ever since AMD proved the it is not frequency but the intructions per clock, then maybe apple's G4 proc may actually give int. and AMD some competition
Last edited by KOOL.G; 03-30-2002 at 02:23 AM.
1 - I doubt it Kool.G. While I like Apple's hardware...I don't like that so many upgrades have to go through Apple, and the dearth of software compared to the Windows platform. That kills them in the market and prevents the G4 from fairly competing with AMD and Intel.
2 - This one is for Beeblequix - You brought up some good points...
But not with English...please use English and not some offshoot of it proving that 3 kind of looks like 'E' and that yes, @ means at. It's incredibly annoying, and makes you sounds stupid, therefore harming your credibility in your argument.
4yorInf0, I'm pretty **** educated, especially wit cmputrz.
3 - By the time that Intel scales up to 10 GHz, I think that RAM speeds will have overtaken their current core and the 400 MHz (Quad-pumped 100) will be a serious bottleneck in system performance. But it sure sounds good on paper.
The P4's problem was that it really is too new for its time. It should have spent another year or so in development but it was rushed to market because the PIII had maxed out. Some of the design choices are evidence of this (the tiny L1 and the weaker FPU to save die space for example).
I think the current situation is kind of humorous: back when the K6-2 was released, it was so "futuristic" it needed serious optimizations and a new bus to be competitive. "Just wait, when the software is written for it, it will crush the P2!" AMD backers said.
Now we have Intel's P4 that is so "futuristic" it needs drastic software optimizations and a new bus to keep it from getting crushed by a lower clocked processor. "Just wait, when the software is written for it, it will crush the Athlon!" Intel backers claim.
Funny things can happen on the way to the future; your competitor will usually release a better product first.
I think that AMD's PR rating actually HELPS Intel. I mean, if an AthlonXP 2000+, which is really only 1.67ghz, can compete with a Pentium4 2ghz, then an AthlonXP 2000+ would kill a P4 2ghz. If AMD actually marketed their XP line like their Thunderbird line, then it would simply be an AthlonXP 1.67ghz. And when consumers who actually buy Intel's "More MHZ is better" marketing, how do you think they would react when they see a 1.67ghz Athlon smoking a P4 2ghz? They would say "Wow, AMD is WAY better than Intel. The P4 SUCKS". They would then all go out and get AMD systems. Businesses especially, who want the best value for their dollars, would start buying AMD's new Athlons because they will see that two equal MHZ chips are not the same, and that the Athlon is much faster. It would be like having a heavy-weight boxer VS. a welcher-weight boxer. It wouldn't look good for the heavy-weight P4 if the welcher-weight Athlon came along and beat the **** out of it now would it? So, how would direct MHZ comparisons be good for Intel? Intel is lucky that AMD moves it's processors up 'weight classes', where the P4 has a chance against the Athlon. Intel should be thankful for AMD's performance rating system. I shudder to think of what would happen if they didn't have the + system.
"They would then all go out and get AMD systems. Businesses especially, who want the best value for their dollars, would start buying AMD's new Athlons because they will see that two equal MHZ chips are not the same, and that the Athlon is much faster."
Now in a realistic world that would hold true. But you know how buisness is. It doesn't always make sense. The fact of it all is that buisness aren't even glimpseing in AMD's direction. They have to look at the XP before they realize all you said. Truth be they just plain aren't interested. I know it doesnt make sense but almost every new buisness machine is a P4 these days. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Big companies like big companies. Intel has a long established name for itself. AMD had some ruff times in the start and Buisness owners are holding that against them. Get down to the facts of it-only the last two chips from AMD performed the way they claimed they would. Both on stability and speed. Can you blaim long time buisness for being conservative. AMD has to have a longer track record for being reliable and fast before they sway big corps. heads in their direction.
