pipercub
02-18-2004, 07:06 PM
Whether 64 bit is needed or not Intel has to come out with it or they will be percieved as falling behind AMD.
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Intel Leans Toward 64-Bit Desktop
Predator33
02-18-2004, 08:04 PM
True, and also the Athlon 64s seem to be beating all intels in the benchmarking are for gaming, also they are way way cheaper, and do the job just as well. I used to think they were so unstable but from there new line of processors i've been proved wrong ;)
zybch
02-20-2004, 03:48 AM
Funny, I thought Intel was on record as saying that 64bit was not important for current PCs.
My how their tune has changed with the success of the Athlon64s.
My how their tune has changed with the success of the Athlon64s.
Bsamuels
02-21-2004, 01:37 AM
but with the success.. intel is still giant compared to amd.... So what does the big dog have to do?.. Respond with even more power, more speed... Or lose.
pipercub
02-22-2004, 01:58 PM
Intel doesn't have to do anything they don't want to but do you take into account that Intel has say 90% of the market and AMD has 10%? I look at the features of the product and 1% of the market is money made or lost. Perception is important. BETA was better than VHS but what format won out?
Vampiel
02-23-2004, 05:38 PM
You want to know why BETA went down read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
"VHS offered a bigger choice of hardware at lower cost, the tapes were cheaper and more easily available, there were a lot more movies to rent, and so on."
This is what AMD is doing to Intel right now as far as something thats compatible with 64 bit and 32 bit and offering many different levels of it.
Intel does not have the upper hand.
btw Intel controls roughly %80 of the market not %90
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html
"VHS offered a bigger choice of hardware at lower cost, the tapes were cheaper and more easily available, there were a lot more movies to rent, and so on."
This is what AMD is doing to Intel right now as far as something thats compatible with 64 bit and 32 bit and offering many different levels of it.
Intel does not have the upper hand.
btw Intel controls roughly %80 of the market not %90
Strawbs
02-23-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Predator33
... I used to think they were so unstable but from there new line of processors i've been proved wrong ;) The only "unstable" AMD chip I ever had was my 2600+ t'bred last year! The reason it became unstable was the heatwave we had in England last year, and my installing it in a cramped case! Not AMD's fault ...my own!
I've only ever had 2 Intel PC's in 94 & 95 (I think), I can't say I miss the expense! :D
... I used to think they were so unstable but from there new line of processors i've been proved wrong ;) The only "unstable" AMD chip I ever had was my 2600+ t'bred last year! The reason it became unstable was the heatwave we had in England last year, and my installing it in a cramped case! Not AMD's fault ...my own!
I've only ever had 2 Intel PC's in 94 & 95 (I think), I can't say I miss the expense! :D
pipercub
02-23-2004, 06:46 PM
Thanks for the info Vampiel. The percentages were just a guess on my part just to use for an example. Have a great day!
porsch1909
02-28-2004, 08:22 AM
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;)
CrazyCrusher
02-29-2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by porsch1909
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;)
you just said what I was thinking.
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;)
you just said what I was thinking.
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by porsch1909
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;) Yes it's as efficient as the Athlon64, The benchmarks I saw showed the 2 to be a lot closer in performance terms than your "Blew it away" message conveys, and at what price? On release it was more than double the price of the top-of-the-line AMD's, it's probably still around twice as much! they didn't release it to sell in any serious amounts either, only the Intel enthusiast with more money than sense would buy it for bragging rights ...surely you can understand that "porsch". :p
What is the point in having SSE3 when their aren't any programs to take advantage of it? "ahead of their time" my @r$E ...your argument of being SSE3 ready doesn't wash ...because by the time any programs are released that use it;
1: Your Processor\Mobo will have been superceeded and SSE4 will replace it,
and
2: AMD will have incorporated the technology into their chips too ...at much less expense!
That is exactly what happened with SSE2, SSE and MMX, the same timing will be repeated infinetly, but Intel Fanboys will have paid extra for a useless extention. Meanwhile your "ahead of their time" CPU's are driving Your costs sky high for "little - to - no" actual benefit! :rolleyes:
You fail to mention thoroughly the whole being of the AMD Vs. Intel thing in your post, you skip past it like it doesn't mean anything. let me remind you again why AMD ....
COST.
I wouldn't call the release of the P4EE a defuser! I'd call it Desperation! :p
"Wake Up" and smell the Ad Men! why don't ya? :D
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;) Yes it's as efficient as the Athlon64, The benchmarks I saw showed the 2 to be a lot closer in performance terms than your "Blew it away" message conveys, and at what price? On release it was more than double the price of the top-of-the-line AMD's, it's probably still around twice as much! they didn't release it to sell in any serious amounts either, only the Intel enthusiast with more money than sense would buy it for bragging rights ...surely you can understand that "porsch". :p
What is the point in having SSE3 when their aren't any programs to take advantage of it? "ahead of their time" my @r$E ...your argument of being SSE3 ready doesn't wash ...because by the time any programs are released that use it;
1: Your Processor\Mobo will have been superceeded and SSE4 will replace it,
and
2: AMD will have incorporated the technology into their chips too ...at much less expense!
That is exactly what happened with SSE2, SSE and MMX, the same timing will be repeated infinetly, but Intel Fanboys will have paid extra for a useless extention. Meanwhile your "ahead of their time" CPU's are driving Your costs sky high for "little - to - no" actual benefit! :rolleyes:
You fail to mention thoroughly the whole being of the AMD Vs. Intel thing in your post, you skip past it like it doesn't mean anything. let me remind you again why AMD ....
COST.
I wouldn't call the release of the P4EE a defuser! I'd call it Desperation! :p
"Wake Up" and smell the Ad Men! why don't ya? :D
CrazyCrusher
02-29-2004, 11:58 AM
ye well think about it, what the intel EE was a 64 and not a 32, it would clean up totaly. anyways thats MO, i dont use AMD Intel is better by far and everyone knows that, yes they cost more, but remember this you get what you pay for and in intels case its worth it.
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 12:39 PM
point 1 : clearly you didnt read the post properly because i did mention the cost. "i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though."
point 2 : maybe i did exagerate with the blew it away comment, i got carried away. but the crux of the matter is that the EE is a 32-bit cpu and it beats the AMD 64 bit cpu.
point 3 : i dont have a porsche. its been my signature name since i was about 7. the only other ive had is ferrari60670. it a boyhood car obsession thing. altho i plan to buy a porsche one day.
point 4 : the point in having SSE3 is that in the future you wont have to buy an upgrade when the programs become available. but if you had an AMD you would. i mean the 2600 doesnt even have SSE2. and hyper threading is brill. its a cheap way of having two CPU(but not really having two) if you know what i mean.
point 5 : i wouldnt call the EE desperate. id call the AMD 64 desperate. its a blatant copy of intel tectics. intel typically realease technology before its needed (HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but now AMD have done this!! the only OS that support 64 bit CPUs in LINUX. which hardly anybody uses. windows is the main OS in the world/universe.
point 6 : Calm down Strawbs, im not looking for an out and out argument. im just voicing an opinion. dont need to get all mad. its nice to be nice. And thanx for the support crazy crusher.
after typing this i realised that i am really bad with capital letter at the start of sentances. hee hee
:confused:
point 2 : maybe i did exagerate with the blew it away comment, i got carried away. but the crux of the matter is that the EE is a 32-bit cpu and it beats the AMD 64 bit cpu.
point 3 : i dont have a porsche. its been my signature name since i was about 7. the only other ive had is ferrari60670. it a boyhood car obsession thing. altho i plan to buy a porsche one day.
point 4 : the point in having SSE3 is that in the future you wont have to buy an upgrade when the programs become available. but if you had an AMD you would. i mean the 2600 doesnt even have SSE2. and hyper threading is brill. its a cheap way of having two CPU(but not really having two) if you know what i mean.
point 5 : i wouldnt call the EE desperate. id call the AMD 64 desperate. its a blatant copy of intel tectics. intel typically realease technology before its needed (HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but now AMD have done this!! the only OS that support 64 bit CPUs in LINUX. which hardly anybody uses. windows is the main OS in the world/universe.
point 6 : Calm down Strawbs, im not looking for an out and out argument. im just voicing an opinion. dont need to get all mad. its nice to be nice. And thanx for the support crazy crusher.
after typing this i realised that i am really bad with capital letter at the start of sentances. hee hee
:confused:
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 01:17 PM
we (others here) have been thru this already >Over Here (http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157634) you're a member now so ...c'mon in, make yourself at home!
:t
:t
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 01:23 PM
ok well cool, ive only done 2 now 3 post im not too sure. i just feels very strongly about intel being better than AMD. but if i was scrimping and saving on money id buy and AMD, like my bro did. hope he doesnt read that.
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 01:24 PM
**** it was 4 now 5 lol sorry cant count
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 01:33 PM
You've only got to click the "search" button at the top of the page and type in AMD Vs. Intel (or Vice Versa) and you'll get a ton of threads discussing this very thing. Many members here started here with Intel PC's, but later saw the folly of their ways and switched for their next build. If you build your own box ...AMD is the way to go! It's a much more involved and precise science! :D
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 01:40 PM
ive built three PC with my bro (yeh we are geeks and **** proud of it) and they have all been AMDs. thats because we werre working to a budget. but when i got my PC i had more budget. i did the unthinkable and bought a ready made dell. it was a brill deal, brill performance:
intel 875p chipset
2.8 Ghz 800mhz fsb
512 DDR 400
80Gb
DVDrw
128Mb graphics card
15'' flat panel
bunch of software
only £729
so i went for it. the point is that since i had the money i went for the intel over the amd. benchmarks have chown that the P4 is better than the athlon XP
intel 875p chipset
2.8 Ghz 800mhz fsb
512 DDR 400
80Gb
DVDrw
128Mb graphics card
15'' flat panel
bunch of software
only £729
so i went for it. the point is that since i had the money i went for the intel over the amd. benchmarks have chown that the P4 is better than the athlon XP
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
... i did the unthinkable and bought a ready made dell. ...OMG! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/eek7.gif
You just lost any respect I may have had for you with that last statement! :eek:
... i did the unthinkable and bought a ready made dell. ...OMG! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/eek7.gif
You just lost any respect I may have had for you with that last statement! :eek:
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 02:11 PM
come on man. its a good computer look at the specs. it does everything ive ever wanted and more. dell are well made PC. better than you ro i could probably put together.
