Will AMD surpass Intel...?

[stix_kua]

I have been really bugged by that fact that although AMD has a slight advanatage right now, that they haven't exploded to become the winners or high horse sitters.

It makes me sad to see that every other day Intel has something faster and supposedly better...:(

The question here is who think thats the Opteron will put AMD in front of Intel for enough time to make the market share even out?

[stix_kua]

Any reasons?:confused:

[Izdaari]

The Opteron has tremendous potential but thus far we don't have what we need to properly evaluate it, like a motherboard with AGP for it, or any 64-bit OS besides Linux. And then how strong its performance is going to be will depend on not just hardware, but on how willing software developers are going to be to optimize for it. Gotta choose "Time will tell", too many variables to be sure of much more.

[cbh]

Does AMD solve the overheating problem? To my knowledge, a lot of people are complaining the heat problem in the AMD chips. I'm using an Intel chip and it's very cool after a long usage. My previous AMD processor often overheats and hangs my PC so i rather use Intel than AMD.

I have bought the best CPU fan for my AMD processor and it still gives me heat problems. I'm disappointed.

:)

[T21000]

?

[Bigjakkstaffa]

I think due to the amount of money takes in Intel will always have a minor edge somwhere, however this often tiny boost does not warrant the best part of a hundred quid over the AMD alternative, and in that respect, AMD will always have the edge IMO

--Jakk:t

[RamonGTP]

cbh, no offence, but either you had a bad chip, or just don't know what you're doing... There are plenty of us that have amd chips and DON'T have the best HSF, AND overclock AND overvolt that aren't having heat related issues... Its true that AMD's generally run hotter than intel, but not to the point where the best HSF's won't cut it. Your case is anecdotal evidance at best, and is far from the norm. If it were typical for AMD cpu's to overheat even with the best HSF's, they would have been out of business a long long time ago.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

AMD has a good chance of re-gaining the performance lead, but we won't know that for a while... I very serisouly doubt however that they'll even out the market share no matter how much better the Athlon64 ends up being, or not being for that matter. If amd was going to even out the market, it would have happened when the Athlon's first came out, which spanked the very best INTEL had to offer. That didn't happen, but what did happen is AMD gained a LOT of respect from the community, and got a significan FRACTION of the market. If AMD can do with their next processor what they did with the ATHLON when it first was released, and do it CONSISTANTLY, then they have a good chance of evening things out. That won't be easy though becuase intel has really been on the ball ever since AMD was spanking them a couple years back.

[sm8000]

I put yes because I'm sure they will at some point, but it won't be permanent. I think it will settle into a balanced pattern of lead and follow.

[AllGamer]

in time we'll see which one is the most accepted one

:t

[Aznmask]

Well i turned on my PC like 2day long and d/l stuff from Bit Torrent.. I dont see any overheat. My Cpu is around 45C..

Athlon 1700xp..



Time will tell.. who know :D Perhaps soon there is a new CPU company.. :D

[AllGamer]

Did you read the Transmeta one from ND?

that seems very promising with their new core

[lptech]

cbh-

I've never encountered any overheat problems with the AMD Athlon CPU(s). The people who post problems normally do not know how to properly setup their systems! They use the wrong HSF (HeatSink/Fan) combo, wrong thermal compound, wrong PSU (Power Supply Unit), incorrectly installed the HSF, forgot to remove the protective film from the Thermal Tape (included in Boxed CPU(s)), have bad internal airflow inside the case, and various other reasons which they have not even considered as a possible cause to their thermal issue!

To bring up a point, have you seen how big the heatsinks are on the Intel P4 478-pin CPU(s)? They are large. Did you know that the thermal output for the Intel P4 3.06-GHz CPU is around 83-watts? Go check Intel's website for the stats on that CPU. That's right, it is higher than the AMD Athlon XP+ CPU(s).

The point that I'm trying to make here is that it doesn't matter which CPU you choose (AMD or Intel) to run your system on but that you must adhere to the design specifications in order to have a good working system! Both AMD and Intel have specified requirements on how to properly setup, they have recommended mobos, power supply manufacturers, power supply rating required, etc. And if we ignore what is recommended, then we are just as guilty for not following what has been tried and proven! Just my 2 cents into the mix.

LPTECH

[JCB]

Did ya ever see that movie where the heat thingy ya know with the fan falls off and its the AMD and smoke comes out?

