65 replies to this topic

[Pu239]

doh , I meant Rapidone
Sorry FLY_CRJ

[mrcrpl]

Quote

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.

AMD 1-year Stock Chart
I can see how their stock being up 300% in 12 months would lead you to believe they "soon will be out of business".

AMD Earnings Surge
"The Sunnyvale-based chip maker reported fourth quarter revenues of $1.2 billion, up 76 percent from year-ago fourth quarter revenues of $686 million.
Net income was $43 million, or 12 cents a share. That includes a gain of $14 million, or 3 cents a share in the quarter"

Quote

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).

Using a beta version of Windows64 with beta drivers 12+ months before their release.

Quote

When AMD invented their naming scheme and ditched socket A, they shot themselves in the head. And that is when I switched to Intel.
...
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?

Let's see...
Intel: 423, 478, 775
AMD: 462, 754, 939
Those are the sockets used in the last three years.

Socket 478 is dead.  No new cpu's will ever be released for it.  You will NEVER be able to upgrade beyond what is available today.  You switched from one dead platform(462) to another(478).

Quote

especially when the good 64's cost $500.

CPU Pricing (per 1k):
Intel-
3.0C/3.0E - $218
3.2C/3.2E - $278
3.4C/3.4E - $417

AMD-
A64-3000+ - $218
A64-3200+ - $278
A64-3400+ - $417

Notice any similarities?

Quote

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.

No one ever heard of Xeon before?  

Quote

Here's a benchmark:
http://www.tomshardw...1223/index.html
Intel beat AMD in almost every test. I think it lost 1

...from December.
Here is their article from this week: http://www.tomshardw...rescott-12.html

Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.0C/E beating the A64-3000+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.2C/E beating the A64-3200+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.4C beating the A64-3400+?

The answer is none.  The A64 is faster than its P4 counterpart in every game on that page.

[TeenMaverick]

Quote

No one ever heard of Xeon before?

nahh never heard about it, only helped setup and configure about 20 Dell Servers with them as the chip. But nahhh never heard of them.

Edited by TeenMaverick, 06 February 2004 - 03:48 PM.

[FLY CRJ]

sigh...

I am going to grab some popcorn now...

[Pu239]

Quote

Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.0C/E beating the A64-3000+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.2C/E beating the A64-3200+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.4C beating the A64-3400+?

You mean besides the P4EE which beat it out on the first one? Perhaps you should have looked closer....
What I love about "hard core" users is that they love to find that 1 benchmark that they can throw around, not one whole benchmark, just 1 set of figures.... Its just like the TR-AOD benchmark for ATI...
If you go to the next page of your "benchmark", the p4 all of a sudden takes the lead again. Wierd you didn't mention that...
But even if its better at directx 8, guess what, what makes a chip better is its all around use. That's why you have to include the ENTIRE review.
And the thing I love the most is that you can overclock the p4 3.2, as in the bechmark I gave, and it takes out the AMD every time. Or is overclocking unfair?
So moving along....

Oh, and as for your reason it performed badly on the win64 being because its beta, another heads up for you. win64 release will still have to thunk 32 bit code too...Nothing they can do about that.....so you still are going to take the hit...
Which is why I know intel will be laughing it up, since they're talking about a merged 32/64 bit processor....so they won't have to thunk 32 bit code, keeping it super fast. So AMD is going to flop...first, no software and if you run win64 xp you will take a hit with 32bit code....And its not like everybody is going to just drop Intel to pick up an AMD processor and re-write code to support just the one when they can support the 90% with Intel....are they?....
And intel will most likely combine 32 and 64 into one processor giving them the edge on both, which I think will make AMD64 users will most unhappy....

Quote

Socket 478 is dead. No new cpu's will ever be released for it. You will NEVER be able to upgrade beyond what is available today. You switched from one dead platform(462) to another(478).

Yeah, I remember saying that after 3.2....then 3.2EE...then 3.4....then 3.4EE.....

Hmm....just a random thought.....
I'm thinkin' if Intel merges 32 and 64 bits into 1 processor at the 3Ghz+ range....then AMD will be dead....kindof makes sense, which would you by?, a 64bit that runs 32 bit badly or a 32/64 which runs both at max speed....gee...I hope I'm wrong or AMD is going to be in alot of trouble....

[Rapidone]

Pu239 –

Quote

‘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....'

The image comes from this review

http://www.extremete...,1478837,00.asp

Pu239 -

Quote

‘What you find most interesting is the win64 benchmarks.'

I can't really say I'm very interested in win64, and even less interested in a Beta version of a 64bit OS as used in the article you link to. I'm also not interested in the results of 32bit software running on 64bit Beta OS. I'm not very interested in the 64bit capabilities of the AMD64, since I own no 64 bit software.