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
come on man. its a good computer look at the specs. it does everything ive ever wanted and more. dell are well made PC. better than you ro i could probably put together. System Build:
Mobo:_____Asus A7N8X Dlx (http://www.asus.com.tw/support/download/item.aspx?ModelName=A7N8X%20Deluxe)
CPU:______AMD 2500+ Barton (http://www1.dealtime.com/dt-app/SE/KW-amd%202500%20processor/FD-1719/linkin_id-2082114/NS-1/GS.html)
RAM:______2x256Mb PC2700 + 1x512Mb PC2700 Dual Channel Mode (http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/DRAM/index.htm)
Graphix:___Sapphire Atlantis 9700Pro 128 (http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9700proatl.asp), Vantec Iceberq4 Premium VGA Cooler (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=16752&cat=413)
Monitor:___Hyundai Imagequest Q770 (17") (http://www.imagequest.co.kr/pro_q770.asp)
Fixed:_____DiamondMax Plus9 (http://www.maxtor.com/en/products/ata/desktop/diamondmax_plus_9/) 80Gb 150SATA 7200rpm, DiamondMax Plus9 (http://www.maxtor.com/en/products/ata/desktop/diamondmax_plus_9/) 80Gb 133PATA 7200rpm
Optical:___MSI 16x DVD Rom (http://www.chipmax.com/dvd-msi16xrombox.html), Plextor Plexwriter 48\24\48A (http://www.plextor.be/english/products/pxw482448A.html)
Floppy:___Generic (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/fdd/)
Reader:___Soyo AVI6.1 Card Reader (http://www.mlhsystems.com/momex/NavCode/Hardware.info/ID/3275)
Modem:___Smartlink 56k V92 (http://www.str8buy.com/smar56kv9inp.html)
PSU:_____Jeantech 500watt (http://www.jeantech.com/Products/Power_Supply/500W/500w.html)
Aux:_____Pyramid 5 Auto Fan Speed Controller (http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/product.php?view=3707), Blue Laser Lights (http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/product.php?view=2243), Antec P160 Aluminium Case w\ 2x Thermal Probes to _________CPU & Gfx Core (http://www.antec-inc.com/pro_details_enclosure.php?ProdID=81600), Zalman CNPS7000A 92mm FHS (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=17248&cat=250), Vantec Stealth 120mm x2 Case Fans (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=16661&cat=283)
Speakers:_Cambridge Soundworks DTT2200 5.1 (http://eax.creative.com/pde/welcome.asp?pdtid=20)
OS:______Windows XP Pro SP1 (http://xp-antispy.org/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=26&func=selectcat&cat=1) + Updates (http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.asp)
I cannot agree with you on that! I'll post some pics shortly. :)
come on man. its a good computer look at the specs. it does everything ive ever wanted and more. dell are well made PC. better than you ro i could probably put together. System Build:
Mobo:_____Asus A7N8X Dlx (http://www.asus.com.tw/support/download/item.aspx?ModelName=A7N8X%20Deluxe)
CPU:______AMD 2500+ Barton (http://www1.dealtime.com/dt-app/SE/KW-amd%202500%20processor/FD-1719/linkin_id-2082114/NS-1/GS.html)
RAM:______2x256Mb PC2700 + 1x512Mb PC2700 Dual Channel Mode (http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/DRAM/index.htm)
Graphix:___Sapphire Atlantis 9700Pro 128 (http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9700proatl.asp), Vantec Iceberq4 Premium VGA Cooler (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=16752&cat=413)
Monitor:___Hyundai Imagequest Q770 (17") (http://www.imagequest.co.kr/pro_q770.asp)
Fixed:_____DiamondMax Plus9 (http://www.maxtor.com/en/products/ata/desktop/diamondmax_plus_9/) 80Gb 150SATA 7200rpm, DiamondMax Plus9 (http://www.maxtor.com/en/products/ata/desktop/diamondmax_plus_9/) 80Gb 133PATA 7200rpm
Optical:___MSI 16x DVD Rom (http://www.chipmax.com/dvd-msi16xrombox.html), Plextor Plexwriter 48\24\48A (http://www.plextor.be/english/products/pxw482448A.html)
Floppy:___Generic (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/fdd/)
Reader:___Soyo AVI6.1 Card Reader (http://www.mlhsystems.com/momex/NavCode/Hardware.info/ID/3275)
Modem:___Smartlink 56k V92 (http://www.str8buy.com/smar56kv9inp.html)
PSU:_____Jeantech 500watt (http://www.jeantech.com/Products/Power_Supply/500W/500w.html)
Aux:_____Pyramid 5 Auto Fan Speed Controller (http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/product.php?view=3707), Blue Laser Lights (http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/product.php?view=2243), Antec P160 Aluminium Case w\ 2x Thermal Probes to _________CPU & Gfx Core (http://www.antec-inc.com/pro_details_enclosure.php?ProdID=81600), Zalman CNPS7000A 92mm FHS (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=17248&cat=250), Vantec Stealth 120mm x2 Case Fans (http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=16661&cat=283)
Speakers:_Cambridge Soundworks DTT2200 5.1 (http://eax.creative.com/pde/welcome.asp?pdtid=20)
OS:______Windows XP Pro SP1 (http://xp-antispy.org/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=26&func=selectcat&cat=1) + Updates (http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.asp)
I cannot agree with you on that! I'll post some pics shortly. :)
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 02:32 PM
:)
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 02:34 PM
I :-@ my rig! :D
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 02:35 PM
:t
porsch1909
02-29-2004, 04:50 PM
pretty flash man. more than ive ever needed. but my basic specs are better...i think. lol. how much did that set you back
Strawbs
02-29-2004, 06:49 PM
I really couldn't tell you how much it cost, It's taken me around 8 months to complete this project, buying bits every now and then! But I can tell you it's not as low-cost as your Dell! I didn't build it to save money, I'm an enthusiast, as many here are! I build because I enjoy it.
The main reason people "in the know" here don't buy dell is mainly because of proprietory parts that can only be replaced by Dell parts when the time comes for an upgrade ...Whereas; if I buy a new Mobo and CPU + RAM, I can partake in the 64-bit revolution without the need for anything else! If I ever feel my system is running a little slow, I can o\c it to 3200+ speeds at no extra cost what-so-ever (I already had it up there to test, but I'm not really a fan of overclocking and it runs fast enough as is, so I backed it down again). ;)
The main reason people "in the know" here don't buy dell is mainly because of proprietory parts that can only be replaced by Dell parts when the time comes for an upgrade ...Whereas; if I buy a new Mobo and CPU + RAM, I can partake in the 64-bit revolution without the need for anything else! If I ever feel my system is running a little slow, I can o\c it to 3200+ speeds at no extra cost what-so-ever (I already had it up there to test, but I'm not really a fan of overclocking and it runs fast enough as is, so I backed it down again). ;)
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 02:23 PM
dont take cheap digs at me man. keep it nice natured. just because i didnt make this PC doesnt mean im not an enthusiast. in fact ive made two of my three PCs with similar specs to yours, better looking tower anyway. i can tell you that my CPU will give more Mips and MFLOPS than ure CPu not overclocked and overclocked. the thing about my Mboard is that i can upgrade to the EE or the prescott if my wishes so desired.so so upgrade to the top AMD cpu you would have to change ure mboard but to upgrade to the the best intel cpu i dont need a new mboard. i can upgrade to any type of RAM i want and i have done so(added an extra 512 of crucial). the case that i got is spacious. i could also upgrade my mboard, but ermmmmm......currently i have the most recent chipset. so i couldnt upgrade. my case could also easily facilitate the 64 bit revolution. which i plan to join.....one day....perhaps not the AMD one though. the propietry parts statement isnt true, i can add any brand to this computer. i wouldnt dream of buying overpriced upgrades from dell.
i like to compare CPUs to cars:
intel are the ferrari, expensive parts, expensive price, very good, occasionaly unreliable
AMD are the guy with the sooped up small citroen saxo. tunned engine, NOS turbo going faster than is legal and what the car should do. a very good car
the sooped up car has its new fancy invention. a twin turbo(64 bit cpu) whilst the ferrari content with a single turbo just increase the size of the engine and make some componants better. the sooped up car zooms past the ferrari and has a huge ego boost. then 10 miles down the motorway the ferrari at its own pace beats the sooped up car, which is stopped, broken down on the hardshoulder after it was taken too far.
thats my analagy.
ive got to ask though that if you didnt build to save money. then you must surely must agree that if money wasnt a factor that the intel pentium 4 is a better choice than the AMD athlon. since when benchmarked the p4 has beaten the Athlon.
i like to compare CPUs to cars:
intel are the ferrari, expensive parts, expensive price, very good, occasionaly unreliable
AMD are the guy with the sooped up small citroen saxo. tunned engine, NOS turbo going faster than is legal and what the car should do. a very good car
the sooped up car has its new fancy invention. a twin turbo(64 bit cpu) whilst the ferrari content with a single turbo just increase the size of the engine and make some componants better. the sooped up car zooms past the ferrari and has a huge ego boost. then 10 miles down the motorway the ferrari at its own pace beats the sooped up car, which is stopped, broken down on the hardshoulder after it was taken too far.
thats my analagy.
ive got to ask though that if you didnt build to save money. then you must surely must agree that if money wasnt a factor that the intel pentium 4 is a better choice than the AMD athlon. since when benchmarked the p4 has beaten the Athlon.
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 03:42 PM
First up: I'm not taking "cheap digs" at you ...I'm telling you how it is for me! Am I not allowed to defend AMD from your initial onslaught?
second: if you put a P4EE in that dell it's liable to randomly blue screen thru a lack of power because of the PSU being only just adequate for your current specs, what makes you think it could handle the extra power draw of the P4EE? Have you tested it for output stability already? A Prescott review using 3 different Mobo's I've read recently concluded that the prescott failed to work in 2 of the boards because the socket couldn't provide enough wattage to sufficiently power the CPU, even though the manufacturers claimed their boards were "Prescott Ready", P4EE 3.4GHz requires the same 103watts as the Prescott, so I doubt very much that you could just plug it in and have it run.
Third: With that case being a Dell, I wouldn't presume that you can just plonk any Mobo, PSU, etc. in there and everything will be hunky dory; Dell doesn't do business that way, If you want to upgrade you may find you need Dell parts or a new Power Supply Unit, etc! Just because it looks like a standard PSU doesn't mean it's wired the same way! If you hook up a new (non-dell sourced) mobo to that PSU it's liable to fry it as soon as you turn it on (you have been warned!).
Fourth: Prescott currently runs HOTTER THAN HELL!
Fifth: I don't like Inhel's business practices so I choose to take the alternative option! In my particular case; right now it's not the money that has me at AMD's door. The minute they start w\ any BS business ****, I'll have no real reason to stay loyal (apart from maybe a cheaper base system).
Sixth: Your analogy is as flawed as the Ferraris you base it on; If they are to be driven on a daily basis, they require constant tuning, attention and money to keep them off the Hard Shoulder (Median)! In fact I might suggest that the Pentiums are the Turbo's with there Multi GHz and little performance, and the AMD 64's are the V10\12 cruisers. My system has run for month's without any sign of a hitch, I've just this weekend re-installed my OS ...because it's been running so long, it needed clearing out and refreshing!
>This Review (http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/)< from a site that has in the past been pro-Intel!
Have a good day! :t
[edit] you've yet to show me a Dell or your own effort that is put together "better"! Although I never said Dell's weren't solidly and cleanly built.
second: if you put a P4EE in that dell it's liable to randomly blue screen thru a lack of power because of the PSU being only just adequate for your current specs, what makes you think it could handle the extra power draw of the P4EE? Have you tested it for output stability already? A Prescott review using 3 different Mobo's I've read recently concluded that the prescott failed to work in 2 of the boards because the socket couldn't provide enough wattage to sufficiently power the CPU, even though the manufacturers claimed their boards were "Prescott Ready", P4EE 3.4GHz requires the same 103watts as the Prescott, so I doubt very much that you could just plug it in and have it run.
Third: With that case being a Dell, I wouldn't presume that you can just plonk any Mobo, PSU, etc. in there and everything will be hunky dory; Dell doesn't do business that way, If you want to upgrade you may find you need Dell parts or a new Power Supply Unit, etc! Just because it looks like a standard PSU doesn't mean it's wired the same way! If you hook up a new (non-dell sourced) mobo to that PSU it's liable to fry it as soon as you turn it on (you have been warned!).
Fourth: Prescott currently runs HOTTER THAN HELL!
Fifth: I don't like Inhel's business practices so I choose to take the alternative option! In my particular case; right now it's not the money that has me at AMD's door. The minute they start w\ any BS business ****, I'll have no real reason to stay loyal (apart from maybe a cheaper base system).
Sixth: Your analogy is as flawed as the Ferraris you base it on; If they are to be driven on a daily basis, they require constant tuning, attention and money to keep them off the Hard Shoulder (Median)! In fact I might suggest that the Pentiums are the Turbo's with there Multi GHz and little performance, and the AMD 64's are the V10\12 cruisers. My system has run for month's without any sign of a hitch, I've just this weekend re-installed my OS ...because it's been running so long, it needed clearing out and refreshing!
>This Review (http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/)< from a site that has in the past been pro-Intel!
Have a good day! :t
[edit] you've yet to show me a Dell or your own effort that is put together "better"! Although I never said Dell's weren't solidly and cleanly built.
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 04:10 PM
come on man those where cheap digs. implying im not an enthusiast. you need a chill pills buddy. dont shout and get nasty. i got a new 500watt PSU put into my dell cause it came with a measly 250(lol) so i think that should be enough to power any CPU. i need to work on some chasis fan but ill send a pic of the current fan, its pretty massive. ill send pics of the dell as soon as and my latest creation, which is an AMD btw, witht he same mboard as you 2600 CPU though, pretty nice beast.
this is just discussion man. i agree that AMD are very good CPUs i have two.
this is just discussion man. i agree that AMD are very good CPUs i have two.
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
come on man those where cheap digs. implying im not an enthusiast. ... FTLOG! I am not having a "DIG", I'm simply putting AMD's case in this discussion. My statement about enthusiats was meant to imply that "Enthusiasts" mainly build AMD based rigs! It wasn't meant to imply anything about you personally.
The only "shouting I did was in my "HOTTER THAN HELL" quote, so I don't know where you get that idea either!
You on the other hand seem to have some kind of personality disorder and have come here with the sole intention of spewing **** at every turn! First you say Intel mops the floor with AMD 64's, which ...when challenged... you withdraw! then you say you have a Dell, which ...after I "jokingly" criticise your choice... you claim you've "souped up"! Then you claim I'm making fun of you and need to "chill", which I haven't and I *am* was! well I will "chill" no longer because I'm fed up of your BS!
You come across as a 10 yrd old kid "mine is better than yours so there :p ". I've given you umpteen opportunities to say something even remotely based in reality "man", You obviously don't have as much experience in building computers as you profess to have and are trying hard to make people think you know what you're talking about ...but you got offended at a joke about Dell Computers and their (lack of) upgradability, It sounds to me like you didn't know what you bought and now you're trying to talk it up!
The knowledge passed around SysOpt is based if fact! If you think I'm being to hard on you and would like an appology ...PROVE what you say and I'll appologise, otherwise shut up!
come on man those where cheap digs. implying im not an enthusiast. ... FTLOG! I am not having a "DIG", I'm simply putting AMD's case in this discussion. My statement about enthusiats was meant to imply that "Enthusiasts" mainly build AMD based rigs! It wasn't meant to imply anything about you personally.
The only "shouting I did was in my "HOTTER THAN HELL" quote, so I don't know where you get that idea either!
You on the other hand seem to have some kind of personality disorder and have come here with the sole intention of spewing **** at every turn! First you say Intel mops the floor with AMD 64's, which ...when challenged... you withdraw! then you say you have a Dell, which ...after I "jokingly" criticise your choice... you claim you've "souped up"! Then you claim I'm making fun of you and need to "chill", which I haven't and I *am* was! well I will "chill" no longer because I'm fed up of your BS!
You come across as a 10 yrd old kid "mine is better than yours so there :p ". I've given you umpteen opportunities to say something even remotely based in reality "man", You obviously don't have as much experience in building computers as you profess to have and are trying hard to make people think you know what you're talking about ...but you got offended at a joke about Dell Computers and their (lack of) upgradability, It sounds to me like you didn't know what you bought and now you're trying to talk it up!
The knowledge passed around SysOpt is based if fact! If you think I'm being to hard on you and would like an appology ...PROVE what you say and I'll appologise, otherwise shut up!
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 05:23 PM
i never said i sooped up the dell i just said that i added a new PSU thats hardly sooping up. what have i said which isnt realistic. ive said that the intel P4 is better than AMD athlon which anybody should know is true. go to anandtech if you want they say the same, unfortunatly Tom doesnt say that or does he i dont tak ehis advice. all ive saying about your attitude is it a bit confrotational. ive not been confrontational. i value your opinion, i sense you are more experienced in these matters. i dont want to fight. youve not exactly given evidense to say that AMD are better than intel. you can benchmarks ure PC on sisoft(not overclocked) and ill benchmark mine. Then we can see whos is better if you want. i wasnt so much offended by your comment on the upgradibility as i wanted to correct you that they are upgradable. i told you i have put extra ram in which isnt dell branded and it worked. ive put a new graphics card in(borrowed) and used it better than the one supplied. i removed it afterwards it wasnt mine. i mean what evidense do you have to support the statement that dells are not upgradable....because ermmmm....they are....because i maybe just have one. of course i know what ive bought!! thats insulting my PC does as i have said everything i want and more. im not going to suggest you calm down because that obviously s taken personally and makes you more angry. the mops the floor statement...hmmmmm... i didnt say that the EE doesnt beat the FX. because the EE did beat the fx. i have an article in PCformat which says it does. ill scan it in if you want all your real world proof. prove what part of what i said, its all fact, if you want pics of the PC there on the way........
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 05:28 PM
one pic
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 05:29 PM
another
porsch1909
03-01-2004, 05:32 PM
res is a wee bit high sorry
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;) Links Please!?!
in response to one person suggesting that the amd athlon64 are beating intels. this is simply not true!! intel are being quite masterfull in their marketing of their proccessors. when the 64 came out they diffussed it with the Extreme edition, which was a 32 bit CPU but with a lot of cache which actually blew away the 64 and mac G2, in most benchmarks. i do admit that the EE is more expensive than the 64 though. ive always had intel chips and have alway(except p3) liked them. my brother has had AMD CPU as well and they are good, just intel are better. some intels dont show their true colours just now because of technology that is really ahead of their time(HT, ISSE2, ISSE3) but these technologys will be used in the future while i'm using my northwood 800fsb and all the AMD people are upgrading. ;) Links Please!?!
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
... benchmarks have chown that the P4 is better than the athlon XP What P4 Vs. What Athlon? Links Please!
... benchmarks have chown that the P4 is better than the athlon XP What P4 Vs. What Athlon? Links Please!
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
... dell are well made PC. better than you ro i could probably put together. don't presume to speak for me! I don't have wires hanging behind the window in my PC!
... dell are well made PC. better than you ro i could probably put together. don't presume to speak for me! I don't have wires hanging behind the window in my PC!
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
dont take cheap digs at me man. keep it nice natured. just because i didnt make this PC doesnt mean im not an enthusiast. No Dig, Didn't say you weren't an enthusiast!
Originally posted by porsch1909
...better looking tower anyway.Again Your Opinion, which I do not happen to share.
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can tell you that my CPU will give more Mips and MFLOPS than ure CPu not overclocked and overclocked. "Mines better than yours"
Originally posted by porsch1909
the thing about my Mboard is that i can upgrade to the EE or the prescott if my wishes so desired.I seriously doubt that!
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can upgrade to any type of RAM i want and i have done so(added an extra 512 of crucial). So either your Dell came with no RAM what-so-ever or you now have 1Gb?
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can add any brand to this computer.
Which one are you talking about?
Originally posted by porsch1909
... since when benchmarked the p4 has beaten the Athlon.Which Models are you comparing?
y'no what? I don't care! Grow Up.
dont take cheap digs at me man. keep it nice natured. just because i didnt make this PC doesnt mean im not an enthusiast. No Dig, Didn't say you weren't an enthusiast!
Originally posted by porsch1909
...better looking tower anyway.Again Your Opinion, which I do not happen to share.
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can tell you that my CPU will give more Mips and MFLOPS than ure CPu not overclocked and overclocked. "Mines better than yours"
Originally posted by porsch1909
the thing about my Mboard is that i can upgrade to the EE or the prescott if my wishes so desired.I seriously doubt that!
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can upgrade to any type of RAM i want and i have done so(added an extra 512 of crucial). So either your Dell came with no RAM what-so-ever or you now have 1Gb?
Originally posted by porsch1909
i can add any brand to this computer.
Which one are you talking about?
Originally posted by porsch1909
... since when benchmarked the p4 has beaten the Athlon.Which Models are you comparing?
y'no what? I don't care! Grow Up.
Strawbs
03-01-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by porsch1909
you can benchmarks ure PC on sisoft(not overclocked) and ill benchmark mine. Then we can see whos is better if you want. ........ You want to compare a 1.8 to your 2.8? This is exactly what I mean about your childish attitude!
I prefer my system to yours Thank You. You may have a different preference! I really don't care for your Dell or your Xaser! I picked my case without even a second glance at that gothic looking monstrosity! That is MO.
I have an opinion about Intel too! I've been of the same opinion for many years ...don't expext to change my mind with your flippant remarks.
Why don't you get yourself off the front doorstep, have a look around inside of SysOpt and learn to post links to back up your claims of dominance?
you can benchmarks ure PC on sisoft(not overclocked) and ill benchmark mine. Then we can see whos is better if you want. ........ You want to compare a 1.8 to your 2.8? This is exactly what I mean about your childish attitude!
I prefer my system to yours Thank You. You may have a different preference! I really don't care for your Dell or your Xaser! I picked my case without even a second glance at that gothic looking monstrosity! That is MO.
I have an opinion about Intel too! I've been of the same opinion for many years ...don't expext to change my mind with your flippant remarks.
Why don't you get yourself off the front doorstep, have a look around inside of SysOpt and learn to post links to back up your claims of dominance?
porsch1909
03-02-2004, 12:44 PM
I not trying to change your mind. You and your cynical mind, ive tried to stay as calm as possible through your insults. i have a link!! the first thing that i typed into the search engine shows that the AMD 3200 vs the P4 3.2 Ghz show convincingly that the P4 beats the AMD. These are both the flagship proccessors. And i know that the P4 is more expensive, but you get what you pay for!! even the 3 Ghz beats the AMD 3200! this discussion is digressing. it has nothing to do with 64-bit proccessing! now you will probably say that he clock speed is lower, well maybe AMD should increase their clock speed a wee bit. i told you that the article proving that the EE is better is in a magazine so i cant show you, but.....anandtech do have an article on this which is included. in some benchmarks the northwood beats the AMD64. i pretty much had enough from you ive provided all the evidence. if you want any more evidence just ask
http://hwextreme.com/reviews/processor/intel_3200/page4.shtml
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=17
:t
http://hwextreme.com/reviews/processor/intel_3200/page4.shtml
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=17
:t
Rugor
03-02-2004, 09:18 PM
Ok let's try to get some sense into this discussion.
First, the Athlon XP and the P4 are very different beasts, and the reason that everyone does not know the P4 is better is because that's not true. The P4 is better at some things, the Athlon is better at others. In simple terms the P4 excels in bandwidth intensive tasks where the Athlon excels in computationally intensive ones. Also the P4 scales to higher clock speeds much more easily than the Athlon, and the Athlon has a much higher IPC than the P4.
However, the AthlonXP is coming near the end of its lifetime and the fastest P4's are overall faster in general usage. However, the Athlon64 is a different case. The 3400+ is faster than anything save the EE, despite a 1GHz clockspeed deficit and much less memory bandwidth.
Current Athlon64's support SSE2, and the next revision will support SSE3. As to HyperThreading, it won't work on AMD's architecture because it's too efficient. It's designed to take advantage of wasted CPU cycles, and perversely becomes more effective the less efficient the CPU is. It improves multi-threaded performance at the expense of single-threaded performance.
Also, none of the Windows-based P4EE vs A64FX tests took advantage of the Athlon's 64-bit capability. That requires a 64-bit OS which neither was running. Both were running as 32-bit processors.
At the moment the Athlon64 is the best overall x86 processor design on the market, followed by the Pentium-M.
First, the Athlon XP and the P4 are very different beasts, and the reason that everyone does not know the P4 is better is because that's not true. The P4 is better at some things, the Athlon is better at others. In simple terms the P4 excels in bandwidth intensive tasks where the Athlon excels in computationally intensive ones. Also the P4 scales to higher clock speeds much more easily than the Athlon, and the Athlon has a much higher IPC than the P4.
However, the AthlonXP is coming near the end of its lifetime and the fastest P4's are overall faster in general usage. However, the Athlon64 is a different case. The 3400+ is faster than anything save the EE, despite a 1GHz clockspeed deficit and much less memory bandwidth.
Current Athlon64's support SSE2, and the next revision will support SSE3. As to HyperThreading, it won't work on AMD's architecture because it's too efficient. It's designed to take advantage of wasted CPU cycles, and perversely becomes more effective the less efficient the CPU is. It improves multi-threaded performance at the expense of single-threaded performance.
Also, none of the Windows-based P4EE vs A64FX tests took advantage of the Athlon's 64-bit capability. That requires a 64-bit OS which neither was running. Both were running as 32-bit processors.
At the moment the Athlon64 is the best overall x86 processor design on the market, followed by the Pentium-M.
SLX
03-03-2004, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Strawbs
COST.
I wouldn't call the release of the P4EE a defuser! I'd call it Desperation! :p
"Wake Up" and smell the Ad Men! why don't ya? :D
Wait! what OS are you going to run on that processor again>?
COST.
I wouldn't call the release of the P4EE a defuser! I'd call it Desperation! :p
"Wake Up" and smell the Ad Men! why don't ya? :D
Wait! what OS are you going to run on that processor again>?
Strawbs
03-03-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by SLX
Wait! what OS are you going to run on that processor again>? the OS is listed in my specs posted earlier. What I didn't list is that my company provided me with XP Pro to ensure compatability with Head Office.
I run Mandrake 9.1 on the 1.4Ghz T'bird upstairs as the primary OS with XP Pro Academic (my daughter is at college) backing it up. :)
Wait! what OS are you going to run on that processor again>? the OS is listed in my specs posted earlier. What I didn't list is that my company provided me with XP Pro to ensure compatability with Head Office.
I run Mandrake 9.1 on the 1.4Ghz T'bird upstairs as the primary OS with XP Pro Academic (my daughter is at college) backing it up. :)
k8vol
03-03-2004, 11:33 PM
Dell BIOS upgrade to run that newsest cpu ? maybe or probably not. Dell wants to sell new units not upgrades! good luck k8vol usa Michigan.
porsch1909
03-04-2004, 01:12 PM
finally no more desparaging comments!! oh well. the fact that nobody can run the 64 bit cpu properly except linux customers is a bad thing. i had a theory as to why AMD released the CPU before the main OS in the universe is compatible with it. they couldnt think of the technology to increase clock speeds so they increased the CPU from 32 bit to 64 bit. since intel havent run out of technology to increase clock speed(the prescott is claimed to increase to 4-5 Ghz) they dont see it neccesary to release the 64 bit CPu, i beleive that intel have the technology to create a 64 bit CPU. they will release their 64 cpu after the release of the 64 bit version of of windows. but the advantage to the user of the AMD 64 coming out early is that people should hold off till the 64 bit OS comes out then buy the CPU and the price will have gone drastically down. good for us but bad for AMD.
the 64 bit CPU does that mean that the data bus is 64 bit.(ie doubled)
the 64 bit CPU does that mean that the data bus is 64 bit.(ie doubled)
Strawbs
03-04-2004, 01:48 PM
I thought Itanium was 64-bit!
Can you name 1 program that takes advantage of SSE3? It seems that when Intel release something before any app can take advantage of it, it's seen by Itel fans as "ahead of it's time", but when AMD take the lead it's seen by those same ppl as folly. Sounds like double standards to me!
Can you name 1 program that takes advantage of SSE3? It seems that when Intel release something before any app can take advantage of it, it's seen by Itel fans as "ahead of it's time", but when AMD take the lead it's seen by those same ppl as folly. Sounds like double standards to me!
porsch1909
03-04-2004, 05:08 PM
you never seem to agree with anything i say. okay SSE3 isnt exactly anything as big as 64 bit proccessing but good point none the less. but the point i was trying to put accross was that possibly AMD ran out of ideas a resorted to the 64 bit CPU. i mean SSE3 isnt a major thing but
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040206062333.html
this link shows upcoming programs to utilise SSE3.
i admit that is double standards. there is really no point in releasing something after compatibily is made to be honest but the thing with intel is that there technologies are released so too early whereas the AMD64 was a tad early.
thats interesting i never knew that intel had a 64 bit CPU lol. just searched itanium now. i dont think that is for home users though more for servers or far more demanding applications than i or most single users do. with 6Mb os L3 cache, lol. that reiterates that intel have the tehcnology.
an interesting point about Hyper threading. i had accidently cleared my CMOS...not sure how, and my HT was disabled and i noticed that system performance was low. i bencharked my PC on Sisoft sandra and i was getting half the MFLOPS i normally get!! this was before i realised that the HT was off. in a state of panic i thought,"oh no that guy on the forum might have been correct about my dell being a bad choice." after running several utilities to find problem the only thing i found was 21 data minors. i thought ill just check the BIOS before i phone dell and shout at them. and my HT was off!!! my MIPS and MFLOPS are back to normal now. i thought HT was a gimick and not really used until this experience.
strawbs...you seem to be one of great wisdom and age and knowledge......do you know what a 64 bit proccessor actually is. is it just the width of the data bus being 64 bitt hence increasing throughput??
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040206062333.html
this link shows upcoming programs to utilise SSE3.
i admit that is double standards. there is really no point in releasing something after compatibily is made to be honest but the thing with intel is that there technologies are released so too early whereas the AMD64 was a tad early.
thats interesting i never knew that intel had a 64 bit CPU lol. just searched itanium now. i dont think that is for home users though more for servers or far more demanding applications than i or most single users do. with 6Mb os L3 cache, lol. that reiterates that intel have the tehcnology.
an interesting point about Hyper threading. i had accidently cleared my CMOS...not sure how, and my HT was disabled and i noticed that system performance was low. i bencharked my PC on Sisoft sandra and i was getting half the MFLOPS i normally get!! this was before i realised that the HT was off. in a state of panic i thought,"oh no that guy on the forum might have been correct about my dell being a bad choice." after running several utilities to find problem the only thing i found was 21 data minors. i thought ill just check the BIOS before i phone dell and shout at them. and my HT was off!!! my MIPS and MFLOPS are back to normal now. i thought HT was a gimick and not really used until this experience.
strawbs...you seem to be one of great wisdom and age and knowledge......do you know what a 64 bit proccessor actually is. is it just the width of the data bus being 64 bitt hence increasing throughput??
porsch1909
03-04-2004, 05:11 PM
http://search390.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid10_gci498697,00.html
scrap that query srawbs. it was just increase in the word size, word size being the width of the data bus.
and my second paragraph should be 'not' instead of 'so'
scrap that query srawbs. it was just increase in the word size, word size being the width of the data bus.
and my second paragraph should be 'not' instead of 'so'
Strawbs
03-04-2004, 05:53 PM
I certainly agree that Intel have the capability to release a 64-bit cpu for the desktop and have had the capabilty for a number of years! The reason they have not done so in the past is because it would impact the sales of their server chip ...which business would pay extortionate amounts for Itanium if they could buy a desktop chip with the same capabilities for a fraction of the price?
