zerodamage
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 171
Really... I am sorry.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really... I am sorry.
I don't know why they didn't try to apply the steamroller to the FX line to give it another tweak or even refuse to update them at all like they just put R&D to the side and said "we really screwed up with FX" so they completely shift towards APU's which i think leaves many Hardcore Gamers to lay down on dust until 2016 or whenever they will gives us new High end processors
Zarathustra[H];1037972600 said:AMD's showing is a result of the company being less than a tenth the size of Intel and simply not having enough money to develop a CPU that's competitive with Intel.
During the Athlon, K7, K8 days they had their chance. Intel royally screwed up with the Pentium 4, which allowed AMD to catch up (and actually beat them for a little while)
They were - however - never able to take advantage of this performance advantage that fell into their laps as much as they should have, because Intel made secretive illegal deals with the major OEM's to keep AMD chips out of their machines.
As a result of this AMD made less revenue off of those generations of chips than they should have.
Intel eventually settled with AMD out of court for about $1 billion. AMD only accepted this because they were desperate for cash. A real court settlement would likely have been closer to $10 billion.
Anyway, long story not, fair or not, AMD simply did not have the cash to develop a good competitor to current Intel chips.
This was exacerbated by the acquisition of ATI, which took even more cash and attention away from CPU development.
AMD's CPU's were always inferior to Intel's up until '99 when the Athlon was released. it was a solid design, able to keep up with Pentium III clock for clock (and even beat it) but it was nothing earth shattering. Then Intel screwed the pooch with Pentium 4 and allowed AMD to overtake them in the performance race.
AMD could have taken advantage of this to become a real competitor to intel by making huge revenues off of their performance advantage and reinvesting them in the business, but because they were cheated to be kept out of the OEMs, the cash simply was not there to keep up and do a repeat performance, which led to the disappointing K10 Phenom and Phenom II's and now Bulldozer.
Unless Intel screws up again as badly as they did with Pentium 4, I don't see AMD ever being able to catch back up, and I think they realize this, which is why they are trying to branch out with integrated graphics instead...
Hahahah are you kidding? The Pentium 4 was a garbage CPU. Clock for clock it was slower and when they finally managed to work some of the initial issues out they suffered from serious leakage, which lead to the whole Prescott fiasco. They scrapped the entire design and the Core2 series was based off of the Pentium Pro architecture. The AMD designs at the time were a lot better than Intel's.
Yea right unless you overclocked the Athlon XP the processor was slow because it had half the bandwidth of the Pentium 4. Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose. AMD was full of gimmicks with it's PR (performance rating) because my Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor had a 4.1 GHz PR compared to AMD 3500+ or so. Also keep in mind that Hardforum reached 5 GHz on the Pentium 4 with liquid nitrogen long before anyone achieved higher recorded results, although this may not be saying much. However, higher bandwidth and faster compression and video conversion do despite the fact that AMD may have always had better Floating-Point performance. I never did like how AMD decided to support 64-bit processing anyway and buyers only went for AMD because it was cheaper for the most part not because it had that significant of advantage. Not to mention the boards for the Athon XP where junk compared to boards for the Pentium 4, like the Gigabyte 8KNXP-Ultra Series specifically the Ultra-64 and Supermicro's P4SCT+ series specifically the P4SCT+II if you wanted to really get some work done on a desktop PC instead of on a workstation. Still though AMD competition against Intel is healthly though. Now if only Cyrix would get closer to AMD's and Intel's level. Let's not forget that AMD Thunderbird only had a 64-bit bus on the L2 cache compared the the Pentium III's 256-bit L2 cache bus, which may not be relevant to the Athlon XP and just for future architectures. I may be repeating myself, but one final thing is the bandwidth only being half or two-thirds of Intel's even now for the Phenom and FX series when compared to Intel's socket 1366, 1356, and 2011 series.
Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose.
I'm not reading that until you insert line breaks.
Dat wall of text. The P4 was a joke from intel. It was their bulldozer.
Not to mention x86 instructions had to be run through emulation on the Itaniums, which was terribly slow. Speaking from direct experience supporting software that needed native Itanium binaries. AMD's approach was much easier on the businesses and the consumer.
Dat wall of text. The P4 was a joke from intel. It was their bulldozer.
I never had the experience of owning a working P4 socket 423 with RAMBUS support, but I did see my brother's friends Emachine with it and it was ok. The long response time of the RAMBUS may have been noticeable though and not meaingful benchmarks were conducted on it though. Clock for clock it was not slower either according to Tomshardware, which did an article about all CPU's from the first Pentium to the Pentium 4 3.06GHz socket 478.
Yea right unless you overclocked the Athlon XP the processor was slow because it had half the bandwidth of the Pentium 4. Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose. AMD was full of gimmicks with it's PR (performance rating) because my Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor had a 4.1 GHz PR compared to AMD 3500+ or so. Also keep in mind that Hardforum reached 5 GHz on the Pentium 4 with liquid nitrogen long before anyone achieved higher recorded results, although this may not be saying much. However, higher bandwidth and faster compression and video conversion do despite the fact that AMD may have always had better Floating-Point performance. I never did like how AMD decided to support 64-bit processing anyway and buyers only went for AMD because it was cheaper for the most part not because it had that significant of advantage. Not to mention the boards for the Athon XP where junk compared to boards for the Pentium 4, like the Gigabyte 8KNXP-Ultra Series specifically the Ultra-64 and Supermicro's P4SCT+ series specifically the P4SCT+II if you wanted to really get some work done on a desktop PC instead of on a workstation. Still though AMD competition against Intel is healthly though. Now if only Cyrix would get closer to AMD's and Intel's level. Let's not forget that AMD Thunderbird only had a 64-bit bus on the L2 cache compared the the Pentium III's 256-bit L2 cache bus, which may not be relevant to the Athlon XP and just for future architectures. I may be repeating myself, but one final thing is the bandwidth only being half or two-thirds of Intel's even now for the Phenom and FX series when compared to Intel's socket 1366, 1356, and 2011 series.
1) Nice necrores there, jack.
2) AMD Athlon CPUs during the 754/939 era were vastly superior, despite being clocked slower.
3) You clearly do not realize that all CPU clock cycles are not equal; Pentium 4 and Athlon clock speeds are apples to oranges.
4) Obvious troll is obvious.
This guy's trolling is both amusing and sad. Amusing because he thinks he's right but sad because he's delusional.
You are entitled to your opinion. If you and the other numbskulls here want to continue arguing the adjectives you use to quantify how superior one product is to another, fine. Whatever. But that discussion is so wildly offtopic and should be moved to a different thread. This thread is about the AMD FX 8150 and how it handles multiple GPU's while gaming. About the only other point of discussion relevant here are later AMD FX CPU's such as the 8350 and 9xxx and how they handle multi-GPU gaming.I highly doubt AMD Athlon CPU's were vastly superior during the 754/939 era despite being clocked lower, but I only ever own a 754 system to actually compare the two...
Statements based on your individual experience don't make it a fact. That is precisely why people say you are trolling. Your viewpoint can be biased. Statements made by reviewers combined with a consensus in those same results from a majority of the populace lend credibility to that view and from then on define it as fact. Coincidentally, many of your view points on this hijacked discussion fly in the face of reality.scharfshutze009 said:Oh if an if I trolling why an I the only one that's not trash talking either side and stating the facts based on my experience and not some review, which most of you may be doing.
I highly doubt AMD Athlon CPU's were vastly superior during the 754/939 era despite being clocked lower
So you never even owned/used most of these systems, yet you know so much.but I only ever own a 754 system to actually compare the two and by that time Intel had the Pentium D if I'm not mistaken and that's whole different story with whole set of new problems probably.Besides that were AMD does not excel Intel does and the other way around.
You're talking about the x87 floating point errors? You might like to know that AMD fixed those in the 64 bit spec. Also you start by saying the P4 was great and list a number of reasons why it wasn't.No if intel had a bull dozer or critical mistake it was with the original Pentium arithmetic errors that were commonly hyped.
Dude, you should be banned for even saying that.
That is such an anti-[H] statement, it isn't even funny.
Seriously, your credibility is now zero.
So you never even owned/used most of these systems, yet you know so much.
Also, the Socket 754 did not compete against the Pentium D, it competed against second generation Pentium 4 CPUs, so again, apples to oranges in terms of era.
Unlike you, I've actually owned and worked on all of these systems extensively throughout the 2000s.
You're talking about the x87 floating point errors? You might like to know that AMD fixed those in the 64 bit spec. Also you start by saying the P4 was great and list a number of reasons why it wasn't.
Also Socket 754/939 chips were fucking epic for the day. The beat out a p4 in damn near everything at the time.
Dude, I'm blocking you.
You are just regurgitating what I, and many others, have already written above, but in your own words.
Hope you get banned soon, troll.
Dude, you should be banned for even saying that.
That is such an anti-[H] statement, it isn't even funny.