People who like Intel....please read this!

RamonGTP said:
Clock speeds matter because the Athlon XP was not far enough ahead clock for clock to make up for the speed deficit. The Pentium 3.2GHz was faster in just about everything when compared with the 3200+

The whole point is that it WAS NOT beating a 3.2GHz part. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that he was talking about the XP and not 64.
 
gotcha ramon..i'm not going to get into that debate any more than i already have..have at er as you see you fit:)

so, to the subject of unfair portrayal of the amd chip to the intel chips through the THG video, i agree..to a point..but many chose to ignore the main point of the video was not thermal diodes..it was that you could run intel processors without a heatsink in theory or at least fanless or with a low noise cooling solution..i'm not so far removed from those days with amd and those processors (my 750, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400) that i can forget the extreme requirements for fans...great performing cheap processors, but a quiet box? ha!
 
come on guys,

You all know AMD had a good lead almost throughout the Athlon Phase. if not only in performance, but power also came into play on the back end. it's plane and simple fact. however I do think Intel has made some great gains. AMD has slipped on a few fronts and are now back in the dust.

Fact is AMD has some good technoligy both Intel and Nvidia have to be on there toes and that is no doubt.
 
Zardoz said:
come on guys,

You all know AMD had a good lead almost throughout the Athlon Phase. if not only in performance, but power also came into play on the back end. it's plane and simple fact. however I do think Intel has made some great gains. AMD has slipped on a few fronts and are now back in the dust.

Fact is AMD has some good technoligy both Intel and Nvidia have to be on there toes and that is no doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Thunderbird was a power pig compared to P3.
 
Now, Intel & Nvidia is generally the best choice, so I built a Q6600 with an 8800GTS 512.

Several years ago, AMD & ATI were generally best, so I built an Athlon 64 3400+ with a Radeon 9800 Pro.

Isn't this the way that most people buy? Both Intel and AMD have been ahead at different points; I've switched from Intel (80386, Pentium, Pentium II) to AMD (Athlon, Athlon 64) and back to Intel (Pentium M, Core 2 Quad) depending on what was better at the time - likewise, I've bought both AMD and Nvidia graphics cards. These companies don't reward me for loyalty, and if I buy the inferior product then I lose out. I want both to survive, because the industry needs competition, but if everyone bought from one company or the other regardless of how good the product was, there wouldn't be competition anyway.
 
Yep, I thought fanboy as well when I read that history. Twisted to prove a lame point. I bought a P4 2.8c Northwood (800fsb) because it out-performed the AthlonXP in its class at the time, this after comparing the two and reading the reviews. Only a year later with the A64 out, things begin to change.
 
amenx said:
Yep, I thought fanboy as well when I read that history. Twisted to prove a lame point. I bought a P4 2.8c Northwood (800fsb) because it out-performed the AthlonXP in its class at the time, this after comparing the two and reading the reviews. Only a year later with the A64 out, things begin to change.
Click to expand...

Same here..if was only with the A64 that AMD got any lead, before that Intel ruled since 1971...and now they rule again.

I think the problem are all the "new kids" on the block...they think bacuse when they entered AMD was faster, it has always been like that...;)
 
Damn....some of you guys gave me a really good history class on CPU's!:p:p

BTW.....I stopped argueing with him because its actaully stupid in the first place.....but I ain't the type of person that takes shit from other people and walk away...fuck no! I stand up and argue back with my case.....and in this case.....I won!...< But its still stupid...but yet again.....if AMD did release a CPU that triumph Intel to its knees in both performance/value...well then I'd have to reconsider this whole thing and I might then..make the path torwards AMD.....but really...I've learned that doesn't matter what you like or what your mates have and shit....what evers fast and suits your need and budget and you like it.....buy it....who cares if its Intel or AMD....with technology updating as fast as someone taking a shit.....you can't prove anything really....(although Intel leads the roads to heaven now)....everyone has different tastes for what they like and dislike......and yeh.....mannnnn.....I'm calling it a day!!!:p:p

Thnx for all your comments and opinions and those that gave me a 10minute history tutorial..really helped....in future...these kinds of debates are useless! And also I appreciate all comments again..(including ones that talked bad about me!) Thnx again!

BTW: What exactly are the Itaniums??? They are very expensive....
 
