The REAL Intel vs AMD story
Tags:
-
CPUs
-
Intel
- Product
Last response: in CPUs
ecosoft
March 9, 2006 8:37:36 PM
Dudes! All of 'ya! Is everyone posting to this Forum a childish ass-ole??
Who REALLY gives red rat's ass about "Fanboyism"? CPU fanboyism is nothing, NO THING, different than the old redneck automotive Ford vs Chevy BS, except the terms argued now revolve around electronics devoted to personal computers. BFD!
Try examining the controversy from the next level up ... call it the business viewpoint, if ya' like, but whatever it's valid because history has demonstrated this viewpoint ... all businesses that have competition have only one of two choices for continued survival. Both choices involve the size of their gonads ... BALLS!
Intel, being the first semiconductor mfg'r to consolidate a large chunk of the industry ... anyone remember Fairchild Semi, Digital Equipment Corp., Data General, Wang, etc. who, previous to Intel's dominance, all made their own CPU's. As a result of outstandingly aggressive expansion minded (monopoly?) management Intel grew to 20+ mfg plants around the world and their internal organisation grew likewise (many separate power centers) so that EVERY decision was an agonizing process (SLOW as Diahera flowing in the Winter!). Intel had no effective competition even with the advent of AMD and their K5-6 x86 CPU's. Intel was literally fat, dumb and happy and remained that way only until recently ... less than a year ago!!
Intel looked down it's nose at the initial AMD K7's, and from their point-of-view (PoV) it was logical, so they stayed their x86 architectural course. It wasn't until AMD popped out the K8 series that Intel slowly began to "notice" and even then, they stayed their architectural designs by attempting to move the market with higher and higher clock ratings, but at the expense of superhuge pipelines and humongo thermal envelopes. Intel could "afford" to be complacent because they have 1.) hugely deep pockets, 2.) huge business IT mindshare ... just like in the mainframe days when it was always said "ya' can't ever go wrong choosing IBM" (anyone remember Borroughs, Honeywell, RCA, Sperry-Rand, Control Data, etc.) and 3.) aggressive marketing i.e. "buy our sh-t and no one else's and we will subsidize your advertising with $$$ and a "can't get it out of your mind Intel Inside" tone jingle. It worked!
The hook for their strategy working was the economic side, which dictated "keep doing what we'er doing" 'cause the other guys, AMD, didn't have the financial balls to pose a real challenge. HOWEVER, the other side of having balls is "where do 'ya choose to be ballsy?"
AMD took the only feasible option open to them ... CPU architecture. Now then, architecture includes more than how ya' layout the specific functional circuitry (ALU's, FPU's, etc., etc.) but also how ya' build 'em. AMD got in bed with IBM for both mfg capacity AND expertise... SOI, etc. (Do you know IBM holds more tech patents than anyone on the planet?)
So, we have the "biggest" CPU mfg'r now fending off a shrimp that has a superior architecture and you Fanboys are arguing who's going to win 'da game. In the end we consumers win!
In the short term I predict Intel will not substantially alter their architecture because of numerous internal "vested interests". Rather, Intel is using it's bucks-up position to drive their production towards the 65, 45 and 22nm nodes because all else being equal ya' get less heat, more curcuitry per square inch, more chips per wafer, etc., etc. AMD only recently began employing 300mm wafers, and they still have yet to reach volume 65nm manufacture. Even so, AMD Opterons are kickin' butt in the server market because of their superior architecture, thus lower total cost of ownership.
As for Intel's boast of 4-way, 8-way, gazillion-way CPU's in the future BFD! Until software ... and that means MORE than games (how many businesses run game software in the office?) can seamlessly accomodate multi-thread execution, the number of cores per chip is a genuine "so F...'in what?" for the vast majority of end-users!
Who REALLY gives red rat's ass about "Fanboyism"? CPU fanboyism is nothing, NO THING, different than the old redneck automotive Ford vs Chevy BS, except the terms argued now revolve around electronics devoted to personal computers. BFD!
Try examining the controversy from the next level up ... call it the business viewpoint, if ya' like, but whatever it's valid because history has demonstrated this viewpoint ... all businesses that have competition have only one of two choices for continued survival. Both choices involve the size of their gonads ... BALLS!
