dcsimg
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67

Thread: Intel PR berating AMD PR rating

  1. #1
    Member Gearhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    58

    Intel PR berating AMD PR rating

    AMD has already proven that Megahertz isn't a true rate of your CPU speed. I agree with what AMD did as the general public doesn't always check on the latest benchmarks for a CPU before the purchase. Its "Which one has the biggest number in its name?" I think they may even be under selling themselves with numbers that are too low. As far as I am concerned, I don't care!! I check on what a CPU will do for me before I do anything. The name doesn't matter. I'll take the AMTEL - SH*T KICKER 500MHZ CPU if it is stable (Cheap) and gives off 600 FPS benchmarks in Q3!

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    14

    Pentuim 4 ten years from now

    It look like intel wants to repeat what it did with the P2 and P3, stretch the same design out for a million years and expect the consumers to pay for outdated technology. I think AMD's PR rating is a good thing for them, consumers shouldn't need to check all the benchmark before they buy, it shouldn't matter what megahertz a processor runs at , what spinning rate a harddrive has, but only the actual performace.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    378
    "I think whatever you do with your processor the clock speed is still one of the defining measurements of chip performance"

    Ok, I'm convinced that the Intel rep is a obviously not a techie but an moronic english major. Lets see... If you have a chip clocked at 10GHz, with 16 BYTES of cache, a VERY narrow and deep pipeline, 1 ALU and no FPUs and no branch prediction, it will make for a VVVEEERRRRYYYYY slow CPU. Even my pocket organizer would be faster!! But it's clocked at 10GHz so that's all that matters right? Go Int3l! (NOT)

    ~Paul
    Last edited by acid_burn~187; 03-26-2002 at 02:49 PM.
    |}~(O)~{|

  4. #4
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Mhz is not the best way to describe the performance of a cpu.If anything it is more the alu/fpu and internal instructions.The longer pipeline is actually good at these high speeds so you cant say a short pipeline defines a fast cpu either.

    To each person a fast cpu is different.For me if it plays my games at the max the vid card can handle and renders G-max quickly it is a fast cpu.Now if you are a accountant or an office worker you will have a dif. opinion of what a fast cpu is.For this reason there is no one all around cpu that wins at everything and I hope their never is.

    Obviously this Intel guy is no tech.I will forget more about the Intel architecture than he will ever know.
    As he said
    "I don't think the chip architectures are that different"

    What a goof.Their are so many dif. between the two its hard to even start.MMMM-L1 and L2 cache is dif.P4 is already on the .13 fab and moveing on to .09.Temps are way lower.Longer pipeline.Faster fsb and true support of rdram.Auto throttle feature and safer overclocks.These are way dif. chips.I would disregard anything that fool says.Intel would be wise to drop him off the payrole like a bad habbit.Hes argueing in intels favour and the best thing he has to say is high mhz=high performance,and the two chips are not that dif.Both are lies.Oh yeah he is a heavy hitter.Of bull sh--!
    Just my two-cents worth and some more.
    Prob. more like a $1.95's worth.

  5. #5
    Member smily_03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    A little east of nowhere
    Posts
    387
    i definitely agree. i spent about a year researching in depth the differences in performance between the P4 and athlon cpu's before i built my new system because i knew that i wouldn't be able to blow that much money any time again soon. the intel chip is inferior in what it can do with what it's got. let's just see how fast the amd chips really are once they hit 2.2ghz clock speed, they'll definitely blow the intel stuff away. if intel would spend its money actually creating a product that has some muscle behind that big number it would be on to something. instead they just aim for a higher ghz rating and thats all you get. 'woo hoo, my system's at 2.2ghz and yours is only at 1.544ghz' yeah, but i saved several hundred dollars over what you paid, and i can do more than you can, a lot of it faster too. look who's laughing now.... way to go amd!

  6. #6
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Now dont get too cocky.My p4 is better for g-max.And that is what I do.Games run better on the P4 as well due to the superior mem bandwidth of rdram.There are things the P4 does exceed quite well in.I dont see how your AMD does EVERYTHING better,That is a totally unsuported and unjustifiable statement.They both have strong points.I know you are gonna say but ddr333.Yeah so what the P4 is planning on runing that too.Dual channel 333ddr,mmm!