One time it was cold out and I peed and smoke came out. Hope its OK. How can I tell if my thingy is AMD? :p :p :p :rolleyes:

If 64 bit home computing takes off, you can bet that intel has something similar waiting in the wings ready to run. It may be why M$ is dragging their feet on 64bit windows for the Athlon 64. A little collusion M$/intel... to let intel catch up?

[tommie b]

ive always been an intel owner but i just built my first amd rig soltek nforce2 w/2800 barton, and i havnt noticed any heat problem yet. i love my new set-up, it rocks!!!:) :)

tommie j

[L8NightHype]

My two cents...

It all comes down to affordability for me. I don't have the money to pop for the latest and greatest every time a new advancement comes out. 4-500+ bones for a CPU? No thanks...not only that, but the mobos, chipsets, and other components weigh heavily as well. Being into games, the GPU is just as important.

So there is the second part of the question. Who stays in front? Nvidia or ATI?

If money was no object for me, I'd remain with Intel. They still have the market and as long as they do, they will have the funds to advance. And their products tend to be more compatible and friendly.

I am not as persnickety about the CPU manufacturer as some. I could care less, I just want my computer to support the latest games, and that doesn't seem to be such an issue...did you like my addition of the word persnickety? Yeah, I haven't used that one in a while...

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by L8NightHype
And their products tend to be more compatible and friendly.


Do you have any idea what you are talking about?:mad:

[ESHAW]

I think it will of course depend on different factors such as price, compatibility with 32 bit app's ,reliability and availibility of an all around 64 bit OS like im sorry to say window's xp 64 ,I think theese factors and time will tell who will lead. but I love AMD anyway

[Rugor]

I think AMD has the potential to surpass Intel overall for performance with the AMD64 iSA, but I don't think they'll ever take even 50% market share on the desktop.

However, they may take a commanding lead in some server areas.

[bushmaster]

Will AMD surpass Intel...? Simple question, simple answer. NO!

[mobo57]

Long time AMD fan.
Started with the old k series, now in my office on my network I have 3 2000 xp's, 1 1700 xp, and as of last week my 3200 xp, all on lan. Have monitoring software on net and have warning monitor for all systems set for very low temp on sys and cpu's to be safe.

have had at least 20 upgrades over tha years and all AMD.

on my system I oc and tweak constantly. all the rest are set at at mid-range settings (bios and oc), and are good systems with good vid cards, sound etc.

i insist my staff take time to decompress and UTII, UT2003 and Doom are very popular here. SOmetimes after work we will go for hours in a death match.

Have NEVER had one sys get higher than 40c at cpu or sys.

Overheating is not a problem. Now power supply.... very sensitive to that.....(thanks Richard)

[Rugor]

They're perfectly capable of releasing a better processor than Intel, but especially when they come to market share they'll never dethrone them.

And I like AMD.

[Slade54]

Who ever says AMD has compatibility problems is a fool. And they are probably the ones that dont know the difference between Socket A and Socket 478. :rolleyes:

And i highly doubt they are gonna balance things out with the Athlon64. I hope to god they gain a few points (get themselves firmly in the the 20s) because they need it bad financially.

Because all of you seem to be forgetting that with the time option, will AMD even still be alive?? They are in the red financially, and they really need to start making some serious cash to stay in this business. Its not like they are barely hanging on with everyday that passes. But they havent made any profit at all for the past 6quarters. Thats not good for any company that has a huge R&D and manufacturing bill to pay. Thats why they underwent a 500million dollar reconstruction last year.

I voted no to them balancing it out, its gonna take more then 64bit archicture to do that. But they will gain at least workstation and server market. But thats nothing unless you got a few big name OEMs behind you (i.e. Dell, Compaq, etc...)

And if they were prefectly capable of releasing a better cpu then Intel, then why havent they? :rolleyes:

[Rugor]

Ummmmmmmmmmm they have.

The Athlon Thunderbird was a better CPU than the PIII Coppermine. It had better overall performance and scaled 40% higher on the same process.

The Athlon XP at release was a better processor than the original Willamette core P4.

That's two.

[L8NightHype]

Originally posted by L8NightHype
And their products tend to be more compatible and friendly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?



Nope.

[Slade54]

Well of course tehy have released better processors in the best.

But what about NOW?

[JCB]

I find giant behemoths like intel totally incompatible and downright mean spirited. And I've always liked underdogs like AMD. It's the competition from AMD that keeps intel honest and priced w/in reason.

[ichorid]

yeah... we need AMD for some price competition... which they happily provide
:p

AMD1800+ £60
P4 1.8ghz £120

amd is near same if not better performance... and easier to oclock


i love AMD!!!:D :x


:t

[RamonGTP]

I think its more accurate to say that AMD has the POTENTIAL to produce a better processor than INTEL... But for about the past two years, intel has been constantly a step or two ahead of AMD.

[Slade54]

Well said RamonGTP

[effenger101]

Unless AMD can pull two or three rabbits out of their hat in consecutive order, I think in the long run Intell will beat them.

In my humble opinion, AMD's biggest problem is the general publics perception of their products. It doen't really matter if AMD has a processor that does more work than an Intell, or an Intell puts out as much heat as an AMD, The general computer user/owner THINKS that the Intell is better. So thats what they will buy. The hobbiest market (everybody reading this) is small compared to the market of the average person who purchases a computer to read e-mail, surf the web, and write letters/do home work.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

AMD will regain the throne shortly-for a short time period though. Just like always Intel leads longer-but barely ahead of game. then amd wipes the floor with'em then it repeats.:t

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by effenger101
In my humble opinion, AMD's biggest problem is the general publics perception of their products. It doen't really matter if AMD has a processor that does more work than an Intell, or an Intell puts out as much heat as an AMD, The general computer user/owner THINKS that the Intell is better. So thats what they will buy. The hobbiest market (everybody reading this) is small compared to the market of the average person who purchases a computer to read e-mail, surf the web, and write letters/do home work.

That is exactly why we must get more people to see that AMD is in fact better...or equally competitive.;)

I think we should all help AMD out by spreading the word...Instaed of recommending a Dell like some of us may have, why not recommend that we build or help build an AMD pc for them...

We should all start writing letters to DELL, CompaQ/HP, Gateway and tell them that if they offered both Intel and AMD based systems, that they would get more business...I would even think about buying a Gateway if they had AMD Athlon XP run systems...

Currently, my dad thinks that only megahertz matter. He has always thought that but for somereason my system always leaves his in the dust. He doesn't want to understand that Intel is not always the best choice and it rarely is.

[Ankerson]

Intel will always be the better choice in the long run because they have the best platform...They manufactor their own motherboards. That means they don't have to rely on outside manufactors to produce motherboards for their cpu's.

Intel sets the standard.

Are Intel CPU's better than AMD's overall? No they are not, but then again AMD's aren't any better than Intels either.;)

These days it's more of pick a color when it comes to CPU's.

What do I use for my own machines? Intel CPU's only.

What do I build for others? Whatever they want me to build.;)

[Rugor]

Yup, which do you like more, blue or green.

Personally I don't think Intel always provides the best platforms. They do have an advantage in getting a good platform out quickly because they can do more work in parallel. But it hasn't always been reflected in their products.

i440BX was an incredibly good chipset.

i820 was a terrible chipset.

I'll admit they set the standard, 75-80% market share and legal ownership of the x86 ISA mean they had better set the standard. Sometimes they've done very well with it, other times not so well.

We have both Intel and AMD machines here and probably always will.

Right now Intel makes the best High-end CPUs, but their low end products are lacking. AMD makes the best low end products, but their high end products are lacking. But that's just today, no guarantee for tomorrow.

They could swap places, or either one could produce the best at both ends. But nothing is likely to put Intel out of first place on the market.

AMD may be able to get to a 40% share, but I doubt it, and I can't see them ever getting higher.

[Slade54]

AMD designs their own chipsets.

They specially have to for when new processors come out, or it just wouldnt work.

But why build your own when several other very viable solutions are offered?

[Rugor]

Yep, and AMD makes a perfectly good chipset.

But they aren't in the chipset business. They produce chipsets in order to enable processor sales rather than as a regular revenue stream.

AMD would much rather not make chipsets, and that's why they don't charge a license fee for third party providers. Intel does consider chipsets a major revenue stream, and so charges a license fee.

To AMD each time VIA sells an AMD compatible chipset, that's a step to AMD making a processor sale.

To Intel, each time VIA sells an Intel compatible chipset that's a chipset sale Intel didn't make.

