like they have failed to surpass Intel by stealing the flagship crown. I have a feeling they will never get back that crown.

Intel is relentless and will use every single tool they have as the title of this article implies. More fabs. More money for R&D. More incentives for 3rd parties to make Intel boxes. Too many arms swinging at AMD.

We have yet to see any real benchmarks from Tom's Hardware on AMD QUAD. If those fail to surpass Intel now how can they expect to pass just on raising frequencies? I just can't see it happening.

Does Toms Hardware even posess one of these processors for testing yet? Are they benchmarking now? Editor...please let us know.

I've been an AMD fan since their A64's, but seeing Intel moving and developing so fast, presenting real products rather than concepts (Fusion and such) makes me think about AMD's future.
I hope not, but i think AMD's only future will be in the budget market, gone is their leadership.

Is there any information about which Socket these will come out for? Will 45nm processors come out on the LGA775 or will they make a new one? Im thinking about upgrading very soon and wondering if it is worth the wait for a new socket or I can just upgrade my LGA775.

Sun will buy AMD in less than 2 years.

Well, as much of a AMD fanboy I am I have to admit Intel is pumping out new and exciting tech faster than ever. So far though I'm still not convinced that the decrease in die size mean instant superior performance. Yes cheaper on making processors, but until I see huge differences simply based on the switch from 65nm to 45nm to 32nm then I'll be convinced.

To comment on siro post, I don't think it'll be all that bad if AMD moved into a budget processor segment, even if they don't ever reclaim their performance crown I'm sure they'll always have products that compete with intel's. So I don't see that as being all that bad especially since AMD grew from this market sector anyhow.

To stay on topic, I'm really curious to see how Intel does with an integrated memory controller. Who knows maybe Intel can even beat AMD at their own game. Currently though I'm happy with my current computer setup running an AMD processor, but around this time or earlier next year I may have to move over to Intel if Intel shows clear dominance over AMD price for performance wise at least. I still have hope in AMD so good luck green guys.

AMD Phenom = Nov
Intel Penryn = Nov

Lets look at AMD advantages:
built in memory controller, 1 die not 2 glued together, DDR2/3 in large memory configurations instead of highly expensive special memory.
AMD phenom is faster/clock then Penryn and also more energy efficient, while Penryn will have higher released speeds AMD will have pretty good 2.4-2.6Ghz at release with 3 Ghz not so far after release.
Phenom has reached speeds of 3.7 Ghz in the lab(real speeds not consumer overclocks)
while Penryn have possibly 3.4-3.6Ghz speeds.
Intel is stil a year away with Nahalem while AMD has native quad core in Nov.
Phenom and Penryn will be a close battle, with AMD actualy ahead of intel because of the memory controller and architecture and hardly a year back.. in about 2-4months we will see what the superior product is :) My bet is defenetly AMD, though im an Intel fanboi since my 3200 days. now Nahalem: 4-8 cores, AMD will also have 4-8 cores, they will both be one die(unless intel cheat and puts 2 quad core dies).
Intels memory controller will be interesting to see, and Intel is catching up to AMD energy efficiency about a year after them, also Intel is catching up with AMD engineering and manages to produce native quad core. AMD seem to stil have 45nm at this time though i could be wrong at that.
imo Intel is behind AMD, Intel does not have native quad core until Nahalem, Intel does not have integrated memory controller until Nahalem, Intel relies on greatly more expensive and powerhungry memory solutions for more then 4slots memory configurations. theoreticly max DDR2/3 memory for Phenom is 64-128GB, thats using DDR2/3 memory not special memory, from AMD documents this is stil unsecure on the correct amount but the 4-memory-slot days are over with Barcelona architecture ;)
my G0 Q6600 @3.6Ghz will suffice until next gen :D maybe go AMD as id hate having to buy special memory for the dual socket,16 memory slot beasts that are coming ;) for now Intel nvidia ftw!

