What keeps you going to Intel?

robberbaron said:
I never understood why they matched rambus with a cpu that had such a narrow frontside bus.
Click to expand...

Not narrow, but slow Singled Pumpped 133MHz/533MB IIRC.

Many Intel Faannnnboys jumpped one sight for pointing out that i820 sucking was Intel's fault for miss use of RAMBUS's RAM. They proved they knew what they were talking about and that was that. ;)

But I remember a lot of Intel Guys calling Intel out on that one and how bogus it was. I bitched constantly about their holding back the i815/E. I don't want to sound like I'm kissing up here but [H]ardOCP did get it right about the wasted Bandwidth. The funny part was that RAMBUS would have made a better Match for the Higher Bandwidth K7's than the P3 of those days. This even as AMD guys were told/taught to HATE RAMBUS. Again, they didn't want to spend the R&D, a common theme. It took DDR 800 to really out gun 40ns RAMBUS 1066 (533).
 
AMD was busy with their 760 chipset with DDR at that time, IIRC

RDRAM mainly failed due to high pricing. Nobody would buy a K7 (by definition a budget cpu) and match it with RDRAM. That would defeat the point of AMD being a cheaper platform than Intel.
 
JetUsafMech said:
I agree. Someone should've skipped the whole P3+Rdram idea.
Click to expand...

There are a few that should been skipped between i875/65 and 965/85 as well. Three 925's?
 
Donnie27 said:
There are a few that should been skipped between i875/65 and 965/85 as well. Three 925's?
Click to expand...

Pardon me ?? 915 and 925 were very succesfull chipsets.If you remember they lead the path to DDR2 and PCI-E.

925XE is one of the best performing Intel chipset still.Too bad it can't handle dual cores.

Not even 975X can get over it in memory BW numbers for example.Performance wise , if using a single core you have no reason whatsoever to upgrade from a 925 board to 955x or 975x.

About 955 and 975 I agree with you.Nothing but rebadged 925s with little extra capability.
 
savantu said:
Pardon me ?? 915 and 925 were very succesfull chipsets.If you remember they lead the path to DDR2 and PCI-E.

925XE is one of the best performing Intel chipset still.Too bad it can't handle dual cores.

Not even 975X can get over it in memory BW numbers for example.Performance wise , if using a single core you have no reason whatsoever to upgrade from a 925 board to 955x or 975x.

About 955 and 975 I agree with you.Nothing but rebadged 925s with little extra capability.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are Good. i965 and i985 will better. There's just too many short lived boards. A little foresight could have avoided Intel Shipping 925, 4 months later, 925X then 2 months later 925XE. 3 motherbords in that short of a time, makes Sockets 423 and 754 look like stable long term platforms. Then add to this needing i945 and i955 for PnetiumD. Now i975 is how much older than i955X, 8 months, less? So, what do we have here, a whole phuggin year of transistional Products? Intel even admits that's why they missed their Profit projections.

If i975X can't support Conroe, then it will have only lasted 6 months, that's BS! Again, all of these are like Buying Granite Bay just before Canterwood and Springdale. Just as they did then, Intel took a hit for Granite Bay. The difference is Intel also saw a very LARGE bump up with i875 and i865 launched.
 
Donnie27 said:
Yes, they are Good. i965 and i985 will better. There's just too many short lived boards. A little foresight could have avoided Intel Shipping 925, 4 months later, 925X then 2 months later 925XE. 3 motherbords in that short of a time, makes Sockets 423 and 754 look like stable long term platforms. Then add to this needing i945 and i955 for PnetiumD. Now i975 is how much older than i955X, 8 months, less? So, what do we have here, a whole phuggin year of transistional Products? Intel even admits that's why they missed their Profit projections.

If i975X can't support Conroe, then it will have only lasted 6 months, that's BS! Again, all of these are like Buying Granite Bay just before Canterwood and Springdale. Just as they did then, Intel took a hit for Granite Bay. The difference is Intel also saw a very LARGE bump up with i875 and i865 launched.
Click to expand...



975x CAN suppot Conroe as it supports Pressler - the two, conroe and pressler are almost one and the same.


and 965 is the younger brother of 975. 985 is about a year off.
 
rayman2k2 said:
975x CAN suppot Conroe as it supports Pressler - the two, conroe and pressler are almost one and the same.


and 965 is the younger brother of 975. 985 is about a year off.
Click to expand...

Conroe is Pentium M based and Presler is P4 based, not the same.

i975 = ICH7
i965 = ICH8

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
Conroe is Pentium M based and Presler is P4 based, not the same.

i975 = ICH7
i965 = ICH8

Donnie27
Click to expand...

The way both chips (yonah and presler) talk to the chipset are identical, that's why they use the same chipsets (945)

Conroe is based partly on Pentium M and Presler, but overall is a new architecture.
 
robberbaron said:
The way both chips (yonah and presler) talk to the chipset are identical, that's why they use the same chipsets (945)

Conroe is based partly on Pentium M and Presler, but overall is a new architecture.
Click to expand...

I agree with the second part.

Quite New and Both technologies but really closer to Pentium M or Yonah than P4. Until Intel lists it as compatible I'll go with saying it is NOT. I honestly really hope it is compat.

i965 is the newest because it (975) was supposed to have ICH8 as well. Intel didn't have ICH8 ready for i975 so it launched it as is.
 
Donnie27 said:
EWeek

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1915509,00.asp

Donnie
Click to expand...

From the 2nd link:

"the 45-nm "P1266" process can either mean twice the transistor density, or a 30 percent reduction in switching power compared to the 65-nm process. Designers also have a choice to either cut leakage power by 5X -- the charge that trickles or leaks away when a device is running in a low-power mode -- or trade that for a 20 percent improvement in transistor switching speed."

I wonder which route they will take, or will they split the difference? Also, the ability/availability of this in 2007 seems amazing.
 
a working 45nm 153Mbit SRAM wafer has been demonstrated by Intel. Penryn will most like use this when released sometime half of 2007.










quadcore is healthy.
 
JetUsafMech said:
From the 2nd link:

"the 45-nm "P1266" process can either mean twice the transistor density, or a 30 percent reduction in switching power compared to the 65-nm process. Designers also have a choice to either cut leakage power by 5X -- the charge that trickles or leaks away when a device is running in a low-power mode -- or trade that for a 20 percent improvement in transistor switching speed."

I wonder which route they will take, or will they split the difference? Also, the ability/availability of this in 2007 seems amazing.
Click to expand...

Just speculation on my part. I think Intel will build a Mobile/LV model with MAX leakage cuts and maybe slightly less performance. Then maybe allow a little more leakage but better performance for the Desktop version, and maybe a split for the Server Models.

Look at this way, AMD has to worry about getting 65nm out before Intel starts showing off 45nm. Showing off doesn't mean shipping.
 
rayman2k2 said:
975x CAN suppot Conroe as it supports Pressler - the two, conroe and pressler are almost one and the same.

and 965 is the younger brother of 975. 985 is about a year off.
Click to expand...

Before I forget again, i985X's sole reason for being is Conroe XE and it ships in about 6 months, not a year. The STOCK 1333MHz FSB is the main reason for this. I'm sure Asus, Abit and others will do i865 PAT tricks on i965 to get up to i985 speeds. Again, i975 was supposed to ship with ICH8, not ICH7. There still might be a i975XE with these newer features but I doubt it.
 
ive owned Intel and AMD and when I build my Rigs I thought my Intel ran better then my AMD for Gaming. They say AMD has it right now but i think ill stick with Intel...
 
Gawd, My first real PC was a Dell 600EB, with 512 Rambus.. shudders, twitches..... crap, my Left arm just went numb. Christ, did I get taken in on an outstanding PR on Dell's behalf.

Just to enjoy the history, I'm going to dig up that turd box and shoot it again (did 5 years ago when I build my 2000+ AMD rig.). Hmmm agh.. Sig P226.. .. .. .. ..
 
JetUsafMech said:
I understand the original question was another 'why Intel over Amd cpu'. My response was "Innovation from the company AS A WHOLE." I choose to continue to purchase Intel processors because the company, Intel, seems to have a clear vision on where technology is headed, not just cpu's, but tech as a whole. They have the ability to do anything silicon related in house. Intel doesn't need IBM to do 90 nanometer for them, they don't need VIA or Nvidia to make good chipsets for them, they have the ability to say "Hey, the PCI bus needs a kick in the ass, how about..." or "DDR is great, but how about..." or "Hey, wireless is the future fellas, how about we..." or "Mobile computing is where it's at, let's..."
Click to expand...
If by innovation you mean shoving unneeded upgrades down your throat.

You forgot one: "Hey guys. Desktop chips and motherboards aren't selling because nobody needs better than a 3.2 GHz Northwood and a 865PE to do office work. Hmmm. I know-we'll convince them that DDR2 is faster and that a new socket is needed to support it....and by the way, we'll slap a graphics interface on there too even though AGP is nowhere near saturated. That will give it the sizzle it needs to sell!"

If Intel were really behind the PCI Express bus beside for the reason of selling more CPU's and chipsets they would release things like 1x or 2x gig-E cards. They just needed a way to keep selling chips. Note that nobody bought a PCI-E board until Nforce4.

I can't wait until the BTX "innovation" catches on. Oh wait, that's right. It won't because now Intel is gonna use their architecture that actually works right and their CPU's won't need the coldest air so they'll drop it.
 
superkdogg said:
You forgot one: "Hey guys. Desktop chips and motherboards aren't selling because nobody needs better than a 3.2 GHz Northwood and a 865PE to do office work. Hmmm. I know-we'll convince them that DDR2 is faster and that a new socket is needed to support it....and by the way, we'll slap a graphics interface on there too even though AGP is nowhere near saturated. That will give it the sizzle it needs to sell!"

If Intel were really behind the PCI Express bus beside for the reason of selling more CPU's and chipsets they would release things like 1x or 2x gig-E cards. They just needed a way to keep selling chips. Note that nobody bought a PCI-E board until Nforce4.

I can't wait until the BTX "innovation" catches on. Oh wait, that's right. It won't because now Intel is gonna use their architecture that actually works right and their CPU's won't need the coldest air so they'll drop it.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot of wrong information.

1.) DDR2 is faster than ddr simply because the bandwidth, try sampling DDR667 at low price points... DDR2 is a shitload cheaper to produce, as well. Every try running a chip with DDR then running the chip with asynchronous DDR2? Notice that leap in performance? Guess where it's coming from.

2.) A new socket was inevitable, Intel doesn't just launch a new socket every week, you know (only chipsets) 478 just doesn't have the capability for the future expansion intel has done and will continue to do... dual core on PGA478? Forget it.

3.) PCI Express is a better specification as a whole, and it allows Intel, AMD, and even VIA to release the legacy AGP/PCI spec and have the possibility for progress... instead of catering to the lowest-common-denominator.
 
Not that I wish for people to think that I am a flamer/!!!!!! with this, but It really irritates me when people use the excuse "Intels platform is more stable" or "Amd has too many bugs for my taste" Granted, everything has issues (Gee thanks Microsoft), and obviously, more can evolve with time. However, It would be nice for people to look at both sides of the fence,and go from there. Hence, here is a link regarding the latest issues with Intels line up. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=420

For me, I prefer Nvidia over Ati. Why.. I have no idea, I just do. Processor wise, I could care less, as long as it works. (Research it, and get the best bang at the time that I can afford it). Personal bias influences us all from time to time. Overt biasism shows a level of silliness.
 
superkdogg said:
If by innovation you mean shoving unneeded upgrades down your throat.

You forgot one: "Hey guys. Desktop chips and motherboards aren't selling because nobody needs better than a 3.2 GHz Northwood and a 865PE to do office work. Hmmm. I know-we'll convince them that DDR2 is faster and that a new socket is needed to support it....and by the way, we'll slap a graphics interface on there too even though AGP is nowhere near saturated. That will give it the sizzle it needs to sell!"

If Intel were really behind the PCI Express bus beside for the reason of selling more CPU's and chipsets they would release things like 1x or 2x gig-E cards. They just needed a way to keep selling chips. Note that nobody bought a PCI-E board until Nforce4.

I can't wait until the BTX "innovation" catches on. Oh wait, that's right. It won't because now Intel is gonna use their architecture that actually works right and their CPU's won't need the coldest air so they'll drop it.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. Until Video cards, Chipsets, RAM and everything else runs as cool as Yonah or Dothan, BTX is here to stay. Too many are being mislead by the Anti BTX folks.
If Dell's, Gateway's and other's BTX's are counted, I'm sure there are MORE BTX boards than 939, what do you think? BTX is here to stay just as folks tried to downplay ATX when it first shipped. Even Asus shipped the P2B-AT for those AT diehards.

Trying to say only Intel (SINCE YOU CLEARLY SKIPPED or left out AMD) is greedy is kind of Whacky and I don't mean that as a Flame. All hardware makers are in it for a quick buck and I don't blame AMD or Intel for doing so. X2 sales have flattened so now we get new AM2 and etc.. This is not just restricted to Processors, hell, the video card makers and everyone else is in on it! Do we really need DDR3, GF7900GTX and X1900XT? Thank goodness Intel kept DDR2 afloat while AMD waited to reap the rewards.

If AGP is good enough, try to SLI it? Come on, please?

PCI-E is also easier on System resources than AGP.

BTX is a good idea and even AMD Fans should be demanding it, NOT giving AMD/nVidia a pass.
 
HyperTension said:
Not that I wish for people to think that I am a flamer/!!!!!! with this, but It really irritates me when people use the excuse "Intels platform is more stable" or "Amd has too many bugs for my taste" Granted, everything has issues (Gee thanks Microsoft), and obviously, more can evolve with time. However, It would be nice for people to look at both sides of the fence,and go from there. Hence, here is a link regarding the latest issues with Intels line up. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=420

For me, I prefer Nvidia over Ati. Why.. I have no idea, I just do. Processor wise, I could care less, as long as it works. (Research it, and get the best bang at the time that I can afford it). Personal bias influences us all from time to time. Overt biasism shows a level of silliness.
Click to expand...

I see your link to Intel errata, and raise you:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf
 
Donnie27 said:
But that's just it. Until Video cards, Chipsets, RAM and everything else runs as cool as Yonah or Dothan, BTX is here to stay. Too many are being mislead by the Anti BTX folks.
If Dell's, Gateway's and other's BTX's are counted, I'm sure there are MORE BTX boards than 939, what do you think? BTX is here to stay just as folks tried to downplay ATX when it first shipped. Even Asus shipped the P2B-AT for those AT diehards.

Trying to say only Intel (SINCE YOU CLEARLY SKIPPED or left out AMD) is greedy is kind of Whacky and I don't mean that as a Flame. All hardware makers are in it for a quick buck and I don't blame AMD or Intel for doing so. X2 sales have flattened so now we get new AM2 and etc.. This is not just restricted to Processors, hell, the video card makers and everyone else is in on it! Do we really need DDR3, GF7900GTX and X1900XT? Thank goodness Intel kept DDR2 afloat while AMD waited to reap the rewards.

If AGP is good enough, try to SLI it? Come on, please?

PCI-E is also easier on System resources than AGP.

BTX is a good idea and even AMD Fans should be demanding it, NOT giving AMD/nVidia a pass.
Click to expand...

Sure is alot of BTX talk lately, huh? lol. (from the other BTX thread floating around, I mean)
 
It's to allow better cooling of the individual components. :rolleyes: Even I can figure that out. And no, not everything is a conspiracy, and yes, people did land on the moon, thank you very much. :p
 
1c3d0g said:
It's to allow better cooling of the individual components. :rolleyes: Even I can figure that out. And no, not everything is a conspiracy, and yes, people did land on the moon, thank you very much. :p
Click to expand...

Makes sense, given how hot RAM is.

Though, there's only one IC that gets hot, micron -5B D

Seriously though, RAM needs to be parrellel with the opposing face of the cpu for 939's, otherwise the traces get wonky. That's why you dont see any good boards with the ram being perpendicular with the nearest 'face' of the cpu.
 
BTX is great and at the very least they should replace mATX with mBTX STAT.
 
theelviscerator said:
BTX is just so "wrong" looking!
Click to expand...
I disagree. ;) BTX is wonderful for airflow, and I'm confident people will get higher overclocks due to this change. Also (and finally), graphics cards will be facing "up" instead of down, further relieving it from unnecessary heat (hot air rises, thus blowing it down does not make any sense whatsoever). There are other cooling improvements throughout the desgin that'll make everything from a quieter PC to longer reliability for the individual components. BTX is the future, no doubt about that. :)
 
JetUsafMech said:
Sure is alot of BTX talk lately, huh? lol. (from the other BTX thread floating around, I mean)
Click to expand...

Yup!

It's just as I said when I first posted here. The way most fans see it, "If my favorite company doesn't have it, I must take their side and bad mouth it".

Donnie27
 
robberbaron said:
Makes sense, given how hot RAM is.

Though, there's only one IC that gets hot, micron -5B D

Seriously though, RAM needs to be parrellel with the opposing face of the cpu for 939's, otherwise the traces get wonky. That's why you dont see any good boards with the ram being perpendicular with the nearest 'face' of the cpu.
Click to expand...

Nothing that a little R&D couldn't fix ;) From the spec sheet, the processor only has to be in a ZONE, not a locked down single position.
 
1c3d0g said:
I disagree. ;) BTX is wonderful for airflow, and I'm confident people will get higher overclocks due to this change. Also (and finally), graphics cards will be facing "up" instead of down, further relieving it from unnecessary heat (hot air rises, thus blowing it down does not make any sense whatsoever). There are other cooling improvements throughout the desgin that'll make everything from a quieter PC to longer reliability for the individual components. BTX is the future, no doubt about that. :)
Click to expand...

on the video card thing, please note that MOST (im not gonna say all, because i havent seen all the video cards) blow down on the heatsink, meaning that while they are upside-down, they take cool air from the bottom, and blow itup onto the heatsink, not suck hot air away from the heatsink, in fact that is what most HSFs do, blow air onto the HS, instead of suck it away.

other than that, i agree with your statement.
 
Gibzilla said:
because I no longer play games ALL the time.

AMD's always been a second rate cpu.
Click to expand...
....and now, a friendly reminder from your local mod.... :rolleyes:

Please keep this going as a good debate and leave the flammable snipes out of the discussion....mkay?

Facts, guys, please.......and, thank you - B.B.S.
 
I keep going back to Intel because friends and family moved to A64s and sold their P4s to me. Not haveing to pay much for for a CPU has kept me with Intel.
 
Dreadlox said:
I keep going back to Intel because friends and family moved to A64s and sold their P4s to me. Not haveing to pay much for for a CPU has kept me with Intel.
Click to expand...

I know one other lady going back to Intel. I just setup her a 2.8C/i865 for mostly office work, her brother just built an AMD rig and she got his leftovers. He (an old friend) lives in Dallas and asked me to help her. Her 2700+ just died! Burnt a hole in mobo and left the heat sink un-usable LOL!
 
Honestly the only thing that kept me from Intel was I'd have to rebuy all my hardware, and it would have in the end cost me more then a dual core AMD..


If Intel keeps their prices like this though, my next complete pc I build may be an Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top