10 years ago, Intel was king. Until the first Athlon was released, AMD was nothing more than a bargain brand CPU for people who balked at the high cost of Intel processors. With the release of the Slot A Athlon, AMD hinted at what was to come, although that processor’s release was hindered by heat problems and buggy chipsets. Their quality improved with the Athlon XP: although heat was still an issue, these processors essentially were faster and more efficient, clock-for-clock, than the Pentium 4 was. It was only with the release of the Athlon 64 series processors that AMD was able to take advantage of Intel’s flawed NetBurst architecture, with its extremely long pipeline and inefficiencies. AMD, once the bargain brand, was now outperforming the king. No longer were their processors less expensive, in fact in most cases they were more expensive simply because the public has always demanded performance at all cost. As the Athlon 64 nears its 3rd birthday, Intel finally is on the verge of regaining the performance crown. I say it is about time.
Whether the recently released Conroe benchmarks are 100% accurate or not, anyone who doubts that Intel has the ability to completely redesign their architecture and come out on top after 3 long years is delusional. They have the resources and capability, and after losing so much market share in the desktop/server areas, you can bet they better do something soon or risk falling on their bloated ass.
I must admit, I am a fanboy of performance. I don’t care about brands. I used Intel processors exclusively until around 2001, purely because they were faster, more efficient and less problematic (though AMD’s problems weren’t of their own doing). I currently have AMD processors in the majority of the machines on my home network. My most recent purchase was an Opteron 165, which is an amazing chip. I don’t think I could’ve spent my money in a better way. It replaced an aging A64 3000+, which itself was an amazing processor. The only non-AMD chips I have in use now are a P4 Northwood 2.8C and a Pentium III 500, and they perform their job fine. Ironically enough, I bought the P4 2.8C as a bargain processor. The tables had now turned.
As much as I look forward to Conroe, as well as all of the other goodies on the horizon, I must say the most exciting thing I look forward to now is the competition between Intel and AMD. This can only mean one thing and that is better products for us. When Conroe is released, if it is indeed as fast as Intel claims it to be, that can only mean AMD will be working that much harder towards keeping up…..which benefits us all.
I look forward to now is the competition between Intel and AMD. This can only mean one thing and that is better products for us. When Conroe is released, if it is indeed as fast as Intel claims it to be, that can only mean AMD will be working that much harder towards keeping up…..which benefits us all.
Very, very true. If Intels benchmarks for Conroe are true it means the processor race will be back on, which benefits all of us, Intel or AMD fanboys.
I 100% agree with you. AMD 64/opteron/x2 were in many ways better than their Intel counterparts(in fact only Intel's 65nm that are somewhat competitive are the EE editions and the 9xx both suffered a shrink,the only place were Intel wins is extreme end since you can OC a 955 to insane speeds).
This is without a doubt one of the most rational pieces of information I've read on these forums in many a day. Thanks for providing a rare bit of sanity in this otherwise barren wasteland of simian chest thumping and nose picking.
WOW that was a refreshing read, up until that Intel fanboy that is. I will throw my agreement in with the others, you gave your own reasons for liking Pentiums and AMDs I wish more people would be like that. Ya know backup what they have to say with something other than monkey butts and the extreme talent of holding the shift key an 1 key simultaneously, oh almost forgot the caps lock key too that one truly gives credibility to a statement.
Fierce competition is good for technology development, but bad for technology prices.
Chips are really cheap to manufacture in quantity, after all is said and done. What we pay for is the development of the technology, and the more development that occurs, the more we pay for it.
Then again, on the other hand, the faster technology progresses, the more technologies become 'legacy', obsolete, and ultimately bargain-bin: giving us more bang for our buck.
The current state of the video card market is a good example. High-end cards push $600, which alone is twice as much as, say, and Xbox-360 (Which has been ridiculed for being over-priced). My ATI 9600 Pro, a 2-year old card I paid ~$400 for, is an antique compared to $200 video cards that easily crush it 4-fold.
Keep in mind, no matter how you look at it, simple economics stipulate that we, the consumer, are funding this fire-fight between AMD and Intel. As long as the market's there, I'll have a bucket of popcorn and a front-row seat
One more thing: the more computer technology progresses, the more aggressive game designers get. Ultimately gaming 'rigs' suffer a lifespan of less than 2 years as a result, with limited upgradability thanks to the constant platform 'refreshes'.
Good point, but me myself am all for letting idiots with money drop over a grand on a cpu, a grand on 2 video cards, so that I can come along a few months later to get one for 1/2 price, and suffer without the latest eyecandy and opening programs that little bit slower while they drop twice as much again to be on the razor edge of technology. Just my opinion though.
Ah, I was just making fun of you guys. I've only heard this topic about 1 million times with always a few "wise", old knowledgagble types spouting infinate wisdom about choices, competition and why being a fanboy is so bad and how they would never do that.
blech! I want to hear some emotion, tell me why I need to buy AMD, throw some marketing hype in there and links to reviews and crap. I don't want your hippie peace, love and harmony babble.
Yes, wit would be nice... at least rich had the slick little sign for ya. instead of sounding like a 'tard you could at least give life to an otherwise juvenile post.
I am all for peace/love/dope and simply enjoying the competition. I also enjoy watching the carnage of flamers and fanboys... provided they have some wit and spunk so that there is something that I haven't seen before...
but go ahead and bring forth sonets of monkey butts and nasal drippings... I guess the world needs all kinds... or something.
Why do you want a "fan boy" war to start? It already goes on too much in these forums. I am tired of reading a good thread and then it gets ruined by someone saying "AMD BLOWS CHUNKS!!!" or "INTEL SUCKS!". Truthfully I think that arguing is worthless. An Intel fan is not going to jump ship to AMD because of what is said, true or not. The same goes for AMD fans.
I am a fan of both companies, I buy Intel and AMD. They both have great features, and both make good chips. Here is my buying history:
Celeron 300 (great overclocker too)
Athlon 1800 (ran really hot, but not bad chip)
2x Pentium 3 1.0 GHz (dual P3's great setup)
Pentium 4 1.8
Athlon XP 3000
I will get them both, I don't pick a side and be a die hard fan.
I think that AMD, Intel, nVidia, ATI and MS blows runny monkey turds.
And until they learn to work together, quit bickering and start giving the end user the quality components as claimed that are pre-tested, secure and reasonably bug/glitch free then they will never really be top shelf products, just Chihuahua yapping top shelf wannabes.