I'm not looking to be future proofed. I learned a long time ago that I couldn't do that with PC systems. It's best to get the system you need for the software you currently own.

I'm currently using win98 and will be using win2000 when I upgrade my PC shortly.
I just want something that runs my current 32bit software well, which is mainly games and especially MS flight sim 2002/4, since this is the most demanding software I own.

I won't be buying either the P4 extreme or AMD64 FX-1, since they have a poor price/performance ratio. I'm going to get either a P4 3.2Ghz Prescott or AMD64 3200+ (both of which are currently at a similar price), but I'm having trouble deciding which one.

The AMD64 seems to be significantly faster of the two, but I like the idea of having hyper-threading from the P4. I'm also a little concern about the newness of the AMD chipset and boards for compatibility reasons, but not concerned enough to stop me buying. I'm also concered about the heat issues with the P4 Prescott, but again not enough to stop me from buying.

Edited by Rapidone, 06 February 2004 - 04:21 PM.

[FLY CRJ]

okay I just have to say that I agree with Pu239.  

There is just no way you can beat an o/c'ed P4.    

-Na, its not unfair.  P4s are designed to reach high clock speeds, and Athlons are designed to get more work done per clock cycle, at a lower frequency.  So its not cheating, Althon's architecture is just not designed do it.  Awww, to bad.

"they love to find that 1 benchmark that they can throw around, not one whole benchmark, just 1 set of figures"  

-Could not have said that better.  Different programs benefit from different parts of your CPU.  You cant use one program to justify your rants.

All you amd buffs need to buy a P4 and overclock it 800mhz, then you will seeeeeee.  Or you can o/c your Athlon 64 100mhz LOL

[mrcrpl]

Quote

Quote

No one ever heard of Xeon before?

nahh never heard about it, only helped setup and configure about 20 Dell Servers with them as the chip. But nahhh never heard of them.

Well then the P4EE didn't "come out of nowhere".  It is a Xeon.

Quote

Quote

Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.0C/E beating the A64-3000+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.2C/E beating the A64-3200+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.4C beating the A64-3400+?

You mean besides the P4EE which beat it out on the first one? Perhaps you should have looked closer....

I was actually comparing the cpus that are identically priced, not an $1100 cpu to a $400 cpu.

Quote

All you amd buffs need to buy a P4 and overclock it 800mhz, then you will seeeeeee. Or you can o/c your Athlon 64 100mhz LOL

If you checked my profile you will notice I have a 2.6C@3.3 (5:4).

The P4C is faster than the AthlonXP in 90%+ of benchmarks.  Right now the A64 is faster than the P4C/E in almost every gaming benchmark.  The P4C/E  is ahead in almost every encoding and rendering benchmark.

Quote

Quote

Socket 478 is dead. No new cpu's will ever be released for it. You will NEVER be able to upgrade beyond what is available today. You switched from one dead platform(462) to another(478).

Yeah, I remember saying that after 3.2....then 3.2EE...then 3.4....then 3.4EE.....

You remember yourself saying that?  If you actually read that somewhere please provide a source.  I am actually quoting news sources:

http://www.anandtech...doc.html?i=1948

Quote

What's important to note here is that 3.4GHz is the end of the line for the Socket-478 Pentium 4s

http://www.xbitlabs....0123103754.html

Quote

The last and final play for Socket 478 will be 3.40GHz Intel Pentium 4 processors with 1MB or 512KB of L2 cache.  All Intel Pentium 4 processors starting from 3.60GHz will come in LGA775 packaging and will not be compatible with existing Socket 478 infrastructure.

[TeenMaverick]

Didn't know about that thing with the Xeon. Thanks for the info.

[ddrbyte]

Well anyone can post they're PCMark 2002 scores and I'd be happy to compare..

[mrcrpl]

TeenMaverick, on Feb 6 2004, 05:09 PM, said:

Didn't know about that thing with the Xeon. Thanks for the info.

The original samples that were sent for review were actually still SMP capable.

Quote

win64 release will still have to thunk 32 bit code too...Nothing they can do about that.....so you still are going to take the hit...
Which is why I know intel will be laughing it up, since they're talking about a merged 32/64 bit processor....so they won't have to thunk 32 bit code, keeping it super fast. So AMD is going to flop...first, no software and if you run win64 xp you will take a hit with 32bit code

http://www.aceshardw...jsp?id=60000256

Quote

There's more: 32 bit applications should also get a small performance boost. The heap manager in Windows 64 has been improved, as has context switching. WOW64 thunking (32-bit on 64-bit, 32-bit apps can only use 32-bit DLLs and visa-versa) only has a very small performance hit. The result is that many 32-bit applications actually run slightly faster under Windows 64 than normal 32-bit Windows, despite the (very small) thunking penalty.

... benchmarks ensue.

[pillzburydoughboy]

Pu239, on Feb 6 2004, 04:01 PM, said:

Quote

Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.0C/E beating the A64-3000+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.2C/E beating the A64-3200+?
Which one of these graphs shows a P4-3.4C beating the A64-3400+?

You mean besides the P4EE which beat it out on the first one? Perhaps you should have looked closer....
What I love about "hard core" users is that they love to find that 1 benchmark that they can throw around, not one whole benchmark, just 1 set of figures.... Its just like the TR-AOD benchmark for ATI...
If you go to the next page of your "benchmark", the p4 all of a sudden takes the lead again. Wierd you didn't mention that...
But even if its better at directx 8, guess what, what makes a chip better is its all around use. That's why you have to include the ENTIRE review.
And the thing I love the most is that you can overclock the p4 3.2, as in the bechmark I gave, and it takes out the AMD every time. Or is overclocking unfair?
So moving along....

Oh, and as for your reason it performed badly on the win64 being because its beta, another heads up for you. win64 release will still have to thunk 32 bit code too...Nothing they can do about that.....so you still are going to take the hit...
Which is why I know intel will be laughing it up, since they're talking about a merged 32/64 bit processor....so they won't have to thunk 32 bit code, keeping it super fast. So AMD is going to flop...first, no software and if you run win64 xp you will take a hit with 32bit code....And its not like everybody is going to just drop Intel to pick up an AMD processor and re-write code to support just the one when they can support the 90% with Intel....are they?....
And intel will most likely combine 32 and 64 into one processor giving them the edge on both, which I think will make AMD64 users will most unhappy....

Quote

Socket 478 is dead. No new cpu's will ever be released for it. You will NEVER be able to upgrade beyond what is available today. You switched from one dead platform(462) to another(478).

Yeah, I remember saying that after 3.2....then 3.2EE...then 3.4....then 3.4EE.....

Hmm....just a random thought.....
I'm thinkin' if Intel merges 32 and 64 bits into 1 processor at the 3Ghz+ range....then AMD will be dead....kindof makes sense, which would you by?, a 64bit that runs 32 bit badly or a 32/64 which runs both at max speed....gee...I hope I'm wrong or AMD is going to be in alot of trouble....

Your attitude towards AMD seems very poor. You seemed to sound like a diehard Inteller.

Well as you can clearly see... the AMD FX51 which is what is compared to the p4 3.2 clearly has the edge. It is the p4 3.2EE that throws the hiccups to the fx51. But it does not dominate. They are essentially equal.

Now tell me this... if the AMD does just fine with 32bit right now, then how would it have trouble using an OS that it is optimized for plus using a code it works extremely well with now? If you ask me that only meens more performance boost.



Hoped i cleared that up.

All in all it really depends on taste and waht you will be using the chip in. Both AMD and INtel have there advantages.

Now about that overclocking thing.... if you used an overclocked p4 3.2... use a overclocked fx51 and see the benchmarks then start ttalking.

Edited by pillzburydoughboy, 06 February 2004 - 06:04 PM.

[pillzburydoughboy]

Another thing... i have an AMD xp 3000 overclocked 400mhz that is water cooled... that seems to be 4 times faster than your 100mhz comment to the amd buffs. I had a p4 and it fried when i tried to do the same thing.... 200mhz with stock cooling and it fried at 130degrees. AMD can tolerate high temperatures.

[Pu239]

Quote

You remember yourself saying that? If you actually read that somewhere please provide a source. I am actually quoting news sources:

Actually 3.2 was supposed to be the end of the 478. But with the new AMD coming out they pushed another .2Ghz out of it to stay on top, and on top they stayed.
If you go to the Intel web site (which by the way is the only source for reliable Intel news), you will see they added the 3.4 at the last minute (another .2 in Q1, yeah, you think they planned that?). Need a link? www.intel.com ....They did this to keep up, and don't believe for a second they don't have a 3.6 Gig sitting there in a 478 ready to drop on AMD should it be necessary. You again seem to forget that Intel spends more money per year on market research then AMD is worth, they know what AMD is going to do before AMD does.

Quote

. Right now the A64 is faster than the P4C/E in almost every gaming benchmark.