Atech said:
Enterprise Serverclass CPU's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium

Not for your PC.
Click to expand...

Yes..I know that it ain't for my PC..but really...how come Intel never made public annoucements about it......even other Intel server class CPU's like Xeon are annoucened why not Itaniums?

And also due to my searching the net last time....Itaniums tend to run a very low speed like 1 GHZ is the max I've seen but they have like 8MB cache or something!
 
Matthew Kane said:
Yes..I know that it ain't for my PC..but really...how come Intel never made public annoucements about it......even other Intel server class CPU's like Xeon are annoucened why not Itaniums?

And also due to my searching the net last time....Itaniums tend to run a very low speed like 1 GHZ is the max I've seen but they have like 8MB cache or something!
Click to expand...

All the information and links you need are in the Wikipedia link.
The reason YOU don't hear about them are because you are not anywhere near the target group..and like you said...even the architechture confuses you, right? ;)
 
There is a AMD slant in cyclone3d's post.
Intel's transition from PIII (Coppermine) to the netburst P4 (Willamette) was a bust. And AMD took the lead with the Athon until Intel released the first P4 (Northwoods) in 2002.
At that point there was no clear winner as far as cpu speed is concerned, although I feel Intel was a better platform at the time.

In early 2003 Intel pulled ahead with the Nothwood "C" cpus with the 800MHz fsb and it had reasonable power consumption.
When AMD came out with the excellent AMD Athon 64 cpu's they came up with a home run and were the clear winner over Intel's horrible power hogging P4 (Prescott) cpu's, AMD cpu's where superior in almost every way from 2004 through 2006, a good 2 1/2 years, until Intel's core 2 duo's where released.

That's how I remember it anyway.
 
Matthew Kane said:
Yes..I know that it ain't for my PC..but really...how come Intel never made public annoucements about it......even other Intel server class CPU's like Xeon are annoucened why not Itaniums?

And also due to my searching the net last time....Itaniums tend to run a very low speed like 1 GHZ is the max I've seen but they have like 8MB cache or something!
Click to expand...

Itaniums are used for super high power servers... not something you'd find in your business. I never see IBM talking about their POWER processors (also extremely powerful), why should Intel talk about there Itaniums?
 
CpuMan said:
There is a AMD slant in cyclone3d's post.
Intel's transition from PIII (Coppermine) to the netburst P4 (Willamette) was a bust. And AMD took the lead with the Athon until Intel released the first P4 (Northwoods) in 2002.
At that point there was no clear winner as far as cpu speed is concerned, although I feel Intel was a better platform at the time.

In early 2003 Intel pulled ahead with the Nothwood "C" cpus with the 800MHz fsb and it had reasonable power consumption.
When AMD came out with the excellent AMD Athon 64 cpu's they came up with a home run and were the clear winner over Intel's horrible power hogging P4 (Prescott) cpu's, AMD cpu's where superior in almost every way from 2004 through 2006, a good 2 1/2 years, until Intel's core 2 duo's where released.

That's how I remember it anyway.
Click to expand...

Same here...couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Who gives a shit how they built it? Intel works ... and it works better than AMD.
 
Concentric said:
Dude that's a bit of an extreme view to take on a test by an Internet review site showing processors from about a decade ago. AMD processors have had the same throttling and overheatng protection as Intel chips for ages.
Fair enough, don't buy one of those older ones that don't, but that's no reason to never buy anything AMD again and to hate them for the rest of your days.
Click to expand...


Yeah maybe it is a little bit of an extreme view. But, they failed to include that protection 5 years ago when intel was doing it for quite some time. It just gave me the impression that intel was about a quality product and AMD was about cheap prices.

Intel P3 and P4 were doing the thermal protection AMD have more then enough time to catch up and but refused to because they didnt want to spend more money. I'm am just explaining my view and some of the things AMD has done in the past. And to the guy who posted right after me saying that before p3 intel didnt have thermal protection, well wasnt that like the p2 about like 10 years before this video lol. AMD had at least 10 years to catch on, that is the worst excuse ever heh. I also said this was a few years ago and times have surely changed but that is just a poor excuse to use as they had plenty of time to catch on. So that is what has shaped my opinion of them by their history.
 
cyclone3d said:
AMD vs Intel.. over the past few years

80386 and 80486 - pretty much exactly the same performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, because AMD simply reverse-engineered and copied Intel's design.
Note that AMD didn't introduce the 386 until 1991, while the Intel 386 had been on the market since 1986, and the 486 had been on the market since 1989.
So AMD was very, VERY late in the game there.

cyclone3d said:
AMD 5x86 - 133. Beat Intel 80486 DX-4 100 and could also clock to 160Mhz wothout much trouble.

But Intel had the Pentium 1 chips out around the time AMD had the 5x86 chip out.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but Intel had them up to about 120-133 MHz aswell, making any 486-derivative like the 486DX-100 or 5x86-133 completely inadequate. The Pentium had way, WAY higher IPC because of its superscalar design and vastly improved FPU.

cyclone3d said:
AMD P5 vs Intel Pentium. Intel was faster.. nuff said.
Click to expand...

The K5 was little more than the 5x86 modified to fit into a Pentium socket. Its performance, especially with FPU, was still in the 486-ballpark, and nowhere near a Pentium.

cyclone3d said:
AMD K6 vs Intel PII - Intel more stable platform. Intel maybe a little faster, but way better pricing for AMD.

K6-2 vs PIII - AMD has 3dNow! Probably about the same clock for clock unless you ran into a program that could use the extra cache on the AMD platform. Intel had faster clocked processors though.
Click to expand...

Intel had a huge advantage there especially because they were using newer chipsets and FSB with much more bandwidth, where AMD was still using Pentium-based motherboards with the L2-cache on the board.

cyclone3d said:
PIII vs Athlon. No contest.. AMD blew away Intel. Note: A K6-2 550 running at 660 on an Asus P5A board was almost as fast as an Athlon 500.
Click to expand...

AMD didn't blow away anything. The Athlon was marginally faster, depending on the application. Intel still had the edge with SSE. The difference in performance was never more than a few %. AMD was mostly interesting because of its much more attractive pricing (which is also why I got some Athlons back in those days... performance wasn't better, but price/performance was).
Besides, it only lasted a few months, because then the PIV was introduced, PIII was on its way out anyway.

cyclone3d said:
PIV vs T-bird, both Slot-A and then Socket A. AMD still way faster clock for clock.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant, since the PIV clocked a great deal higher.
AMD simply still had 'last-gen' IPC, like the PIII. Intel had since taken a different route, because obviously it's the combination of IPC and clockspeed that determines the performance, and you can try to improve either side of the equation.
It's simply down to dumb luck that AMD never had the resources to build a 'Pentium 4-like' architecture, and instead had to continue down the PIII-road with their Athlon XP and Athlon 64 designs. So when Pentium 4 eventually ran out of steam, AMD (and Intel's Pentium III/M/Core) suddenly looked good, even though essentially it was technology from a previous generation.
But now that Intel has introduced its new Core2-generation, suddenly it's AMD that's on the wrong side of the IPC scale... painfully enough they're ALSO behind on clockspeed.

cyclone3d said:
PIV 3.2 vs AMD Athlon XP 3200+ - AMD was faster clock for clock... 2.2Ghz vs 3.2Ghz and AMD still came ahead. AMD memory throughput put Intel to shame.
Click to expand...

No, the P4 was actually faster in virtually any application. Athlon XP was always poor in memory throughput. P4 was especially impressive in terms of memory throughput when used with Rambus memory. Because of licensing issues, Intel was not allowed to use DDR at first, but later Intel also got dualchannel DDR, and delivered great bandwidth that way aswell.

cyclone3d said:
PIV vs Athlon 64. Who would even consider buying an Intel chip except the masses who didn't know any better.
Click to expand...

P4 still had the edge in applications that depended heavily on SSE/SSE2, such as video processing or 3d rendering.

cyclone3d said:
PIV-D vs Athlon 64 X2. Why even bother with Intel? It was a poorly executed design that was a huge waste of money for the poor excuse of a speed increase.
Click to expand...

Pentium-D was introduced at very attractive prices. Especially the 805 model was very good value for money.

cyclone3d said:
AMD 64-bit vs Intel 64-bit. AMD was way faster.
Click to expand...

No actually. A lot of people think this, but there have never been any benchmarks that prove it. Depending on the application, AMD may get a slightly bigger boost, or Intel may get a slightly bigger boost... and in some cases either one may get a speed hit, but on average, there's no trend that either one is generally faster than the other.

cyclone3d said:
So Intel has been faster for a lot shorter than when AMD was faster. And yet, everybody bashes AMD for being slower right now.
Click to expand...

Well, your story is mostly wrong. Only with Athlon AMD had a *slight* lead for a moment, and later again with Athlon64/X2. In the 386/486/K6-age AMD was never a direct competitor to Intel's high-end, and even though the Athlon was initially competitive with the PIII and PIV (mostly because of price, not because the actual performance was that much higher), the PIV still led most of the time. Only with the Athlon64/X2 did AMD really lead with a significant performance advantage, for a significant period of time. But even if we ignore everything else, Core2 has already led for about as long as Athlon64/X2 did, and by even more of a margin. In fact, AMD is all but paralized at this moment, being unable to compete anywhere but the sub-$300 bracket. Intel never had it that bad.

cyclone3d said:
Do you not remember all the PR crap when Intel was releasing "new" products for years and years that was just refined old architechture?
Click to expand...

Do you remember the PR crap about Barcelona being the fastest x86 ever and being 40% faster than Core2?

cyclone3d said:
Intel had to come up with a new architechture to beat AMD after AMD had done the same to them.
Click to expand...

No, they had to come up with a new architecture because the old one had been on the market for over 5 years, longer than any other Intel (or AMD for that matter) architecture had ever been on the market.

cyclone3d said:
No I am not an AMD fanboy.. but back when AMD was faster AND cheaper, I thought it was super hilarious when people would spend extra for an Intel system that was slower.
Click to expand...

Currently it's equally hilarious when people buy AMD.
 
tenax said:
i don't see the fanboyism..it's a pretty darn good history, and let's face it..when you eliminate anyone but enthusiasts (which is what most of these forums we post at are founded on) there was a mass exodus from intel to amd for overclocking ability, price point and the fact you could build a computer for under a 1000 bucks yourself. in the hearts of us enthusiasts, amd had won the battle and we cheered them on every time for being the little guy who could do it, something we all could/can relate to.
Click to expand...

Funny enough AMD was notoriously bad at overclocking initially.
AMD did get the 386DX to 40 MHz, but that was basically an in-house overclocking job. Intel's 33 MHz parts could overclock to 40 MHz aswell, simply replace the crystal on the motherboard. Intel just wasn't interested in 40 MHz 386 processors at that point, because they already had the 486 on the market (where even a 40 MHz 386 could barely touch a 25 MHz 486SX... let alone the mighty 486DX2-66).

With the 486, AMD was actually the first to require a heatsink+fan. I have had both AMD and Intel 486DX2-66 processors, and while the AMD required a fan to even reach 66 MHz, the Intel ran fine with only passive cooling, and using the fan from the AMD could run stably at 80 MHz. The AMD CPU burnt out on me after about 2 years. The Intel one still runs today, even at 80 MHz.

Then in the PII/PII-age it was mainly the Celerons that were huge overclockers.
K6 processors didn't overclock very well. The early Athlons were also very poor overclockers... especially the Thunderbirds, which ran really hot, and used a lot of power, which most motherboards weren't designed to handle. My Tbird 1400 couldn't even run stable at stock speeds on my first motherboard, so I had to swap it for a similar board of another brand to even reach 1400 without a problem.... overclocking was hardly an option.
The same with Athlon XPs at first...
P4 Northwoods gained a reputation for being good overclockers. A 2.4 GHz Northwood would reach speeds at around 3 GHz with a good motherboard and cooler.

AMD was basically only a good overclocker when they were on top with the Athlon64/X2 (and with their mobile parts, which fit in regular motherboards). In most other cases, AMD simply kept the margins on their binning really tight, to try and compensate for their lower performance and win back something on price/performance. They're doing the same again today, with Phenom. It's a horrible overclocker, it requires a very stable motherboard, and it generates a lot of heat.

I'll say one thing about Pentium 4: It may have been a relatively poor performer, and it may have run hot and used a lot of power, but it never was a troublesome platform to run.
Intel had made sure that the socket specs and stock coolers were always spec-ed to handle the Pentium easily, and as an extra safely measure, they added the throttling. So there never really were issues with running these CPUs.
AMD has had problems with delivering a stable and reliable platform in the past, and it seems they're falling back into the old habit with the Phenom. Which is a shame really, because with Athlon64 they got things right, and actually built up some goodwill with the major OEMs.
 
tenax said:
so, to the subject of unfair portrayal of the amd chip to the intel chips through the THG video, i agree..to a point..but many chose to ignore the main point of the video was not thermal diodes..it was that you could run intel processors without a heatsink in theory or at least fanless or with a low noise cooling solution..i'm not so far removed from those days with amd and those processors (my 750, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400) that i can forget the extreme requirements for fans...great performing cheap processors, but a quiet box? ha!
Click to expand...

If you had read the article more closely, you'd know that they actually tested an AMD platform WITH thermal diode. The diode was just inadequate. It could register a delta of 1C per second or so... This was by far not enough for the case where the cooler might fall off, so the thermal protection simply didn't trigger.
If you're going to put in protection, at least get it right.
 
Scali2 said:
Yes, because AMD simply reverse-engineered and copied Intel's design.
Note that AMD didn't introduce the 386 until 1991, while the Intel 386 had been on the market since 1986, and the 486 had been on the market since 1989.
So AMD was very, VERY late in the game there.



Not only that, but Intel had them up to about 120-133 MHz aswell, making any 486-derivative like the 486DX-100 or 5x86-133 completely inadequate. The Pentium had way, WAY higher IPC because of its superscalar design and vastly improved FPU.



The K5 was little more than the 5x86 modified to fit into a Pentium socket. Its performance, especially with FPU, was still in the 486-ballpark, and nowhere near a Pentium.



Intel had a huge advantage there especially because they were using newer chipsets and FSB with much more bandwidth, where AMD was still using Pentium-based motherboards with the L2-cache on the board.



AMD didn't blow away anything. The Athlon was marginally faster, depending on the application. Intel still had the edge with SSE. The difference in performance was never more than a few %. AMD was mostly interesting because of its much more attractive pricing (which is also why I got some Athlons back in those days... performance wasn't better, but price/performance was).
Besides, it only lasted a few months, because then the PIV was introduced, PIII was on its way out anyway.



Which is irrelevant, since the PIV clocked a great deal higher.
AMD simply still had 'last-gen' IPC, like the PIII. Intel had since taken a different route, because obviously it's the combination of IPC and clockspeed that determines the performance, and you can try to improve either side of the equation.
It's simply down to dumb luck that AMD never had the resources to build a 'Pentium 4-like' architecture, and instead had to continue down the PIII-road with their Athlon XP and Athlon 64 designs. So when Pentium 4 eventually ran out of steam, AMD (and Intel's Pentium III/M/Core) suddenly looked good, even though essentially it was technology from a previous generation.
But now that Intel has introduced its new Core2-generation, suddenly it's AMD that's on the wrong side of the IPC scale... painfully enough they're ALSO behind on clockspeed.



No, the P4 was actually faster in virtually any application. Athlon XP was always poor in memory throughput. P4 was especially impressive in terms of memory throughput when used with Rambus memory. Because of licensing issues, Intel was not allowed to use DDR at first, but later Intel also got dualchannel DDR, and delivered great bandwidth that way aswell.



P4 still had the edge in applications that depended heavily on SSE/SSE2, such as video processing or 3d rendering.



Pentium-D was introduced at very attractive prices. Especially the 805 model was very good value for money.



No actually. A lot of people think this, but there have never been any benchmarks that prove it. Depending on the application, AMD may get a slightly bigger boost, or Intel may get a slightly bigger boost... and in some cases either one may get a speed hit, but on average, there's no trend that either one is generally faster than the other.



Well, your story is mostly wrong. Only with Athlon AMD had a *slight* lead for a moment, and later again with Athlon64/X2. In the 386/486/K6-age AMD was never a direct competitor to Intel's high-end, and even though the Athlon was initially competitive with the PIII and PIV (mostly because of price, not because the actual performance was that much higher), the PIV still led most of the time. Only with the Athlon64/X2 did AMD really lead with a significant performance advantage, for a significant period of time. But even if we ignore everything else, Core2 has already led for about as long as Athlon64/X2 did, and by even more of a margin. In fact, AMD is all but paralized at this moment, being unable to compete anywhere but the sub-$300 bracket. Intel never had it that bad.



Do you remember the PR crap about Barcelona being the fastest x86 ever and being 40% faster than Core2?



No, they had to come up with a new architecture because the old one had been on the market for over 5 years, longer than any other Intel (or AMD for that matter) architecture had ever been on the market.



Currently it's equally hilarious when people buy AMD.
Click to expand...

actually, Athlon XP was still faster in many applications

the Pentium D was introduced at a 1000+ Price tag (Pentium D Extrem 830? or 840ee?) not sure which but that was the first one, only later on did the Pentium D get cheaper.

and barely anything other then rendering audio / video was faster on the P4 vs the A64.

^^
 
Intel has IA-32. AMD is licensing the rights to use IA-32 from Intel. Nuff said.
 
Scali2 said:
If you had read the article more closely, you'd know that they actually tested an AMD platform WITH thermal diode. The diode was just inadequate. It could register a delta of 1C per second or so... This was by far not enough for the case where the cooler might fall off, so the thermal protection simply didn't trigger.
If you're going to put in protection, at least get it right.
Click to expand...


i know that..and you've missed my point..doesn't matter..this thread can go on forever..i have them both , i use them both for different reasons and applications.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
actually, Athlon XP was still faster in many applications
Click to expand...

No it wasn't.
Northwood was king of the hill until Athlon64 arrived.
Feel free to browse through these charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mother-cpu-charts-part-2,944-14.html
And see how many Northwoods are way above the fastest Athlon XP (Barton 3200+).
Usually it takes no more than a 2.8 GHz Northwood to match Athlon, but Northwood went all the way up to 3.4 GHz. So no, Athlon XP wasn't the mighty CPU you seem to remember.

Digital Viper-X- said:
the Pentium D was introduced at a 1000+ Price tag (Pentium D Extrem 830? or 840ee?) not sure which but that was the first one, only later on did the Pentium D get cheaper.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_d

"Smithfield was the first x86 dual-core microprocessor intended for desktop computers[citation needed]. Intel first launched Smithfield on April 16, 2005 in the form of the 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading enabled Pentium Extreme Edition 840. On May 26, 2005, Intel launched the mainstream Pentium D branded processor lineup with initial clock speeds of 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 GHz with model numbers of 820, 830, and 840 respectively."

Oohh, wow, the cheaper Pentium D's were a whole month later than the Extreme Edition (which technically was never named Pentium D, and which I never referred to when talking about the Pentium D).
Regardless, the Pentium D was around before the Athlon X2, and was priced more attractively. So it wasn't like Pentium D's only became affordable long after AMD's dualcores, which is how you want to spin it.
 
Scali2 said:
No it wasn't.
Northwood was king of the hill until Athlon64 arrived.
Feel free to browse through these charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mother-cpu-charts-part-2,944-14.html
And see how many Northwoods are way above the fastest Athlon XP (Barton 3200+).
Usually it takes no more than a 2.8 GHz Northwood to match Athlon, but Northwood went all the way up to 3.4 GHz. So no, Athlon XP wasn't the mighty CPU you seem to remember.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_d

"Smithfield was the first x86 dual-core microprocessor intended for desktop computers[citation needed]. Intel first launched Smithfield on April 16, 2005 in the form of the 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading enabled Pentium Extreme Edition 840. On May 26, 2005, Intel launched the mainstream Pentium D branded processor lineup with initial clock speeds of 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 GHz with model numbers of 820, 830, and 840 respectively."

Oohh, wow, the cheaper Pentium D's were a whole month later than the Extreme Edition (which technically was never named Pentium D, and which I never referred to when talking about the Pentium D).
Regardless, the Pentium D was around before the Athlon X2, and was priced more attractively. So it wasn't like Pentium D's only became affordable long after AMD's dualcores, which is how you want to spin it.
Click to expand...

ahh yes it was
launch of the Barton 3000, I Don't use toms hardware for ANYTHING
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI2LDMsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 heres a better link =)
and btw, a 3.4ghz northwoods were about as rare as the Voodoo6000 and northwood really didn't take the lead till the 865/875 chipset and 800 FSB Chips were around and that still wasn't the same as the domination that the A64 and A64X2 had vs the P4 / P4D

and no the pentium D was not priced more attractively till later on in it's life(not 1 month after release), around the 9xx and 805 release, the 830 and the 820 were always more expensive, the 9 series and 805 were the first ones to actually have an attractive price. I know this because I sold those cpus throughout their life.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
and btw, a 3.4ghz northwoods were about as rare as the Voodoo6000
Click to expand...

So? 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2 GHz were pretty common. It's not like the 3200+ Barton was seen often either.
Point remains that the fastest ever Athlon XP couldn't touch the 3+ GHz Pentium 4s that were around on the market at the time. So your claim that Athlon XP was faster in many applications is just false.

Digital Viper-X- said:
and no the pentium D was not priced more attractively till later on in it's life(not 1 month after release), around the 9xx and 805 release, the 830 and the 820 were always more expensive, the 9 series and 805 were the first ones to actually have an attractive price. I know this because I sold those cpus throughout their life.
Click to expand...

Well then you sold them overpriced.
Look at this article:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820.html
The table with prices clearly shows that the 820, 830 and 840 were all cheaper than the cheapest Athlon X2 at introduction.
That's right, no less than three CPUs below AMD's cheapest dualcore, the cheapest of which being less than half the price! ($241 vs $537)

So yes, the Pentium D was indeed SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the Athlon X2, and that was in the month of the introduction of the Athlon X2. So at no point in time was there ever an Athlon X2 that was cheaper than the Pentium D.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
ahh yes it was
launch of the Barton 3000, I Don't use toms hardware for ANYTHING
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI2LDMsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 heres a better link =)
and btw, a 3.4ghz northwoods were about as rare as the Voodoo6000 and northwood really didn't take the lead till the 865/875 chipset and 800 FSB Chips were around and that still wasn't the same as the domination that the A64 and A64X2 had vs the P4 / P4D
...
Click to expand...

BS.

Anyone who used a P4C coupled with the excellent 865/875 chipsets know how marvelous that combination was.It blew away the AXP on most tasks and was far superior in multitasking thanks to HT.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1834&p=16
 
savantu said:
BS.

Anyone who used a P4C coupled with the excellent 865/875 chipsets know how marvelous that combination was.It blew away the AXP on most tasks and was far superior in multitasking thanks to HT.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1834&p=16
Click to expand...

reading comprehension

if you look at the last line, it's exactly what I Said, Northwood which came in 400,533,800 FSB flavors only took off at 800, which would be the C/ wiht 865/875
 
Scali2 said:
So? 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2 GHz were pretty common. It's not like the 3200+ Barton was seen often either.
Point remains that the fastest ever Athlon XP couldn't touch the 3+ GHz Pentium 4s that were around on the market at the time. So your claim that Athlon XP was faster in many applications is just false.



Well then you sold them overpriced.
Look at this article:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820.html
The table with prices clearly shows that the 820, 830 and 840 were all cheaper than the cheapest Athlon X2 at introduction.
That's right, no less than three CPUs below AMD's cheapest dualcore, the cheapest of which being less than half the price! ($241 vs $537)

So yes, the Pentium D was indeed SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the Athlon X2, and that was in the month of the introduction of the Athlon X2. So at no point in time was there ever an Athlon X2 that was cheaper than the Pentium D.
Click to expand...

wtf? I just gave you a link to the Barton 3000+ beating out a P4 3.0, so how can you say a 3200 can't touch a 3ghz p4? lol

Just because they were cheaper doesn't mean they were better priced, the CHEAPEST athlon 64 x2 beat out the fastest P4 D, compare pricing that way

Consider that AMD launched the X2 at a higher speed then intel, they launched a Dual 3500+ cored chip, intel released a pentium D 2.8 3.0 and 3.2, if AMD had launched an x2 with 2 2800+ 3000+ and 3200+ cores at launch they would have been cheaper and faster then their intel counterparts, but I guess yields were good.

X2 3800+ beat out a Pentium D 840 in pretty much anything but encoding, so the X2-4200 which is the same price, did even better, AMD priced it's duals according to their speed, and btw, their price dropped to a decent level with the X2 3800

it's pretty funny, how you pick only the points in time that would support your point, and miss the bigger picture.
"northwood was much faster then the AXP" - yea only with the P4C Much later on
"Intel had much cheaper dual cores" - no it wasn't their performance was a fair bit under AMD X2 cpus, so they were priced accordingly, and AMD launched cheaper ones shortly after which pretty much render your point moot and AMD's cheapest dual core at launch was equal to or better then Intels fastest which was priced the same,
 
this thread is turning for the worse, FAST. Ive said this before, and ill say it again:

The first sign of a bad consumer, is the one who picks a side. I sense a LOT of fanboy in this thread, which is the WORST possible trait a consumer can have.

It is beyond any type of logical sense to buy an INFERIOR product.

I find it amusing, in almost all aspects of life, e.g. sports, politics, games, so on so on, people ALWAYS go down to the most basic thinking cycles:

WHICH SIDE SHOULD I CHOOSE

If you truly do want a better performing CPU out from amd, stop giving them your god damn money, for example: ATM Nvidia has been milking the fuck out of the 8800 series, they have made almost no attempt in the past years to come out with a NEW technology. because they get an assload of money, no competition. Now, look what that has forced ATI to do, theyre blowing money out their ass trying to better nvidia, AKA theyre spending alot of money to hit the top of the market, and if/WHEN that happens, nvidia will turn around and do the same.

Mr big guy CEO: "Well, we have the market in the palm of our hands at the moment, lets hold off here until anyone can beat our product, only THEN will we try and make some new type of technology, lets milk these consumer bastards for all their worth for the time being until something new comes out."

BOTTOM LINE:

the company should be loyal to the CONSUMER, not the consumer loyal to the COMPANY.

You cant have it any other way, companies are out for your MONEY, and they will do whatever it takes to get it from you.


DONT BE A FANBOY, DONT BE LOYAL TO COMPANIES
 
evanisthecoastie said:
DONT BE A FANBOY, DONT BE LOYAL TO COMPANIES
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I've also brought up the point to drop these separate Intel/AMD forums on a few occasions.

All this fanboyism and revisionist history is just pathetic. Why do people have to write pages and pages of backpedding, twisting the facts etc, just because they cannot accept that at some point, some brand other than their favourite had a cheaper/better/nicer/faster/etc product?
It should be about technology, not about brands. Anyone with half a brain should realize by reading this thread that "who is better" depends a lot on the exact moment in time, the pricerange you're looking at, and various factors beyond just price and performance which cannot be expressed objectively anyway (like eg that thermal protection... some people won't care, others would not be comfortable knowing that their system might die if the cooler fails).
 
evanisthecoastie said:
the company should be loyal to the CONSUMER, not the consumer loyal to the COMPANY.

You cant have it any other way, companies are out for your MONEY, and they will do whatever it takes to get it from you.


DONT BE A FANBOY, DONT BE LOYAL TO COMPANIES
Click to expand...

THIS.
I switched to nvidia back when the 7800 series was the new thing because I was tired of having to deal with my bad luck with artifacting cards from ATi. Now that Nvidia seems to be in a standstill and since AMD/ATi decided to release documentation on the R500-600 series cards for Linux users, my next card may be an ATi.

Same goes for when I got my 4200 X2 right before the Core processors came out. Boy, was that a step-up from the P4 2.8c @ 3.09 GHz I was using before! Now I have my sights set on Nehalem for next year (although Shanghai looks somewhat promising).

OP, you don't need to go through the trouble of showing this fanboy why Intel is better ATM; he's just gonna give you more bullshits about AMD.
This situation reminds me of this quote (from someone I know IRL):
"Don't get into an argument with an idiot because in the end people won't be able to tell the difference between the two."
Click to expand...
 
i prefer the, "never get into an argument with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with expierence."
 
This thread is pretty silly.

I've explained my thoughts about fanboyism in a post on another forum, right here and I think it's all just foolish to think that one brand will always be ontop of another brand throughout the entire spectrum of a market as large as the CPU market with every generation of products released. Right now, if you have a big budget or are into large overclocks, Intel's offerings are going to much more appealing, however if you have a small budget and can't afford one of the higher end Core 2 CPUs (I.E. an E6550, E8400, or Q6600, the likes) then AMD's CPUs are probably going to be a better choice for you. AMD's Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 CPUs dominated Intel's netburst CPUs, but as we all know that didn't last into the next generation of CPUs, as the Core 2s quickly became the "top dogs" of the market. It's just too dynamic for fanboyism to be logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top