Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Why is Intel out doing AMD

  1. #31
    Senior Member gyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Somewhere, Out There
    Posts
    688
    I wouldn't say it's lack of talent from programmers, I'd say it's lack of time.

    Most of these guys are under pressure to get things done yesterday, and when it comes to planning to take advantage of the new processors that aren't even out yet... well, that is the first thing to get dropped from list of "things to do".

    So I would agree with RobRich that programmers don't take advantage of this stuff, but most of the time it isn't there fault. Developers target their software at desktops that are on the market and not at those that aren't. There is always a time lag for software to catch up with hardware.

  2. #32
    Member hirschY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    166
    gyoung, did you also update your video card?

    All this tech talk is making my head swell!
    I need a beer

  3. #33
    Senior Member gyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Somewhere, Out There
    Posts
    688
    I am still using the same video card that I had before. I'm using the ATI Radeon 32MB DDR retail card.

    I did some benches using my Duron 600 clocked at multiple speeds (by changing the multiplier) and my new 1.2Ghz Athlon. I'll post them for you to look at.

    [This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 08-29-2001).]

  4. #34
    Ultimate Member Hellmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,789
    Thx Rob, I'd thank ya for the Links but I already read them around last year when you put em up. I think you'd know I read the QDR article, QDR in Vid-cards was quite a memorable little thread

    Almost forget, yeah I've been trying to read as many tech documents as possible to better understand things. Recently Dputiger mentioned Tom's article "Rambus Requiem". I had always wondered why SDRAM never went over to dual-channel which boosted RDRAM so much. RDRAM only actually runs on a 16bit bus, it has to run 4X the speed of SDRAM just to keep up. In dual-channel it still only utilising 32bits....common SDRAM runs on a 64bit bus, in dual-channel it's gotta use a 128bit bus.....

    Would you have any idea why AMD kept the K7 using 64bit memory bus?

    [This message has been edited by Hellmund (edited 08-30-2001).]

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    46
    sorry to sound like a broken record but here is another site which reviews P4 and explains why P2 celery and P3 are the same processor and what Intel did to make P4 suck so much a** www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm
    one of the things mentioned is that P4 has as much L1 cache memory as the old 80486 :LOL

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    56
    I think that it is a good thing that Intel is pushing chip speeds up. They constantly have to refine their manufacturing processes to get the higher speeds. At least people can see that it can be done.

    On the other end of the spectrum, AMD is making chips that are faster than Intel chips running at 150% higher clock speeds. It seems that AMD chips are more efficient, while Intel just wants more clock cycles. At least these companies are going in diferent directions rather than producing the same hardware with different names. If the same efficiency could be applied to the higher clock speeds, wow...

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    451
    "the P-4/Rambus architecture is a technically superior design."

    It just doesn't perform as well because it doesn't have the right code?

    To me that is like saying a high performance sports car is technically superior to a high performance off road buggy. Sure, the sports car has a great top end speed, but only on nice smooth flat roads. The buggy might be slower on a nice smooth road, but it kicks behind in non-ideal conditions.

  8. #38
    Anime Otaku RobRich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    3,574
    one of the things mentioned is that P4 has as much L1 cache memory as the old 80486 :LOL

    Make sense, as the trace cache architecture does not require any more L1 cache than the P4 already offers. Read the P4 article I link above. Also, since the P4 can perform re-order sequencing for most common L2 ops, the need for a massive L1 cache is no longer an issue.

    Robert Richmond

  9. #39
    Anime Otaku RobRich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    3,574
    About forget, it appears manual code optimization for vectorization may become less of an issue, atleast if CodePlay is sucessful in marketing its new VectorC compiler.

    Check out these VectorC results when compiling the TestBench benchmarking program on a P3 600 MHz system:

    VectorC P3 optimized
    INT: 75
    FP: 199
    MEM: 71

    Micrsoft Visual C++
    INT: 41
    FP: 52
    MEM: 53

    Micrsosoft VC++ optimized:
    INT: 74
    FP: 93
    MEM: 76

    These results where with VectorC v1.1. Version 1.2 is a couple of weeks away from release, so expect even greater returns when available. The ANSI C version is ready right now, though it will be another couple of months before the C++ version is ready for public release.

    Now for the big news, check out this page of official results:

    http://www.codeplay.com/vectorc/bench.html

    Notice which architecture outperforms the rest. The Pentium IV 1.4 GHz outperforms the Athlon 1.0 GHz by nearly 3x in all tests!

    The same general source code was used across the board for all tests. No manual optimizations are performed, only compiler time ops are being utlized. These perforamnce returns are the results what a properly optimized and aligned program can offer with the Pentium IV.

    To AMD's credit, the Athlon Thunderbird did completely trash the Pentium 3 for the more intensive tests. It would also like to see results with an Athlon4/MP since it supports SSE. According to these results, I believe the current Athlon core will no longer prove to be a viable solution after 2002. Hopefully AMD is developing architecture changes that I am not currently aware of.

    Robert Richmond

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Posts
    49
    All I know is that AMD works!

    I am no expert! Most of you forgot more then I will ever want to learn!

    I just watch what you do, what you use, and copy it! SIMPLE!

    I build my own systems based on what works. If you guys have problems, I wait. Once you have it figured out and stablized, I build!

    I just like things to work and I enjoy building my own system! I don't like problems and I don't like to beat my head against the walls.

    So while you guys are working hard to gain that extra .05 mhz from you system, I'm playing wild 3D games and having a blast!

    You work, I play!! Got to love the way this works

    Keep up the great work and please post when it's time for me to upgrade my system to an Intel, which I don't think will be anytime soon!

    Can someone please summerize this thread for me? Is AMD still on top?

  11. #41
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3
    It depends on what area you're talking about.
    For dual processors, Intel is the king here between the two. They've been actually doing it for a while; AMD has just come out with their first duallie. It's true AMD has had SMP support in their CPU's since at least the K-6's, there has not been an SMP chipset for AMD until now. AMD still has no proven track record in this area. I have had most of my rigs running Intel, and have not had a problem with them. My AMD system originally had a bad motherboard, so I had to replace that, but it runs fine now, and overclocked under Windows 2000.
    For overclocking AMD is king here, hands down. I have had poor luck overclocking Intel CPU's.

Posting Permissions

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