AMD or Intel
- Thread starter JcsMP3
- Start date
No end in sight.....
Kooldino, when you talk about people in the "know" are you speaking about folks with more money, more intellect about computers, more intellect about other subjects non-computer related, or all the above?
Just like the Macintosh v.s PC discussion in another thread here, people who are usualy more educated "on average", tend to be MAC users. Sorry to bust your bubbles about that fact... but it gives me no satisfaction since I am and have been a life long PC user ... I have used Apple Macs before, but last Apple I used extensively were the Apple II Macs in college running AIX... I just didn't have the money to shell out for Macs back then for my own personal usage. Now that PCs are more powerful than Macs, although, still a bit more troublesome to use than Macs ... I see no reason for changing my habits now.
Let me get this out of the way, I definitely support AMD products... everyone should ... my shares in them needs major help right now!
.
The thing is AMD, initially, had been boosted in market shares based in part by folks who buy their products because of LOW PRICES. Not because of their high quality performance.
Prior to the Athlon, you can not tell me the K5, K6, K6-2, and K6-3 were blazing processors that could compete clock for clock against ANY Intel processors at the time.
Athlon is and has been the ONLY product in their ENTIRE company history that has put it ahead of Intel. ATHLON alone is a good chip and a great performance chip ... they had a very hard working and dedicated engineering team working on it from both design point and manufacturing point. Of course it didn't hurt that they were able to gain access to the Alpha architecture.... which essentially is why Athlon exists in the first place.
Intel on the other hand has been up and down in their product lines. The last processor I believe to be truly great built by Intel is the Pentium Pro. Pentium II was decent, and now we just need time to see how well P4 will turn out to be. P4 is still in infancy stage, so you can't really dismiss it or idolize it since there is nothing really on the same level where it is at RIGHT NOW from AMD.
AMD will have their 8th gen (x86-64 Hammer) out soon and that is the only product from AMD that should be put against Intel's P4.... not the Athlon.... please, 64 bit vs 32 bit? That is a bit unfair wouldn't you say???
Kooldino, when you talk about people in the "know" are you speaking about folks with more money, more intellect about computers, more intellect about other subjects non-computer related, or all the above?
Just like the Macintosh v.s PC discussion in another thread here, people who are usualy more educated "on average", tend to be MAC users. Sorry to bust your bubbles about that fact... but it gives me no satisfaction since I am and have been a life long PC user ... I have used Apple Macs before, but last Apple I used extensively were the Apple II Macs in college running AIX... I just didn't have the money to shell out for Macs back then for my own personal usage. Now that PCs are more powerful than Macs, although, still a bit more troublesome to use than Macs ... I see no reason for changing my habits now.
Let me get this out of the way, I definitely support AMD products... everyone should ... my shares in them needs major help right now!
. The thing is AMD, initially, had been boosted in market shares based in part by folks who buy their products because of LOW PRICES. Not because of their high quality performance.
Prior to the Athlon, you can not tell me the K5, K6, K6-2, and K6-3 were blazing processors that could compete clock for clock against ANY Intel processors at the time.
Athlon is and has been the ONLY product in their ENTIRE company history that has put it ahead of Intel. ATHLON alone is a good chip and a great performance chip ... they had a very hard working and dedicated engineering team working on it from both design point and manufacturing point. Of course it didn't hurt that they were able to gain access to the Alpha architecture.... which essentially is why Athlon exists in the first place.
Intel on the other hand has been up and down in their product lines. The last processor I believe to be truly great built by Intel is the Pentium Pro. Pentium II was decent, and now we just need time to see how well P4 will turn out to be. P4 is still in infancy stage, so you can't really dismiss it or idolize it since there is nothing really on the same level where it is at RIGHT NOW from AMD.
AMD will have their 8th gen (x86-64 Hammer) out soon and that is the only product from AMD that should be put against Intel's P4.... not the Athlon.... please, 64 bit vs 32 bit? That is a bit unfair wouldn't you say???
Correction about smart Macs
Wish I knew how to write!
Hey, I mean that the AVERAGE Mac users are usually more intelligent than the average PC users. Obviously, the reason for that is because there are MORE PC users... but with the Apple Macs in the minority .... they do have a pretty brainy support group.
Hehe, that's all I wanted to clear up in case someone chews me out for saying PC users are all dumbasses.
Wish I knew how to write!
Hey, I mean that the AVERAGE Mac users are usually more intelligent than the average PC users. Obviously, the reason for that is because there are MORE PC users... but with the Apple Macs in the minority .... they do have a pretty brainy support group.
Hehe, that's all I wanted to clear up in case someone chews me out for saying PC users are all dumbasses.
This has never happened to me.enry said:
Without any evidentiary data, this would be stupid.
This is starting to sound as if you surround yourself with idiots.
I have multiple servers, databases and data systems to manage, as well, and experience none of the uneducated, offhanded, ballistically impertinent comments you mention (are these computer professionals? What sort of education did they get?). I must say - regardless of the seas of morons swirling about you - the temptation to ignore, rather than consider, opinions of others is potentially dangerous and self-defeating.
I would have to call this ad hoc reasoning, at best. As previously mentioned, ad nauseum, these companies sell servers with "a name". Bondo, Dell and Compaq sell them (for the most part) because a customer will be less likely to complain that they didn't get the "best stuff". This is a result of the marketing genius of Intel, not the quality of their product.
Intel makes good chips. So does AMD. The price / performance ratio means a lot to some users. It would also mean a lot to the computer manufacturers you mention as well, if they didn't think that the cost savings of the comparable AMD chip would be offset by the support and returns spurred by misinformed complaints from buyers. In reality, both Compaq and IBM have delivered boxes in the past with the AMD cpu onboard. They found that the misinformed public (people just as sheepish and ignorant as the folks who you have to listen to on a regular basis) rebelled against the process and the companies ended up losing money in the end. As long as Intel can use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to keep buyers away from AMD's products, they will continue to use marketing to maintain a dominance in the marketplace. I must say, Intel's plan is working well.
Both companies make good products. Who is best right now, two years ago, or a year from now is not as important as the necessity of the buying public (especially computer professionals) to maintain an open mind. The more we research any purchase, the more likely that quality products will stay on the shelves.
Re: No end in sight.....
I was referring to people in the "know" about computers. Basically comptuer geeks.
That doesn't sound unreasonable. So the average Mac user might have a higher IQ than the average PC user. If smarter people happened to drive Fords does that make them better? Of course not.
But save the Mac/PC discussion for the other thread.
Nah, PCs are still blantantly eaiser to use than a Mac. How do you eject a ZIP disk on a Mac? Why, you drag it over the TRASH CAN of course. That makes perfect sense to a new computer user...not.
Yeah, the stock is the lowest I've seen in awhile. It's always been an undervalued stock. I think it will get a kick in the pants Q '03 though. So hold onto it.
True dat. And then they introduced a nice high end CPU (Athlon) and it only got better from there.
Actually, you're dead wrong. Ever hear of the "PR" system? AMD and Cyrix used that system (PR=Performance Rating) just because their clock speeds were lower, but performed on par with higher clocked Intels. For example, AMD had a K5PR166, which only ran at like 116Mhz or so, but it performed on par with a Pentium 166. Actually, it SMOKED it in integer performance (the 116Mhz CPU was as fast as a Pentium 200), HOWEVER, the floating point performance was only about as good as say...a 133 or so. So basically my point is that clock for clock, AMD's have been better then Intels at times, although just as often, it has been the other way around. Oh, and as for the K6's, the K6's were endlessley faster than the originial Celerons. BIG time...in every which way.
Yes and no. The Athlon was the first AMD CPU that put AMD ahead of Intel (which was a landmark in history), however, it still would have been an exceptional performer had it not licensed the EV6 bus from Alpha.
Actually the Pentium II was merely a Pentium Pro with MMX instructions. So to say that the P Pro was good and the PII was merely "decent" is like saying that the mazda mp3 is good, but the mazdaspeed protege is "decent".
Ehhh...64 bit CPUs aren't necesserily any faster than 32 bit ones...they are just more precise. Not saying that you said 64 bit CPUs were faster, but just making sure here. The Athlon will still be around next year and will be taking the Duron's place. The P4 should have a new core revision around the time of the release of the Hammer, but based on what I'm reading, it just won't matter. Hammer will own!
Allen said:
I was referring to people in the "know" about computers. Basically comptuer geeks.