A note on the triple core since everyone is mentioning it here as well, yes it may not seem like the greatest idea but it still is pretty ingenious whether by intention or not. Although, if I'm not mistaken I was pretty sure that processorS and other computer tech that follows suit with disabling certain parts could still be overclocked or clocked to what they were capable or just short of that anyhow. I mean gosh everyone is acting like this using reject parts for one segment to use in other is brand new. I mean its not like there are whole products lines made of of products like this.

To comment on kansur's quote "We have yet to see any real benchmarks from Tom's Hardware on AMD QUAD. If those fail to surpass Intel now how can they expect to pass just on raising frequencies? I just can't see it happening." Hmm, I dunno I haven't been around processor very long(cough cough) but I was pretty sure higher frequencies, even with the way things have been going lately with processor, meant higher perfromance. Hmm I guess overclocking means nothing in this case.

Yes I know AMD is behind right, and I explain that to all my friend who try to say otherwise even with me being an AMD fanboy. I still will not count out the green guys because as long as they are still around we as consumers are bound to get some exciting tech from the the blue camp or the green camp so we'll just have to sit back and enjoy this battle.

Im a intel nvidia user ;) Q6600 ftw!
Phenom =Nov.
Penryn =Nov.
Superior product based on time? Phenom. Phenom is native quad core, Penryn is glued together dies.
Phenom has integrated memory controller while Intel is behind, Intel is also behind on architecture achievements, Intel is greatly behind in memory achievements.
lets take the coming 2 socket, 16 memory slot monsters.. Intel needs special memory, Phenom can use DDR2/3, want to buy expensive special memory or use normal memory?

Nahalem: Both intel and AMD will have 4-8 cores, intel will finaly catch up after years of lagging behind with memory controller, AMD might stil be 45nm but so might Intel in the beginning, Intel "might" cheat again and put 2 quad core dies calling it a 8core CPU while AMD will have native 8 cores.

where is AMD stil a year behind? amd is struggling now for sure, but its competing very good in terms of tech and is stil ahead of intel tech wice and design wice. actualy AMD catched up almost being years behind to being close in intels neck, if AMD gets back of their finansial situation and starts producing Intel will see competition for sure :p

My first post was apparently to big so i rewrote it but apparently it got posted anyway despite saying to big ;)
so i recommend ignoring my 2nd post "AMD harldy 1 year behind..." since its a greatly changed and cut down version!

the "AMD NOT a year behind anymore, actualy ahead soon." is the correct post. maybe a mod could tidy it up ;)

The thing is, like it has been said, most applications do not support quad-threading. However, if you read some articles comparing quad core performance to dual core performance, its been noted that at times a slower quad core C2D processor will be a slightly faster C2D dual core in benchmarks.

The reason? Well, its been said that maybe while the game is running dual threaded and therefor only needs two cores, the OS and other background processes can still run on one of the other two cores of the processor.

So, while quad processors are still not outperforming the best dual cores, a three core processor that runs two threads of a game and then uses one core to run the background processes. It'd decrease heat, increase efficiency and be cheaper. Woot.

Only problem is, I can see a 45 nm quad core still running cooler than a 65 nm tri-core, and it'd probably have more power. So.... AMD has the vision, but is lacking still.

Right now there are 45nm LGA775 processors planned. But I can imagine that right after those come out there will be a new socket, in fact I think its been announced as socket LGA774. That is two years away perhaps though. What I would do is wait until November, see what happens when Penryn drops, and go from there.

"It is my belief that Nehalem will initially be released on 45nm - before moving to the 32nm process.
When are we likely to see the 45nm processors?

[Penryn is 45nm and will launch on 11/12. Nehalem will launch on 32 nm, but move to 32 nm in late 2008/ early 2009. -ed]"

It is your belief? It is common fact. Way to regurgitate known information back at us to try and sound smart. And you mean 45 to 32, not 32 to 32. You will see 32nm in the second half of 08.

A new socket won't come until Nehalem comes to the lower end market. Initially, it will go to servers, offering the integrated memory controller. Then you'll see a desktop extreme version/Bloomfield, maybe a single step down from that at about the $500 mark. Those first versions will be on Socket B/LGA1366. There will be a version of Nehalem without the IMC/Quickpath, that will be on Socket H/LGA715. It's likely that the current platforms will not work with any Nehalem variant, although that may change. The 32nm shrink of Nehalem, Westmere will be just like what we're seeing with Penryn, if you get a Nehalem platform in '08 you should be able to upgrade to Westmere in '09.

AMD is a year behind, because they never released anything in response to the Core 2 architecture. Phenom is the first architecture that they've released since 2003 with the A64. Their A64s have been at 90nm this whole time, the Phenom is just getting to 65nm; whereas the Core 2 has been at 65nm, and they're moving ahead with 45nm.

Before you peg me as an Intel fanboy, I will state right now, that while I really enjoy my core 2 duo, I have no real allegiances, and I've always gone with whatever performed best; my last computer was an A64.

Thanks for the help guys. Looks like I'll go with a LGA775 for the upgrade. Thanks!

...is a logo change.

true, but Phenom will also be 45nm (2nd q 08 i think?) so their catching up. Their also working heavely on getting 32nm fabs as fast as possible. think is its not about who can make the smallest die that should say who is behind or not.

One "can" say AMD is in stone age compared to Intel, but tbh id say its the other way around.. AMD produce far superior dies, AMD has had integrated memory controller for years ahead of Intel, AMD went away from the soon obsolete FSB way ahead from Intel. Nahalem will have things AMD has had for many years in its processors.

im not a AMD fanboi, i just hate hearing how far ahead intel is when its only their manufacturing process thats ahead. Intel dies are years behind AMD dies, AMD is catching up to the process manufacturing and Intel is catching up on the architectural advantages AMD has had for years, with their Nahalem.

i dont know who is the winner, AMD is doing bad but imo their further ahead then intel in many many ways, Intel is only ahead of them in die shrinks but clearly AMD do not need die shrinks as often to stay competetive ;)

Intel takes the easy ways, AMD does it propperly. I use the stuff thats good for my gaming and currently its Intel, but after Phenom it might switch, id mutch rather use normal ddr2/3 for the dual socket monsters coming then getting all new expensive ram that will be obsolete when nahalem comes. Intel got SLI for their V8, so its a tough decission. thing most bothering me about AMD is they rather let their company die then put 2 dies on a chip to compete with Intel.. AMD is way to proud of their native dual and quad cores, they dont want to "cheat" and thats what hurting them the most.. i want both to do well = better and cheaper stuff for me ;)

The hell they are not.

AMD 65nm K10 processor.. Still waiting.. Poor Fab process. Cannot even clock the things over 2.4 - 2.5GHz in any real quantity.
AMD 45nm K10... VAPORWARE.

Intel 65nm.. Already being pushed back to produce chipsets (X38, X48)
Intel 45nm Penryn.. Clocking in at 3GHz Quad, 3.33 3.66 Dual stock.
Intel 45nm Nehalem.. Taped out and ready to blow us away at the Spring IDF like Core 2 did 2 years ago.
Intel 32nm.. SRAM taped out...

AMD TRI-CORE? What a nonsensical waste. A 2.4GHz Q6600 comes in at $277. By Nov, a 2.66GHz Penryn for that price?? What is the price point for a 3-core chip?? All this does is kill sales of their dual-core Phenoms. Speaking of which, who cares about a 2.6GHz dual-core Phenom? We can get a dual-core Penryn at 3.33 GHz in Nov! And they still over-clock to around 4GHz.

My god, with all the updates to K10, it still doesn't surpass Penryn even with its on-die memory controller. In a year, Intel will have this in the Core architecture as well. Another, 10-15% performance boost. Add to that a mature 45 nm process.

Anyone expecting an Intel-like turnaround for AMD better look elsewhere. AMD is still just talking about Phenom and Intel has Nehalem taped out. AMD's resources are just too limited to bring out major improvements to their chips at the same rate as Intel.

Ragger, you’re a COMPLETE UNINFORMED id…t:

“DDR2/3 in large memory configurations instead of highly expensive special memory” – What!? You are maybe talking about Xeon’s using FB-DIMM module – go get yourself informed before making a stupid statement.

“Phenom has reached speeds of 3.7 Ghz in the lab(real speeds not consumer overclocks) while Penryn have possibly 3.4-3.6Ghz speeds. ” – Please read http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33435/135/ (Intel has a normal Core 2 Duo in labs running at 4GHz).

“Intel is stil a year away with Nahalem while AMD has native quad core in Nov” - and Nehalem may scale to native 8 core with 16 threads. Referring to your “…intel cheat and puts 2 quad core dies” statement, cry me a river and check first before making a statement, here, I’ll help you: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31408/135/

“AMD will also have 4-8 cores” – SINCE WHEN!?! Except if, in your words, AMD cheats… Bulldozer promised (By AMD, which has always been “very reliable”) only a year after that, when Intel is expected to be on the 32nm Nehalem, and not far from releasing Nehalem’s successor, Gheser which seems to be a native 16 processing core…

“Intel is catching up to AMD energy efficiency about a year after them” – O, is that what was found by benchmarkers of Barcelona about a complete system (Even with power hungry FB-DIMM’s)

“…thats using DDR2/3 memory not special memory…” – FOR PETE’S SAKE, Intel was actually first to be using DDR2/3, not AMD, and you are referring to FB-DIMM’s for Xeon servers

"...after years of lagging behind with memory controller..." - Heard ofan engineering trade-off? PS: Intel were BEFORE AMD with integrated memory controller, Google Intel Timna.

Intel needed to give the market flexibility as to which memory they want to use (Something an integrated memory controller does not allow for) as the company with biggest market share, something AMD did not have to consider

Doesn't actually matter if one solution (1 core with multiple dies or 2 cores on 1 die, or whatever) is technically superior. What matters is performance and time to market. AMD could technically have the best CPU ever, but if it's 6 months too late to market, then that's too bad. AMD better do something, else they'll be swimming in large debt around their eyeballs before too long. Should be a good fight.

Hopefully AMD can stay in the game. Companies like Intel, Microsoft and Enron are virtually devoid of ethics (until they get slapped with a government lawsuit). The (more) honest companies like AMD are at a tremendous disadvantage and fall progressively further behind. Too bad ethical behavior is not a requirement for CEOs.

I agree....

AMD will die (hopefully so will ATi!)

and Sun will buy them and then compete with intel in a massive innovation war. it will be intel the traditional, steady, powerful player verses Sun the one that seems to think so far out of the box it just might be better.

interesting...

I was talking about the dual socket monsters coming for enthusiasts, Intel V8 has to use FB-DIMMs for its 16 slots.

I dont know anything about Bulldozer tbh, i wasnt refering to it either..

sure intel made the first integrated memory controller, but that was quite a long time ago and apparently it havent matter to Intel that they sucked ass in memory bandwith or what? i believe more in technical difficulties..

and who cares about a core 2 duo running at 4Ghz? its not even current archirtecture where talking about... Barcelona running at 3.7Ghz is a different matter then a old core 2 duo...

AMD dies are technically superior to intel thats all im saying and its true yet you go ballistic like its the end of the world! thx for being a true Intel fanboi and go headbashing and insulting like a freaking idiot yourself..

Maybe if someone could argument without the attidute i would have cared to explain myself further and present some interesting link but its no point against fanbois unless theres someone else less insulting to discuss with here? ok i gues not..

Finally! Its amazing to see the Intels handing the 'superior' AMD's walking papers on almost any benchmark, even with their 'superior' HyperTransport system. Now Intel has their own, QuickPath, imagine the carnage that will ensue!

I am very excited for these Penryns. I was going to upgrade a few weeks ago to a Q6600 or E6750 and after thinking about it long and hard, and with Penryns coming soon, I decided to wait until the 45's hit the shelves. I just hope prices will fall drastically so I dont have to wait ages for the upgrade.

Now my problem will be figuring out what chipset I want to invest in, since X38 is getting ready to hit and X48 should be on its heels. Oh the decisions!

seriously, whats the lifespan of a regular processor now? 3mths? 6mths? Intel is renewing the technology at just a pace that is too fast.

hopefully AMD will fight back with better chips.

or we consumers gonna buy thousand bucks crap again..

and pawned to be happy with it.

I haven't heard anything directly from Intel, however I believe almost definitely there will be a new socket for Nehalem. It has an integrated memory controller, meaning the RAM will be directly connected to the processor. Current LGA775 boards all have the processor connected to the northbridge for memory access, not the RAM slots.

Ragger, I will give AMD this. They do have a nack for producing good chips for a company with such little cash. But they are not superior to Intel right now. In fact the Penryn will probably sho itself to be better.

The current C2D is not as power effecient as the BarcelonaI would hope not since Barcelona had a years worth of extra time to make it better) but the Penryn will probably close the gap if not beat it especially with the die shrink and the high-k and metal transistor lowering leakage. Both size and leakage determine power consumption and heat dissipation.

So Penryn will be cooler, more effecient and better performance for probably same to less price as a current C2D. Even if AMD rasies the clock it might not do anything since a clock raise will create heat/power consumption and probaly not be able to beat a Penryn.

While AMD may have a native Quad, Itnels non-native Quad still gives the same if not better performance in some areas. ANd the on die memory controler is effecient but in terms of performance has yet to blow away the FSB.

At the current time Intel is moving to 45nm in November and earlt 2008 will have Nahlem and 32nm where as AMD doesn't plan to move to 45nm until mid to late 2008.

Intel also has their 80 core processor to run off and I am sure will use it if they need to boost the server area. They have WiMax coming with Penryn which will expand wireless connections by a lot.

And as for the memory thing, you can currently(DDR2) buy a new mobo and CPU(from a different company) and still use the same memory if the new mobo/CPU supports it. Intel has always pushed the newer memory technology first.

I think Intel has the ball right now and is controling it very well. They are very aggressive and AMD is coming up short in that area. Although a few years from now I can see AMD claiming it was unfair that Intel was this aggressive but thats how the market is. If you want to compete don't talk show.

Yes its called socket C atm =)

Maybe someone managed to get some pics on the Nahalem socket that was running on IDG when the others were given a chance to lick the cpu? =D

I saw an article online about how one 8 cor Yorkfield(the desktop Penryn) equals 50 Xeons. SO that would almost suggest that Intel already has plans for a 8-core CPU in the very near future before Nahlem.

I believe that Nahlem will also be Native 1-16 cores with 1-32 threads. Also 1.9billion transistors???????? Thats more than double what a Quad Penryn has.

Kudos to both these companies for pushing toward multiple cores, but in the end all of those extra cores are still sitting there wasted. No one actually knows how to program multithreaded code, because it wasnt necessary for so long, and in all honesty is not easy stuff to code correctly. So even my dual core is sitting there only half used right now, much less any type of quad core or eight-core computing. Not saying it is a fad, but it will be quite awhile before anyone really has programs optimized for this stuff.

After reading Raggers posts.. thought of typing down my idea...

Intel purposely didn't integrate memory controller even it had definite advantages. Simply because memory segment was improving constantly. So integrating would cause definite disadvantage in supporting new memory architectures. See.. still AMD can't support DDR3. AMD only supported DDR2 last year. But intel managed to produce a chipset everytime new memory technology out in market.