Intel, being the first semiconductor mfg'r to consolidate a large chunk of the industry ... anyone remember Fairchild Semi, Digital Equipment Corp., Data General, Wang, etc. who, previous to Intel's dominance, all made their own CPU's. As a result of outstandingly aggressive expansion minded (monopoly?) management Intel grew to 20+ mfg plants around the world and their internal organisation grew likewise (many separate power centers) so that EVERY decision was an agonizing process (SLOW as Diahera flowing in the Winter!). Intel had no effective competition even with the advent of AMD and their K5-6 x86 CPU's. Intel was literally fat, dumb and happy and remained that way only until recently ... less than a year ago!!
Intel looked down it's nose at the initial AMD K7's, and from their point-of-view (PoV) it was logical, so they stayed their x86 architectural course. It wasn't until AMD popped out the K8 series that Intel slowly began to "notice" and even then, they stayed their architectural designs by attempting to move the market with higher and higher clock ratings, but at the expense of superhuge pipelines and humongo thermal envelopes. Intel could "afford" to be complacent because they have 1.) hugely deep pockets, 2.) huge business IT mindshare ... just like in the mainframe days when it was always said "ya' can't ever go wrong choosing IBM" (anyone remember Borroughs, Honeywell, RCA, Sperry-Rand, Control Data, etc.) and 3.) aggressive marketing i.e. "buy our sh-t and no one else's and we will subsidize your advertising with $$$ and a "can't get it out of your mind Intel Inside" tone jingle. It worked!
The hook for their strategy working was the economic side, which dictated "keep doing what we'er doing" 'cause the other guys, AMD, didn't have the financial balls to pose a real challenge. HOWEVER, the other side of having balls is "where do 'ya choose to be ballsy?"
AMD took the only feasible option open to them ... CPU architecture. Now then, architecture includes more than how ya' layout the specific functional circuitry (ALU's, FPU's, etc., etc.) but also how ya' build 'em. AMD got in bed with IBM for both mfg capacity AND expertise... SOI, etc. (Do you know IBM holds more tech patents than anyone on the planet?)
So, we have the "biggest" CPU mfg'r now fending off a shrimp that has a superior architecture and you Fanboys are arguing who's going to win 'da game. In the end we consumers win!
In the short term I predict Intel will not substantially alter their architecture because of numerous internal "vested interests". Rather, Intel is using it's bucks-up position to drive their production towards the 65, 45 and 22nm nodes because all else being equal ya' get less heat, more curcuitry per square inch, more chips per wafer, etc., etc. AMD only recently began employing 300mm wafers, and they still have yet to reach volume 65nm manufacture. Even so, AMD Opterons are kickin' butt in the server market because of their superior architecture, thus lower total cost of ownership.
As for Intel's boast of 4-way, 8-way, gazillion-way CPU's in the future BFD! Until software ... and that means MORE than games (how many businesses run game software in the office?) can seamlessly accomodate multi-thread execution, the number of cores per chip is a genuine "so F...'in what?" for the vast majority of end-users!
More about : real intel amd story
Caboose-1
March 9, 2006 8:39:28 PM
Quote:
Dudes! All of 'ya! Is everyone posting to this Forum a childish ass-ole??Who REALLY gives red rat's ass about "Fanboyism"? CPU fanboyism is nothing, NO THING, different than the old redneck automotive Ford vs Chevy BS, except the terms argued now revolve around electronics devoted to personal computers. BFD!
Try examining the controversy from the next level up ... call it the business viewpoint, if ya' like, but whatever it's valid because history has demonstrated this viewpoint ... all businesses that have competition have only one of two choices for continued survival. Both choices involve the size of their gonads ... BALLS!
Intel, being the first semiconductor mfg'r to consolidate a large chunk of the industry ... anyone remember Fairchild Semi, Digital Equipment Corp., Data General, Wang, etc. who, previous to Intel's dominance, all made their own CPU's. As a result of outstandingly aggressive expansion minded (monopoly?) management Intel grew to 20+ mfg plants around the world and their internal organisation grew likewise (many separate power centers) so that EVERY decision was an agonizing process (SLOW as Diahera flowing in the Winter!). Intel had no effective competition even with the advent of AMD and their K5-6 x86 CPU's. Intel was literally fat, dumb and happy and remained that way only until recently ... less than a year ago!!