That doesn't sound unreasonable. So the average Mac user might have a higher IQ than the average PC user. If smarter people happened to drive Fords does that make them better? Of course not.
But save the Mac/PC discussion for the other thread.
Nah, PCs are still blantantly eaiser to use than a Mac. How do you eject a ZIP disk on a Mac? Why, you drag it over the TRASH CAN of course. That makes perfect sense to a new computer user...not.
Let me get this out of the way, I definitely support AMD products... everyone should ... my shares in them needs major help right now!
Yeah, the stock is the lowest I've seen in awhile. It's always been an undervalued stock. I think it will get a kick in the pants Q '03 though. So hold onto it.
True dat. And then they introduced a nice high end CPU (Athlon) and it only got better from there.
Actually, you're dead wrong. Ever hear of the "PR" system? AMD and Cyrix used that system (PR=Performance Rating) just because their clock speeds were lower, but performed on par with higher clocked Intels. For example, AMD had a K5PR166, which only ran at like 116Mhz or so, but it performed on par with a Pentium 166. Actually, it SMOKED it in integer performance (the 116Mhz CPU was as fast as a Pentium 200), HOWEVER, the floating point performance was only about as good as say...a 133 or so. So basically my point is that clock for clock, AMD's have been better then Intels at times, although just as often, it has been the other way around. Oh, and as for the K6's, the K6's were endlessley faster than the originial Celerons. BIG time...in every which way.
Yes and no. The Athlon was the first AMD CPU that put AMD ahead of Intel (which was a landmark in history), however, it still would have been an exceptional performer had it not licensed the EV6 bus from Alpha.
Actually the Pentium II was merely a Pentium Pro with MMX instructions. So to say that the P Pro was good and the PII was merely "decent" is like saying that the mazda mp3 is good, but the mazdaspeed protege is "decent".
Ehhh...64 bit CPUs aren't necesserily any faster than 32 bit ones...they are just more precise. Not saying that you said 64 bit CPUs were faster, but just making sure here. The Athlon will still be around next year and will be taking the Duron's place. The P4 should have a new core revision around the time of the release of the Hammer, but based on what I'm reading, it just won't matter. Hammer will own!
enry
Administrator
Kooldino said:
Yeah, but one bug in the countless models they released and Intel is marked as having historical problems? I mean sure, technically, that's correct. But I don't think that's really fair.
And for the record, I am not pro anything, except my MP3. You can use whatever platform on whatever processor with whatever computer you want, and you won't hear a peep from me.
However, I will interject on discussions to bring a more even point of view, which is what I am doing here. Especially if I see posts that read like an advertisement (not that I don't do the same thing hehe). Point is, I think the uninformed should be allowed to make decisions based on both sides of a story.
enry said:
There was more than just one Intel bug, but the FDIV bug is the most famous. Oh, BTW, AMD chips never had any big bugs.
And for the record, I am not pro anything, except my MP3. You can use whatever platform on whatever processor with whatever computer you want, and you won't hear a peep from me.
However, I will interject on discussions to bring a more even point of view, which is what I am doing here. Especially if I see posts that read like an advertisement (not that I don't do the same thing hehe). Point is, I think the uninformed should be allowed to make decisions based on both sides of a story.
I hear what you're saying, but if you are uninformed try not to argue on either side of the battle. If there were a turbo debate going on in the Forced Induction area, I wouldn't oppose spoolin knowing that he's the one who knows his turbos, not me.
(in the voice of miagi) Ancient Chinese proverb say: Uninformed no argue with expert, Daniel San.
CharlieP5 said:Well I just love my Intel Pentium 4 2.6ghz with 1gig SDRAM....
SDRAM??? I PRAY to the computer gods that it's DDR SDRAM....
and BTW, they don't make a p4 2.6Ghz...but a 2.53. You MAY however, have it overclocked to 2.6GHz.
But assuming you have a 2.53Ghz with some GOOD DDR RAM, I'm sure that's a mighty fast system. What else is in the box?
Kooldino said:
Oops! Sorry about that. Actually it's RDRAM
This is what my brand new baby has.
