Future Athlon 64s to include SSE3 support

[burningrave101]

delete

 

[burningrave101]

I have more faith in Hard than TechReport, as it doesnt seem to match the typical patterns in even standard benches...

Why should you have more faith in Hard than TechReport or these other sites i've posted. You can't get accurate results off two or three instances.

Aceshardware and Anandtech reviewers are every bit as bias towards AMD processors as Tomshardware reviewers are towards Intel processors. It doesn't matter how reputable you think a site is. Different reviewers see different things and use different ways to benchmark and use different setups and that does not equate for overall performance. Even MaximumPC does a better job of showing overall results then that.

I put very little faith in reviews that post a measly 10 benchmarks in which well over half are optimized for the A64, like gaming benches and Winstone. And Anandtech does the exact same thing. Tech Report at least did 50 different benchmark results.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1LDE=

The A64 platform is totally stable and 95% of stability problems are user error, NOT hardware. Thats mostly just fanboyish accusations. Some people have stability problems during overclocking, but that is completely a user problem.
As for "average" overclocking

Based on what information? lol I guess you just aren't aware of all the memory compatibility issues like using 3 DIMM's ran at DDR400 will revert to DDR333 speeds. And how entire brands wont work in alot of the boards like the MSI A64 board where in the reviews i've seen they couldn't even get any speed with any chip from Corsair to run on the board. It just wouldn't POST. The K8T800 chipset is very finicky with memory. And even the Nforce 2 Athlon XP chipsets weren't near as stable as the 865 and 875 chipset Intel boards. They may seem stable to you and other hardcore users but your not the mainstream public that knows very little about computers.

Starting with the good news: both latecomers, the Abit KV8-MAX3 and Soyos CK8 Dragon Plus, raced through our test course with a decent performance and made a good impression. Abit has gained a clear lead in our approval ratings due to the high standard of equipment.

However, adding or swapping modules from different vendors generated poor results. Only two manufacturers, Biostar and Chaintech, offerred no cause for complaint. All the others either produced errors in the Prime95 torture test with respect to one or several memory types, crashed or didn't even want to boot up in some cases.

Given these overall disappointing test results, motherboard manufacturers' claims that theAthlon64 can acccomodate large memory volumes of more than 4 GB borders on the absurd.

Moever, as our test has shown, when two DIMM modules are used on most of today's commerically-available motherboards, often incomprehensible problems can be expected.A memory upgrade can thus be especially problematic, as the localisation of the problem-causing components can take hours and put a strain on the user or white box vendor's the nerves.

Not even well-known names like Gigabyte or MSI are a guarantee for smooth operation, and therefore the only option that remains for users who need 1 GB or more memory is to study merchandise return agreements carefully. We can't even guarantee that the boards from Biostar and Chaintech will work perfectly with all the available DIMMs. These two manufacturers have simply done their "homework" better and have passed our spot check. We hope defects will be remedied quickly through improved BIOS versions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040112/memory_performance-19.html

Look there. Its a database of overclocks. If you look at JUST air overclocks (ignoring the extreme vapochill clocks), the 3.0C is averaging more like 3.3-3.4 Overclocked. The AMD 3000+/3200+ however is averaging 2.4GHz. Both reach aproximately a 400MHz overclock, but on an AMD processor, this means a far greater performance jump.

Dont give me that crap lol. I know better then that. Even in reviews they get the high end Pentium 4's to 3.5-3.6Ghz. In nearly all the reviews i've read they were lucky to get 200Mhz on the A64 processors.

And i think you need to look at that database of yours again. I punched in the 3.0c 800FSB Pentium 4 and what does it say at the top of the page? (Yes that includes the extreme cooling results also)

Total Entries in Database for Pentium 4 3.0 800 - 36
Average overclocked speed - 3680 Mhz

The database for 3.0c processors is composed of a mere 36 cleaned entries.

For the A64 3000+ there are only like 14 entries and that includes the uncleaned ones. There aren't nearly enough entries to get an average. You would need 500 or more of each processor.

Its like trying to take an average of what men in the US prefer more, blondes, brunettes, or redheads, all from a case study of 10 men.

More reviews:

Pentium 4 3.2Ghz vs A64 3200+ Score: 13 to 6
http://www.bit-tech.net/review/291/4

And do you guys even know what synthetic means? It means "man made". What do you think all the applications and games out there are? Are they made by E.T.? Software developers optimize their programs to run better on certain architecture. Benchmarks like PCMark, SYSmark, 3dMark, Winbench and so on are just a compilation of a wide range of actual applications and it simulates the same results that they would put out.

Synthetic benchmarks are made up using a number of different type of tests to measure different parts of a PC's performance. Sometimes these are raw tests which use specifically written programs to measure HDD and memory performance. Others use a combination of different tasks and programs to gather similar information.

PCMark2002 consists of a series of tests that represent common tasks in home and office programs. The final results provide information on your HDD, memory and CPU performance. The tasks run in this test include DVD playback, file compression, audio compression and many more. Unlike other MadOnion benchmarks, this benchmark is not impacted by the performance of the video card in the test configuration.

SYSmark2002 reflects the actual use of real applications covering a wide range of Internet Content Creation and Office Productivity applications. Office productivity tests a series of real applications used in day to day office work such as Microsoft office, Dragon Naturally speaking, Netscape, WinZip and McAfee Virus Scan. Internet content creation focuses on graphics work and programs like Dreamweaver, Adobe Photoshop, MS Media Encoder and Macromedia Flash.

Pentium 4 3.2Ghz vs A64 3200+ Score: 17 to 10 (doesn't even include any encodeing benchmarks)
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a643400/

Sysmark 2004

The newest edition of BAPCo's performance benchmark is, as usual, divided into Internet Content Creation and Office Productivity. The applications used for Sysmark2004 are:

Adobe After Effects 5.5
Adobe Photoshop 7.01
Adobe Premiere 6.5
Discreet 3ds max 5.1
Macromedia DreamWeaver MX
Macromedia Flash MX
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9 Series
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5
Microsoft Access 2002
Microsoft Excel 2002
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6
Microsoft Outlook 2002
Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
Network Associates McAffee VirusScan 7.0
ScanSoft Dragon Natural Speaking 6
Winzip Computing Winzip 8.1

 

[Vagrant Zero]

No, because i havn't run into many Transmeta and VIA fanboys lately lol.

Uh...since when is the disposition of a products fanbase a reflection of the product? Ah whoops, that was logic and common sense interjecting. Please ignore it.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Uh...since when is the disposition of a products fanbase a reflection of the product? Ah whoops, that was logic and common sense interjecting. Please ignore it.

I was only jokeing about the Transmeta and Via fanboys lol. God some of you need to chill out and most of you need to go back to the AMD section where you belong .

I never said AMD's fanbase reflects the performance of their processors. I was upset with how the media is portraying the A64's and how the AMD fanbase is contributing to alot of the incorrect and non supported performance relations between the two processors. They want to make AMD look like the most viable option for everyone without even looking at the actual elements of both processors.

AMD supporters DONT WANT to hear the actual facts because they'd much rather come up with their own standards to defend their processor. They want to base the performance of a processor off the fact its gets a few more frames per second in games and the fact it has 64-bit extensions for a future OS and they think that totally negates the fact that the Pentium 4 has a chipset which is far more stable, has better memory compatibility, is better overall performer, is a better overclocker, and is the same price of an A64.

 

[InkSpot]

Claiming that Aceshardware is AMD biased is IMO stupid - They have with no doubt THE broadest selection of game benchmarks (stragegy games comes to mind).

Their selection of benchmarks is respectable and the review illustrates that the processer are essentially tied when it comes to average performance.
But there are other things than performance, for one the Intel P4 has Hyper Threading, in return the A64 offers very flexible power management and the ability to run 64 bit programs.
And besides the writer of the review himself owns a P4 3.0C overclocked to around 3.5 GHz.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by InkSpot
Claiming that Aceshardware is AMD biased is IMO stupid - They have with no doubt THE broadest selection of game benchmarks (stragegy games comes to mind).

Their selection of benchmarks is respectable and the review illustrates that the processer are essentially tied when it comes to average performance.
But there are other things than performance, for one the Intel P4 has Hyper Threading, in return the A64 offers very flexible power management and the ability to run 64 bit programs.
And besides the writer of the review himself owns a P4 3.0C overclocked to around 3.5 GHz.

And claiming that tomshardware is entirely bias towards Intel is IMO stupid also. People call sites that they dont agree with bias just because it doesn't reflect the same way as they feel and the way they have seen it on other sites. What i said is that if Tomshardware is Intel bias then Aceshardware and Anandtech are AMD bias. And not that the whole sites are bias but that some of the reviewers are. Tomshardware has more then its share of AMD lovers on its site and even ones that do reviews. Over half of their main core setup favors AMD processor to Intel. If you dont believe me then just go in the Tomshardware chat or on the forum where the moderators are usually hanging around and you'll see what i mean. I claim Anandtech in particular is more bias towards AMD then Intel because of the very slim selection of benchmarks they use to compare the processors. They primarily use only what the A64 performs best in. IMO thats bias. Tomshardware uses ALOT of benchmark suites. Everyone makes mistakes in reviews. Its human nature to sometimes favor one thing over the other. That doesn't mean that reflects on the entire site. Over at Anandtech in one of the A64 reviews they were still claiming the 3000+ was part of the Newcastle core lol. And other sites are showing the same results as Tomshardware between the A64 and Pentium 4. Maximum PC did too with the FX-51 vs the Pentium 4 EE.

You just can't judge a processor by 2 or 3 sites and what they think. Because thats exactly what is it. What they THINK and not necessarily what IS.

And no two reviews will ever show the exact same performance in all the benchmarks. In one review on one site the A64 will win in Quake III and on another site in another review the Pentium 4 will. Its that way with all benchmarks. Windows alone is not a static OS and will load different services every time its booted and will puke out different benchmark results every time their run. And when the performance difference between these two processors in most cases is next to nothing and completely unoticeable then you have to take it a step further and get a larger overview of alot more reviews and alot more positives and negatives of both processors in order to be able to claim which is better.

 

[Mark Larson]

TOM'S HARDWARE IS NOT BIASED!!!

THE US MILITARY IS NOT ATTACKING!!

SADDAM HUSSEIN IS ALIVE AND WELL!

That's about as much sense as your long drawn-out posts make.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Mark Larson
TOM'S HARDWARE IS NOT BIASED!!!

THE US MILITARY IS NOT ATTACKING!!

SADDAM HUSSEIN IS ALIVE AND WELL!

That's about as much sense as your long drawn-out posts make.

Yea and like YOU actually know ANYTHING about ANYTHING other then your ability to be a raging AMD flameboy that has ZERO support for ANYTHING you EVER say in ANY post you have EVER posted in in your entire life lol.

I dont know how you can even consider calling me a fanboy and say i dont know what im talking about when you never are able to support all that BS you think worth a crock.

You rarely see anyone that favors Intel coming over to the AMD section and defending Intel against you AMD zealots. And yet when someone starts a thread in the Intel section for Intel users that has nothing to do with you AMD supporters, every single one of you have to come over from the AMD section and throw in your 2 cents on the matter like you have something to prove or that you can't stand your beloved processor to be talked about.

And maybe my posts are long and drawn out because i can think of more reasons for supporting the processor i do than "AMD rules because everyone in the AMD section says so and im a follower like the rest."

Give me a flipping break .


Most controversial article for 2004 as of yet:

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20040218/index.html

Irking AMD Lovers

There is nothing finer than raising the hackles of delusional AMD lovers. However, today I do so with a heavy heart. This is no time to take aim at the pompous, self-righteous head-in-the-sand-ostriches of the alternative chip lifestyle. One must embrace them, hug them and wipe away their tears.

They are the freaks of low-cost computing, the poor, downtrodden users of products that never seem to be able to match PR numbers to actual performance, now almost beaten into marginality for all time.

Of course, they won't admit this. They will howl at the moon, scream obscenities at nice, unassuming columnists with no axe to grind, and most of all, they will say:

"Hah! We are proven right! Intel is copying our beloved god of impecuniosities. Intel has succumbed. Intel admits we are superior. We are right. We have always been right. We is winners. We will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!"

They won't deny that in one simple, almost banal bit of PR, Intel has managed to do three things:

* Take away AMD's first mover advantage with 64 bit extensions for the x86 architecture
* Sown doubt in the minds of any corporate buyers who were going to evaluate AMD64 because, "It was something Intel couldn't do, and it looked interesting."
* Make Tier-One OEMs shy away from putting their back into AMD64 because now they can't just shrug and tell their Intel rep, "What can we do? It's not like I could put an Itanium in there?!"

Why has Intel done this?

* They're scared of any advantage, anywhere, for anyone, and they sure as hell didn't want to read one more uninformed piece about how 64 bit computing was the next leap for desktop computing. Certainly not while they only had a 32 bit desktop strategy, and the elephantine Itanium architecture to throw right back at the lowly paid young journos working their first piece in the technology section of some daily newspaper.
* They can.
* Sun.
* They can.

Hardware websites and benchmarks are cheating AMD...

I don't frequent forums much myself anymore but whenever I see people claiming that the benchmarks being used are skewed towards Intel, it really makes my blood boil. That has got to be the most uninformed thing I've ever heard. Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against AMD and all the hardware sites are secretly being paid off by Intel to run "Intel based benchmarks", that's the only reason why Intel beats AMD... ludicrous!

Most software like the MadOnion benchmarks (PCMark, 3DMark) have SSE2 optimization but is that cheating? They also have 3D Now! code written in them too! How about the notorious SysMark2001 with the Windows Media Encoder 7.0 not using AthlonXP's SSE? AMD themselves stated that SysMark 2001 is a valid benchmark, AMD did release a patch to allow Media Encoder 7.0 to use SSE but they liked the original SysMark 2001 because even without using SSE, the Athlon scored well and it showed off the mighty FPU of the Athlon.

Quake III Arena does love the bandwidth available to the Pentium 4, it always has, but that is something which is isolated to that one game. Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Jedi Knight II which use the Q3 engine don't show the same signs of loving the P4.

Like it or not SSE2 is here to stay, heck Intel even licensed SSE2 to AMD to run in their "Hammer" line of processors!

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1194

I get tired of listening to one sided BS coming from Intel or AMD users ither one. Especially for when most of the time there is very little support for their argument. I sometimes fall victim to being a raging psychopath in an atempt to support one thing or another. I'm not just this way with Intel and AMD. I do the same thing with other areas such as Power Supplies, Video Cards, PC Games, whatever.

The AMD processors have their place in the market and i support them for the uses they are best at. I also support Intel because from all the information i've gathered and looked into i can say from my point of view that Intel provides a better overall processor for the money and they are better suited for mainstream use because of the fact the A64's are new and their chipsets are raw and their boards have problems that need to be fixed.

 

[Vagrant Zero]

error post

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
I have a p3 933 and 94 1.8 [Williamete]. I've never owned an AMD system in my life. Dumbass.

I was talking to the responders as a whole in this thread, not just to you.

And i have used and still use Athlon XP systems, so whats your point? Just cause you have an Intel or AMD system doesn't mean anything. That alone doesn't set your loyalty to one or the other or even which you prefer. You can be a closed minded Intel or AMD zealot and refuse to see the facts about one or the other.

I think its pretty funny that some AMD users go to the point of adding Intel systems to their sig so they dont look like such a fanboy.

I'm firm in what i believe and what i think and that doesn't mean im fanboy just cause i dont see things the same way you do. And i'm not lieing or misleading the performance aspects of ither processor in an attempt to prove my point. I'm stateing truthful facts if any of you had half a brain to even understand that.

 

[Spank]

Intel and AMD have a cross-license agreement cause it saves them both money, they dont have to spend money to go around each others patents.

They pay royalties for using eachothers patents.

There are more things going around in a cpu then the stuff the PR department make up fancy names for.

U.S. Patents
1999 amd 825 - intel 735
2000 amd 1,055 - intel 797
2001 amd 1,090 - intel 811

Intel dont have a cross-license agreement with AMD just cause they are friendly, they have it cause they benefit from it.

 

[Vagrant Zero]

Originally posted by burningrave101
I was only jokeing about the Transmeta and Via fanboys lol. God some of you need to chill out and most of you need to go back to the AMD section where you belong .

I have a p3 933 and P4 1.8. I've never owned an AMD system in my life. Dumbass.

I never said AMD's fanbase reflects the performance of their processors.

You've made statements like 'I don't want to own an AMD system because of its fans' dozens of times in mutiple threads. Its close enough in my book.

I was upset with how the media is portraying the A64's and how the AMD fanbase is contributing to alot of the incorrect and non supported performance relations between the two processors.

And what possible relation does bitching on the Intel forums have to do with the MEDIAs portrayal of AMD64? Was HardOCP part of the percieved problem? No. Then why drag it here?

They want to make AMD look like the most viable option for everyone without even looking at the actual elements of both processors.

So far I've seen nothing to support this. All the 'MEDIA' has done so far is say that Intel is more or less copying AMDs 64-bit extensions which it more or less is. Your own paranoia is what's driving you to believe your own rubbish. If you're a hardcore gamer, the choice is easy. If you're more of a workstation guy than the choice is also easy. If you're both, its up to your discretion. What possible need or care do you have about the decisions of others?

AMD supporters DONT WANT to hear the actual facts because they'd much rather come up with their own standards to defend their processor. They want to base the performance of a processor off the fact its gets a few more frames per second in games and the fact it has 64-bit extensions for a future OS and they think that totally negates the fact that the Pentium 4 has a chipset which is far more stable, has better memory compatibility, is better overall performer, is a better overclocker, and is the same price of an A64.

First off, idiotic generalizations like AMD supporters blah blah is what makes you out to be an idiot in the first place. While I have no love of AMD fanboys and their underdog mentality [as if the A64s give a fuck that they're the 'underdog'], you're constant war mongering and idiotic generalizations are making me relize that the Intel fence isn't all that green, if anything it's blue.

Secondly, Nvidia has better drivers than ATI and yet ATI still manages to beat out Nvidia in spite of this. A64s take out their P4 counterparts in gaming a few other apps in spite of crappy chipsets [some of which by more than just a few FPS]. What's your point? Also, the 'MEDIA' isn't going to give a fiddler's fart about overclocking as it's geared towards the mainstream. As for stablity, that hinges more on your competance than anything else. I haven't seen AMD64s crash just becuase they had the letters A.M.D. in that order on them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go converse with a brick wall.

 

[burningrave101]

You've made statements like 'I don't want to own an AMD system because of its fans' dozens of times in mutiple threads. Its close enough in my book.

I dont think i've ever said i dont want to own an AMD processor because of its fans and since i already HAVE owned them i think thats even more perposterous.

And what possible relation does bitching on the Intel forums have to do with the MEDIAs portrayal of AMD64? Was HardOCP part of the percieved problem? No. Then why drag it here?

The purpose of the forums is to express your thoughts, ask questions, and learn. And the reason there is a Strictly Intel and Strictly AMD section is because people that want to support AMD go to the AMD section and the ones that want to support Intel go to the Intel section. What possible purpose was there for AMD fanboys to come into this thread and start feeding me with their opinions as if i didn't already know them already? I didn't start this thread to fight. I just wanted to say what i thought about it in light of everything thats going on with the x86-64 extensions.

First off, idiotic generalizations like AMD supporters blah blah is what makes you out to be an idiot in the first place. While I have no love of AMD fanboys and their underdog mentality [as if the A64s give a fuck that they're the 'underdog'], you're constant war mongering and idiotic generalizations are making me relize that the Intel fence isn't all that green, if anything it's blue.

Secondly, Nvidia has better drivers than ATI and yet ATI still manages to beat out Nvidia in spite of this. A64s take out their P4 counterparts in gaming a few other apps in spite of crappy chipsets [some of which by more than just a few FPS]. What's your point? Also, the 'MEDIA' isn't going to give a fiddler's fart about overclocking as it's geared towards the mainstream. As for stablity, that hinges more on your competance than anything else. I haven't seen AMD64s crash just becuase they had the letters A.M.D. in that order on them.

Well i've yet to be proven wrong about a large portion of the AMD fanbase. Not all of them are this way but most of the ones i've ran into in threads here on HardOCP are. When they directly argue with me about what im trying to point out when im posting a plathora of links establishing my motives and backing up my points its more then apparent they are just argueiing off their own opinions instead of actual truths.

If the media didn't give a fiddlers fart about overclocking then they wouldn't post overclocking results. If they didn't care they wouldn't post overclockers products like PC4000 on their site all the time endorseing it even though its no better then PC3200 because of its timings. And this whole forum here at HardOCP is based on overclocking results. Its what the initials even stand for.

I never said they crash just cause their AMD products. I said that the motherboards and chipsets are riddled with memory issues and other problems that need to be addressed. They aren't the kind of motherboards and Processors for the mainstream public that barely knows how to turn on their computer. Elitest, Gamers, and AMD fans are the primary audience for buyers of the Athlon 64 processors and motherboards.

Intel has always had the most stable and reliable motherboard chipsets on the market.

 

[Rudzer]

LOL this "burningrave101" is really something....its like THE intel-fanboy dramaqueen

you teach those pesky fanboys /sarcasm

advice: dont bother trying to "talk" to him since the 4 pages of this thread clearly shows something about the way this chap sees things (or better doesn't see )

note: do you already belive in the OLD cross-licence agreement or are you still stating amd is "stealing" SSE3 from intel?

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Rudzer
LOL this "burningrave101" is really something....its like THE intel-fanboy dramaqueen

you teach those pesky fanboys /sarcasm

advice: dont bother trying to "talk" to him since the 4 pages of this thread clearly shows something about the way this chap sees things (or better doesn't see )

note: do you already belive in the OLD cross-licence agreement or are you still stating amd is "stealing" SSE3 from intel?

Yea why dont some of you pointless commenters actually come up with something better then calling someone a fanboy if your going to try and contradict what im PROVING with every link i post .

Nearly everyone that has posted in this thread are the frequenters from the AMD section. I know this cause i see most of your names all over that section but rarely do you post in here...i wonder why....

People just love to put words in others mouths when they can't think of anything better to say.

I never said AMD was "stealing" anything. Why are you guys so retarded lol. I said that it had been a pretty much one sided deal from the way i see it and i dont think Intel needs AMD. Whats so fucking wrong with me thinking that and posting how i feel about it int he INTEL section?

I'm getting sick of stupid comments from people like you Rudzer that dont have any idea what your talking about cause if you did you could understand somewhat to what im trying to point out in all this rambling im doing and yet it just flys right over most your heads.

 

[leukotriene]

BOTH companies made an agreement to SHARE each others tech. That doesn't mean one is stealing from the other. It means both parties agreed that it was in their best interests for survival to share. Now I don't know about you, but if a company like Intel with all of it's cash and resources is willing to make such an agreement then they must feel that at least some of AMD's patents are worth having in their products. Enough that they are willing to allow them to use the tech / patents that they invent as well. If you think that Intel has not used anything AMD has invented (or at least patented first) then your fooling yourself. They BOTH do it.

What the man said

I think more importantly that the premise of the thread is terribly flawed - it's a good thing that AMD is implementing SSE3, because it will only accelerate SSE3 deployment.

It's also a good thing that Intel is implementing 64 bit extensions to the x86 ISA that are essentially identical in every way (outside of the exceptions listed on www.aceshardware.com 's main page, referencing a post on the linux-kernel archive board) to AMD64 because it will accelerate AMD64/"IA-32e" deployment.

Note when I say "good thing" I don't mean "good for burninggrave's ego which is inextricably linked to how he percieves the fortunes of Intels desktop processors", I mean "good for the consumer".

While burninggrave would rather have AMD create another proprietary set of SIMD extensions, or make their processors MIPS compatible, it is in the consumers best interest that x86 is pushed forward as quickly as possible. Intel alone would take their sweet time, but with a strong, fully compatible competitor, it is forced to innovate more quickly and occassionally (as in the case of "IA-32e"/AMD64) follow.

Your right its not "TRUE" 64-bit . 64-bit Math, 64-bit Chunks, but not 64-bit Addressing. I dont think anyone ever tried to say that it was.

Actually I was being sarcastic.
It is fully 64 bit processing, since physical memory addressing only concerns memory addressing, not processing itself. What determines whether an architecture is "truly" 64 bit is not the memory addressing capabilities.

Of course, most folks reading this thread don't realize you were hollering (in your inimitable fashion) about how AMD64 wasn't "Really 64 bit" just a short time ago.....
Now that Intel has adopted essentially the same solution (outside of the NX bit, CPUID, Fast-FXSAVE/FXRSTOR, BSF/BSR when source is 0 & operand size is 32, Near branch with 66H prefix, and supporting fast system calls ONLY in 64 bit mode), which is a wholly 64 bit solution, I would expect you to "realize" the fact of the matter here someday.

I'm getting sick of stupid comments from people like you Rudzer that dont have any idea what your talking about cause if you did you could understand somewhat to what im trying to point out in all this rambling im doing and yet it just flys right over most your heads.

How ironic.
Allow me to buy you a mirror.

 

[burningrave101]

Actually I was being sarcastic.
It is fully 64 bit processing, since physical memory addressing only concerns memory addressing, not processing itself. What determines whether an architecture is "truly" 64 bit is not the memory addressing capabilities.

"The actual CPU design itself is not pure 64-bit but gives the ability to run 64-bit software. The K8 core itself currently offers only 48-bit virtual addressing of memory along with only 40-bit hardware addressing. The CPU design itself does though have the ability to be extended out to 64-bit and this will probably happen when the need arises for the ability to address extremely large amounts of memory. In the meanwhile, the extension out to 48-bit virtual addressing and 40-bit hardware addressing gets over the 4GB memory barrier."

http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/athlon-fx-64-page2.htm

"Curiously, the current Hammer implementation doesn't offer true 64-bit addressing. Instead, the Athlon 64 (and Opterons) "only" offer 48-bit virtual addressing and 40-bit hardware addressing, unlike Intel's Itanium, which offers 64-bit virtual addressing and 50-bits of hardware addressability. Still, this should be more than adequate for most applications for the near term. AMD's Hammer architecture does have a provision for full 64-bit addressing, and that may well be implemented in future versions."

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276886,00.asp

I'll dig up some more links on this later on. I dont know why you continue to try and argue with me about this as if you've actually proven it any other way. Noone's disputing whether or not it can run 64-bit software. I'm saying its not "true" 64-bit from the definition of what that actually means. And the ability to address more memory was like the biggest reason in moving to 64-bit so why wouldn't the fact it can only address 40-bit of physical and 48-bit of virtual memory keep it from being "true" and "complete" 64-bit?

"Extended registers"

I don't want to get into a historical discussion of the evolution of what eventually became the modern x86 ISA as Intel's hardware went from 4-bit to 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit. You can find such discussions elsewhere, if you're interested. I'll only point out that what we now consider to be the "x86 ISA" was first introduced in 1978 with the release of the 8086. The 8086 had four, 16-bit GPRs and four, 16-bit registers that were intended to hold memory addresses but could be used as GPRs. (The four GPRs, though, could not be used to store memory addresses in 16-bit addressing mode.)

With the release of the 386, Intel extended the x86 ISA to support 32 bits by doubling the size of original eight, 16-bit registers. In order to access the extended portion of these registers, assembly language programmers used a different set of register mnemonics. (For more on mnemonics and their relationship to binary opcodes, see this page.)

With x86-64, AMD has done pretty much the same thing that Intel did to enable the 16-bit to 32-bit transition--they've doubled the sizes of the 8 GPRs and assigning new mnemonics to the extended registers. However, extending the existing eight GPRs isn't the only change AMD made to the x86 register model. "

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-3.html

How ironic.
Allow me to buy you a mirror.

LMAO...i can't believe you think your any better. I suppose you also have forgotten those threads in the AMD section and how you refuse to believe anything that goes against your opinion even though i provide facts and links that show otherwise. My friend, if anyone is a raging fanboy it is you and your fellow followers. So if you want to give me a mirror you better take it and look at yourself really well first because not only are you in denial about yourself but you are accusing me of being the only one that has a problem lol. Maybe i do feel too strongly about Intel processors over AMD processors but at least i can provide information to why i feel that way and anyone with any intelligence ought to be able to see why i think what i do from it. But NOOOOO your in your own little AMD world where everything is perfect . A majority of you participated in that AMD brawl a while back in the AMD section and you all criticized me for defendeing the Pentium 4 in the AMD section and you told me i wasn't welcome and that i should leave. Well for anyone thats interested. That thread started in General Hardware and i had already been responded back and forth in it was the only reason i followed it when it got moved. BUT NOW!! lol Here you guys are back again, in the INTEL section, responding in an INTEL thread, directed towards INTEL supporters, doing the exact same thing i was doing in the AMD section and you see nothing wrong with it. What a bunch of damned hypocrites. So whats worse, someone like me that defends a processor cause i feel its better with links to posted information or someone like the rest of you that defends your processor with nothing more then arrogant and unsupported comebacks and flames.

 

[CIWS]

I think that's really quite enough of the fanboy stuff being thrown around here. So everybody take your fanboys and put them back in their respective holsters. If you want to discuss the topic and the tech, great. If all your here to do is throw around "fanboys" and dog the thread starter because of his opinions, we really don't need or want it in the forum. Nobody is being forced to use the Submit button and reply to any comment.

So please keep it to the topic and not the people posting.

 

[burningrave101]

I just want to say i have nothing against AMD users even if their fanboys and prefer AMD processors more than Intel's offerings. I probably look like a huge fanboy myself alot of the time and maybe i am one cause who knows where the dividing line between fanboy and just a strong supporter lies, but when i start out to prove a point, i dont do that unless i intend to finish it. There's nothing wrong with that. I just dont like it when people come in and start accusing me off being completely bias and a total fanboy so i shouldn't know what im talking about even though im providing information that backs up my train of thought.

Opinions are great but facts is whats most important.

On that note i hope not to cause any ill feelings towards AMD supporters just cause they feel differently then i do about something because their opinions are welcomed but probably not so much in the Intel section where its suppost to just be about supporting Intel processors.

 

[leukotriene]

And the ability to address more memory was like the biggest reason in moving to 64-bit so why wouldn't the fact it can only address 40-bit of physical and 48-bit of virtual memory keep it from being "true" and "complete" 64-bit?

BG, I can't believe after admitting your error in the original thread that you would attempt to go back and restate your error once again. Actually, I take that back, I can believe it.

Being a "true" 64 bit processor means being able to process 64 bit data with both the ALU and FPU (do you know what those are yet?) in a general fashion (which means 64 bit general purpose registers).

You could use, like the guys at processor emporium, the adjective "pure", but definitely not "true". I realize the english language has some ambiguity in it that is difficult to grasp for the novice, so you'll have to trust me on that.

You could say "IA-32e/AMD64 is not purely 64 bit because it implements 40 bit physical memory addressing".
But you cannot say "the AMD64/IA-32e architectures are not truly 64 bit (because they are limited to <64 bit physical memory addressing)", and be telling the truth.

The Intel version of AMD64, IA-32e is truly 64 bit, just like AMD64, which it is essentially a copy of, for good reason (because it is a logical extension of IA-32 in the same way that IA-32 is a logical extension of IA-16).

Memory addressing determines the amount of physical memory that can be addressed. 40 bit physical memory addressing again, means about a terabyte of memory can be addressed. This has no relevance to the ability of what the processor can process, which is what determines what it "truly" is.

Once, AGAIN I refer you to a discussion of the architecture of x86-64 by folks who not only review processors, but know them inside and out. Ars.

Read it this time, won't you?

LMAO...i can't believe you think your any better. I suppose you also have forgotten those threads in the AMD section and how you refuse to believe anything that goes against your opinion even though i provide facts and links that show otherwise. My friend, if anyone is a raging fanboy it is you and your fellow followers.

Sigh. How old are you?

You would prefer that AMD make more proprietary SIMD extensions and resent that they would use SSE3.

That's the premise of the thread.
As unbelievable as it may be, that is the premise.
You're mad that AMD is going to implement an Intel SIMD extension, which will undeniably speed adoption of the extensions by making them more ubiquitous, which is undeniably good for the consumer.

You try to claim that AMD is somehow lame for adopting the Intel SIMD for the sake of additional compatibility but yet have a serious problem admitting that IA-32e, according to anyone who knows the subject, is Intel adopting AMD64 with a couple of trivial differences (primarily additional things Intel doesnt want to or need to support, at least yet).

Because of course it makes your argument about SSE3 appear dumb.

It is a good thing that Intel has adopted AMD64 as much as they have tried to hide it, and it is a good thing that AMD has adopted SSE3, although they have not tried to hide it.

Both facts with increase the speed of software deployment that takes advantage of the additions. Both facts are good for the consumer.

But you're not concerned with the consumer. You'd prefer it if AMD just quit making processors altogether and Intel was a complete monopoly so long as the government didn't try to break them up. While that might help Intel stock prices (slightly!), that would make the rest of us suffer slower processors and slower innovation.

Several folks here have already shown quite nicely why Intel should have a cross-licensing agreement with AMD (AMD puts out a shed load of patents every year), and the reasons go even further than that.

We need two healthy competitors in the x86 CPU market, and if they were not free to adopt each other inovations we'd be stuck in a morass of proprietary garbage.
We'd be like the Macintosh people, stuck with a single CPU supplier, and you wouldnt want that would you?

On that note i hope not to cause any ill feelings towards AMD supporters just cause they feel differently then i do about something because their opinions are welcomed but probably not so much in the Intel section where its suppost to just be about supporting Intel processors.

Gods. Look - if anything you should support *both* companies for the reasons stated previously.
What you *should not do* however, is to whine about one company being compatible with the extensions of the other (either AMD with Intel SIMD extensions of Intel with AMD64 x86 ISA extensions).
Indeed, whining about AMD using SSE3 could not in any way be construed as "Supporting Intel processors" in the same way as whining about Intel adopting AMD64 in the AMD section is not "supporting AMD processors".

edited italics

 

[Michaelius]

LoL not mind you all but when i read that someone is counting benchmarks in reviews to get which cpu is better it's laughtable. The number of benchies is the easiest thing to manipulate when writting such article. Add more rendering Intel, wins add more gaming benchmarks (or use only UT2003 and no Q3) and AMD wins

 

[leukotriene]

LoL not mind you all but when i read that someone is counting benchmarks in reviews to get which cpu is better it's laughtable. The number of benchies is the easiest thing to manipulate when writting such article. Add more rendering Intel, wins add more gaming benchmarks (or use only UT2003 and no Q3) and AMD wins

You're totally right.
I think it's great that we have such a competitive CPU market that you literally have to ask what someone wants to do (and budget) with their computer most of the time in order to really make a good recommendation.

Let's hope it continues like this

 

[burningrave101]

You could say "IA-32e/AMD64 is not purely 64 bit because it implements 40 bit physical memory addressing".
But you cannot say "the AMD64/IA-32e architectures are not truly 64 bit (because they are limited to <64 bit physical memory addressing)", and be telling the truth.

I know what you were trying to say lol, but i was trying to point out that they are not "complete" 64-bit processors. Not that they can't process 64-bit, but that they have been restricted to 40-bit physical addressing. I doubt anyone on this forum is going to notice a difference between me saying "purely" and "truly" or "completely" or "totally" or "entirely" lol.

The 64-bit platform allows for more than fast processing. Since the CPU can process 64-bit operations, it can also address 64-bits of memory address space. Systems such as network and database servers require vast amounts of memory to effectively process the large amounts of archived information. The current four gigabyte restrictions are limiting the efficiency of these large enterprise solutions. The new x86-64 design allows for nearly 4.5 Petabytes, thus offering more available memory than any current or near future application will ever need. AMD will be offering true 64-bit memory addressing within the K8 product line, but will limit the early production models to a 40-bit (48-bit virtual) memory allocation scheme. Even with 40 bits, the memory limitation is about one terabyte. As much as memory technology is advancing and software demands are increasing, it will still be quite a few years until even the common desktop user will be measuring memory needs in the hundreds of gigabytes.

http://www.sysopt.com/articles/k8/index2.html

I'm sure Intel and AMD both will extend it to 64-bit physical and virtual addressing later on as need be if the x86 architecture even lasts that long.

Sigh. How old are you?

You would prefer that AMD make more proprietary SIMD extensions and resent that they would use SSE3.

That's the premise of the thread.
As unbelievable as it may be, that is the premise.
You're mad that AMD is going to implement an Intel SIMD extension, which will undeniably speed adoption of the extensions by making them more ubiquitous, which is undeniably good for the consumer.

But you're not concerned with the consumer. You'd prefer it if AMD just quit making processors altogether and Intel was a complete monopoly so long as the government didn't try to break them up. While that might help Intel stock prices (slightly!), that would make the rest of us suffer slower processors and slower innovation.

I'm 20

I'm not mad that AMD is going to implement an Intel SIMD extension because they have done that so many times already with MMX, SSE, and SSE2 theres no purpose in making a big deal about this one.

I'm mad at the idiots out there on other boards that are makeing fun of Intel because they decided to use a near replicant copy of x86-64 in the IA-32e for the purpose of being compatible on the same OS. They shun intel for this and ignore everything that AMD adopts. I'm not blaming AMD for useing it cause it will help their processor perform better in applications that have been recompiled for SSE3. I dont really think it will cause it to be adopted all that much faster though because alot of programs were compiled to use SSE2 instructions and AMD didn't have them until now. Most software developers write their programs or games for the processor thats most widely in use. The A64 will be a while before they are in any real quantity mainstream. Some consider them to still be too expensive and are waiting for price drops since they are the same price as buying a relative speed Pentium 4. Nearly all of AMD's profits is coming from their Athlon XP sales. Overclockers.com had several write up's about AMD not putting out more then 10,000 socket 939 130 nano chips by third quarter which wouldn't be very many and will keep prices high.

I dont want AMD to quit making processors. I like the ability to buy a really good setup for a backup in an Athlon XP for half the price of what it costs me for my Pentium 4 setups.

But when i want to blow off a little steam i'm probably going to do it lol. The whole reason i posted this thread here is cause i saw it on Anandtech and there were these nimrods going on about how Hyper Threading sucks and stuff about the x86-64 extensions and i registered like 5 times so i could reply to them and i never got a confirmation email with my password so i couldn't post anything lol. It pissed me off to the point i had to come post the news here. And i posted it here in the Intel section cause i figured this was the last place the AMD supporters would be hanging out and i could say what i really wanted to say in that comment on Anandtech.

 

[Mark Larson]

I have news for you: the Strictly AMD and Strictly Intel sections aren't meant for fanboysupporters of either platform to come in and talk about how much AMD rulezzz or Intel rulezzz.

They're meant for discussion about the respective processors, with their merits and demerits. Fancy that, talking about processors instead of how the supporters of the other company suck.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Mark Larson
I have news for you: the Strictly AMD and Strictly Intel sections aren't meant for fanboysupporters of either platform to come in and talk about how much AMD rulezzz or Intel rulezzz.

They're meant for discussion about the respective processors, with their merits and demerits. Fancy that, talking about processors instead of how the supporters of the other company suck.

I dont think i ever came in saying Intel rules and AMD sucks. And i dont think i jump on any of the rest of you saying that your all a bunch of fanboys for not thinking the same way i do. The only reason i call anyone a fanboy is when they ither a.) refuse to listen to any kind of truth no matter how much supporting information there is or b.) only provide derogatory remarks towards the person they dont agree with namely flaming.

And you can't tell me that all of you just came in here to discuss Intel processors in this thread when pretty well none of you are ever in this section responding to any of the other threads. Most of you only had one purpose and that was pretty much no purpose which was to call me a fanboy because i didn't think the same way about the processor some of you support.

And for someone that has such a broad outlook on this, you pretty well sum up what you think about it in your sig right there. Cause me and you both know your reasons for sticking all that BS in there .

 

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by burningrave101
And you can't tell me that all of you just came in here to discuss Intel processors in this thread when pretty well none of you are ever in this section responding to any of the other threads. Most of you only had one purpose and that was pretty much no purpose which was to call me a fanboy because i didn't think the same way about the processor some of you support.

I couldn't come in discussing Intel processors in this thread because it is about an AMD processor. God knows why it didn't get moved when it had "Athlon 64" in the subject line.

GG painting everyone with the same brush. You can also take a look at my posting history. Yes, i've been in the Intel forum before this. Yes i've also received warnings for my language and style when responding to Intel fanboys. I don't know if i should be proud or not that i'm a little more objective than you. My reason for choosing an AthlonXP over a P4 is simple - my software wasn't built after 2002, and almost none of it has SSE2 and most of it is optimized for short pipelines and decent L1 cache, aka P6 and K7. I would rather choose an AthlonXP 2400+ or 2500+ over a 2.4C for this reason. The low price is just the icing on the cake.

And for someone that has such a broad outlook on this, you pretty well sum up what you think about it in your sig right there. Cause me and you both know your reasons for sticking all that BS in there .

If you know the reason, you know that you inspired most, if not all of my current sig.

 

[burningrave101]

If you know the reason, you know that you inspired most, if not all of my current sig.

Well at least now you can say that one time if your life you've actually been inspired regardless of it all being out of context .

 

[DaveX]

I think I would be rich if I got a dollar for every P4 owner out there that thinks MHz is everything...what I'm trying to say is that Intel fanboys are equally as dumb as AMD fanboys. Every camp has dumbasses and it never changes.

There could've been a thread started in the Strictly AMD forum bashing Intel fanboys for thinking 64-bit would never come but now Intel hypocritically adopts AMD x86-64 as their own IA-32E. But there wasn't. I think what didn't happen showed a lot.

What irks the AMD community is not that Intel adopted AMD x86-64 as IA-32E, it is that Intel completely changed their tune. One minute they say it's useless and the 64-bit revolution will happen much slower than AMD thinks and that without software it is nothing but the next minute they say they are also using it. It isn't necesarily an AMD victory like most people in AMD community would think because Intel just took away a good reason to get the Opteron. But what pains me is that Intel plainly said that they didn't need it and they went back and adopted it.

As for Tomshardware, it is blantantly obvious that they are anti-AMD. Just look at freaking Omid's article openly attacking AMD users. I don't think Anandtech ever had an article like that.

Through the language of your posts it sounds like you are just an Intel fanboy bashing AMD fanboys. Please there are stress relievers for such matters. At least tone the language down a bit.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by DaveX
As for Tomshardware, it is blantantly obvious that they are anti-AMD. Just look at freaking Omid's article openly attacking AMD users. I don't think Anandtech ever had an article like that.

Right after that there was another article released because of that one.

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20040220/index.html

Tomshardware is one of the few sites that will post about anything. They dont usually beat around the bush and worry about stepping on toes just cause it offends some. They also point out alot of very critical points and problems in the hardware they review. I'm not saying there isn't some Intel fanboys on tomshardware cause there are. But they still do alot of good reviews despite that.

And i think people get caught up with this word fanboy way too much. Usually the people like myself that have a strong opinion about something just see things from a different aspect and we try to argue our points. I dont dislike AMD users even if they do annoy me sometimes with the things they say against Intel.

If you want to see "real" fanboys i would suggest checking out the Video Card forum lol. I was in there a little while ago and like every single thread was Nvidia vs ATI and its just full of these kids going at it lol. And i dont think half them had a clue what they were talking about.

Tomshardware is the most highly viewed hardware site on the net. They'll never admit it but alot of sites are jealous because of their popularity. There was a poll on Newegg a while back and it asked what your favorite hardware site was and it was Tomshardware, HardOCP, X-bit Labs, Extremetech, and i think Anandtech maybe i can't remember. Anyways Tomshardware pretty well had more votes then all those other sites togethor and there were thousands of votes. I usually dont put alot of emphasis on their benchmark results with the A64 vs the Pentium 4 as much as i do all the information that they put out on the hardware. I know a handful of the moderators and a few of the ones that do reviews from time to time on Tomshardware and they are big as AMD freaks as i am about Intel lol. I'm always argueing with them about on the tomshardware irc channel. In fact i only know like one reviewer that goes by the name Crashman that favors Intel.