    And what do you think Intel will do as the XP gets to 2gig.If it even does,as they are moveing on past the XP core.Intel has the 3gig on the way out and working on the 4gig(runing now on LN).You gonna tell me that a 2gig AMD will dust a 4gig Intel.I'll have to see it to believe it.So Intel will be scaleing just as AMD.P4's get stronger the higher mhz they go so the advantage of P4 will show as the MHZ scales upward.the P4 was desiegned ground up around MHZ.It is a weak point now but at 4gig and up it will prove to be a good idea.I think alot of people are gonna be eating their words.Or they will just act like the never said what they did.Remember the whole"autothrottleing thing".Everyone was saying yeah who cares if it is 2gig if it runs at 1gig all the time.What fools.To this day my pc has never throttled down.It is a saftey factor and a good one at that.One bad opinion gets spread around and all asudden the P4 2gig is only 1gig.How easily the masses are led astray,by rumors and propaganda!

    AMD is now doing a socket change and I don't see anyone slamming them for it like they did Intel.Little less boasting and a lot more reality are needed here.

    Both good cpu's.My point was that the two are totally dif.Not that the Intel chip is weaker-just a dif. chip all together.The article is wrong that is all.

    I don't know of any progs. that will only run on one brand and not the other so how is it that a AMD will do everything and a Intel not?At the speed they are both at it is just argueing for the sake of argueing.Brand name prejudice is just sickening and I am getting tired of it.

    The P4 1.6A is a **** good chip that o'clocks beyond 2gig with standard cooling.If you want to get into the most bang for the buck there it is.The whole AMD is cheaper than intel arguement is getting old and weak.This isnt the case anymore give it a rest.If you wanna get the flagship chips that is the only dif.And there you are just hunting for bragging rights anyhow.I cant think of anything that I would notice a huge dif. running a 2.2a over my P4 1.5.Once I get 100+fps in my fav. games I'm happy.Anything more is a waist of dough.Some guys act like they need NASA'a mainframe to play quake.Get off it.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1
    OK, I think both sides are right. Here is why. AMD truly does have the faster per clock cycle chip today. But rememebr that the P4 was designed for tomorrow and the long haul. Intel figured the P4 would be widely adapted and that software would be recompiled to be optimized for the P4. True RDRAM does have it's downside in latency, but noone can argue that for memeory bandwidth apps RDREAM si the way to go. Intel made design decisions based on what they thought at the time. Remember, a processor takes a few years to design. Remember Pentium Pro, they thought everyone woudl be on NT4, not 16-bit W9X. They had to go back and fix the CPU and release the PII, now today we see PIII systems perform on W2K or XP faster than W9X, becasue of the forward thinking of Intel. Their big problme has been bad marketing decisions and timiming at puching the new technologies. Software vendors do not feel the need to optimize for a particular CPU becasue at current CPU speeds does the average person know or care if a few CPU cycles are wasted? It made a big impact when CPUs were 50Mhz or 100MHz, but really the average person could care less and does not even know. So if the extra performance makes a difference then go AMD, if it does nto then either is fine. I personally feel Intel chipsets 440BX, even the 845 and 850 are better I/O chipsets than VIA or SIS, so I recently went back to Intel.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Suburbs of chicago,Mchenry
    Posts
    12
    I really don't care who is faster next week. I just want a 3gig chip for for $100. I hope they battle it out and all of us are the real winners, not the big corps. lol let the battle rage on!!!
    Always looking for a way!!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Lacey, Wa. USA
    Posts
    136
    We could all fight about which is best but back to the article.... This Intel guy is either very stupid or Intel is more than a little nervous about AMD. I think it's both. AMD has been able to produce and compete against Intel in spite of the best efforts of Intel to discredit AMD. The P.C. industry should be very grateful for all of the competition as we all could be running Intel at triple the cost and less performance that what we currently have today.
    Reality is controlled by those who are the most insane.