It all depends on your business model. AMD, a smaller company, has a more cooperative business model than Intel.

[Slade54]

Nothing wrong with either model.

Intel has more money, so its something they can more easily do.

If AMD can gain more market share, and start making serious cash, i bet we would start to see them make some mobos. But right now they really dont have the money.

[Rugor]

I think AMD's more likely to go into the chipset business on a larger scale first, then move on to mobos--IF they felt it was worth it.

But I think they have other priorities.

[xDownSetx]

i saw a beanchmark on pc magazine on the Opteron vs Xeon
and the opteron whooped the xeon on every test so that tells you right there whos on top for now, and i think that windows server 2003 will complement the cpu perfect

[Slade54]

Well right now there are supposed to be problems with Windows Server 2003 (omg, what a shock). And does that support Opteron?

[more]

No. But I say that with some reserve. In the world of raw speed,( fastest speed in GHZ) I doubt AMD will have an edge. I have five machines, three are Intel and you know what the others are. Each machine has its own duties to perform. Each of these all have the ability to edit video, play games and an assortment of other tasks. We all know of the importance of quality components, ie; chipset, memory modules, mainboards, etc., that all need to be in place for our computing experience to be a pleasurable one. So I guess my question will be: AMD or Intel...What is the difference?

[$1500-P4 gamer]

"So I guess my question will be: AMD or Intel...What is the difference?"


Easy to answer. Intel is the big boy that once charged nearly 500% higher prices in the 486/pentium era since it was the lone giant..AMD is the little guy with small market share but still manages to keep up with big boy cpu performance wise, which is a feat in itself. And chop him at knees sometimes. Putting him back in line-price imdiatly drops big time. And the market is now balanced with two = powerfull cpu's that come from two very dif co.'s. The dif is, without AMD, intel's prices would still be 500% to expensive and mhz race wouldnt exist. So we'd have much much slower cpu's. remember the race to 1gig! Never woulda happend without AMD there to push Intel to go faster. So I suport AMD -the little guys. No risk of Intel going under but by keeping AMD afloat it keeps the Intel giant under control somwhat. Keeps prices lower-and keeps faster cpu's being produced.:t

[Rugor]

I have to admit I would much rather my money go to AMD than to Intel. So unless the Intel system is much better, I am going to be more likely to go AMD.

As Gamer has said, AMD has done a lot to bring down the overall price of computers. Without them we would still be using 6-800MHz PIII's. Competition gave us the wealth of performance we have today.

I also prefer AMD's corporate behavior, they work with other companies, and listen to the market rather than trying to force the market to follow them. Intel has a history of pressuring competitors and suppliers.

I like what AMD does better, and so I prefer to support them with my money.

[causticVapor]

There are two intels - the R&D intel and the marketing intel. The R&D intel I view in high regard - those lab-coat people are working round the clock, making breakthrough after breakthrough, researching new designs and diverging on various paths. They develop lots of features that end up in pentium processors and intel chipsets through the generations.

On the other hand, the marketing intel I hate with the greatest of ferocity. They are out not only to make money but to squash the competition. Using intel's weight in the market, they attempt to lean on system builders who are not instantly accepting and bowing to Big Brother's demands. They threaten OEMs who utilize competitors' products - and threaten cutting business with them - a bit like Coke when Pepsi's vending machines are in the same restaurant?

For the marketing intel I have no sympathy. They make the company look bad and tarnish all of the great R&D effort that goes on behind closed doors. IF these blockheads in marketing and management go too far, OEMs may turn elsewhere and AMD may just get the upper hand.

[Rugor]

Good point CV.

I have very high regard for the R&D, or as I call it the Engineering, Department at Intel. It's not their fault the Marketing weenies at their firm are totally loathsome.

I like AMD's PR/Marketing dept better, but I admit to serious bias. They have been a lot better to me than Anyone at Intel.

Two CPUs, a motherboard, a hat, a shirt, and a pen that lights up, my goodwill can be bought.

[Slade54]

Yea, i def agree with that too. No doubt that the Intel R&D team have done some great things in terms of technology. But we all can be a bit dubious of the marketing segment.