You know, you have a point with my improper grammar and english. Actually, I did extremely well at the university in all my english classes. I mostly used abbreviations as kind of a shorthand because people here have complained that my posts are terribly long, and I thought that maybe I could condense what I say and still get my point across. That last post of mine was very long. But if I end up sounding stupid I'll just revert back to my typically novellic posts and not worry about bringing the server to its knees. And for a good insight into the demeted mind of a wannabe BOFH you get.....a raspberry pastry.
"all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
lol fair enough Beeb. I'm glad to know that you do have a good understanding of the language...I'd rather read a syntactically proper posting of any length before a short one with symbols and numbers in the place of letters. I only hope I didn't offend you with a slightly short tone in my previous post...I had just returned from a bad night at work and was in a bad temper.
BTW - I've had my share of long posts too
Personally I would say that a long post written in English is much easier to read than a short post written in gobbledygook or even gibberish.
Organized language leads to organized thoughts and a better discussion.
Oh, and Gamer, the point I was trying to make earlier was that at equal clock speeds the Athlon XP does outclass the P4 in a sufficient number of benchmarks that there really is no comparison. The P4 requires a significantly higher clockspeed to remain competitive with the Athlon XP. While the P4 is faster in some applications and some games, the statement that it's "faster for games" is incorrect. The P4 generally outperforms the Athlon on Quake 3, when compared by "weight class" not true MHz, but is outperformed by the Athlon in Serious Sam.
It's perfectly possible to get a high performing system with a P4, but because of the design inefficiencies of the processor it requires a significantly higher clockspeed, more data throughput, and in some cases specialized instruction set support. This is why I call it an inefficient design, it requires more data and more clock cycles to achieve an equivalent output.
Given the performance drop of the P4 when coupled with lower bandwidth solutions, one really has to wonder what it's doing with all that data. Since a P4 1.6 performs better with Rambus than DDR in Quake 3 it must be using the bandwidth for something. However, an Athlon XP 1900+ at the same clockspeed but with lower memory bandwidth outperforms the P4 in the same benchmark. This means the P4 needs the extra bandwidth for something, but for what? The game doesn't rely solely on it or the Athlon wouldn't be able to catch up regardless of clockspeed.
So, where does all that exta data go?
I used the benchmarks in Toms Hardware's recent review of the Athlon XP 2100+ because he used a large benchmark suite and listed the scores for all available Athlon XP and P4 processors. The P4 was using RDRAM on a high performance Abit motherboard.
OMG! There is hope for us..
I can't believe my eyes, all of you guys have great information, we are all on the same page when it comes to real world performance vs. statistics on a chip or harddrive. And for once, for the first time on any board.. We are all in agreement. I can't believe my eyes.. Its truly amazing.
so AMD vs Intel, isn't just that.. its just getting the performance we paid for at the stability we need. It doesn't matter which one CLAIMS to be better, but what is actually PERFORMED.
Intel as stable?
Originally posted by Ranma
can we really blame AMD for doing a better job of conveying the true value of their processors?
One of my friends built himself an Athlon 1200 system right around the same time I was building my P4 1300. He alleged that he got a superior product in all ends for the same price, as I had to cut corners (he got a nice upper-tier GeForce2, whereas I had to settle for a Radeon LE).
If you want guarenteed reliability and product support/documentation that's top notch, go with Intel.
If you want to play Russian Roulette each time you buy a motherboard, CPU, or do a major system upgrade/installation, choose AMD.
You either are very new to the tech field, or you have very short memory. Before AMD came along, Intel had the new P60 chip. Then they quickly came out with the P90 chip. Ok, the P90 had the math co-processor flaw.. like excel calculating numbers with long integers gave erroneous results.. Intel didn't fess up for like 6 months, it was only the Feds when they got involved did they admit to being wrong. Again, the P-120 chip and P-150 chip.. different chips right? Wrong, P-150 was just a P-120 that could pass as a P-150, different lables. Again, PII-233-400 early versions of those chips also had another flaw.. where some of the chips flat out didn't engage the FPU. There are a few more.. but the point is, Intel, reliable? Dude, you are so uninformed.
The most recent that I can remember was the PIII.. it had a problem with certain programs using the CPID on the chip.. causing machines to reboot spontaneous.. I expect Intel to have more problems, because they have not indicated to me they have changed their ways.
As far as the lots of motherboards, that's a manufactures problem, not a system design flaw. My guess is, both boards, yours and the AMD, are differen manufactures. That's not the same. A 6 cyl Audi, has mechanical trouble, so we are to conclude that since Audi can't maintain good QA management, that ALL 6 clys are bad? Honda uses 6 Cyl, Ford, Chevy.. They all suck because they use a 6 Cyl engine.. I don't think so.
Every manufacturer of boards has a different standard, and quality of parts. Maybe if he would have bought an ASUS instead of Gigabit (not knocking G-Bit, just an example) maybe his AMD would have lasted longer. I can tell you, since like 99, all of my machines, all of my client machines, use AMD, when I have to build them. I have perhaps, over 100 machines, that I have personally built, not 1 single problem. None, zip, nada. In fact, I replaced a quirky PIII board with an AMD, and the problems they were experiencing..didnt' recur.. So you had a bad experience with AMD, I personally don't trust Intel, because of their lack of responsibility when it comes to owning up on problems, I for one am a AMD person from now on. So you like Intel, I am happy for you.. but Intel is not perfect, and they are far from being "the most reliable".
Fair enuff. I agree.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
One thing we should all be grateful for is the degree of collaboration Intel vs. AMD has wrought. Not so long ago Intel was more than xenophobic about anyone else producing chipsets to support its CPU's. Equally, what about the degree of cooperation that has transpired between the Pacific Rim and America, mostly due to AMD opening up chipset support to non-patented supporters. In some ways it has help create a more stable OS environment because now M$ must articulate with both Intel and AMD. Why are world records being continually broken at Olympic events? Competition breeds excellence. My Athlon XP CPU performs flawlessly coupled with a Sis 735 Chipset and Windows XP because AMD, Sis and M$ must now articulate with each other or lose part of their support base. Long live all company's involved. And here's to a brighter faster future in computerdom because we don't see a monopoly in CPU/Chipset architecture as we do in OS monopolized mostly by M$.
My 2 Cents? The P4 was Intel's gambit at raw mhz speed to dupe an ignorant public and retain its once lost MHZ speed crown.
I agree with all but the last part!
"The P4 was Intel's gambit at raw mhz speed to dupe an ignorant public and retain its once lost MHZ speed crown."
Now that is your opinion and you have the right to it. But I think that it wasnt about marketing at all.
You see it comes down to this. Perfromance,what it does. Mhz is a rateing of the past. It means nothing. If you have a Old Ford Mustang cranken 300+ hp's running against a Toyota Celica GTS 200HP and the Ford wins but not by a long hull, just pulls ahead-Its still winning.
You see it isnt about how it goes from a -b but how fast overall it gets from a-b. And it isnt about gas mileage(mhz=power) its about getting there faster.
Motors and cpu's have alot in commen. The P4 takeing more MHZ to = AMD performance is Like saying yeah but that big V8 takes more gas to run. So what it still does the job faster and that is what it is all about.
The P4 is just begining. IT can scale to 10gig on the current architecture. They have the ability to waste alot of MHZ and not give a hoot. It is like raceing cars and owning a oil well. When you have that much fuel who cares if you waste it. To this day there is no pollution given of by a cpu so no worries in waisting and fuel economy(mhz).Bad joke LOL. So you see the well(cpu mhz limit) hasn't run DRY yet so the fuel economy(mhz=power) of motor(cpu) doesnt even matter. When the P4's at 6gig at this rate it will take like a 4500mhz AMD chip. That is where AMD's new hammer is gonna come into play. Point is when you are churnen mhz like a maniac(p4 future-like next year 4gig) whats a few mhz dif between them and amd. Right now the dif. is noticeable due to the lower mhz rate of cpu's at current time. But as the P4 scales up above 4gig it is gonna become less noticeable.
Now thats my bucks worth. Peace!