65 replies to this topic

[ruudpel]

Get a PIV 2.6/2.8 GHz and overclock her to 3.0/3.2/3.4 GHz
very nnice money/performance ratio

[TeenMaverick]

I believe the 2.4 chip was the one that was most overclockable.

[ruudpel]

true but buying a new computer system now with a 2.4 GHz ain't right
I prefer a 3.0 at 3.0 over a 2.4 at 3.0 anyway but that's me
if budget is important I would get a relatively cheap 2.6/2.8 and maybe overclock it

[misterdink]

Up until the last year or so, I was a confirmed AMD user. But....things change.

The new Intel P4's blow the AMD's out of the water. Yeah...I may be paying a bit more for the name, but ######...it's my money!  )

misterdink!
N1718L

[B737]

[Timsher]

B737, on Feb 4 2004, 10:37 PM, said:

Both will pull in their fair share of $, so they will both win!

[Pu239]

who will win?  
I believe Intel has already won....they got the money and they have the market....
AMD going for 64 bit processors years before 64 bit programs have even been written shows how desperate they've become. If Intel had made the 64 bit processor, 64bit programs would be everywhere, but since AMD has little respect from the serious gamers and the business community, nobody will rush to make anything until Intel releases theirs....Remember that AMD is only in business because it sells cheap processors. No company is going to rush to support AMD's 64 bit processor since only cheap home computers will be running them. Intel is still the choice of business computers and the big bucks are in business programs.

[mrcrpl]

Pu239, on Feb 5 2004, 01:42 PM, said:

who will win? 
I believe Intel has already won....they got the money and they have the market....
AMD going for 64 bit processors years before 64 bit programs have even been written shows how desperate they've become. If Intel had made the 64 bit processor, 64bit programs would be everywhere, but since AMD has little respect from the serious gamers and the business community, nobody will rush to make anything until Intel releases theirs....Remember that AMD is only in business because it sells cheap processors. No company is going to rush to support AMD's 64 bit processor since only cheap home computers will be running them. Intel is still the choice of business computers and the big bucks are in business programs.

You have it backwards.

Intel has had a 64-bit architecture called Itanium since 2001.  HP scrapped Alpha to sell them and they are a complete and utter failure.  Currently HP is the only big iron vendor selling them.  Even Dell has dropped Itanium from its lineup.

Look at the big iron Opteron vendors: IBM, Sun, HP.  Only Dell is missing.

Intel thought that Itanium could trickle down to the desktop using an entirely new architecture.  People laughed.  Intel failed.

Quote

Remember that AMD is only in business because it sells cheap processors.

AMD could stop selling CPUs today and would still be an extremely profitable company.  CPUs sales accounted for less than half of AMD's revenue in Q4 '03.

Quote

No company is going to rush to support AMD's 64 bit processor since only cheap home computers will be running them

Really? I guess BEA, CA, SAP, Oracle and PeopleSoft have partnered with AMD to publish their 64-bit enterprise apps on cheap home computers now?  

What will happen when Intel decides to release a 64-bit chip.  Are they going to wait another year for MS to create a version of Windows for them?  More likely they will be forced to use AMD's 64-bit extensions as their version of Windows is well under development and already available for download.

[CoffeeBreakPro]

Pu239, on Feb 5 2004, 01:42 PM, said:

who will win?  
I believe Intel has already won....they got the money and they have the market....
AMD going for 64 bit processors years before 64 bit programs have even been written shows how desperate they've become. If Intel had made the 64 bit processor, 64bit programs would be everywhere, but since AMD has little respect from the serious gamers and the business community, nobody will rush to make anything until Intel releases theirs....Remember that AMD is only in business because it sells cheap processors. No company is going to rush to support AMD's 64 bit processor since only cheap home computers will be running them. Intel is still the choice of business computers and the big bucks are in business programs.

Everyone has an opinion, but I gotta disagree with part of this one. This thread was about which manufacturer has the fastest CPU (I assume for gaming)...... I don't think it was about market share. AMD is looking forward with the 64bit processors... that it was part marketing strategy I don't think anyone doubts that.. but it is coming (64 bit apps) and they have a leg up now. MS is releasing a 64bit version of Win XP, there is a 64bit version of Unreal Tournament in the works (thats just two that I know about).. so 64 bit applications are coming this year. http://www.pcworld.c...d,111508,00.asp   There is also alot of speculation that Intel has included 64bit support in the Prescott CPU http://news.com.com/...l?tag=nefd_lede .


I don't know how you can say that AMD has little respect for gamers... gamers and enthusiasts probably represent thier largest market segment, AMD has a huge following within these circles. 'Cheap Home computers'? Have you priced the AMD 64 and FX-51 or any big name vendor like AlienWare that have successful (and expensive) lines based on these CPUs? 'AMD is only in busuiness because it sells cheap processors'? Granted, AMD routinley undercuts Intel's pricing structure, but they also happen to compete very well with the Intel giant which is a large part of why they have such a huge following in the gaming/enthusiast communty.

http://www.newsfacto...tory/22469.html

http://www.serverwat...cle.php/3307731

http://www.alienware...aurora_ddr.aspx
Just my opinion.

[Pu239]

Quote

AMD could stop selling CPUs today and would still be an extremely profitable company. CPUs sales accounted for less than half of AMD's revenue in Q4 '03.

If AMD stop making and selling processors maybe they wouldn't have lost 79 cents per share lost quarter....while Intel has shown a 80 cents per share growth. So where is this "extremely profitable company" you speak of?

Quote

I guess BEA, CA, SAP, Oracle and PeopleSoft have partnered with AMD to publish their 64-bit enterprise apps on cheap home computers now?

I don't think you realize that Intel is worth $196 Billion and AMD is only worth $5 Billion.
They have to partner with other companies since they can't survive on their own. Sun has also partnered with the AMD. Surprising that each of these companies have shown a stock fall. Even Oracle is starting taking a fall thanks to Microsoft.

And I'll agree with you that Itanium failed, however since Intel has had a majority of success, it can handle a few of those...AMD on the other hand has had nothing but failure, they're losing money, they've been losing money and soon will be out of business.

Oh, and don't think Intel isn't developing a 64 bit home processor. Microsoft has their 64 bit OS on the way and don't think for a second that Intel will not be ready when it hits the market, and you can guarantee that Intel will be the fastest processor on the market. They have the money, they have the people and they have experience to make sure they stay on top. And considering that as soon as AMD's 64bit came out that Intel blew it away with their P4EE, it shows that Intel is ready for anything that comes their way, as they've always been.

I find it fascinating that anybody would feel that Microsoft and Intel are companies being run by idiots....they are the most powerful companies in the world for a reason.

[ddrbyte]

Well everyone knows that Intel is selling more processers right now. However look in the past 2 years or so how many ppl have picked up on AMD. Yes Intel used to be the best but now AMD has come in and they are neck and neck. I think we were talking about speed of the cpu not how much it sells anyways. I believe MS got on the ball when AMD was announced they're release of the AMD 64. I also appreciate what you said Coffee

[Pu239]

Well I think this is a silly arguement.

Here's a benchmark:
http://www.tomshardw...1223/index.html

Intel beat AMD in almost every test. I think it lost 1....Check them all out, even my 3.2 stock beat out AMD's best. AMD even lost out in cost\performace ratios.
Why? Because its for 64bit programs, which there are none. Will it perform faster on a 64 bit system? Maybe...However, since there aren't any plans for 64 programs any time soon, and Microsoft is still working on its 32bit problem on 64bit XP, having a AMD64 is a complete waste of time and money...since you can be rest assured that when 64 bit programs become an issue, Intel will be there with the fastest 64 bit processor.

Intel beats in performace. Intel beats in market. Intel wins....

I wish I could say this was just my opinion, however, stock prices, benchmarks, and furture development figures would seem to agree with me.

So I'll bow out of this arguement now. Make up your own minds. There are plenty of benchmarks and figures out there. Feel free to look them up.

[ddrbyte]

Well different each processer does differenet in differenet benchmarks. You can't just go by one. Also, windows is already testing they're 64 bit XP. Looks like its not going to be that long. http://www.microsoft...ads/upgrade.asp

[TeenMaverick]

Well reading many different Benchmark tests, some games work better with AMDs and Some work better with Intel. So what can I say, find the CPU your game works best with and buy it. Same thing with the whole ATI vs. Nvidia deal. But I have noticed that ATI and Intel have a great expensive bond. And AMD and Nvidia have a great bond too. So I would say if you want power and at a good price go with the Nvidia and AMD. But it you want raw power and willing to push out the extra $$$. Go for Intel and ATi. Does that settle it, guys?  

[Pu239]

I'm not going to argue, just point a flaw in your thinking and be on my way.

Quote

Well different each processer does differenet in differenet benchmarks. You can't just go by one.

Then why haven't you backed up anything with your benchmarks to support your point?

Quote

Also, windows is already testing they're 64 bit XP. Looks like its not going to be that long.

You flaw here is simple.
For any 32 bit program to run on a 64 bit system you will require a "thunker". This is a program, or "boundary", that takes 64 bit integers and converts them to 32 bit so 32 bit programs can deal with them, and converts call from 32 to 64 for the processor to handle. There is one on 32 bit XP called wowexec.
This causes 32bit programs to degrade in performance on 64bit systems just like it does from 32 bit to 16.
Second, with out an emulator, you can not run a 64 bit program on a 32 bit system, and even with an emulator, the performance this direction is cut in half...

So considering this simple information:
Do you really think that all of these software vendors, of which I'm one, are going to drop 32 bit and make 64 bit programs that will only run on 1 processor?
Especially considering that Intel has the majority market at 32 bit?
Or would it be better to write a 32 bit program so 99% of the market get high speed and just let the 64 bit users suffer the performance hit?
Especially since Intel has processors that will run my 32 bit code faster then the 64 bit code would run on an AMD?
And even more important what would a 64 bit integer do for my program?
Do I do any work that requires a 64 bit int?

These are all valid questions for us software developers, see if you can figure out the answers and what the market is going to do with your 64 bit processor and 64 bit XP.

[funtown34]

Pu239, on Feb 5 2004, 02:40 PM, said:

I find it fascinating that anybody would feel that Microsoft and Intel are companies being run by idiots....they are the most powerful companies in the world for a reason.

Nice to know I'm not the only one that feels that way.

[Rapidone]

Pu239  -  ‘‘Well different each processer does differenet in differenet benchmarks. You can't just go by one.’

Then why haven't you backed up anything with your benchmarks to support your point?’



http://www.extremete...id=64085,00.asp

Here is one I posted in a different thread, clearly showing the AMD64 chips faster in fs2004. Most of the benchmarks I’ve seen show the AMD64 is significantly faster for games than the P4.

What concerns me is that the lack of information in the reviews about the effect the multi-threading ability of the P4. The CPU will tend to be loaded up from other processes such as hard drive firing up (6% to 7% CPU load or 16% with a RAID array), force feedback joysticks, firewalls LAN, ect.

It would be nice to see the reviews do some benchmarks with real world gaming situations. Its good to have high average frame rates, but it’s when the frame rate is at a minimum that we notice it most (ie when other processes are taking CPU power).

The lack of information makes choosing between AMD and Intel difficult.

[FLY CRJ]

Remember when AMD came out with their MP mobos.  The chipsets amd made for the MP were absolutey crap.  So many hardware conflicts and memory problems, no usb,  I could not belive a company like amd would release such a thing.  AMD should stay away from making chipsets, not intergrate them into the CPU.

Well AMD does it again, they loose cause you have to buy a new CPU to get a chipset upgrade.  Big mistake, especially when the good 64's cost $500.  Yes it helps performance, but not that much accoriding to all the latest 64 vs Presscot benchmarks.  As far as the whole 64 thing, AMD is just narrowing down their customers who run linux and shiz in servers at big companies.

Another thing that sucks about the 64 is its platfrom, how many freakn socket sizes do you need?  That is just rediculous.  So now you wanna upgrade to the latest cpu and you have to buy a new CPU AND MOBO HAHAHA.  Who wants to do that?  Just to upgrade to the flagship?

Gee I wonder how intel gets it done, hmm.  When presscot hits the stores I can buy one and install it in my 865PE mobo, and with a simple bios flash, walla! NO BS!  And no stupid marketing naming scheme!

It took how long for AMD to release the 64? like 18 months? 2 days before they release it and Intel releases a CPU NO ONE has heard about!(P4 Extreme)  Wow that was fast!  Looks like intel knows what they are doing to play with AMD like that.

As far as I am concerned the "winning" company has a product that is easily upgradeable, Intel.  When AMD invented their naming scheme and ditched socket A, they shot themselves in the head.  And that is when I switched to Intel.

[Pu239]

You know, I don't know if its just me or not, but I really hate it when the whole bases for someones arguement is a picture of a benchmark without an setup information or anything....

So first for Rapidone, I have the 3.2 with the 5900 and my fps was up in the hundreds at 1024x768, never mind what it might be at 800x600...here's the proof
http://www.fs2004.co...=45
(just scroll down to my post with the images)...so with out knowing anything about the rig used by your "picture", I can't speculate....perhaps you could post a link to the entire review you got the picture from?

However, here is a benchmark from extremetech with the chips:
What you find most interesting is the win64 benchmarks. It turns out the AMD64 performs better on 32bit XP then it does on 64bit....I thought that was interesting...
It has to do with the "thunker" I meantioned earlier. So this again shows that AMD64 is a waste since if you run a 32bit program from win64, you get 1/3 the performance (which was actually worce then even I expected).
http://www.extremete...,1276873,00.asp
And here's another:
http://www.digital-d...thlon64fx-p4ee/
And here's a link to Tom's again:
http://www.tomshardw...1223/index.html

These are all full benchmarks and reviews. They're pretty complete. From games, to office, to encoding to decoding. Opengl to directx....
Toms would be the best to look at since its the only one which shows overclocking of both. Since we're a bunch of overclockers, it important to see how they all perfom overclocked....

EDIT: Fixed Names

Edited by Pu239, 06 February 2004 - 03:13 PM.

[FLY CRJ]

Pu239, on Feb 6 2004, 12:07 PM, said:

So first for FLY_CRJ, I have the 3.2 with the 5900 and my fps was up in the hundreds at 1024x768, never mind what it might be at 800x600...here's the proof

huh? what does that have to do with my post ^?