[iceblue]

Without them we would still be using 6-800MHz PIII's. Competition gave us the wealth of performance we have today.

and whats so wrong with PIII's? they run my xp setup stable and fast even without the huge amounts of memory or "8mb cache" hds. This is a gaming, design, business, multi purpose system. ill bet the performance we could get out of windows would be 3x as much if it was coded more cleanly. just think about how efficient programs were back then.

I think we should all help AMD out by spreading the word...Instaed of recommending a Dell like some of us may have, why not recommend that we build or help build an AMD pc for them...
why spend more then u have to is the question. Dell sells these fully loaded 2ghz pentium4's for about 300. it aint possible to end up spending less if u custom build that (that too goes for an amd rig)

[Slade54]

You may not need more then a PIII, but quite a few other ppl do. Gaming can only go so far on a PIII. Research would take alot longer. And technology wouldnt be as cheap.

a PIII may suite you just fine, but there is always someone in need of more, and as long as enough ppl demand it, it will come.

[Rugor]

There's nothing wrong with the PIII, it's a good solid chip. However, in the AMD-less world where we'd still be using such, they would be selling for something like a thousand dollars each.

In the last few years of competition, CPU prices have fallen through the floor, and that's a good thing.

Using a PIII 600 or 800MHz chip is fine, but paying too much for one isn't.

The cheapest Dell I could find was $519 and it was a Celeron, not a real P4, and I spec'd out an AMD system at Newegg for $493. The custom system came with twice the RAM, a bigger HD, and better onboard graphics, plus an AGP slot for future expansion. And yes, I included a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and OS.

But then again I tend to avoid Dell like the plague anyway.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

ROFLMAO at this.....
"and whats so wrong with PIII's? they run my xp setup stable and fast even without the huge amounts of memory or "8mb cache" hds. This is a gaming, design, business, multi purpose system. ill bet the performance we could get out of windows would be 3x as much if it was coded more cleanly. just think about how efficient programs were back then."

Ive been into pc's since long before that! The code wasnt 3x better in the p3 era. LOL-its the same loosly coded loop ridden **** that we have today. Tight coding died with binary! Fact is all coding got sloppy when windows 3.11 windows for workgroups was made. Bloatware for yer dos. then 95 came out-98 same thing. WinMe oh now we'll hide dos but yet its still a dos shell.
:rolleyes:

[Slade54]

MS isnt the only one making badly coded software.

Look at Java. Now thats some clunky software.

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by iceblue
why spend more then u have to is the question. Dell sells these fully loaded 2ghz pentium4's for about 300. it aint possible to end up spending less if u custom build that (that too goes for an amd rig)

Emachines does something similar for $300 too:rolleyes: (but Emachines are well...kinda sad but people still buy em)
They even sell laptops now

Dell started this due to surplus, and fear of loss of market share i bet....BUT I could be completely wrong too...

I was' tpicking on Dell either becasue the same thing goes for Gateway and Alienware and any other big company

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by Slade54
MS isnt the only one making badly coded software.

Look at Java. Now thats some clunky software.

Java aint that bad...give it some time...

[iceblue]

Originally posted by stix_kua
Dell started this due to surplus, and fear of loss of market share i bet....BUT I could be completely wrong too...

probably wasnt related to surplus or loss of market share, in fact they sell the most i think out of the bunch.

Originally posted by stix_kua
Emachines does something similar for $300 too:rolleyes: (but Emachines are well...kinda sad but people still buy em)
They even sell laptops now

their 300 dollar system is probably worth $5. i doubt their system comes with ati agp graphics or even a decent software bundle.

[kevrob1]

A few of you have stated that you hate Intel's marketing arm. One person even commented that AMD's marketing department has given him a couple cpus and a mobo and tee-shirts and a hat. Well those giveaways are good for the few that get them but it doesn't do much for AMD gaining market share. Why, because marketing is about perception now a days. People believe that MHz matter period. Most folks don't know from instructions per clock cycle, and the pr rating...please. AMD became popular and profitable when their cpu's spanked Intel clock for clock and with the instructions per clock cycle hookup. Then AMD said that "it may not be as fast in MHz but it does more work". True, but to the average computer buyer that's a formula they don't want to work out and that sales people usually aren't skilled enough to explain. Better marketing would do AMD a world of good, after all where do you think the R&D people get there funding, they ain't writing grants...!:t

[iceblue]

Originally posted by Rugor
The cheapest Dell I could find was $519 and it was a Celeron, not a real P4, and I spec'd out an AMD system at Newegg for $493.
u were probably looking in the wrong place, at the wrong time. dell frequently rolls out the deals at least once a week. along with their deal, u can use a coupon to get 15% off. in addition, most of these deals come with free shipping.

im not about to buy a dell anytime soon, but i do pay attention to flamin hot bargains.

