![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Considering Going back to INTEL just 1 question?
- Thread starter newls1
- Start date
RaphaelVinceti said:
Again, AMD had ZERO to do with Intel Dropping anything on the Desktop=P Intel couldn't do what they wanted, namely 5GHz so they killed it. AMD has NEVER killed Intel for ANY market Share. You're reading too many FanSites. I keep saying Desktop because AMD's real gains have been made in the Server Sector. Intel kicked the Crap out of them in the Notebook and Offshore sales of EVERYTHING. 50% of the American market means about 7% of the worlds market.
I don't have any issue with folks saying how much better AMD's Duals Cores are. I almost bought one myself. The problem is, there aren't enough of them to change anything in the DESKTOP SECTOR. That's like saying BMW is going to hurt Honda sales, get it?
Donnie27
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Donnie27 said:
hmmm, idk..... I think amd is making a much bigger splash in the desktop market. Walk into a best buy or circuit city and there are several high end amd 64 machines in contrast to a few years ago. Also, AMD has alot more recognition than they did a few years ago. I think intel realised this and decided to change before a major change in the market occured.
RaphaelVinceti
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 600
AMD is an indirect reason for Intels dropping of Netburst. Indirect. Intel dropped it, yes, because it was a failure (not being able to do what it was designed to do, namely 5 ghz, is a failure). But, if Intel didnt have such a competitor in Intel, it would have spent money on Improving its current architecture, rather than dropping MORE money on developing a new one.
As for if i would take the High and Risky road over the low and safe one.. I would take the high and Risky, if you come out alright, you come out ontop, rather than taking a low, safe path that doesnt offer very much.
As for if i would take the High and Risky road over the low and safe one.. I would take the high and Risky, if you come out alright, you come out ontop, rather than taking a low, safe path that doesnt offer very much.
sabrewolf732 said:
AMD has never suffered from a *real large number of folks not knowing about them, that's an Internet wisetail. The largest buyer of PC's by far are Business Users, not home buyers. Better platforms have been seen as the biggest reason for AMD's increased sales and NEW Customer trust, not speedy processors. I was in Best Buy as a Newbi asked a salesmen, "Have they (the A64s system he was looking at) changed much since the Crashlon days?" After talking to him, he admitted to being only an experienced user, not a builder. Botched his last build.
Business folks know full and well who AMD is. Many home users have more than one PC and it is very hard to find a first time buyer. Many folks had POS Compaq, Mircon, HP and Gateway AMD systems with VIA motherboards. The first nForce boards were buggy as well. They're pissed at the rip-offs they suffered and are just like a Honda and Toyota owners who got jipped by Ford or GM. It means NOTHING to them that Ford and GM are making good cars now. Total PC sales for AMD in the US market = around 7% of the World's market and not even 50% of AMD's own world wide sales.
All I'm saying is there isn't enough Hammers to make Intel change anything it's doing, same goes for notebooks. Desktop Sales have been flat or loosing ground. While Notebooks have taken ground from them. Servers is the only real thing that has Intel looking over it's should. I just saw Madagascar and during the Credits it says rederred by .......HP Opterons at ..... Fact is, it is hard to find Hollywood FX houses and etc.. Not using Opterons and many made by Intel's Partner HP. Intel's and AMD's combind U.S. sales floats between 14.8 and 15.5% of the PC sold in the world and I think they included Notebooks in that figure.
Donnie27
Donnie27 said:
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
visaris said:
lol donnie. look at the desktop, it shows amd increasing market share and intel decreasing.and the global x86 market has an even bigger increase from amd, and bigger decrease from intel.Intel went from 82 to 80% while amd increased from 16 to 17%. A noticable differance.
sabrewolf732 said:
While you're at it, look at others like IDT, Merc and etc.., that's just one dewd. The point was, there STILL wasn't enough K8's to make Intel change anything or kill a certain Processor. Now look up how many Hammers are sold during that same time? Or do you truely think it was AthlonXP, that still makes up the Lion's share of AMD processors, that made Intel Kill Netburst?
Pull up the Chart showing Intel's Profits during that same time? Yes it grew LOL! 2.75Billion in profits on 80% of the market is much better than 2.4billion while hold 83% of the market. That means Intel made more with less has NO reason run off crying like a little girl scared of AMD, hehehe! Hammers are real competition and there still aren't enough of them to make Intel kill of any product=P One word, volume.
Simple and plainly put, Intel couldn't take Netburst high as they wanted it to go so Paul Otellini and gang killed it. It didn't have shit to do with AMD's Desktop stuff=P Dual core and Opterons must cause them nightmares though.
Donnie27
XSNiper said:Right so first they have to make money, the money that Intel is hogging the crap out of. Then they could start mass producing.
Well, that didn't stop the Germans and the EU from building two 2 billion Dollar Fabs for them uh? Do you think they will play fair with Intel or block markets to try to get investment back sooner?
K8 is a good processor performance wise but a Pain in the ass to RAMP UP. That's an IBM and AMD problem that Intel has nothing to do with Donnie27
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Donnie27 said:Well, that didn't stop the Germans and the EU from building two 2 billion Dollar Fabs for them uh? Do you think they will play fair with Intel or block markets to try to get investment back sooner?
Donnie27
I wouldn't say that, AMD processors have progressively ramped up well with each new revision. newcastle -> winchester -> venice.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Nasgul said:
He's talking about how Intel said they would punish certain oem's if they bought and sold amd. not how intel can mass produce it's procs. Look up information about monopolies.
Have you seen benchmarks?
the pentium 3 architecture is what makes dothan perform as well as it does, not netburst.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Nasgul said:
Genius boy, they are penalizing people for going amd. That's what they're being sued for, not for offering better deals
um..... I don't care? What does that have to do with what I said.
So you're excuse is, "we don't need any more performance". Sorry but thats not how advancing technology works, try again.
Where do you come up with what you say? What does that have to do with anything? UT04 is an old ass game, I know a guy that plays it on a 1GHz p3 and a 8500
A typo, yes omfg! they exist. Substitute conroe in for dothan.
sabrewolf732 said:
Progessively no, improved yes. The first yields were so bad, IBM and AMD had nowhere to go but up. Keep in mind that AMD's market share goes up as Intel transistions/moves to a smaller Processor and EOL's older Architectures.
Got a link to how many Hammers and or X2's AMD builds each quarter?
Donnie27
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Donnie27 said:
No I don't have a link. However I'm betting with the next revision amd will be able to put out 2.6-3GHz processors pretty easily (not talking about FX)
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Nasgul said:
HardOCP review said:
Huh? What?
While some Intel fans claim to not be able to tell the difference, I have to call BS. I had a Pentium 4 550@3.95GHz with the best DDR2 ram on the market at the time, Raptors, a 6800GT@Ultra speeds, and then I switched to an AMD Athlon 3800+ because my gaming performance wasn't nearly as good as AMD based systems. Friends of mine had A64's and I noticed the difference right away on their boxes.
Several games felt faster out of the box. There were a couple I couldn't really tell apart, but the bulk of games were MUCH smoother on the A64 rig vs. the Pentium 4.
Now, In SLi I or Crossfire, I can see the differences mattering less. All I changed was the mobo, CPU and ram and I noticed massive gains all around. I hated the way the system performed in other apps, but gaming is what I primarily use my PC for anyway, so I kept the A64. People who can't tell the difference between a high end Pentium, and a medium-high end Athlon obviously haven't tried both chips on equal (as equal as possible) platforms.
The differences weren't small. My 3D Mark scores didn't change, but in games it sure made a difference.
Several games felt faster out of the box. There were a couple I couldn't really tell apart, but the bulk of games were MUCH smoother on the A64 rig vs. the Pentium 4.
Now, In SLi I or Crossfire, I can see the differences mattering less. All I changed was the mobo, CPU and ram and I noticed massive gains all around. I hated the way the system performed in other apps, but gaming is what I primarily use my PC for anyway, so I kept the A64. People who can't tell the difference between a high end Pentium, and a medium-high end Athlon obviously haven't tried both chips on equal (as equal as possible) platforms.
The differences weren't small. My 3D Mark scores didn't change, but in games it sure made a difference.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Sir-Fragalot said:
I agree, I CAN tell differances between cpu speeds in games. For example my old clawhammer at stock 1.8 vs 2.4 in counter strike source. The differance was tangible, and it wasn't the placebo effect either. Sometimes I would reset my bios and forget to set the htt bus so that the cpu would be 2.4, I would fire up UT or CSS and right away I would notice the differance and I would have to restart
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Nasgul said:
you're pretty dense, they're not being sued for offering lower prices, they're not being sued for offering better deals, they're being sued for PENALIZING oems if they sell amd. I dont know what's so hard to understand.
Just to let you know there is a thing called "minimum" fps in games, AMD has the higher "minimum" fps. Also, everyone and their mother knows that fear is a gpu limited game.
Look at unreal 2004, css and half life 2. So would I if I could get a pci-e dothan board without paying an arm and a leg. In fact, I'm a huge supporter of dothan, look at my other posts, or ask donnie.
Now you're just making things up as usual
When did I say that? Quote me.
they didnt even hit the 60fps cap, look at how high the res is and look how much of a performance differance the fx57 has over intel processors
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
sabrewolf732 said:
they didnt even hit the 60fps cap, look at how high the res is and look how much of a performance differance the fx57 has over intel processors
Well, that graph does show some sort of capped limit because all of the AMD processors are within .7 FPS of each other even though they are running 2.2Ghz-2.8Ghz.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
Nasgul said:
LOL...I figured that was flame bait. I can take it out
. I don't know...some people will say they can notice a difference between 49-54 fps. I can't. Like I've said before (maybe not in this thread), it's more about price/performance right now. I wouldn't buy any of those processors in that list . I have an Opteron 165 right now because I get the highest price/performance ratio that's within my price range. But if Intel comes out with something better, I don't have problems jumping ship like some other guys would. I have no brand loyalty. I buy whatever suits my needs and budget best. That being said, Dothan (and probably Yonah initially) are way outside my budget between boards and CPU's (and the fact that I already have DDR memory). I hope Intel becomes more competitive so we, as consumers get better products in the long run, but until they do...sabrewolf732 said:
I'll back you up on how you like Dothan and dislike Netburst.
Last thing I saw said at best AMD is 6 months behind Intel on 65nm and at worse, 18 months behind Intel, I'd bet on splitting that difference to one year. AMD will first move to nothing more than a 65nm K8 (no matter what name its given) and then to K10, they didn't use K9 (Dog) for obvious reasons.
Donnie27
RaphaelVinceti
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 600
well, when AMD's 90nm processes outperform the 65nm processes from Intel.. Thats saying something, isnt it? Its not like AMD needs to hurry into the 65nm, when its 90nm processes keep up with its competitors 65nms..
sabrewolf732 said:I agree, I CAN tell differances between cpu speeds in games. For example my old clawhammer at stock 1.8 vs 2.4 in counter strike source. The differance was tangible, and it wasn't the placebo effect either. Sometimes I would reset my bios and forget to set the htt bus so that the cpu would be 2.4, I would fire up UT or CSS and right away I would notice the differance and I would have to restart
Yep. I changed from dual Opteron 246's to dual 254's and I saw a WORLD of difference. That's basically the difference between a A64 3200+ and an Athlon FX-57. Now when I overclock from 2.8GHz to 3.0GHz I can't honestly tell a difference. Which is why I use Windows XP Pro x64 Edition. NTune doesn't work with it, but the responsiveness of the system and the fact that it will see all of my systems memory, and has NUMA support offset the clock speed increase that I never saw a difference in.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Nasgul said:
it's funny how you completely avoided my post rofl
It's also funny how you make fps analogous to driving in a car ROFLMAO Anything drops under 40fps and I notice it right away. btw it's a 12.24% differance in fps, rather large. in fact, you're whole argument of it "doesn't matter, fps are high enough" is pretty dumb, being a hardware enthusiest you should want the best performance you can get. Not say "it's ok it's fast enough", especially only because you have a loyalty to intel.sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
kirbyrj said:
I'm willing to bet it's not really the clock speed that matters but the memory latency in that benchmark, the intel processors are close too with the 3.46 getting a couple higher fps with the only real differance being bandwidth.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
sabrewolf732 said:
Yeah, that makes sense of the data there. I wonder what an Intel would be like with an on-die memory controller. I know there are pros/cons for it, but would be interesting to see.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
kirbyrj said:
well with dothan, they don't really need a memory controller
Just better motherboards RaphaelVinceti said:
You sure? From Anand's results I didn't see the 3800+ or Yonah (since those two are clock for clock) win every Benchmark. So how in the hell can you say better? I hope like hell AMD is not sitting back and comfortable while Yes-men and Fans blow smoke up their asses. The main thing to look at with Yonah will be Price, then Price again and then Price some more. Did I meantion the importance of Price? If Yonah@2GHz is priced anywhere in the Ballpark near 3800+, AMD's ass is in trouble.
Notebooks are the fastest growing market. Centrino is Top Dog there=P Yonah is meant for Notebook first, the low power cool running blades and then Desktop as an afterthought.
Yonah will do well not because Yonah blows AMD out the water, but because Intel doesn't have process yield problems. Yonah runs cooler than X2, uses less power than X2, costs Intel less to make than X2, already RAMPPED nicely with high yields, the Marketing has already made Centrino a recognized namebrand.
Donnie27
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
Lies, look it up, on a crt monitor people actually can differentiate fps due to lack of blurring available on tv's but not on crt's. I advise you to do research before making idiotic claims and statements. You can ask any gamer if they can see a drop in fps from 60 to 25, see what they say.Nasgul said:
Perhaps if you had the reading comprehension of a 5 year old you would see where I said FEAR is gpu limited."omg it hits the cap so don't buy the other brand even though it's faster".
Quote me where I told the OP to go buy an a64 system because it's faster, oh wait! He already has one. I didn't instruct you to get an amd system, Quote me where I did. But advising intel to someone building a new system right now is dumb considering intel p4's lack of performance.In fact, its as if you're advising the OP to go intel simply because intel is intel...
Like I said, quote me where I told you to buy an a64 system.
So? So what if it is an athlon xp, fact is it performs, and very well. We hate to admit it well, because there is nothing to admit. If you can't get an athlon 64 stable your computer skills are in question.
How am I spamming? You made incorrect statements, and I corrected them. you think I'm an amd !!!!!! simply because I'm saying your statements are false (in fact many of them have been false ex: intel monopoly, FPS, amd being less stable etc).
ROFL! Just found that, kinda contradicts your 25fps statement huh?NASGUL said:
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.htmlarticle said:
What happened nasgul?
needmorecarnitine
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,609
Donnie27 said:
Donnie27 said:
I seem to recall Intel claiming that Netburst would get them to 10GHz
needmorecarnitine
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,609
Donnie27 said:
Yea we know that but we also know that Intel was proclaiming that IT WOULD scale to 10GHz back when netburst was new
robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
needmorecarnitine said:
Yes, and they estimated Tejas would make it to 7GHz. At the time they weren't really paying attention to temperatures, I guess.