What AMD has chosen to do is bridge the gap and pull the rug out from under Intel! Intel tried to tell the world that Mainstream 64-bit was unnecessary, knowing that AMD probably couldn't afford to make seperate 64 and 32-bit at the same time. They wanted the 64-bit market to remain a seperate "Business only" entity because they could continue to charge higher prices for their own 64-bit cpu's that way.
Your claim that AMD has released what is essentially a processor that has no use in today's world, also falls down when you take into account that it is a very capable 32-bit chip. It doesn't need 64-bit appilcations or operating systems to work, The cost of the Athlon 64 is equal to the comparable 32-bit P4's but has a much longer lifespan ahead of it because of the as yet unutilised 64-bit pathways.
The reason for this threads title is because Intel have said in the past that they would not be going down the 64-bit route for desktops ...and it is now apparent that they made a serious error of judgement with those statements! At last they admit that 64-bit is the way ahead and they now need to play catch-up with AMD.
For once at least it can truly be said that AMD has the lead on Intel.
What AMD has chosen to do is bridge the gap and pull the rug out from under Intel! Intel tried to tell the world that Mainstream 64-bit was unnecessary, knowing that AMD probably couldn't afford to make seperate 64 and 32-bit at the same time. They wanted the 64-bit market to remain a seperate "Business only" entity because they could continue to charge higher prices for their own 64-bit cpu's that way.
Your claim that AMD has released what is essentially a processor that has no use in today's world, also falls down when you take into account that it is a very capable 32-bit chip. It doesn't need 64-bit appilcations or operating systems to work, The cost of the Athlon 64 is equal to the comparable 32-bit P4's but has a much longer lifespan ahead of it because of the as yet unutilised 64-bit pathways.
The reason for this threads title is because Intel have said in the past that they would not be going down the 64-bit route for desktops ...and it is now apparent that they made a serious error of judgement with those statements! At last they admit that 64-bit is the way ahead and they now need to play catch-up with AMD.
For once at least it can truly be said that AMD has the lead on Intel.
Strawbs
03-04-2004, 06:11 PM
Hyper Threading is virtual dual processing! It fools apps that are capable of utilising dual processors into thinking there are 2 processors installed! Not many programs outside of expensive office apps (and Sysoft Sandra) have that capability. In short - your benchmarking doesn't mean much in "real world" terms! It's just a guide to let you know that you have set your BIOS up correctly.
My knowledge has increased since I started to read what ppl here have written. Rugor (above) and others have a much better grasp of these things than I. You should read what they have to say.
My knowledge has increased since I started to read what ppl here have written. Rugor (above) and others have a much better grasp of these things than I. You should read what they have to say.
RamonGTP
03-05-2004, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by porsch1909
...i had a theory as to why AMD released the CPU before the main OS in the universe is compatible with it. they couldnt think of the technology to increase clock speeds so they increased the CPU from 32 bit to 64 bit. since intel havent run out of technology to increase clock speed(the prescott is claimed to increase to 4-5 Ghz) they dont see it neccesary to release the 64 bit CPu, i beleive that intel have the technology to create a 64 bit CPU. they will release their 64 cpu after the release of the 64 bit version of of windows. but the advantage to the user of the AMD 64 coming out early is that people should hold off till the 64 bit OS comes out then buy the CPU and the price will have gone drastically down. good for us but bad for AMD.
the 64 bit CPU does that mean that the data bus is 64 bit.(ie doubled)
I wonder... Whats your theory of why Intel released a 32bit CPU before 32bit OS's came along? Why did 64MB video cards become available before any games required it? After that, why did 128MB video cards come out before any games required it? Lastly, why did 256MB cards come out before any games took advantage of that?
I hope you didn't go through too much trouble to come up with that flawed theory. The simple truth is that hardware has always been several steps ahead of software.
...i had a theory as to why AMD released the CPU before the main OS in the universe is compatible with it. they couldnt think of the technology to increase clock speeds so they increased the CPU from 32 bit to 64 bit. since intel havent run out of technology to increase clock speed(the prescott is claimed to increase to 4-5 Ghz) they dont see it neccesary to release the 64 bit CPu, i beleive that intel have the technology to create a 64 bit CPU. they will release their 64 cpu after the release of the 64 bit version of of windows. but the advantage to the user of the AMD 64 coming out early is that people should hold off till the 64 bit OS comes out then buy the CPU and the price will have gone drastically down. good for us but bad for AMD.
the 64 bit CPU does that mean that the data bus is 64 bit.(ie doubled)
I wonder... Whats your theory of why Intel released a 32bit CPU before 32bit OS's came along? Why did 64MB video cards become available before any games required it? After that, why did 128MB video cards come out before any games required it? Lastly, why did 256MB cards come out before any games took advantage of that?
I hope you didn't go through too much trouble to come up with that flawed theory. The simple truth is that hardware has always been several steps ahead of software.
porsch1909
03-05-2004, 07:08 AM
i did say that there is no point in realeasing hardware before it the compatibilty has been made available.
a thing i have to say that 64 bit is the way forward. BUT!! AMD have doubled the data bus but there clock speeds are still too low, compared to intel. all the amd fans must agree that AMD need to improve their clockspeeds. when intel bring out their 64 bit proccessor with a much higher clock speed then AMD it will most probably blow away AMD's 64 bit proccessor. but AMD will have the upper hand on the cost.
so AMD have done something good by introducing the 64 bit CPU hence forcing intel to intoduce their's soon(hopefully) but AMD need to research into higher clock speeds which hence increases the MIPS and MFLOPS.
i mean AMD cant exactly increase the data bus again to 128 bit. or can they. lol
a thing i have to say that 64 bit is the way forward. BUT!! AMD have doubled the data bus but there clock speeds are still too low, compared to intel. all the amd fans must agree that AMD need to improve their clockspeeds. when intel bring out their 64 bit proccessor with a much higher clock speed then AMD it will most probably blow away AMD's 64 bit proccessor. but AMD will have the upper hand on the cost.
so AMD have done something good by introducing the 64 bit CPU hence forcing intel to intoduce their's soon(hopefully) but AMD need to research into higher clock speeds which hence increases the MIPS and MFLOPS.
i mean AMD cant exactly increase the data bus again to 128 bit. or can they. lol
RamonGTP
03-05-2004, 03:14 PM
You seem to be stuck on this "MIPS and MFLOPS" thing... Higher MHz doesn't equal higher MIPS/MFLOPS. Its the combination of IPC AND MHz that dictate that. Intel has a much higher MHz rating, while AMD has a much higher IPC. IPCxMHz will give you your precious "MIPS and MFLOPS" thats why AMD's processor can equal the performance of Intel's which has a full 1GHz advantage.
AMD is scheduled to release a 4200+ A64 soon after Socet 939 becomes available. So be patient, clock speeds increase will come. There is no reason to have anything faster now as what AMD has out there is every bit as good as intels best.
AMD is scheduled to release a 4200+ A64 soon after Socet 939 becomes available. So be patient, clock speeds increase will come. There is no reason to have anything faster now as what AMD has out there is every bit as good as intels best.
Rugor
03-05-2004, 04:48 PM
Also, Intel's MFLOPs rating is artificially inflated by the use of SSE2 whenever available. SSE2 provides the majority of P4's floating point muscle, and it's not applicable to all FP operations. It massively speeds up operations that can be parallelized but does nothing for other operations. In those cases P4 has to fall back on its rather anemic x87 FPU.
The Athlon XP has a much stronger x87 FPU than P4, which is how it is able to compete despite lacking SSE2 support. The x87 FPU on Athlon's slower on some ops than SSE2 on P4, but much faster in others on raw x87.
However, Athlon64 retains the raw x87 FPU ability of the Athlon, and adds SSE2 support, which greatly improves floating point performance as it now has the best of both worlds. It's also important to note that the integrated low-latency memory controller is going to pay huge dividends for Athlon64 as well.
Finally, the lower a clockspeed you can deliver a given amount of performance at, the better off you are in the long run. Your system is going to be more responsive because there's less of a variance between I/O speeds and the core clock so you won't lose cycles there. You also don't have to worry as much about frequency generated heat. Frequency is directly related to heat, and by packing more and faster transistors into smaller spaces you are generating ever more heat. Intel's new BTX form factor's proof of this.
The Athlon XP has a much stronger x87 FPU than P4, which is how it is able to compete despite lacking SSE2 support. The x87 FPU on Athlon's slower on some ops than SSE2 on P4, but much faster in others on raw x87.
However, Athlon64 retains the raw x87 FPU ability of the Athlon, and adds SSE2 support, which greatly improves floating point performance as it now has the best of both worlds. It's also important to note that the integrated low-latency memory controller is going to pay huge dividends for Athlon64 as well.
Finally, the lower a clockspeed you can deliver a given amount of performance at, the better off you are in the long run. Your system is going to be more responsive because there's less of a variance between I/O speeds and the core clock so you won't lose cycles there. You also don't have to worry as much about frequency generated heat. Frequency is directly related to heat, and by packing more and faster transistors into smaller spaces you are generating ever more heat. Intel's new BTX form factor's proof of this.
Zappattazz
03-06-2004, 11:43 AM
Time for me to jump into the melee....
First things first: I'm a Intel FanBoy
Second things second: I'm pro-Intel because "business-wise" Intel is the better company!
Third things third: AMD must succeed in the desktop market or they will collapse under the MASSIVE weight of their debts. Quarter after quarter AMD is barely keeping their nostrils above the waves of bankruptcy!
On to the Strawbs attack:
1) I saw where you posted the various components of your "project" -- Why did I not see the FX-51 as your cpu?
Could it be...
COST ?
Last check on Pricewatch...
64FX=$732
P4EE=$855
You're Right! It's Twice as much! :eek:
B) There isn't any software available which utilizes SSE3! Please name the number of software programs which use AMD 64s!
3) You rant and rave about the expense of Intel, but we see that don't seem to mind the EXPENSE of Micro$oft to run your "project"!
Bring it on!
First things first: I'm a Intel FanBoy
Second things second: I'm pro-Intel because "business-wise" Intel is the better company!
Third things third: AMD must succeed in the desktop market or they will collapse under the MASSIVE weight of their debts. Quarter after quarter AMD is barely keeping their nostrils above the waves of bankruptcy!
On to the Strawbs attack:
1) I saw where you posted the various components of your "project" -- Why did I not see the FX-51 as your cpu?
Could it be...
COST ?
Last check on Pricewatch...
64FX=$732
P4EE=$855
You're Right! It's Twice as much! :eek:
B) There isn't any software available which utilizes SSE3! Please name the number of software programs which use AMD 64s!
3) You rant and rave about the expense of Intel, but we see that don't seem to mind the EXPENSE of Micro$oft to run your "project"!
Bring it on!
Strawbs
03-06-2004, 12:18 PM
On to the Strawbs attack:
Originally posted by Zappattazz
1) I saw where you posted the various components of your "project" -- Why did I not see the FX-51 as your cpu?
Could it be...
COST ?You said you looked at my project ...why then didn't you see that it's taken me 8 month's to complete ...started before the release of FX?
Originally posted by Zappattazz
B) There isn't any software available which utilizes SSE3! Please name the number of software programs which use AMD 64s!Any software that runs in 32-bit! You seem to be forgetting that Athlon64 is also a 32-bit chip!
Originally posted by Zappattazz
3) You rant and rave about the expense of Intel, but we see that don't seem to mind the EXPENSE of Micro$oft to run your "project"!If you care to read through the posts, you'll see that has already been asked and answered.
Originally posted by Zappattazz
Time for me to jump into the melee.... I'm a Intel FanBoyGo back to sleep FanBoy! You're making respectable Intel buyers look stupid, when you wake up you should learn to read the whole book, not just the front and back covers!
Originally posted by Zappattazz
1) I saw where you posted the various components of your "project" -- Why did I not see the FX-51 as your cpu?
Could it be...
COST ?You said you looked at my project ...why then didn't you see that it's taken me 8 month's to complete ...started before the release of FX?
Originally posted by Zappattazz
B) There isn't any software available which utilizes SSE3! Please name the number of software programs which use AMD 64s!Any software that runs in 32-bit! You seem to be forgetting that Athlon64 is also a 32-bit chip!
Originally posted by Zappattazz
3) You rant and rave about the expense of Intel, but we see that don't seem to mind the EXPENSE of Micro$oft to run your "project"!If you care to read through the posts, you'll see that has already been asked and answered.
Originally posted by Zappattazz
Time for me to jump into the melee.... I'm a Intel FanBoyGo back to sleep FanBoy! You're making respectable Intel buyers look stupid, when you wake up you should learn to read the whole book, not just the front and back covers!
Strawbs
03-06-2004, 12:37 PM
Since you asked why I'm not running an FX-51, I would like to know why you're not running a Xeon!
How many Xeon's will you be wanting sir? You'll get a better discount if you take 2000!
The Intel Xeon processor MP at 3.0 GHz featuring a 4 MB L3 cache is now available worldwide for Intel's list price of $3,692 in 1,000-unit quantities.And that price is Each BTW.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040302comp.htm.
Don't even talk to me about cost!
How many Xeon's will you be wanting sir? You'll get a better discount if you take 2000!
The Intel Xeon processor MP at 3.0 GHz featuring a 4 MB L3 cache is now available worldwide for Intel's list price of $3,692 in 1,000-unit quantities.And that price is Each BTW.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040302comp.htm.
Don't even talk to me about cost!
porsch1909
03-06-2004, 04:53 PM
You seem to be stuck on this "MIPS and MFLOPS" thing... Higher MHz doesn't equal higher MIPS/MFLOPS. Its the combination of IPC AND MHz that dictate that. Intel has a much higher MHz rating, while AMD has a much higher IPC. IPCxMHz will give you your precious "MIPS and MFLOPS" thats why AMD's processor can equal the performance of Intel's which has a full 1GHz advantage.
where too start.....hmmmmmm......when i was reading your post i thought, this person is in the know. he/she knows what he/she is talking about. but this person has a flawed argument. i beg you to tell me it was a typing error...please..."higher MHZ doesn't equal higher MIPS/MFLOPS" then you say, "IPCxMHZ will give me my precious MIP/MFLOPS" ahhhhhhh.......everybody can do simple math.
MIPS/MFLOPS = IP * MHZ
so if i increased Mhz then in turn MIPS/MFLOP(more importantly MFLOPS) would increase....oooops.
right now. in Sisoft the SSE2 figure is given seperatly from the MFLOPS. another flaw in your argument.
if intels performance figure are inflated then why are FPS in games better. i know i dont have a link to prove this i have a very busy weekend ahead of me and have so far had a busy one. but some of my previous link i thik show that itnel gaming performance is better than AMD. heating is a minor issue people. just add some extra fan, go for water cooling...even nitrogen cooling, or a cooling unit i read about, not suer what its called but the CPU was overclocked to 4Ghz and ran at -22 degreee celcius.
so cooling isnt a problem, dont come up with the cost please, because your all enthusiasts(including me) so cost isnt a barrier.
where too start.....hmmmmmm......when i was reading your post i thought, this person is in the know. he/she knows what he/she is talking about. but this person has a flawed argument. i beg you to tell me it was a typing error...please..."higher MHZ doesn't equal higher MIPS/MFLOPS" then you say, "IPCxMHZ will give me my precious MIP/MFLOPS" ahhhhhhh.......everybody can do simple math.
MIPS/MFLOPS = IP * MHZ
so if i increased Mhz then in turn MIPS/MFLOP(more importantly MFLOPS) would increase....oooops.
right now. in Sisoft the SSE2 figure is given seperatly from the MFLOPS. another flaw in your argument.
if intels performance figure are inflated then why are FPS in games better. i know i dont have a link to prove this i have a very busy weekend ahead of me and have so far had a busy one. but some of my previous link i thik show that itnel gaming performance is better than AMD. heating is a minor issue people. just add some extra fan, go for water cooling...even nitrogen cooling, or a cooling unit i read about, not suer what its called but the CPU was overclocked to 4Ghz and ran at -22 degreee celcius.
so cooling isnt a problem, dont come up with the cost please, because your all enthusiasts(including me) so cost isnt a barrier.
Rugor
03-06-2004, 06:06 PM
Let's see:
Right now the Athlon64 is the best overall gaming CPU. Intel wins some, AMD wins others, but on the whole the Athlon64 wins more gaming benches than any other processor.
Yes, increasing MHz does increase overall CPU performance, including MIPS and MFLOPS. However, the better your IPC the less you need to increase your core frequency for the same gain in MFLOPS. SSE2 is however, a real issue, not only because there are some applications that don't support it, but more importantly because there are some operations that cannot support it. So any sustained, as opposed to peak, MFLOPS figure needs to consider the proportion of SSE2 to non-SSE2 apps.
However, floating point performance isn't the only thing that matters in a CPU. It's important, but what really matters is usable performance rather than theoretical performance. One side effect of the design choices made in the Netburst Architecture is an extreme sensitivity to pipeline stalls and data starvation. If you can't keep the pipelines full you suffer a huge hit. Intel has used large caches, huge increases in FSB bandwidth, and hyperthreading to try to minimize this hit, but it's always going to be there to one degree or another because it's intrinsic to the design.
This is where we run into another problme with the super-high frequency design. Latencies. Even though P4 was designed to minimize latency effects it's still subject to them. The huge disparity between core clock and FSB base rate can be a killer. Remember, Intel's 800MHz FSB is a quad-pumped 200 MHz bus, not a true 800MHz interface. That means on a 3GHz P4 you have up to 15 CPU cycles of latency before a new command can hit the bus, and that's not counting the 20+ cycles you've been hit in a stall. Note that an A64 3000+ at 2GHz with a 200MHz memory interface suffers a maximum penalty of about 22 cycles in the same case. This ignores the additional cycles P4 needs to get the data across the MCH which the A64 doesn't need.
Put simply, the Netburst Architecture's approach to putting clockspeed scaling first as a method of increasing performance, regardless of any cost in IPC has some definite drawbacks. Heat is an issue, as is leakage as they try to make ever smaller transistors run faster. Eventually you start running into hard physical limits of heat, power, and frequency. Improving performance by boosting IPC as well as frequency is much more sustainable.
Right now the Athlon64 is the best overall gaming CPU. Intel wins some, AMD wins others, but on the whole the Athlon64 wins more gaming benches than any other processor.
Yes, increasing MHz does increase overall CPU performance, including MIPS and MFLOPS. However, the better your IPC the less you need to increase your core frequency for the same gain in MFLOPS. SSE2 is however, a real issue, not only because there are some applications that don't support it, but more importantly because there are some operations that cannot support it. So any sustained, as opposed to peak, MFLOPS figure needs to consider the proportion of SSE2 to non-SSE2 apps.
However, floating point performance isn't the only thing that matters in a CPU. It's important, but what really matters is usable performance rather than theoretical performance. One side effect of the design choices made in the Netburst Architecture is an extreme sensitivity to pipeline stalls and data starvation. If you can't keep the pipelines full you suffer a huge hit. Intel has used large caches, huge increases in FSB bandwidth, and hyperthreading to try to minimize this hit, but it's always going to be there to one degree or another because it's intrinsic to the design.
This is where we run into another problme with the super-high frequency design. Latencies. Even though P4 was designed to minimize latency effects it's still subject to them. The huge disparity between core clock and FSB base rate can be a killer. Remember, Intel's 800MHz FSB is a quad-pumped 200 MHz bus, not a true 800MHz interface. That means on a 3GHz P4 you have up to 15 CPU cycles of latency before a new command can hit the bus, and that's not counting the 20+ cycles you've been hit in a stall. Note that an A64 3000+ at 2GHz with a 200MHz memory interface suffers a maximum penalty of about 22 cycles in the same case. This ignores the additional cycles P4 needs to get the data across the MCH which the A64 doesn't need.
Put simply, the Netburst Architecture's approach to putting clockspeed scaling first as a method of increasing performance, regardless of any cost in IPC has some definite drawbacks. Heat is an issue, as is leakage as they try to make ever smaller transistors run faster. Eventually you start running into hard physical limits of heat, power, and frequency. Improving performance by boosting IPC as well as frequency is much more sustainable.
porsch1909
03-07-2004, 04:43 PM
some interesting points. you know a lot about his stuff. its good that you dont just give a one sided argument. but the fact that intel 32 bit proccessor can pretty much beat or almost equal or JUST lose out(depending on the benchmarks you see) to the 64 bit AMD is interesting. which tells me that intel is in no rush really to release their 64 bit home user CPU. i dont know as much technical details as you, so im computer iliterate compared to you, but. the differences in gaming performance between most modern day CPU is usually so small that its unoticable(graphic card is a factor though) to the normal eye. and all CPUs(even my 100mhz IBM pentium class) can type a report for work/school etc. so there is really so little to choose between CPUs. one tihng that worrys me is that AMD is making a loss(cant remeber where i read it). it would honestly break my heart if AMD went bust and intel had a monopoly. i need an alternative CPU when/if intel release an absolute stinker, eg pertium 3, btw everybody i changed to AMD when i released that the pentium 3 was rubbish. lol changed back when the P4 came out though
Rugor
03-07-2004, 05:14 PM
One thing you have to understand is that when running WindowsXP the Athlon64 is not running in 64-bit mode. So it doesn't have access to any of the additional features or other goodies that 64-bitness gives it.
This means any comparisons of A64 vis P4 are comparing the two as 32-bit processors. It's not that the 32-bit P4 can perform on an approximate par with AMD's 64-bit entry, but that the A64 is hobbled by not having access to its 64-bit features.
Funnily enough it's not the PIII I remember as an absolute stinker (the katmai wasn't much but coppermine was a good core), but the early willamette P4's that were truly nasty.
This means any comparisons of A64 vis P4 are comparing the two as 32-bit processors. It's not that the 32-bit P4 can perform on an approximate par with AMD's 64-bit entry, but that the A64 is hobbled by not having access to its 64-bit features.
Funnily enough it's not the PIII I remember as an absolute stinker (the katmai wasn't much but coppermine was a good core), but the early willamette P4's that were truly nasty.
porsch1909
03-09-2004, 12:54 PM
yeh i heard that the early P4s weren't much better than the late p3s. intel can be stupid sometime because early reviews suggest that the prescott's early editions arent much better than the northwood. but as we saw with the P4's early CPUs apparently the prescott after 3.6 Ghz will improve greatly, if it doesn't then intel better jump on the 64 bit bandwagon a lot quicker than first intended. but the P3 i thought was a total stinker. i upgraded when the new P3 came out from a 100mhz pentium-class IBM. i just used the pentium-class instad for typing out report, or essays etc. etc. that is all irrelavant any way. i think the bottom line, that everybody can agree on is that intel need to bring out a 64 bit CPU or they will be left behind.
one point about intel and cooling. i have a freind in Pakistan who used to be an AMD fan. in the summer in pakistan the temperatures can exceed 50 degree centigrade, which is pretty hot. regularly his CPU fan would stop functioning, probably because they work so hard, with his AMD he said, "when the fan stopped the CPU would just melt." i think melt is an exageration but certainly stopped working. he said he changed to intel and he could master up enough time to at least turn his computer off before the cpu stopped working. personally i think that a load of BS. because CPU fans dont really regularly stop working and CPUs dont melt...i think. but personal experiences are always real and so more correct than all these reviews which say intel is so hot. what do you guys/gals think. anybody else live in a hot country, i live in scotland so i dont have a clue what hot means. also can anybody reccomend a good cpu fan. my AMD runs at 45 degrees centigrade idol. i think thats a bit hot even if its not its too hot for my liking. this is with 3 chasis fans.
one point about intel and cooling. i have a freind in Pakistan who used to be an AMD fan. in the summer in pakistan the temperatures can exceed 50 degree centigrade, which is pretty hot. regularly his CPU fan would stop functioning, probably because they work so hard, with his AMD he said, "when the fan stopped the CPU would just melt." i think melt is an exageration but certainly stopped working. he said he changed to intel and he could master up enough time to at least turn his computer off before the cpu stopped working. personally i think that a load of BS. because CPU fans dont really regularly stop working and CPUs dont melt...i think. but personal experiences are always real and so more correct than all these reviews which say intel is so hot. what do you guys/gals think. anybody else live in a hot country, i live in scotland so i dont have a clue what hot means. also can anybody reccomend a good cpu fan. my AMD runs at 45 degrees centigrade idol. i think thats a bit hot even if its not its too hot for my liking. this is with 3 chasis fans.
Zappattazz
03-10-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Strawbs
On to the Strawbs attack:
>>>You said you looked at my project ...why then didn't you see >>>that it's taken me 8 month's to complete ...started before the >>>release of FX?
Now that FX has been out, why haven't you upgraded to the "best desktop chip on the planet"? My guess is...
COST!
...because you couldn't just slap the FX on your "project"! You have buy a new motherboard, new memory, new chip, etc. When your "project" costs are tallied, you've laid out nearly $1000. When I want to upgrade to the lastest Intel chip, I lay down my ~$850, pop in my existing motherboard, with my existing memory.
>>>Any software that runs in 32-bit! You seem to be forgetting >>>that Athlon64 is also a 32-bit chip!
Yes...but why would you spend ~$730 for only have the benefit? Would you spend $275,000 for a new McClaren F1 if the dealer told you it couldn't go over 50mph?
>>>If you care to read through the posts, you'll see that has >>>already been asked and answered.
I read through the posts...still the point needed to be made!
>>>Go back to sleep FanBoy! You're making respectable Intel >>>buyers look stupid, when you wake up you should learn to >>>read the whole book, not just the front and back covers!
You consider Intel buyers to be respectable?? The way you tout it, we are all stupid for staying with Intel
On to the Strawbs attack:
>>>You said you looked at my project ...why then didn't you see >>>that it's taken me 8 month's to complete ...started before the >>>release of FX?
Now that FX has been out, why haven't you upgraded to the "best desktop chip on the planet"? My guess is...
COST!
...because you couldn't just slap the FX on your "project"! You have buy a new motherboard, new memory, new chip, etc. When your "project" costs are tallied, you've laid out nearly $1000. When I want to upgrade to the lastest Intel chip, I lay down my ~$850, pop in my existing motherboard, with my existing memory.
>>>Any software that runs in 32-bit! You seem to be forgetting >>>that Athlon64 is also a 32-bit chip!
Yes...but why would you spend ~$730 for only have the benefit? Would you spend $275,000 for a new McClaren F1 if the dealer told you it couldn't go over 50mph?
>>>If you care to read through the posts, you'll see that has >>>already been asked and answered.
I read through the posts...still the point needed to be made!
>>>Go back to sleep FanBoy! You're making respectable Intel >>>buyers look stupid, when you wake up you should learn to >>>read the whole book, not just the front and back covers!
You consider Intel buyers to be respectable?? The way you tout it, we are all stupid for staying with Intel
Strawbs
03-10-2004, 02:33 PM
Not all Intel owners are brazen enough to claim they can whoop any AMD owners chip no matter what speed it runs! Not all are idiotic enough to claim that owning an Intel is cheaper than owning the equivalent performing AMD! Not all are dumb enough to buy into the "more MHz is better" myth! Not all are gullible enough to buy an Intel because "it costs more, so it must be better"! Not all are blind enough to miss the reasoning behind Intel's change of heart concerning the introduction of 64-bit desktop chips! and not all Intel buyers call themselves a "FanBoy" because they realise that one day they might have reason to switch allegience!
The reason for my post to "Porsch...." was to counter his wild and inaccurate claims (subsequently admitted) regarding the performance of Intel CPU's when compared to AMD CPU's! I only called his integrity into question after he wouldn't quit saying I was having a "cheap dig" at him.
I stand by my original claim that: for the equivalent money, you can't buy a better performing chip from any other manufacturer ...whether you own a McLaren F1 or a VW Beetle that fact remains!
And what is with you guys and your precious "Car" analogy's? I have an analogy about car's ...it's the same as the universally accepted one ...concerning the size of one's manhood! Go look up the "Hamster" analogy inside ...that'll keep you busy!
I already answered your persistant question re: FX-51, but I think maybe you missed my last post, because you flew straight past it without mention! So to refresh your mind, here it is again ...Why no Xeon?
Surely you can afford to upgrade already as you suggested I should!
The reason for my post to "Porsch...." was to counter his wild and inaccurate claims (subsequently admitted) regarding the performance of Intel CPU's when compared to AMD CPU's! I only called his integrity into question after he wouldn't quit saying I was having a "cheap dig" at him.
I stand by my original claim that: for the equivalent money, you can't buy a better performing chip from any other manufacturer ...whether you own a McLaren F1 or a VW Beetle that fact remains!
And what is with you guys and your precious "Car" analogy's? I have an analogy about car's ...it's the same as the universally accepted one ...concerning the size of one's manhood! Go look up the "Hamster" analogy inside ...that'll keep you busy!
I already answered your persistant question re: FX-51, but I think maybe you missed my last post, because you flew straight past it without mention! So to refresh your mind, here it is again ...Why no Xeon?
Surely you can afford to upgrade already as you suggested I should!
porsch1909
03-10-2004, 04:49 PM
i think i'd better help out my good supporter hear. you both need to calm down. and dont both of u gang up on me now. i think i did prove with my link that most intels are better than AMD, cant be bothered posting them again so just go back a few pages. you seem to go on about me and my bad word choice once as well. instead opf 'beat' i said 'blew away' cut me some slack.....btw the EE did beat the 64 bit amd...then youll say that the 64 bit is running on only 32 bit OS, well that AMD's fault. i mean the EE is running with ISSE2 and not using them much or HT whcih all AMD fan seem to keep saying is useless. so the fact that AMD is running 32 bit is a good thing for comparison because you arent changing to many variables. i didnt quite get the car analogy though, praytell explain someone. i dont think many home users use the xeon. its relly used for server systems and for things like CAD etc. and if its a business then they would invest in the the Xeon if it was needed.
lets keep the discussions light hearted and informative please. not just people taking pot shots at each other.
and my car analogy was good :D but ill change the ferrari to a BMW M5.lol
lets keep the discussions light hearted and informative please. not just people taking pot shots at each other.
and my car analogy was good :D but ill change the ferrari to a BMW M5.lol
zybch
03-10-2004, 05:47 PM
Not changing the variables is a good thing?
So you think it would be fair to race an F1 McLaren against a rally car on a rally track?
Please, people, understand that until MS releases XP-64 (although the 1 year trial is freely available) there isn't a level playing field that Intel and AMD can play upon.
The EE did beat the A64 in some benchmarks, but certanly not all, and not even in a clear majority. Its especially questionalble which CPU is better when you take a look at the price differences and see the EE being more than three times the price as well as needing a better power supply to keep it running smoothly.
I sell many computer systems both Intel and AMD based, but due to the price savings I and my customers can benefit from by using AMD CPUs I'm slowly selling less and less Intel ones.
Incendentally a lot of home users do use the Xeon. Its called the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition :)
Intel didn't have any P4 chip to compete with the Athlon-64 so they just changed the pin-out of a Xeon so it would work in P4 boards.
Funnily enough, the latest Xeons cost roughly 1/2 the price of the P4-EE.
Work that one out!
So you think it would be fair to race an F1 McLaren against a rally car on a rally track?
Please, people, understand that until MS releases XP-64 (although the 1 year trial is freely available) there isn't a level playing field that Intel and AMD can play upon.
The EE did beat the A64 in some benchmarks, but certanly not all, and not even in a clear majority. Its especially questionalble which CPU is better when you take a look at the price differences and see the EE being more than three times the price as well as needing a better power supply to keep it running smoothly.
I sell many computer systems both Intel and AMD based, but due to the price savings I and my customers can benefit from by using AMD CPUs I'm slowly selling less and less Intel ones.
Incendentally a lot of home users do use the Xeon. Its called the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition :)
Intel didn't have any P4 chip to compete with the Athlon-64 so they just changed the pin-out of a Xeon so it would work in P4 boards.
Funnily enough, the latest Xeons cost roughly 1/2 the price of the P4-EE.
Work that one out!
Strawbs
03-10-2004, 05:54 PM
Hey! your boy keeps on about my buying an FX-51, I will when he buys a Xeon!
He picked out the CPU he thought I should have, I just returned the favour! If he can't afford it ...:r
I'm cool ...saw your post inside, did you notice there are Intel systems all over the place in there, but what happened in this thread doesn't happen on the inside. It's just the strangers that don't get "it" that cause the fuss!
Welcome to SysOpt Porsch! :cool:
He picked out the CPU he thought I should have, I just returned the favour! If he can't afford it ...:r
I'm cool ...saw your post inside, did you notice there are Intel systems all over the place in there, but what happened in this thread doesn't happen on the inside. It's just the strangers that don't get "it" that cause the fuss!
Welcome to SysOpt Porsch! :cool:
Rugor
03-13-2004, 11:23 PM
And now Intel is leaning towards model numbers for CPUs rather than just sticking to MHz.
Will wonders never cease.
Will wonders never cease.
porsch1909
03-14-2004, 02:22 PM
they are. explain please.
Rugor
03-14-2004, 03:16 PM
There's an article at News.com here. (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5172938.html)
It explains it pretty well. It's necessary because the P-M has so much better IPC than the Netbursts. Now if they could put the Pentium-M on the desktop I'd start taking a lot closer look at Intel.
It explains it pretty well. It's necessary because the P-M has so much better IPC than the Netbursts. Now if they could put the Pentium-M on the desktop I'd start taking a lot closer look at Intel.
Strawbs
03-14-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Rugor
Now if they could put the Pentium-M on the desktop I'd start taking a lot closer look at Intel. Yes' I think I might take a P-M over an AMD for desktop ...but the Mobile XP2500+ apparently overclocks very well in a desktop machine ...what a dilemma! :x
Warp2Search (http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16543&22101&62413)!
Reviews (http://www.cpucitystore.co.uk/catalog/product_reviews.php?products_id=392)!
Now if they could put the Pentium-M on the desktop I'd start taking a lot closer look at Intel. Yes' I think I might take a P-M over an AMD for desktop ...but the Mobile XP2500+ apparently overclocks very well in a desktop machine ...what a dilemma! :x
Warp2Search (http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16543&22101&62413)!
Reviews (http://www.cpucitystore.co.uk/catalog/product_reviews.php?products_id=392)!
porsch1909
03-14-2004, 05:35 PM
whats so special about the pentium M
Rugor
03-14-2004, 08:22 PM
It's a completely different architecture than the Pentium 4. Much higher IPC, lower clock speeds, runs cooler, and draws less power. It performs very well and is proof you don't need MHz for performance.
porsch1909
03-15-2004, 01:17 PM
so if i was going to get a laptop it would be best advised to get a pentium M. if the M is made so well why dont intel base more of their chip on the archetecture. would make sense. you dont need more Mhz for better performance but it certainly helps i think. correct me if im wrong but limiting factors do figure into the equation. ie you can only increase something so much until an increase make no difference then another factor needs increased. it would apply the other way as well i would imagine, being you cant just keep increasing Mhz. tell me if you dont understand.....not being condensending.
Rugor
03-15-2004, 05:53 PM
Basically when you are improving microprocessor performance, you have two choices, raise the IPC, or raise the frequency. Both options have strengths and weaknesses. Raising clockspeed is relatively easy, as you have to do less in the way of wholesale redesign and more of optimizations. Raising IPC is harder, because you have to use more transistors to add functional units, which raises die size and complexity. Most modern designs are a compromise between the two. A Northwood C with the higher FSB, larger cache and hyperthreading is a higher IPC variant of the original Willamette core. The Athlon 64 not only raised IPC in comparison to the Athlon XP, but also has a slight increase in pipeline length (I think it was two stages) to allow for better scaling.
Also, raising clock speeds will give you a vastly disproportionate increase when you're performing simple tasks which are bandwidth rather than core limited. A lot of multi-media work is of this nature. Do very simple things very often. High IPC designs tend to be better at more complex calculations because they don't get bogged down with data waiting for a single functional unit.
The real drawback to ever-increasing clock-speed is that you run into physical limits much faster than you do with raising IPC. Both approaches raise power draw, but speed increases push the limits of the process as well. High IPC designs run into more economic limits than physical ones. More transistors means a larger die, which means fewer cores per wafer. More transistors also means poorer yields as the more complex the die the higher the likelihood of defects. One reason the A64 3000+ runs at the same speed as the 3200+ but with half the cache is to recover what might otherwise be bad chips.
I think simply relying on speed is an inelegant way to do things, which is one reason I don't like the Netburst designs.
Also, raising clock speeds will give you a vastly disproportionate increase when you're performing simple tasks which are bandwidth rather than core limited. A lot of multi-media work is of this nature. Do very simple things very often. High IPC designs tend to be better at more complex calculations because they don't get bogged down with data waiting for a single functional unit.
The real drawback to ever-increasing clock-speed is that you run into physical limits much faster than you do with raising IPC. Both approaches raise power draw, but speed increases push the limits of the process as well. High IPC designs run into more economic limits than physical ones. More transistors means a larger die, which means fewer cores per wafer. More transistors also means poorer yields as the more complex the die the higher the likelihood of defects. One reason the A64 3000+ runs at the same speed as the 3200+ but with half the cache is to recover what might otherwise be bad chips.
I think simply relying on speed is an inelegant way to do things, which is one reason I don't like the Netburst designs.
otaku
03-15-2004, 05:56 PM
LOL, what model numbers will they use?
I see a 2.8GHz Celeron with a model number of 1200+ :D :D :D
j/k
After bashing AMD for the model numbers and trying to make everyone buy the "more MHz = more performance" mith they jump in the wagon... how's that? Where's Intel's credibility?
Oh my...
I see a 2.8GHz Celeron with a model number of 1200+ :D :D :D
j/k
After bashing AMD for the model numbers and trying to make everyone buy the "more MHz = more performance" mith they jump in the wagon... how's that? Where's Intel's credibility?
Oh my...
Zappattazz
03-16-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Strawbs
Hey! your boy keeps on about my buying an FX-51, I will when he buys a Xeon!
I've been trying to figure out how Strawbs knows what system configuration I own....maybe he/she/it has ESP(n)!:D
Sorry, I forgot to list my "project" when I responded to this forum..is that a requirement?
1) My drafting/animation machine: 4x Xeons 2Ghz
2) My offline gaming machine: P4EE 3.2Ghz
3) My online gaming machine: P4 3.06Ghz
4) My music machine: P4 3.06Ghz
5) My server machine: 2x Xeons 3.2Ghz (supports RAID 5 array & #2, #3 & #4)
It took me 400 years to complete my "project" so don't complain!
Hey! your boy keeps on about my buying an FX-51, I will when he buys a Xeon!
I've been trying to figure out how Strawbs knows what system configuration I own....maybe he/she/it has ESP(n)!:D
Sorry, I forgot to list my "project" when I responded to this forum..is that a requirement?
1) My drafting/animation machine: 4x Xeons 2Ghz
2) My offline gaming machine: P4EE 3.2Ghz
3) My online gaming machine: P4 3.06Ghz
4) My music machine: P4 3.06Ghz
5) My server machine: 2x Xeons 3.2Ghz (supports RAID 5 array & #2, #3 & #4)
It took me 400 years to complete my "project" so don't complain!
Strawbs
03-16-2004, 01:28 PM
All those machines and you can only post once a week? :p
Zappattazz
03-16-2004, 02:02 PM
All those machines and you have to work 80 hour weeks!)-|
Strawbs
03-16-2004, 02:14 PM
I appologise for my poor English! What I meant to say is - "I don't believe you own those machines"
:cool:
:cool:
porsch1909
03-17-2004, 12:03 PM
I would like to agree with you for once strawbs....ahhhh...yes it's a very sad day. But it does seem like Zappattazz did make all of that up. I think that Zappattazz is a 10 year old making totally unreasonable things up, sorry mate you have supported me....sort off :t but those specs are totally unrealistic unless you are Bill Gates. Send me some pictures then I might believe you. :x
porsch1909
03-17-2004, 12:07 PM
Sorry forgot something can Rugar please send me some for info on IPC. ive never heard of them before.
Rugor
03-17-2004, 04:30 PM
IPC just stands for "Instructions Per Clock" and you can find a lot of good info on how CPU's work at www.arstechnica.com.
Just search around a little and you'll get it. Sorry I can't post more but I'm pressed for time today.
Just search around a little and you'll get it. Sorry I can't post more but I'm pressed for time today.
otaku
03-18-2004, 04:45 PM
Guys, have you seen the reviews of the recently launched FX-53 ??
I have just one word to describe it: Impressive
:t
I have just one word to describe it: Impressive
:t
porsch1909
03-19-2004, 01:51 PM
you got any links?
otaku
03-20-2004, 01:51 PM
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/index.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2002
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1
There you have 'em :t
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2002
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1
There you have 'em :t
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.