[iceblue]

Originally posted by $1500-P4 gamer
ROFLMAO at this.....
"and whats so wrong with PIII's? they run my xp setup stable and fast even without the huge amounts of memory or "8mb cache" hds. This is a gaming, design, business, multi purpose system. ill bet the performance we could get out of windows would be 3x as much if it was coded more cleanly. just think about how efficient programs were back then."

Ive been into pc's since long before that! The code wasnt 3x better in the p3 era. LOL-its the same loosly coded loop ridden **** that we have today. Tight coding died with binary! Fact is all coding got sloppy when windows 3.11 windows for workgroups was made. Bloatware for yer dos. then 95 came out-98 same thing. WinMe oh now we'll hide dos but yet its still a dos shell.
never did i mention win95, ME, 98, or even win3.1. In the past a majority of programs consumed a lot less resources and were very efficient to use.

You may not need more then a PIII, but quite a few other ppl do. Gaming can only go so far on a PIII. Research would take alot longer. And technology wouldnt be as cheap.
yes it can go quite (very) far on a PIII. in fact, there is no game i havent been able to play due to system specs.

whatever game was played on my athlon 1.4 was still playable on my PIII.

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by iceblue

probably wasnt related to surplus or loss of market share, in fact they sell the most i think out of the bunch.


their 300 dollar system is probably worth $5. i doubt their system comes with ati agp graphics or even a decent software bundle.

Thanks for correcting me Ice....about the Dell thing...I thought I was wrong too...:x

But Emachines $300 dollar system is worth a bit more than that....they have made some very happy customers and a lot of angry angry customers:D

The software is somewhat decent but no they do not supply ATI AGP grafix but hey it's $300....what do ya expect, a ton of 24 k gold?

[stix_kua]

We should all relax a bit and stop being so defensive....I feel too much tension as I read these posts...:(

Hinting to iceblue...
:)

[iceblue]

Originally posted by stix_kua
We should all relax a bit and stop being so defensive....I feel too much tension as I read these posts...

Hinting to iceblue...

this calls for one! http://membres.lycos.fr/limagerie//grouphug.gif



i just couldnt stand by while one-sided opinions were being made...
:D

[Slade54]

awwwwww....aint that cute :t

[Rugor]

Awwwwwwwww,

Group hugs.

I agree AMD probably isn't making the smartest marketing choices right now. My point about the giveaways was simply that for a user who has received product from them, it did produce a feeling of goodwill, and so I could be considered biased for that reason.

Intel's marketing department has applied pressure tactics to try to minimize AMD's market share. Some of the tactics I've heard of have been downright reprehensible. Others are just sneaky, such as the introduction of the original P4 with much higher clock speeds and a lower IPC than the PIII it replaced.

These things have colored my impressions of both companies, and are some of the factors that influence my buying decisions.

[kevrob1]

Rugor, no knock on you. I've signed up for every giveaway AMD offers.:D I was even looking to go on the AMD tour and I filled out every ipc survey in hopes of winning sumpin... I own a couple of Athlon Thunderbirds and they rock! I was just saying that in marketing terms people percieve something as "cheap" if the manufacturer is giving stuff away. When I sold radio advertising, we never cut the rate unless the buyer was buying a big plan. We would tell the buyers who complained that they could get it "cheaper and just as good" that they should remember that there's a reason ours costs what it does... Anyway I digress... I think AMD should release a proc running at 3.2GHz with their better ipc and then price it close to Intels. Intel would sputter and a price war would ensue the likes of which we ain't seen yet. Kinda like what happened with ram. A better ad campaign would go along way toward changing the perception that they (AMD) are for tinkerers and geeks.:t

[L8NightHype]

...a 'better ad campaign' from AMD or 'some kind of ad campaign' ?

I am not being a smart-axx either...and I ain't raising a ruckus.

I mean really, where have you seen AMD advertised? Peep any major electronics retailer and/or computer manufacturer's ads for computers and what are they pushing? P4/Celeron...in my best Fry's Guy voice; "getatwopointfourgigahertzintelpentiumprocessorwith 256megabytesoframblahblahblahforonlyetcetc..."

