|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Chris Phillipo
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:54 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
 |
|
In article <4g9Eb.14022$6t6.7645@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
TSpectre@bellsouth.net says...
| Quote: | Hey guys just want to get some feed back. My last 3 comouters have all been
AMD home builts but my next one may not be. I will be building a new
computer to replace my aging 2200+ and I have to say unless something
fantastic happens its gonna be Intel inside.
No one needs 64 bit computing
The intel P4 overclocks like mad
A 1Gz+ gap is getting harder and harder for AMD to overcome
New P4's will have added instructions
P4 front side bus is bigger
Most benchmarks show P4 ahead
Finally, upcomming Prescott on reduced die size
I want to stay with AMD but anyone know something I don't?
|
P4 still is overpriced for what you get. What's always been the only
thing to consider.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Mr. Green
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
*Explanation: An electron 'orbital' is the space in which an electron
occurs...ninety percent of the time.
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message
news:MG9Eb.5569$526.39166@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
| Quote: |
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4g9Eb.14022$6t6.7645@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Hey guys just want to get some feed back. My last 3 comouters have all
been
AMD home builts but my next one may not be. I will be building a new
computer to replace my aging 2200+ and I have to say unless something
fantastic happens its gonna be Intel inside.
No one needs 64 bit computing
Intel and Microsoft might tend to disagree with you there, 2005 q1 intel
will release their 64 bit chips/chipsets that will work with the amd64
instruction set. Microsoft SHOULD finally roll out Win XP64 q2 of next
year
The intel P4 overclocks like mad
And they should, at the prices they charge...
A 1Gz+ gap is getting harder and harder for AMD to overcome
If their chips did less work per clock cycle then maybee it would stay
cooler and they could keep up the gap?.. Raw MHZ isnt that important
except
for synthetic benchmarks.
New P4's will have added instructions
Yea?.. SSE4? or what.. AMD64 will be their next big instruction set to add
P4 front side bus is bigger
Yea, ?
Most benchmarks show P4 ahead
Yes they do, the 3200 p4 looks like a GREAT chip.. the EE could be great
too
if it wasnt so ***'d expensive.
Finally, upcomming Prescott on reduced die size
Yea, 1st quarter (maybee) for intel and 3rd quarter (maybee) for AMD..
6 months can be a huge time in the processor world so it might make a big
difference.
I want to stay with AMD but anyone know something I don't?
Shrug, Via is going to have quad core chips smaller than the
athlons/p4's..
Microsoft is working with ibm and they are going to make their own chips
probably (New Rival?)..
New Optical Processors are working NOW and are roughly 1000 times faster
than these speedy p4's that everyone loves to brag about. 1000 times
faster
means that this company has probably somewhere along the lines of 5/6
years
to shrink it down so I dont think this love for intel or amd will matter
once that happens. Lets not talk about holographic processors or single
electron processors.. There is something better around the corner all the
time.
the Athlons were far ahead of intels p4 early on and now the p4 3200 can
really do damage compared to amd systems.
But 5 unlock'd 2500+ bartons sell for the same as the p4 3200 ht
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:42:31 GMT, "Mr. Green"
<hahah@spambait.invalid.***.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
|
90% hmmmmm sounds just like my friends Intel PCs, they'll feel right at
home! ;p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rstlne
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
"Ed" <nobox@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bh5vvop3rr8ltc04bdb73gkcoj744egtl@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:42:31 GMT, "Mr. Green"
hahah@spambait.invalid.***.org> wrote:
Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
90% hmmmmm sounds just like my friends Intel PCs, they'll feel right at
home! ;p
Laugh.. |
I guess the big question is how many cach hits are actually misses. I know
it's a problem that gets worse as chips get faster, but would you say it's
as big as 10%.. hmmm I wonder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:44 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:34:36 -0000
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ed" <nobox@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bh5vvop3rr8ltc04bdb73gkcoj744egtl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:42:31 GMT, "Mr. Green"
hahah@spambait.invalid.***.org> wrote:
Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
90% hmmmmm sounds just like my friends Intel PCs, they'll feel right
at home! ;p
Laugh..
I guess the big question is how many cach hits are actually misses. I
know it's a problem that gets worse as chips get faster, but would you
say it's as big as 10%.. hmmm I wonder
|
This issue is called "cache coherency" and any machine is designed to
deal with it. If there are _any_ hits that don't reflect the data
stored in main memory then something is broken.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Jerry McBride
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 7:57 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
Mr. Green wrote:
| Quote: | Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
|
How would you know? If you observe it, it dissappears.
--
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
This email account no longers accepts attachments or messages containing
html.