Also about energy efficiency, make sure you read all the benchmarks first. Clearly.. Intel is more energy efficient at high-loads and AMD is at low-loads (idle mode). Personally, I don't bother keeping my PC on 24/7, most of the time idle, just turn it off and save the electricity bill... and help Al Gore in his conquest. Simply.. if you use your PC only when you need full throttle... then Intel is a better solution.

And if you read xbit lab articles.. they show how superior Intel's memory architecture..(specially in cache hit/miss rates...) despite its much accused FSB... prefetch algorithms catch up the difference.

I think that all of this wouldn't be, if AMD had slashed prices to start the pricing war. Who would've thought 8-10 months ago that one could buy a Quad Core (native or not) for under $300? Or that AMD's 64's would still be the only thing out now (except for Barcy's). I would've thought the Phenom would've been out in late summer, but that didn't happen. Intel is on a mission and is pushing things hard (believe me, I know first hand on this). I see AMD as a innovator, but that seems to take too much time to get to market these days for AMD. Intel is now pushing the R&D heavily and is streamlining the manufacturing process. This combination has made the quick die shrinks come to fruition. Prior to Conroe, Intel looked pretty complacent and very bloated. Now they have slimmed up and now are trying to innovate more than AMD is. Unfortuantely for AMD, they are having to sell chips too low, in order to keep/increase market share. If AMD had several 300mm fabs to produce their product, Intel would be in a world of hurt. But that isn't the case, so Intel is now reaping the fruits of their labors.

A birdie told me that they are the same chip. X48 is just the 'faster' binned parts (faster Si = better overclockability). This is needed to support the 1600 FSB / DDR3 1600 config X48 will support natively. You can get a conroe now, and upgrade to wolfdale or yorkfield when it becomes available. X38 boards will be available very soon.
Anybody know if AMD or Nvidia even support DDR3 1600?

Also - I'm sure Nehalem will require a new board / chipset. There won't be any support in current chipsets for such a CPU. You would want a new board for such a beast anyway. By that time, I'm sure PCIE Gen 3 will be up and coming.

Lastly - why would someone think Nehalem will be on a 45nm process.... Didn't they just demonstrate 32nm today?

Based on this latest article:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33927/118/

They demo'd the 45nm Nehalem today as well. Possibly they can offer the 45 using the LGA775 socket, whereas the 32 will require the future socket (LGA774?)? I wonder if thats even possible with the QuickPath.

AMD dies, Intel dies, when both are gone X86 computing dies, Microsoft dies, Mac dies, I"whatever" dies, gaming dies, internet dies and Linux rules them all.... oh wait thats not bad! :D:D mouhahaha!

no seriously its bad, Intel wont get to keep its monopoly if AMD dies, Intels worse nightmare is if AMD dies. All our worse nightmares comes true if AMD dies..

I think AMD's 3 core idea is come from the native 4 core. the reason for that is one of the core due to fab process can't pass the test or reach a high bin mark, so the die need be scraped if it's not reused.
if you compare the AMD's new Athlon CPU frequency with new 65nm process are lower than their 90nm CPU (high end. It's not they don't want or plan for high frequency CPU. it's because the leakage issue they are facing I guess. maybe someone can have a look of 3 core die size when it come out.
AMD use 65nm Vs Intel's 45nm. it's die size should be bigger if the Trans qty are same and power is same.
I really don't see a benifit of 3 core even they design a unique native 3 core.

AMD took a hit with the announcements Intel made. It was close to inevitable even before, AMD is in deep trouble (financial and not only). They could stand on their own feet and competing in the market but not for the performance crown. I don't believe that anymore. They'll be bought by Samsung, (because of their financial problems) and still produce mainstream CPUs and GPUs. Sun or IBM, probably IBM will be the next major competitor in x86 area, for the performance crown. Nvidia will couple with some other memory manufacturer and concentrate on what they do best for now, because the CPU area is hot. Intel w