Conclusion

So again, as in years past, we have a situation in which AMD jumps ahead, before Intel pounces and claims ownership of a market, as it is almost is surely ready to do now for 64 bit desktop, as well as for, 64 bit server applications.

By doing so, will Intel kill the 64 bit market? But did Intel kill the processor market with its Pentium 4, which was initially slower than the Pentium 3, before AMD came out with its XP processors?

There are some conspiracy theorists out there who contended during the 1980s that the U.S. and, what was then, the USSR, would never destroy each other and the rest of the world at the same time because they were in fact really the same country. Documented clandestine meetings between the leaders of the two countries and secret grain shipments from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. proved this theory. Market share balance aside, albeit a bit lopsided, especially in the enterprise sector, Intel and AMD will likely continue to co-exist, like the U.S. and the USSR, like Lennon and McCartney during the Beatles era.

*slips on his flame retardant jacket*

I still like this quote lol.

Why can't we all just learn to get along? I still think AMD fanboys need to learn to laugh at themselves instead of sneering at everyone who isn't "one of them."

 

[Mark Larson]

So, essentially, you're saying that you're an Intel fanboy/supporter who likes THG because they agree with your views.

Someone tell me what's new.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Mark Larson
So, essentially, you're saying that you're an Intel fanboy/supporter who likes THG because they agree with your views.

Someone tell me what's new.

No i like THG because they usually put out more articles and cover what they review more in-depth then most of the other hardware sites.

Your the one that only seems to agree with sites that show AMD to be at the top and conform to what you believe. And if they dont then their bias aren't they. I frequent about 30 different hardware sites so i usually keep pretty good overall outlook on whats going on. I dont base my information off 1 or 2 sites that seem to agree with the way i think like some of the rest of you.

And why dont we cut out the fanboy bull shit already. There aren't any of you that are any less of a fanboy then what your trying to make me out to be so i dont know what your point is. If you were any less you wouldn't of all came from the AMD section to argue in this thread.

And CWIS already said to cut out the fanboy and personal stuff and just talk tech. So lets do that. Otherwise one of us may get to take a forum vacation like that last ignorant fool in the AMD section that didn't know when to shut up.

 

[0ldman]

I'll just pop in this comment and leave you to your thread.
I have to answer, you act as though I'm an AMD fanboy and I should go back to my forum...

I've been here for years, when I had Intel stuff I was modifying I posted more in SI, now that I have more AMD stuff I'm playing with, I post more in SA.

As I've gotten two P4 systems to go with my two Athlon systems, I post in both more often. I've been posting more here as the news came out of Prescott.

Let's hope it continues like this

leukotriene, I agree to an extent. Prescott isn't really blowing anyone's socks off, I'm looking more toward the next gen Intel is hinting at.
Pentium M architecture styled desktop chips... I really wonder how they're going to do it as they have so much invested in clock speed in marketing... Intel will either have to wait until the process is capable of equal or higher speed than the P4 based cores or fess up that MHz aint all that important.

I wonder if they'll change to a naming scheme rather than base performance on clock...

Regardless, that's the chip I'm looking forward to. Intel is known to really put out damn good chips, the P4, while not weak by any means, is sort of their failing. Every other CPU they've had has run higher IPC and higher clock than competitors. It isn't so simple a market now. I wonder how much trouble it would be to get a Dothan to 3GHz...

 

[Mark Larson]

Originally posted by burningrave101
Your the one that only seems to agree with sites that show AMD to be at the top and conform to what you believe. And if they dont then their bias aren't they. I frequent about 30 different hardware sites so i usually keep pretty good overall outlook on whats going on. I dont base my information off 1 or 2 sites that seem to agree with the way i think like some of the rest of you.

I haven't stated what sites i like to visit, not now not earlier. You're full of bullshit.

BTW I'm a full-time student with a full-time job. I don't have the time to browse through 30 different hardware sites. Doesn't mean my opinion is worth more than yours, nor vicey-versey.

And why dont we cut out the fanboy bull shit already. There aren't any of you that are any less of a fanboy then what your trying to make me out to be so i dont know what your point is. If you were any less you wouldn't of all came from the AMD section to argue in this thread.

And CWIS already said to cut out the fanboy and personal stuff and just talk tech. So lets do that. Otherwise one of us may get to take a forum vacation like that last ignorant fool in the AMD section that didn't know when to shut up. [/B]

You started this thread with "I swear. What are they going to adopt from Intel next. Why dont they just call them Prescotts lol." I don't see how we can discuss this in any meaningful way. This thread should be closed, as you're only trying to divide the [H] community based on who likes what processor.

 

[Koz]

Burning you seem to just skip over valid points and then repeat the same thing over and over. So you've looked at 30 review pages... does that make your opinion right vs everybody elses? probably not. You posted this thread as I said before with the intention of inciting conflict. If this wasn't your intention, you're very misguided as I don't see that anybody could have missed a thread like this would cause problems.

Anandtech provides a clear view of performance of processors and is a very neutral site. There reviews clearly state their opinions of processors, and you can easily see this if you look back to their reviews of the Northwood "C" Series processors.

AcesHardware always provides an interesting look into the hardware market. They have clear in depth articles and they do their homework to find their information.

Hard|OCP is the forum you're on, they're probably the most balanced reviewer around....

Now Tom's on the other hand, has a pretty bad reputation. They seem to do everything they can to dilute AMD performance and to promote Intel. Again and again, you see them exagerate Intel's performance wins and shrug large AMD victories as being "about the same for each". Nobody just decided one day Tom's was biased, the vast majority of the forum-goers know this fact.

The main issue people had with Intel's adoption of the x86-64 instruction set is that they pretended it was purely their invention. They give no credit where credit is due. AMD could call SSE3, 3DNow 2, and claim it was compatible with SSE3, but they dont, they say, we're using Intel's SSE3 instructions. Intel should have the decency to the same. At the very least mention it is a slightly modified AMD64 architecture.

 

[CIWS]

Originally posted by CIWS
I think that's really quite enough of the fanboy stuff being thrown around here. So everybody take your fanboys and put them back in their respective holsters. If you want to discuss the topic and the tech, great. If all your here to do is throw around "fanboys" and dog the thread starter because of his opinions, we really don't need or want it in the forum. Nobody is being forced to use the Submit button and reply to any comment.

So please keep it to the topic and not the people posting.

Hmm let's see, I beleive I specifically said drop all of the fanboy stuff and keep it to the tech discussion and I come back to find that just the opposite has been done. That's enough for me. The bullshit fanboy stuff will stop in this forum.