  10. #10
    Member Jimstep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    2,000
    The clock speed DOES make sense within the same architecture. So, when I see how an AMD XP 1500+ (or Intel or PowerPC or IBM, it doesn't matter) runs in a machine and the ONLY thing that I do is change the cpu to a faster cpu, like an AMD 2000+, I can truly say that the clock speed has a direct effect on the performance. This is the only time that speed makes any sense.

    The same thing with Intel P4. If I have a system that runs a P4 1.8Ghz and I ONLY change the cpu to a faster cpu of the SAME architecture, to something like a 2.2Ghz cpu, then speed makes a difference.

    The only true testing is with benchmarks. And there are different benchmarks for testing different components of the system. I like games, so I use the 3DMark2001 program to guage the overall performance of the system. If I tweak the system, I can rerun the benchmark to see the effect.

    To get back to Intels arguments, the guy is blowing smoke.

    This comment is bizzare.

    "...there are so many other factors that can affect the performance of the system, that coming back to gigahertz as being the key measurement is key"

    If there are other factors that can affect the performance, then that IS the argument that clock speed isn't the whole picture when you are competing with other vendors in the marketplace.

    He is trying to confuse the issues so that buyers will focus on the clock speed.

    IMO...AMD should have never use the model number scheme their using now. The product should speak for itself.

    The industry needs to focus on throughput. We need to be asking ourselves what work do I need to get done, how much time do I have to complete the work and what is on the market that will fill my needs at the best price/performance ratio.

    I bought AMD this time around, twice now, and haven't had bad experience as I had in the past. The whole computer industry is much different today than back then. In the old days, you could put a Cyrix, Intel or AMD in the same socket. The only one that was supported was Intel, The other were being compatible.

    Today, the motherboard is made specifically for the architecture of the cpu. This is why AMD can compete in the marketplace.

  11. #11
    Member rlbogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    54
    Originally posted by Jimstep
    IMO...AMD should have never use the model number scheme their using now. The product should speak for itself.
    Jim - AMD's model numbers are not designed for the technically aware. They are designed to market to the broader, consumer, less-technical market. Although I wish we lived in a world where this wasn't necessary, can we really blame AMD for doing a better job of conveying the true value of their processors?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    396
    I like AMD's new CPU performance ratings.

    Without them, AMD wouldn't be able to compete as well with Intel in the market. Without competing well in the market, AMD won't exist. Without good competition, technology stagnates and prices inflate since one company controls the market. Both chips are great. AMD has incredible performance and the P4s are great for stability. AMD smells better, and P4 seems more like a corporation. Just accept the fact that maybe there is no "Best CPU of all-time". Hell, think about how different the G4 chips are compared to the x86 ones

    Peace...

  13. #13
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    In the long run, chip speed has less to do the with actual work accomplished, then the effective application of good software by a proficient user and the integration of a fast instruction set. This is a major factor that will determine the market in this chip war. Now we have raised a new question. What degree of stability and heat tollerance is acceptable to achieve the lowest cost/performance ratio. This is a major factor in the value of the prospective company's stock value. What's going up this month and what's going down? I favor AMD stock while it is still cheap for the longshot odds. When they start to mass produce .13 micron chips I believe I will be well positioned and maybe I can afford a new hammer.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    325
    There is one principle that is continually ignored because of jealousy. Complimenting and even praising your competitor for a job well done does more to enhance the appreciation of your own product than criticism. People just do not like gripers. The basic argument is this: Do you want an ultra-high speed one lane path or a little more reserved six lane highway with more efficient multitasking without "burning the tires off" on the same trip?

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    4
    He does have one point...lot's of other things DO affect overall system performance, but the PR ratings aren't a measure of overall system performance, but rather of the CPU performance. Intel's "clock speed is everything" argument might even have some merit if they weren't the ones that devalued the concept so badly in the first place; it isn't exacly a secret that clock for clock the performance of the P4 far less than that of the PIII to say nothing of the Athlon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •