AMD Challenged Intel to a duel...

[CaptRingold]

EDIt: I think that most AMD users started out with an Intel becuase they thought it was better, but as their knowledge grew, they switched to amd and stuck with it.

Exactly. First computer was a P3 500mhz.. and it's been AMD ever since. 1.2ghz Tbird, 2x 2400+ AXPs in a workstation board, an A64 3200+ @ 2.45ghz (it was stable at 2.7ghz, but I've got some odd fear it'll fry before I buy my 3800+, so..), and a Turion ML34 I think it is. Bought a Sempron 3200+ and Sempron 2800+ for my girlfriend and her brother, respectively (processor power between the two reflecting how much I care ).

That Thunderbird has been completely stable since day one. It hasn't exactly been babied, especially these past several years when it's been doing Seti@Home, and in the last year or so, other BOINC projects (dont worry -- my real horsepower Folds for [H]!).

Any and all overall problems have been my fault, not AMDs, with screwed up OS's/software, and I've never, ever had any of my processors die on me, nevermind the overclocking I've stuck to all of them at different times. HDs, powersupplies, LCDs, etc, they drop off at a predictable rate, but never an AMD chip.

As for everything you said, SirKenin.. if you can't read benchmarks done even here at [H], then I'm impressed you can even write or type, since you must be pretty dense if you can't even look at graphs. Gamers don't buy AMD 'cause they're poor and flippin' burgers at McDonalds (they arent even THAT much cheaper any more), they buy AMD 'cause every objective analysis done on the web says, $ for $, mhz for mhz, shows that.. well.. AMD pwns.

Here's something you can't come up with, 'cause it doesn't exist; evidence.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=6

Look at that. 3000+ beating P4 560 @ 3.6ghz. Price comparo:
560: $408.50
3000: $146.00

Before shipping, at new egg.

Hmm.... That should end all conversation and debate, but I know ignorance shall somehow win out here

 

[bob]

Screw you man. I game, I have two Intel servers, one propietary printer server and four workstations. They are all Intel and they are all one hell of a lot more reliable than AMD will ever be. 365 days a year 24 hours a day these machines are up and running because they have to be. That's a lot more than I can say for any of AMD's home level products.

QFBS

Is that something you just pulled out of thin air? Correct me if im wrong, but it looks like you are comparing high end servers to cheap ass desktop systems.

Also

they are all one hell of a lot more reliable than AMD will ever be.

Care to back up that statement with any real facts?

 

[Jerunk]

QFBS

Is that something you just pulled out of thin air? Correct me if im wrong, but it looks like you are comparing high end servers to cheap ass desktop systems.

Also
Care to back up that statement with any real facts?

He couldn't because his information isn't factual, it's actually bullshit he probably works for intel.

 

[Drakensoul]

Go Google it, fandweeb.

You call him a 'fandweeb' when all you've done is push Intel over AMD not based on performance, but based on some arbitrary, warped sense of "better?" Better because.. they're... uhm...
......more... expensive, hotter, slower.... err, wait, no, more reliable.

...Right.

This review, and just about any other you GOOGLE, is why I pick AMD.

It's faster. At a slower clockspeed.

But yeah, keep picking Intel because they don't "lie about their chips." Too bad that doesn't make them better.

 

[mikelz85]

no the reason Intel is still better is because they make better chipsets.

You see, because Intel can keep all the teams coordinated on the same project from within the company, the chipset they produce has greater flux capacitor compatibility. Unfortunately AMD still uses a 3rd party chipset, which makes good graphics cards, but does not work as smoothly with AMD to integrate the flux capacitor, resulting in random lockups, a loss of smoothness, poor number crunching, and other baseless ways of finding a reason for intel to cost more.

Though, because nvidia makes the chipset, AMD processors are very good at games, though, like I said, they are not very good at math, making them a poor choice for encoding, or MS calculator.

I also believe the flux capacitor issue on the A64 may be the reason for the poor multitasking performance we often see reported on the forums. Many have rushed out to buy the new X2, which sports a new revision of the flux capacitor interface, allowing AMD to better compete in the multitasking arena, supplying lightning fast speed to those individuals pushing the A64 to the limit with 7 IE windows, some winamp, a little IM, and some norton. Though, a new study has found that many X2 buyers purchasing the unit due to previous lackluster A64 multitasking performance haven't ever heard of SMP, and even fewer are able to spell it.

Still, AMD hasn't really solved anything with the X2, as while it does sport a new flux capacitor interface revision, the costs of the project were staggering, mostly due to large leakage issues with the smoothness pipeline, and as a result, costs on the unit are extremely high.

If AMD is able to answer with a product that does not have leakage issues on the smoothness pipeline, that does not cost so much, maybe we'll see some competition with the new Intel DC, but I highly doubt it.

In general, AMD just can't cut it. Why pay less for more performance if it doesn't have fully functional flux capacitor integration?

 

[Drakensoul]

no the reason Intel is still better is because they make better chipsets.

You see, because Intel can keep all the teams coordinated on the same project from within the company, the chipset they produce has greater flux capacitor compatibility. Unfortunately AMD still uses a 3rd party chipset, which makes good graphics cards, but does not work as smoothly with AMD to integrate the flux capacitor, resulting in random lockups, a loss of smoothness, poor number crunching, and other baseless ways of finding a reason for intel to cost more.

Though, because nvidia makes the chipset, AMD processors are very good at games, though, like I said, they are not very good at math, making them a poor choice for encoding, or MS calculator.

Of COURSEEEEE!!!!!
The flux capacitor!!!!!

 

[delusion_2005]

WTF are you on about man on the comment "people that uses intel don't know about computers", First of all i have 3 computers and yes they are all intel system, i chose a Intel P4 640 over the AMD 64 3200+ because of the HT, so i can multi task, and hell intel can game as good as AMD 64 system, you can't tell the freaking different unless you chuck it on benchmarks.

 

[Mav451]

no the reason Intel is still better is because they make better chipsets.

You see, because Intel can keep all the teams coordinated on the same project from within the company, the chipset they produce has greater flux capacitor compatibility. Unfortunately AMD still uses a 3rd party chipset, which makes good graphics cards, but does not work as smoothly with AMD to integrate the flux capacitor...

Is that a parody post, or is mike serious?

 

[Agromahdi123]

WTF are you on about man on the comment "people that uses intel don't know about computers", First of all i have 3 computers and yes they are all intel system, i chose a Intel P4 640 over the AMD 64 3200+ because of the HT, so i can multi task, and hell intel can game as good as AMD 64 system, you can't tell the freaking different unless you chuck it on benchmarks.

well i mean you cant really see a difference, but if your on a budget AMD, is a good choice, if you choose intel you end up with a processor that, for the same price, isnt as powerful performance wise..I mean AMD, to me i own an AMD system, just seems to be for the gamers that are more budget oriented. But you still have the top of the line FX-57 which is like 1000+$$ and the P4 EE whatever the hell else goes here, thats like the same price. But this is like the most interesting thread i ever read. I picked AMD because of comparable performace to a more expensive Intel Chip, Im not saying that everyone should go out and save money buy AMD w00t! im not educated enough on the intricacies of the chips, but i know one thing my AMD performs slightly better than my friends 3.2 ghz P4, yet mine cost 300 less, at the time of purchase

 

[[F8]]

I like my $146 cpu that runs a pr rating of 4200+ at 42C under load. As far as chipsets, maybe if Intel spent less time on chipsets and more time on cpus, they wouldnt be getting their asses handed to them by AMD.

 

[[F8]]

They, unlike AMD, don't have to lie about their CPUs by putting confusing ratings on the chips instead of just telling the truth.

So what's the big deal with the names like Pentium 4 531, Pentium 4 630? To me that's far more confusing then 3200+. It's funny though, as soon as AMD starting kicking Intel's ass while running at lower MHZ, showing people that its not just raw clock speed, Intel decided to come up with a naming scheme that was no longer strictly about the clock speed. The problem is, those numbers are so arbitrary that the common person cannot relate them to AMD's scheme. All Intel's scheme does is allow you to compare between other Intel products. I would assume that a 630 is faster then a 531, but by how much? Is it 99 "points" faster or better??

 

[Spetsnaz Op]

I like my $146 cpu that runs a pr rating of 4200+ at 42C under load. As far as chipsets, maybe if Intel spent less time on chipsets and more time on cpus, they wouldnt be getting their asses handed to them by AMD.

Good point, well put.

 

[AgentxofxChaos]

no the reason Intel is still better is because they make better chipsets.

You see, because Intel can keep all the teams coordinated on the same project from within the company, the chipset they produce has greater flux capacitor compatibility. Unfortunately AMD still uses a 3rd party chipset, which makes good graphics cards, but does not work as smoothly with AMD to integrate the flux capacitor, resulting in random lockups, a loss of smoothness, poor number crunching, and other baseless ways of finding a reason for intel to cost more.

Though, because nvidia makes the chipset, AMD processors are very good at games, though, like I said, they are not very good at math, making them a poor choice for encoding, or MS calculator.

I also believe the flux capacitor issue on the A64 may be the reason for the poor multitasking performance we often see reported on the forums. Many have rushed out to buy the new X2, which sports a new revision of the flux capacitor interface, allowing AMD to better compete in the multitasking arena, supplying lightning fast speed to those individuals pushing the A64 to the limit with 7 IE windows, some winamp, a little IM, and some norton. Though, a new study has found that many X2 buyers purchasing the unit due to previous lackluster A64 multitasking performance haven't ever heard of SMP, and even fewer are able to spell it.

Still, AMD hasn't really solved anything with the X2, as while it does sport a new flux capacitor interface revision, the costs of the project were staggering, mostly due to large leakage issues with the smoothness pipeline, and as a result, costs on the unit are extremely high.

If AMD is able to answer with a product that does not have leakage issues on the smoothness pipeline, that does not cost so much, maybe we'll see some competition with the new Intel DC, but I highly doubt it.

In general, AMD just can't cut it. Why pay less for more performance if it doesn't have fully functional flux capacitor integration?

Oh man... this is "heavy".

 

[Big Worm]

God !!!!!!s are stupid,

Obvioulsy Intel is going to get owned. I think everyone knows that.

I wonder if Intel had 'challenged' AMD over the years everytime they release a faster CPU, would AMD even be on the face of the planet anymore?

Its always back and forth, Intel had there day in the sunshine for quite a long time, now AMD is having it. Doesn't mean Intel is down for the count.

And for the real AMD !!!!!!s: When Intel starts losing tons of cash and market share then I think Intel will turn up the heat a bit. Until then be happy with your inexpensive performing gaming CPU's and subpar motherboard chipsets.

 

[Big Worm]

And another thing, Intel reeeeally isn't stupid, they are aware of the situation. They have planned the roadmap accordingly. We will see how the future cores stand.

 

[Araanor]

Even some AMD employees I know are pissed at what AMD is trying to do. If intel did the same, I would be pissed at them aswell.

Pissed? What AMD is trying to do? They're trying to sell processors. They're better than the competition, currently. They aren't pulling any nasty tricks, just some gutsy PR. Pissed at what?

 

[Shane]

Would be funny if intel answered amd's challenge and brought one of the new cpu's they unveiled yesterday. Its 3x faster than any current cpu they have and would slap amd silly with it.

 

[CastleBravo]

no the reason Intel is still better is because they make better chipsets.

You see, because Intel can keep all the teams coordinated on the same project from within the company, the chipset they produce has greater flux capacitor compatibility. Unfortunately AMD still uses a 3rd party chipset, which makes good graphics cards, but does not work as smoothly with AMD to integrate the flux capacitor, resulting in random lockups, a loss of smoothness, poor number crunching, and other baseless ways of finding a reason for intel to cost more.

Though, because nvidia makes the chipset, AMD processors are very good at games, though, like I said, they are not very good at math, making them a poor choice for encoding, or MS calculator.

I also believe the flux capacitor issue on the A64 may be the reason for the poor multitasking performance we often see reported on the forums. Many have rushed out to buy the new X2, which sports a new revision of the flux capacitor interface, allowing AMD to better compete in the multitasking arena, supplying lightning fast speed to those individuals pushing the A64 to the limit with 7 IE windows, some winamp, a little IM, and some norton. Though, a new study has found that many X2 buyers purchasing the unit due to previous lackluster A64 multitasking performance haven't ever heard of SMP, and even fewer are able to spell it.

Still, AMD hasn't really solved anything with the X2, as while it does sport a new flux capacitor interface revision, the costs of the project were staggering, mostly due to large leakage issues with the smoothness pipeline, and as a result, costs on the unit are extremely high.

If AMD is able to answer with a product that does not have leakage issues on the smoothness pipeline, that does not cost so much, maybe we'll see some competition with the new Intel DC, but I highly doubt it.