Full-Tower Case (340-Watt PS)
Intel Pentium 4 Processor 2.53GHz 533MHz FSB w/ 512KB Cache
Hi-Performance Heatsink/CPU Cooling Fan
Intel D850EMV2 Motherboard w/1AGP/5PCI RDRAM
Standard 1.44MB Floppy Drive
1GB RDRAM PC-800
80GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200RPM 2MB Cache
16/48x IDE DVD-ROM Drive w/Software MPEG-2 Decoder
PlexWriter 40/12/40A CD-RW - IDE - White
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400 w/128MB Dual Monitor
KoolMaxx Video Cooling System
SoundBlaster Audigy 5.1 w/1394
Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 500-Watt THX Speakers - Black
Microsoft Internet Keyboard
Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer USB
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
It's pretty fast. Have no regrets...And yes it's 2.53GHZ.
I sense things are tense on this topic.
CharlieP5 said:
Sweet box, man. There's not a bad component in there. There's a few things I would have done diff, but definitely no bad choices. Also, I'm glad you have RDRAM instead of SDRAM (although DDR SDRAM would have done fine).
Off the top of my head, I'd say you have about a $2500 system right there.
"I sense things are tense on this topic"
Huh?
Yeah! it was $2,895.00
I said that because this thread is going to the last technicality posible about intels and amd.
Every computer has a purpose and a use. To say one is better than the other you have to first see what your going to use it for.
But that's just my .02 cents.
I said that because this thread is going to the last technicality posible about intels and amd.
Every computer has a purpose and a use. To say one is better than the other you have to first see what your going to use it for.
But that's just my .02 cents.
Re: Re: No end in sight.....
Kooldino said:
Actually, you're dead wrong. Ever hear of the "PR" system? AMD and Cyrix used that system (PR=Performance Rating) just because their clock speeds were lower, but performed on par with higher clocked Intels.
"Pentium Rating" !!!! Hahahaha, please don't grace this wonderful forum with that disgusting history again!! LOL. 486 is a 486 ... that was all Cyrix and AMD could muster up with while Intel had the Pentium out. They were not on par in performance with higher clocked Intels (which Intel so happened to call Pentiums)... AMD/Cyrix had nothing else besides the 486 ... and THEY (AMD/Cyrix) were the culprit of "higher clocked" CPUs that ran near Pentium performance.... not the other way around with Intel. AMD's 486 chip was DECENT ... I had one (and probably still do) ... but it was nothing compared to the Pentium. AMD was smart enough to stop that nonsense real fast, but I think Cyrix stuck with the "PR-rating" even after being bought out and making chips for 3rd world countries.
Oh, and as for the K6's, the K6's were endlessley faster than the originial Celerons. BIG time...in every which way.
I'd dispute this because I know you are exaggerating on the performance gap, but I have no exact recollection of the performance data at this time. Reason why I say this is because I used to use K6 chips and I've heard a lot of arguements about how a Celeron was better than the K6.... especially from a "hardcore computer geek" friend who reminds me of you.
Yes and no. The Athlon was the first AMD CPU that put AMD ahead of Intel (which was a landmark in history), however, it still would have been an exceptional performer had it not licensed the EV6 bus from Alpha.
Uhmm... so how do you think the Athlon would perform WITHOUT the EV6 bus from Alpha architecture? The existence of the Athlon depended on the Alpha core , minus Alpha would have equaled a superficial K6-4+ or whatever.... Sure as well didn't spawn form an IMPROVED K6 core....
Actually the Pentium II was merely a Pentium Pro with MMX instructions. So to say that the P Pro was good and the PII was merely "decent" is like saying that the mazda mp3 is good, but the mazdaspeed protege is "decent".
Hee hee, you take my words out of context. Fine. Pentium Pro was a revolutionary chip.... are you going to disagree with me on that? Pentium II was a FINE chip... but nothing as grand as the Pro when it came out.
Ehhh...64 bit CPUs aren't necesserily any faster than 32 bit ones...they are just more precise. Not saying that you said 64 bit CPUs were faster, but just making sure here. The Athlon will still be around next year and will be taking the Duron's place. The P4 should have a new core revision around the time of the release of the Hammer, but based on what I'm reading, it just won't matter. Hammer will own!
Well, I also hope the Hammer will own. But you can't push a 64bit chip against a 32bit chip as was exposed in previous discussion. That just doesn't level out right.
Only Athlon that will be worth the performance is the Athlon 4 ... in the notebooks. Athlons are maxing out of room to increase their speed even under the .13 micron die.
Ciao!