8:04pm up 92 days, 57 min, 8 users, load average: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Phillipo
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:41 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
In article <5dbcc1xmnr.ln2@spinner.my.domain>, mcbrides9@comcast.net
says...
| Quote: | Mr. Green wrote:
Quantum computing...Problem is, it only works 90% of the time.*
How would you know? If you observe it, it dissappears.
|
Heisenberg computing, you never know how fast it is or where you put it.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
U R Chumps
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
Why are you here? Intel crap is Intel crap, go preach somewhere else please.
"LBJGH" <bite_mee@hotsnail.back> wrote in message
news:rYpEb.100252$%TO.45434@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
| Quote: | It would actually be a 2000MHz FSB because the HT link is a 800MHz
bi-directional link, thus effectively acting like one 1600MHz link PLUS
400MHz DDR memory speed.
3. The Athlon doesn't have a FSB per say... but if you want to talk in
Intel
terms (i.e. 200mhz fsb quad pumped... not really 800mhz fsb) the
Athlon
would be something like 1600mhz fsb.
Not sure about the FSB thing but someone may be able to elaborate on
this
comment. However, there are P4's well over 260 FSB and are stable on a
day
to day basis not to mention the exotic ones going even higher. From my
understanding the P4 usually tounces the AMD 64s on FSB bandwith, please
correct me if I am wrong.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
U R Chumps
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
Oh shut up. Why are you here? Intel crap is Intel crap, go preach somewhere
else please.
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TvlEb.13279$3k6.1899@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"LBJGH" <bite_mee@hotsnail.back> wrote in message
news:jC9Eb.76743$ea%.68510@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
1. Well the current P4 3.2 is slower than the Athlon64 3200+.
Not when you OVERCLOCK it its not!
2. Using 64bit software the P4 will be even more behind.
There is almost ZERO 64 bit software available and by the time MS releases
a
64 bit OS and vendor re-compile or write 64 bit software it will be 2
years
and time to upgrade again! And that is if MS is not being overly
optomistic
about its release which is shure to be buggy as hell in V1.0 .
3. The Athlon doesn't have a FSB per say... but if you want to talk in
Intel
terms (i.e. 200mhz fsb quad pumped... not really 800mhz fsb) the Athlon
would be something like 1600mhz fsb.
Not sure about the FSB thing but someone may be able to elaborate on this
comment. However, there are P4's well over 260 FSB and are stable on a day
to day basis not to mention the exotic ones going even higher. From my
understanding the P4 usually tounces the AMD 64s on FSB bandwith, please
correct me if I am wrong.
4. The Athlon64/FX will give you better benchmark results to impress
your
friends.
Its not benchmarks I am worried about but benchmarks are valid reference
points.
5. The Athlon64/FX can have the multiplier adjusted with software where
as
all P4 are multiplier locked.
TRUE
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4g9Eb.14022$6t6.7645@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Hey guys just want to get some feed back. My last 3 comouters have all
been
AMD home builts but my next one may not be. I will be building a new
computer to replace my aging 2200+ and I have to say unless something
fantastic happens its gonna be Intel inside.
No one needs 64 bit computing
The intel P4 overclocks like mad
A 1Gz+ gap is getting harder and harder for AMD to overcome
New P4's will have added instructions
P4 front side bus is bigger
Most benchmarks show P4 ahead
Finally, upcomming Prescott on reduced die size
I want to stay with AMD but anyone know something I don't?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
U R Chumps
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
Sounds like an Intel apologist. 'Sorry, Intel is so lame...but buy me
anyway'! Sickening to listen too.
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TvlEb.13279$3k6.1899@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"LBJGH" <bite_mee@hotsnail.back> wrote in message
news:jC9Eb.76743$ea%.68510@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
1. Well the current P4 3.2 is slower than the Athlon64 3200+.
Not when you OVERCLOCK it its not!
2. Using 64bit software the P4 will be even more behind.
There is almost ZERO 64 bit software available and by the time MS releases
a
64 bit OS and vendor re-compile or write 64 bit software it will be 2
years
and time to upgrade again! And that is if MS is not being overly
optomistic
about its release which is shure to be buggy as hell in V1.0 .
3. The Athlon doesn't have a FSB per say... but if you want to talk in
Intel
terms (i.e. 200mhz fsb quad pumped... not really 800mhz fsb) the Athlon
would be something like 1600mhz fsb.
Not sure about the FSB thing but someone may be able to elaborate on this
comment. However, there are P4's well over 260 FSB and are stable on a day
to day basis not to mention the exotic ones going even higher. From my
understanding the P4 usually tounces the AMD 64s on FSB bandwith, please
correct me if I am wrong.
4. The Athlon64/FX will give you better benchmark results to impress
your
friends.
Its not benchmarks I am worried about but benchmarks are valid reference
points.
5. The Athlon64/FX can have the multiplier adjusted with software where
as
all P4 are multiplier locked.