Intel looked down it's nose at the initial AMD K7's, and from their point-of-view (PoV) it was logical, so they stayed their x86 architectural course. It wasn't until AMD popped out the K8 series that Intel slowly began to "notice" and even then, they stayed their architectural designs by attempting to move the market with higher and higher clock ratings, but at the expense of superhuge pipelines and humongo thermal envelopes. Intel could "afford" to be complacent because they have 1.) hugely deep pockets, 2.) huge business IT mindshare ... just like in the mainframe days when it was always said "ya' can't ever go wrong choosing IBM" (anyone remember Borroughs, Honeywell, RCA, Sperry-Rand, Control Data, etc.) and 3.) aggressive marketing i.e. "buy our sh-t and no one else's and we will subsidize your advertising with $$$ and a "can't get it out of your mind Intel Inside" tone jingle. It worked!
The hook for their strategy working was the economic side, which dictated "keep doing what we'er doing" 'cause the other guys, AMD, didn't have the financial balls to pose a real challenge. HOWEVER, the other side of having balls is "where do 'ya choose to be ballsy?"
AMD took the only feasible option open to them ... CPU architecture. Now then, architecture includes more than how ya' layout the specific functional circuitry (ALU's, FPU's, etc., etc.) but also how ya' build 'em. AMD got in bed with IBM for both mfg capacity AND expertise... SOI, etc. (Do you know IBM holds more tech patents than anyone on the planet?)
So, we have the "biggest" CPU mfg'r now fending off a shrimp that has a superior architecture and you Fanboys are arguing who's going to win 'da game. In the end we consumers win!
In the short term I predict Intel will not substantially alter their architecture because of numerous internal "vested interests". Rather, Intel is using it's bucks-up position to drive their production towards the 65, 45 and 22nm nodes because all else being equal ya' get less heat, more curcuitry per square inch, more chips per wafer, etc., etc. AMD only recently began employing 300mm wafers, and they still have yet to reach volume 65nm manufacture. Even so, AMD Opterons are kickin' butt in the server market because of their superior architecture, thus lower total cost of ownership.
As for Intel's boast of 4-way, 8-way, gazillion-way CPU's in the future BFD! Until software ... and that means MORE than games (how many businesses run game software in the office?) can seamlessly accomodate multi-thread execution, the number of cores per chip is a genuine "so F...'in what?" for the vast majority of end-users!
Action_Man
March 9, 2006 8:44:48 PM
Related resources
- AMD FX 8350 VS INTEL I5-4670K: the real - Forum
- AMD vs Intel... real-world performance? - Forum
- Real-world implications of AMD vs. Intel's AMD64/Intel64 - Forum
- Real Gaming Challenge Rematch: Intel vs. AMD - Forum
- Draft 802.11n Revealed: Part 1 - The Real Story on Throughput vs. Range - Forum
Caboose-1
March 9, 2006 8:47:56 PM
Action_Man
March 9, 2006 8:51:25 PM
Caboose-1
March 9, 2006 8:54:28 PM
RichPLS
March 9, 2006 8:54:49 PM
Action_Man
March 9, 2006 8:58:54 PM
Caboose-1
March 9, 2006 9:00:58 PM
RichPLS
March 9, 2006 9:40:15 PM
Caboose-1
March 9, 2006 9:44:30 PM
Action_Man
March 9, 2006 9:48:15 PM
rochin
March 9, 2006 10:32:16 PM
Action_Man
March 9, 2006 10:52:37 PM
mpjesse
March 9, 2006 11:51:03 PM
mpjesse
March 9, 2006 11:54:12 PM
Caboose-1
March 10, 2006 12:10:30 AM
qurious69ss
March 10, 2006 1:10:33 AM
Zyklus
March 10, 2006 1:22:48 AM
k2000k
March 10, 2006 2:31:41 AM
Zyklus
March 10, 2006 2:39:00 AM
TabrisDarkPeace
March 10, 2006 5:31:11 AM
The K5 and K6-2 at similar price points (TCO) and even at similar clock speeds in 3DNow! optimized applications (eg: Quake 2) had their asses handed to them once the Celeron was given 128 KB of integrated L2 cache.
At equal clock speeds the Celeron was a good 25 - 40% better performing than the K6-2, K6-III and K6-2+, each with large integrated caches, the later two with L2 cache integrated.
I think you are 'remembering' history the way you wanted it to happen instead of the way it actually happened.
Go ahead, look up some Quake II (or any other game of the time) benchmarks and compare the Pentium II / Celeron (pre SSE days) with the K6-2 which had the combined 3DNow! and MMX feature set.
The Celeron (Mendocino core, the MMX only one before the Celeron 533A, at only 250nm) was far more cost effective than the K6-2 at the time.
The K5 and K6, and K6-2 where quite attractive for a variety of reasons though. eg: The K6-2 was a very nice upgrade to Socket Super 7 systems, and saved purchasing a new mainboard, etc
Intel SSE and AMD 3DNow! actually share many common instructions, they are at least 90% identical from a code perspective. AMD and Intel share quite a lot when it comes to microprocessor architecture.
The Pentium 4 PreScott was 'less desirable' but other than that they compete with, and complement each other in a way that benefits us all.
I am in aggreement with you on many of your points.
Started a new thread to get people educated on the basics again [sigh]:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
At equal clock speeds the Celeron was a good 25 - 40% better performing than the K6-2, K6-III and K6-2+, each with large integrated caches, the later two with L2 cache integrated.
I think you are 'remembering' history the way you wanted it to happen instead of the way it actually happened.
Go ahead, look up some Quake II (or any other game of the time) benchmarks and compare the Pentium II / Celeron (pre SSE days) with the K6-2 which had the combined 3DNow! and MMX feature set.
The Celeron (Mendocino core, the MMX only one before the Celeron 533A, at only 250nm) was far more cost effective than the K6-2 at the time.
The K5 and K6, and K6-2 where quite attractive for a variety of reasons though. eg: The K6-2 was a very nice upgrade to Socket Super 7 systems, and saved purchasing a new mainboard, etc
Intel SSE and AMD 3DNow! actually share many common instructions, they are at least 90% identical from a code perspective. AMD and Intel share quite a lot when it comes to microprocessor architecture.
The Pentium 4 PreScott was 'less desirable' but other than that they compete with, and complement each other in a way that benefits us all.
I am in aggreement with you on many of your points.
Started a new thread to get people educated on the basics again [sigh]:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
TabrisDarkPeace
March 10, 2006 6:58:26 AM
True, but what would Intel 'share' with AMD to use AMD64 under another name (EM64T) ?.
Doesn't anyone else find it odd AMD had 3DNow! (floating) and basic MMX, while Intel had MMX (integer), then SSE (just 3DNow! under another name).
In so many ways they are still the one old and true 'INTegrated ELectronics'. ala: INT-EL. Which is why the 'e' was subcript in their old logo. As far as I am concerned they are still the same company, just based and run in different countries.
If software looked at the supported instructions & feature flags, instead of looking for the 'Genuine Intel' string even less people would notice the difference.
Doesn't anyone else find it odd AMD had 3DNow! (floating) and basic MMX, while Intel had MMX (integer), then SSE (just 3DNow! under another name).
In so many ways they are still the one old and true 'INTegrated ELectronics'. ala: INT-EL. Which is why the 'e' was subcript in their old logo. As far as I am concerned they are still the same company, just based and run in different countries.
If software looked at the supported instructions & feature flags, instead of looking for the 'Genuine Intel' string even less people would notice the difference.
Related resources
- SolvedWhat is the real difference between an intel processor and an amd processor Forum
- SolvedThe real difference between AMD and Intel... Forum
- AMD or Intel (same old story) Forum
- SolvedAMD vs Intel Gaming Build Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i7-5820K vs AMD FX-9370 (on a combo) Forum
- SolvedAMD FX 6300 vs AMD A8 6600k vs Intel Pentium g3258 Forum
- Solvedamd fx 8350 vs intel core i5 4590? Forum
- SolvedAMD build vs Intel build Forum
- Solvedamd 8350 vs intel i5 4690k Forum
- SolvedLaptop Amd A8 vs Intel Pentium Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i3 4030U vs AMD A6 6310 Forum
- SolvedAmd a8 6600k + HD7770 vs fx 6300 + HD7770 vs Intel core i3 4130 +HD 7770 ? Forum
- SolvedAMD vs INTEL Forum
- SolvedIntel vs AMD CPU NO FANBOYS ALLOWED Forum
- Solved2.5 quad core AMD vs 1.7 dual core Intel, does the Intel really honestly win? Forum
- More resources
!
Infinitely squared plus one!