I can't see any point in arguing who surpasses who. AMD is, and will remain, the chip maker that keeps Intel awake at night...period. I am thankful of the competition from AMD. Keeps pricing a little respectable. So they surpass Intel in performance, then what? Are all the businesses that run Intel going to soil their drawers and toss all their boxes out the window in protest?

How many AMD servers/boxes are in any given business? Right. We have hundreds of computers in our network (and at my college) and not a one is powered by AMD.

Intel is the uber-power...:-@

btw, what is the sysopt record for thread leangth? This one is getting respectable...

[Rugor]

I signed up for the giveaways too-- and went to the Tour last year. I was just lucky enough to win online one year and at the Tour the next.

[kevrob1]

Uh, AMD is a business and as such their main goal is to turn a profit. Without turning a profit, they ain't going to be around to be "the chip maker that keeps Intel awake at night...period.":eek:

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Originally posted by L8NightHype
...a 'better ad campaign' from AMD or 'some kind of ad campaign' ?

I am not being a smart-axx either...and I ain't raising a ruckus.

I mean really, where have you seen AMD advertised? Peep any major electronics retailer and/or computer manufacturer's ads for computers and what are they pushing? P4/Celeron...in my best Fry's Guy voice; "getatwopointfourgigahertzintelpentiumprocessorwith 256megabytesoframblahblahblahforonlyetcetc..."

I can't see any point in arguing who surpasses who. AMD is, and will remain, the chip maker that keeps Intel awake at night...period. I am thankful of the competition from AMD. Keeps pricing a little respectable. So they surpass Intel in performance, then what? Are all the businesses that run Intel going to soil their drawers and toss all their boxes out the window in protest?

How many AMD servers/boxes are in any given business? Right. We have hundreds of computers in our network (and at my college) and not a one is powered by AMD.

Intel is the uber-power...:-@

btw, what is the sysopt record for thread leangth? This one is getting respectable...

You must have missed a post I made about the super uber sale amd had in the server market!:rolleyes: Crey built a 10,000 cpu opteron system for the US gov. for nuclear weapon control etc. Hmmmm-did they turn to Intel? Did they deem Intel more reliable for a super important job-a nucler one at that. Your arguement of Intel being superior in servers is really null and void of meaning, and completly biased....:t

[ichorid]

I think AMD should release a proc running at 3.2GHz with their better ipc and then price it close to Intels. Intel would sputter and a price war would ensue the likes of which we ain't seen yet.

yeah, that would be great, except the more instructions per cycle a chip does, the less actula mhz it can do.

a 3.2ghz 64bit athlon would rock....

i reckon the 3200+ has a clock speed of about 2.5 ghz... water/vapour phase could get that to 3.2 ghz....


sweet...:t

[causticVapor]

A 3.2GHz Athlon at .13-micron would require more than your average heatsink :eek: ...not to mention it'd be impossible.

no, really - I see it possible at 90nm, and there will be 3.2GHz Athlon 64s/opterons before we know it.

[stix_kua]

Originally posted by causticVapor
A 3.2GHz Athlon at .13-micron would require more than your average heatsink :eek: ...not to mention it'd be impossible.

no, really - I see it possible at 90nm, and there will be 3.2GHz Athlon 64s/opterons before we know it.

why impossible?

.13micron equates to how many nm?

90nm is pretty small. doesn't this mean thewre is more heat in a smaller area?

[Slade54]

.13 =130nm

and thats the size of the smallest component in the processor, not the size OF the processor, just so their isnt any confusion.

And the smaller the process, the less voltage required, which means less heat. But of course they always add more transisters that end up creating more heat. And thats why they are developing ways to reduce that, such as SOI (silicon on insulator)
And they also use heat spreaders to help dissipate the heat.

But heat is a big problem with cpu design, so they are constantly trying to improve ways of dealing with it, and reducing it.

[causticVapor]

Process and design limitations, folks.

The P6 core could only do at .13 what the K7 could do at .18;
K7 can probably only do at .09 what the p4 can do at .13.

Of course, the transistors limit clock speed at some point; but it is more held back by design; not even heat.

Read up on it.

BTW Slade54, Heatspreader=minor performance impactor, not an improvement. Merely for die protection.