In general, AMD just can't cut it. Why pay less for more performance if it doesn't have fully functional flux capacitor integration?

What utter bullshit. "AMD hasn't really solved anything with the X2"? Yeah, aside from out-performing every Intel product at a similar price point & producing less heat. Intel's dual-core has been prison-raped by the x2, anybody actually reading the benchmarks can tell you that. But I guess denial and justifying your purchase decisions ex post facto is easier.

 

[rusek]

What utter bullshit. "AMD hasn't really solved anything with the X2"? Yeah, aside from out-performing every Intel product at a similar price point & producing less heat. Intel's dual-core has been prison-raped by the x2, anybody actually reading the benchmarks can tell you that. But I guess denial and justifying your purchase decisions ex post facto is easier.

That post was full of sarcasm, idiot.

 

[Aelfgeft]

Would be funny if intel answered amd's challenge and brought one of the new cpu's they unveiled yesterday. Its 3x faster than any current cpu they have and would slap amd silly with it.

Wouldn't it be nice if the rivers turned to honey and the roads turned to gold?

More likely than your scenario methinks

I notice Sir "FanDweeb" hasn't bothered to address either the challenging of his unsubstantiated statements or the fact that Intel has far outdone AMD ont he vague numbering system that he so derided AMD for. Try explaining it to someone:

You: "You can get either an AMD 3000+ or an Intel Pentium 560."
Them: "Um, what do those numbers mean? Gigahertz?"
You: "Well, the 3000+ runs at about the speed of a 3GHz Pentium 4. IE, the 3000+ stands for 3000 megahertz. The 560 means...um...560 megah...um...it means 5.6 gigah...um...it will perform at...er...Frank! Your customer!"

 

[EricNS]

my e-peen is shrinking my e-peen is shrinking!

i know! hurry, to the message board i must compensate!!!

 

[The Doc]

Paul Otellini declined AMD's challenge. Why say yes to something you have no product for, intel has no server-grade dual core processor just yet.

Woodcrest will fix that.

 

[0810]

speaking of reliabilty and recalls....

CHIP GIANT Intel confirmed it had recalled a batch of chips but said it was due to defects in the heatsink rather any problems with the processor.

It also said the batch was of a very limited number. Although a representative wouldn't be drawn on the number recalled, our understanding is that it could affect only a hundred or so.

The batch number is 3502A770, for SKU (stock control unit) Pentium 4 3.73MHz 2MB cache chips with a 1066MHz bus.

The batch has been given a returns number and Intel is providing full refunds on the product

 

[ATIIsBetter]

"AMD Challenges Intel To A Dual-Core Duel:
In the spirit of fair and open competition, AMD today issued a challenge to Intel to conduct a head-to-head competition of dual-core x86 server processors. AMD’s proposed dual-core duel in 2005 would be a live, public performance evaluation between server platforms based on the highest-performing Dual-Core AMD Opteron™ 800 Series or 200 Series processors and the corresponding Intel x86 server processors that are commercially available in volume.

The challenge, issued today in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, San Jose Mercury News and The San Francisco Chronicle, features the world’s first x86 dual-core server microprocessor, the Dual-Core AMD Opteron processor, in a boxing ring waiting for the Intel challenger. AMD has challenged Intel to settle the question once and for all—whose x86-based dual-core architecture best meets server customer’s needs."

From the "AMD Procs" section

 

[Rtstrider]

Uh oh...I think I'm a little late for the flame war...But ummm....I'm an Intel guy and I'll state what I know....AMD's are better for straight gaming....But for media encoding and other stuff like multitasking Intel's good....Why can't people quit these stupid flame wars, sometimes when the chips come out they're just neck and neck, and in the real world with average users, who would even notice the difference????

Mod Edit -

Oh lord, AMD tries to start a pissing contest, Intel refuses, yet the contest just migrates here.

Sums up my thoughts pretty well....

I'd remind you guys that flaming is rule #1 on the list of things that can get you banned:

(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING OR NAME CALLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.

I read a lot of these threads and I'll be the first to admit that I often let things go that I should probably mod. Nothing beats a good discussion, even when it gets terse, but when it gets personal, you can count on a Mod, SuperMod, or Admin stepping in and you may not be thrilled with the resolution. When things get to the point where an Admin gets involved, it's rarely a lot of fun. Fair warning......B.B.S.