First, no its not. Read one of the multitude of reviews here. UT using directx 8 hardly counts for anything. Like I'm going to run out and buy an AMD to get a whole 5 fps more out of a game I never play... However, to get 10 out of half-life 2 is worth the Intel to me, or Doom 3....both which Intel won in....
Second, the AMDs are over clocked, why do you think they runs so hot and there's hardly any room to clock more? If you over clock a P4EE, just like in the reviews, it blows it away. That's because Intel has always been conservative with stock processors. They leave you lots of room to over clock it. So Intel value/performance goes up with a simple click of a mouse.
Its called marketing. Most won't over clock, they get a long lasting processor. I've had 2 AMD computers, 1 AMD laptop, none of them work (youngest being 4 years), I didn't over clock them, just stock they all just died, poor manufacturing. There has to be some cut back for AMD to stay cheap you know.
I do have a 5 Intels in my closest, from 8086, 386, 486, 133Mhz, 2Ghz, all operational and of coarse my new 3.2 over clocked to 3.6. (nothing beats my Apple IIe though, 24 years old and running strong)
So that's another plus to Intel. Reliability. (and a super plus to Apple).

Quote

Now about that overclocking thing.... if you used an overclocked p4 3.2... use a overclocked fx51 and see the benchmarks then start ttalking.

http://www.tomshardw...1223/index.html

I believe this has the over clocking benchmarks you seek. I also believe this is the 3rd time I've posted it, so I would like to thank you so taking the time to read the posts and joining in....sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously....repetitive arguments are really irritating....

Quote

Your attitude towards AMD seems very poor. You seemed to sound like a diehard Inteller

I'm actually backing up everything with benchmarks and simple common sense....I, at no point, handed you 1 game benchmark and said "look its better, hahaha"....so there is no diehard inteller, and considering I've had 3 AMDs, I have a little experience on the matter...but again, thank you for you comment.

Quote

Now tell me this... if the AMD does just fine with 32bit right now, then how would it have trouble using an OS that it is optimized for plus using a code it works extremely well with now? If you ask me that only meens more performance boost.

Its called a thunker, its a layer that sits between 64 bit code and 32 bit code... What it does is truncate 64 bit messages and values to 32bit and the other way to 64 (I'm giving it to you roughly, if you can deal with more detailed information, there are plenty of resources). This operation takes a performance hit.
Check the previous benchmarks to see how XP64 and AMD64 bit handles 32 bit code.
Oh, and the 32bit work better on a 64bit OS? Not possible. Not even pretend possible. Use a little common sense and you can see why.... (ok, I'll help, you can't make something 110% efficient, now can ya, unless of coarse the AMD64 is already inefficient at running 32 bit code? hmmm)

Quote

As you know there will be no p4 3.4 or 3.4ee as intel Has recently released the Prescott processor lines. That will take the place of those processors you seemed to of just mentioned

www.Intel.com  Check it out and see what they're planning. 3.4 in Q1, still.

Anyway, since we're just going to run around in circles, which I'm finding really annoying, I'm going to grab my bag of popcorn too and settle in.
If you are really interesting in being objective, feel free to check out the large group of benchmarks and reviews and judge for yourselves...

[pillzburydoughboy]

Now I want you to go buy a Maximum PC and read it. Look at what they have to say.

Listening to one source will get you know where.

[Pu239]

Interesting that you ask me for a review with overclocking and you get it and now you say I need more sources....look at the other posts, there have been several other benchmarks and reviews that support Intel. What there is, however, is a lack is of benchmarks and reviews supporting AMD...
So you feel that if I get Maximum PC maybe THEY will support AMD?
How many reviews do we have to go through before you accept that AMD will always be second best?

Well, I don't think it matters. I don't know why you guys support AMD, maybe you're just supporting the little guy, maybe your computer is AMD and you want to believe you have the best...it doesn't matter, you like AMD and good for you. For you to stick to a failing product with has been spanked by Intel over and over again is admirable, keep up the good work.

On the bright side, Intel makes more money by having competition, and more money for Intel means more money for better processors.  

I'll go back to eating my popcorn.  

[Robin.]

I want to add the fact that AMD made up this 3000+, or 2600+ or whatever + name just to sell more. Most of us probably still think that the 3000+ works at 3.0GHz...

[TechnicolorYawn]

You guys should start an nVidia vs. ATI thread as well. Then you'd have twice the fun...  

[ADSimpson]

TechnicolorYawn, on Feb 7 2004, 08:50 AM, said:

You guys should start an nVidia vs. ATI thread as well. Then you'd have twice the fun...  

Has already happened.

[TeenMaverick]

Wasn't Intel is doing the samething as AMD? With their Centrino CPU for notebooks/laptops. That its clocked lower but still has the performance power of a high freq. chip.