TRUE
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4g9Eb.14022$6t6.7645@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Hey guys just want to get some feed back. My last 3 comouters have all
been
AMD home builts but my next one may not be. I will be building a new
computer to replace my aging 2200+ and I have to say unless something
fantastic happens its gonna be Intel inside.
No one needs 64 bit computing
The intel P4 overclocks like mad
A 1Gz+ gap is getting harder and harder for AMD to overcome
New P4's will have added instructions
P4 front side bus is bigger
Most benchmarks show P4 ahead
Finally, upcomming Prescott on reduced die size
I want to stay with AMD but anyone know something I don't?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Supertimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:24 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
The Spectre wrote:
| Quote: | Hey guys just want to get some feed back. My last 3 comouters have all been
AMD home builts but my next one may not be. I will be building a new
computer to replace my aging 2200+ and I have to say unless something
fantastic happens its gonna be Intel inside.
No one needs 64 bit computing
|
64-bit computing WILL be the wave of the future just like
16-bit supplanted 8-bit and 32-bit supplanted 16-bit.
More importantly, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 offers the
best *32-bit* performance as well. All you need to do is
look at the review sites (minus the biased Tom's
Hardware) or the last several issues of any of a number
of computer magazines to see.
The FX-51's benchmarks are scorching.
| Quote: | The intel P4 overclocks like mad
|
Ace's Hardware shows what the FX-51's performance
is like when overclocked from 2.2Ghz to 2.8Ghz.
Even a 2.2Ghz FX-51 can put the P4EE to shame
(as evidenced in a recent head to head comparison
in CPU magazine).
| Quote: | A 1Gz+ gap is getting harder and harder for AMD to overcome
|
The K8 and even the K7 does so much more per
clock cycle, this is moot. It is like bragging your
four cylinder car is running at a higher RPM on the
highway than the V8 next to you. Intels rev higher
but only because they are weaker per cycle.
| Quote: | New P4's will have added instructions
|
Yup, I hear that Intel will add AMD64 following AMD's
lead. So much for 64-bit being no use. ;-)
| Quote: | P4 front side bus is bigger
|
This is not true. The P4's link to the Northbridge is
at 6.4GB/sec which is the same as the Athlon 64
(both FX and non-FX versions) HT link to the
chipset. The difference is that on the P4, this
bandwidth is saturated with memory traffic. With
the FX-51, the memory controller is on-die
providing a separate 6.4GB/sec communication
with memory.
In short, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 dominates here.
These kinds of busses should be described in
throughput (GB/sec) but if want to use Intel
terminology (ie. if you describe the Intel bus as
800Mhz), then the Athlon 64 FX-51 has a
"1600Mhz FSB."
Terminology is not quite accurate (should really
read 1600MT/sec HT link) but sometimes the
only way to get the message accross to the
Intel fan. ;-)
| Quote: | Most benchmarks show P4 ahead
|
Are you kidding? The FX-51 smokes the P4, even
the Extreme Edition. And I'm not talking about
biased Tom's Hardware comparison. The recent
issue of CPU magazine has a fair comparison.
| Quote: | Finally, upcomming Prescott on reduced die size
I want to stay with AMD but anyone know something I don't?
|
AMD will run on 90nm by that time too so where's
the problem?
Even Cray is using AMD's Opteron processors to
build the Redstorm supercomputer for the US
Government. If the technology is good enough for
Cray and good enough for the government, where's
the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Supertimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:36 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
"The Spectre" <TSpectre@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | From my
understanding the P4 usually tounces the AMD 64s on FSB bandwith, please
correct me if I am wrong.
|
Wrong.
On the Athlon 64 and Opteron, the FSB is replaced by
the HT link to the chipset. This HT link no longer
carries memory traffic and can pump 6.4GB/sec just
like Intel's P4 FSB. It consists of two 16-bit sublinks
running in opposite directions for a total of 1600MT/sec
(mega transfers per second). In comparison, the P4
has a FSB 64-bits wide operating at 800MT/sec but
it does carry memory traffic.
Memory traffic on the Athlon 64 FX-51 is controlled
via an on-die dual channel memory controller with
a 6.4GB/sec throughput connected directly to
memory.
So let's see, P4 has no on-die memory controller
so latency is greater. Bandwidth is the same
(6.4GB/sec) but the P4 has to go through the FSB
to access memory whereas the FX-51 does not.
The results are quite simply the FX-51 BLOWS
AWAY the P4 in memory performance and (only
important to Intel fans but nice anyway) AMD
also has bragging rights...1600 is a bigger number
than 800 (sometimes the only thing an Intel fan
will understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nearl J Icarus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:42 am Post subject: Re: AMD future |
|
|
In article <MPG.1a5d7d27d927803e989ebd@news.eastlink.ca>,
Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca says...
| Quote: | Heisenberg computing, you never know how fast it is or where you put it.
|
You'd know one or the other, just not both at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups