Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd is Going Down, Intel Is King Again ** BS **

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 24, 2006 5:46:36 PM

Before I start let me say I've owned pentiums, athlons 32 and 64bit processors. I prefer AMD because in the past their price/performance was awesome and ya the enthusiast/underdog quality of it all as well. However if Intel remains on top by the time I need to upgrade I'd have no doubt in my mind that I would switch cpu's and go with the best bang for the buck once again.

What makes me laugh the hardest is to see all these fanboys on here ranting about how great AMD is or Intel now is again. How all of a sudden AMD is going to go bankrupt because Intel FINALLY got its bloated pos revamped. Or how AMD is going to drag ATI down with it. No offense but what a bunch of idiotic biased garbage.

Look

In 2000
Amd was the first to break the 1ghz barrier with the Athlon
Nov. 20 Intel Introduces Pentium 4 1st new desktop processor

Apr. 23, 2001
Intel Launches 1.5 ghz Pentium 4 Chip design since the Pentium Pro processor in 1995 (if i remember correctly AMD and Intel during the few years to follow went back in forth in performance winners)


2003
AMD launches the Opterons and Athlong 64 processors (taking back the crown not only in performance but in price and not really looking back until now)

2005
AMD Releases the first true dual core cpu's Opterons and A64's

2006
Jan 05 Intel Releases its version of dual core the Core Duo
Aug Intel Releases the Core 2 Duo which retook the Performance Crown (the price battle continues)


Now with that info you can see how the market changes. One releases a product the other counters with one similar or better of their own. However From 2003 til Recent AMD has dominated in all aspect with the A64. Finally Intel has answered. But for all of your lame fanboys out there saying how this is the end of AMD you really have to be blind to history and the patterns. AMD is already planning on releasing the K8L, possibly next year. 1 year away from Core 2 release... even if it was 2 years later its still a hell of a lot faster than Intel's 3 years it took to repond. Or its almost 6 yr old design in the pentium 4 before the Cores releases.

Keeping that in perspective then AMD's 1 or 2 year wait is a lightning fast response in comparison. It also seems to me that AMD's underdog attitude has it doing more innovative things for the market than Intel. Intel has the money but doesn't seem to be very creative from a lamen point of view.

Also the price for performance comparisons for the Core 2's vs the a64's seems skewed to me. If you take it as an overall system it seems to me the AMD based system is cheaper as a whole by far.

Lower prices processors or comparable now
Lower priced motherboards (ranging from the $70-$150)
Lower priced ram

where as the Intel based all I've seen lately
More expensive processors even tho they were promised to be cheaper due to short supply.
motherboards starting at $150 (and those are the supposed just ok boards)
The ram is more expensive as well currently.

Anyways I'm rambling now. As I said in the beginning if Intel continues to put out a great product when its time for me to upgrade I'd go Intel. But I think by that time AMD will have a strong response to Intel in the next year or two. History has shown that AMD faster with its responses and more innovative in doing so as well.

I'll leave it up to the fanboys to pick apart my posting now. I know my info may not be 100% accurate nor am I a programmer or engineer like many of you. Just some common sense when watching the pattern of development between these 2 companies. Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.

More about : amd intel king

August 24, 2006 7:00:43 PM

Quote:
Before I start let me say I've owned pentiums, athlons 32 and 64bit processors. I prefer AMD because in the past their price/performance was awesome and ya the enthusiast/underdog quality of it all as well. However if Intel remains on top by the time I need to upgrade I'd have no doubt in my mind that I would switch cpu's and go with the best bang for the buck once again.

What makes me laugh the hardest is to see all these fanboys on here ranting about how great AMD is or Intel now is again. How all of a sudden AMD is going to go bankrupt because Intel FINALLY got its bloated pos revamped. Or how AMD is going to drag ATI down with it. No offense but what a bunch of idiotic biased garbage.

Look

In 2000
Amd was the first to break the 1ghz barrier with the Athlon
Nov. 20 Intel Introduces Pentium 4 1st new desktop processor

Apr. 23, 2001
Intel Launches 1.5 ghz Pentium 4 Chip design since the Pentium Pro processor in 1995 (if i remember correctly AMD and Intel during the few years to follow went back in forth in performance winners)


2003
AMD launches the Opterons and Athlong 64 processors (taking back the crown not only in performance but in price and not really looking back until now)

2005
AMD Releases the first true dual core cpu's Opterons and A64's

2006
Jan 05 Intel Releases its version of dual core the Core Duo
Aug Intel Releases the Core 2 Duo which retook the Performance Crown (the price battle continues)


Now with that info you can see how the market changes. One releases a product the other counters with one similar or better of their own. However From 2003 til Recent AMD has dominated in all aspect with the A64. Finally Intel has answered. But for all of your lame fanboys out there saying how this is the end of AMD you really have to be blind to history and the patterns. AMD is already planning on releasing the K8L, possibly next year. 1 year away from Core 2 release... even if it was 2 years later its still a hell of a lot faster than Intel's 3 years it took to repond. Or its almost 6 yr old design in the pentium 4 before the Cores releases.

Keeping that in perspective then AMD's 1 or 2 year wait is a lightning fast response in comparison. It also seems to me that AMD's underdog attitude has it doing more innovative things for the market than Intel. Intel has the money but doesn't seem to be very creative from a lamen point of view.

Also the price for performance comparisons for the Core 2's vs the a64's seems skewed to me. If you take it as an overall system it seems to me the AMD based system is cheaper as a whole by far.

Lower prices processors or comparable now
Lower priced motherboards (ranging from the $70-$150)
Lower priced ram

where as the Intel based all I've seen lately
More expensive processors even tho they were promised to be cheaper due to short supply.
motherboards starting at $150 (and those are the supposed just ok boards)
The ram is more expensive as well currently.

Anyways I'm rambling now. As I said in the beginning if Intel continues to put out a great product when its time for me to upgrade I'd go Intel. But I think by that time AMD will have a strong response to Intel in the next year or two. History has shown that AMD faster with its responses and more innovative in doing so as well.

I'll leave it up to the fanboys to pick apart my posting now. I know my info may not be 100% accurate nor am I a programmer or engineer like many of you. Just some common sense when watching the pattern of development between these 2 companies. Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.



You're right to a degree but you forgot to mention that in 2008, Intel will release a redesigned 45nm Core 2 Duo and a new micro architecture, Nehalem.
August 24, 2006 7:27:51 PM

Quote:
ou're right to a degree but you forgot to mention that in 2008, Intel will release a redesigned 45nm Core 2 Duo and a new micro architecture, Nehalem.


...And AMD will be introducimg Direct Connet Architecture V2.0 and enhancements to the core. :wink:
Related resources
August 24, 2006 7:38:44 PM

AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.
August 24, 2006 7:41:56 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:
August 24, 2006 7:42:00 PM

My main point was to the idiotic fan boy things about how long AMD is taking for a reply. "why didn't they have an answer to the Core 2?" "wheres AMD performance now?" when in fact it took intel 3 yrs to answer the A64.. and 6 yrs to develop a new processor.

All the rants from the Intel fanboys are extremely premature. Now if it was 2 yrs after the Core 2's release and AMD still hasn't had a product to compete with it. Then I'd say it would be more warranted.

Same goes for AMD fanboys if the tables were turned. However AMD fans had a 3 years being able to see Intel try and fail. So atleast in the past it was a different scenario.

Clairvoyant129 you can assume all the way to 2008 or to 2021 if you really want to. However who is to say the development stays on track or even has the performance gains thats predicted. It could be a flop it could be amazing. That goes for either Intel or AMD.
August 24, 2006 8:08:02 PM

The one real flaw that I see in your arguement is this. I can't say for sure but I don't remember the performance gap being this big since the days of P3 vs. K6-2.

I love my AMD boxes, but the Core 2 will be hard to beat, it is significantly faster now, has more headroom than AMD's chips for frequency increases, and Intel is closer to both quad-core (which I think is not going to be as great as some people think) and 45nm (which will give Core 2 even more headroom).

I just don't see AMD coming back into the high-end market anytime soon. Of course with the ridiculously fast procs we have now I don't know many people who really NEED a high-end proc anyways (WANT on the other hand...)
August 24, 2006 8:09:06 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

LOL. :lol:  You're worthless, but let me refresh your mind: AMD was the first processor manufacturer who've pioneered x86 dual core processors and also was the first one in releasing them.

...And please don't call a PD a dual core when actually it's a nasty hack (two glued cores in one package). :wink:
August 24, 2006 8:15:55 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

You are half right. AMD released the first x86 dual-core processors on April 22...but they were Opterons. Intel released the first DESKTOP dual-cores 5 days before AMD released the X2.

Opteron 22 April 2005
Athlon X2 31 May 2005
Pentium D 26 May 2005
Xeon dual core 10 October 2005

Of course in the end who was FIRST is not as important as who was BEST.
August 24, 2006 8:21:56 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.


Judging from that Link you provided, it only said "INTEL'S FIRST DUAL-CORE" or "THE COMPANY'S FIRST DUAL CORE", in your sence, the headline should be "WORLD'S FIRST X86 DUAL-CORE PROCESSOR"?? No??

Also "Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) are both close to launching dual-core processors based on the x86 instruction set. AMD is likely to be first, with the launch of its first dual-core Opteron processors expected on April 21. The date marks the two-year anniversary of the introduction of Opteron, which was AMD's first 64-bit chip. "

whats this all about? in the link u posted. am i reading french?
August 24, 2006 8:30:42 PM

Some of the best desktops run on Opterons.. come on how many gamers out there have opts.. plenty. Getting the same performance but for less than the FX series.

AMD was the one to pioneer the native dual core product where intel either failed or didnt try.

a few other shining points why i respect AMD more currently

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

AMD is the one developing open sockets for 3rd part developers on motherboards.

AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations everytime making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.

AMD also proved that better performance didnt rely on faster mhz. Even tho Intel tried brainwashing the consumer to believe so.

AMD in general to me has been much more innovative than Intel so far. I am however very impressed with the Core 2 so far. If I was in the market I would definately buy one. I'd even suggest it to others that are upgrading without a doubt. I'm glad they released a solid product with real improvements instead of the hype I've seen in the past. Maybe I'll upgrade this next year to a Core 2 Duo or wait for the next step and see who comes out ahead.
August 24, 2006 8:38:19 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

You are half right. AMD released the first x86 dual-core processors on April 22...but they were Opterons. Intel released the first DESKTOP dual-cores 5 days before AMD released the X2.

Opteron 22 April 2005
Athlon X2 31 May 2005
Pentium D 26 May 2005
Xeon dual core 10 October 2005

Of course in the end who was FIRST is not as important as who was BEST.

And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/349692...

I agree with the assessment on who's first vs. who's best, but the Joe Friday in me must set the record straight. Just the facts man.
August 24, 2006 8:56:42 PM

If you want to leghump AMD, that's your prerogative, but this part of your rant is complete BS:
Quote:
AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations every time making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.


What, are you living in 2001 still? Socket A was pretty awesome, but since K8 AMD has be pretty crappy on the socket life. Let's see: first there was socket 940, then socket 754, then socket 939, and now socket AM2. That's 4 incompatible socket types since 2003. Since 2003, Intel has had socket 478, and socket 775. There have been three variations for socket 775, the first supported Prescott P4s and Celeron Ds, and second gained support for Pentium D, and the final is a VRM11 update to support Conroe cpus. So, each company has made 4 changes since 2003. The only difference is, I can take a socket 775 Prescott Pentium 4 that I purchased in 2004, and it still works with a brand new socket 775 board. Try that with a socket 939 cpu and socket AM2 motherboard. :roll:
August 24, 2006 8:56:47 PM

Quote:
And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.


...And AMD delivered dual core Opterons before that timeline to OEMs. :) 
August 24, 2006 8:57:21 PM

O'Rlly?

Where's the link?........
August 24, 2006 9:05:49 PM

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.
August 24, 2006 9:11:53 PM

Quote:
Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.


And I believe intel is regrettign that.
Poor suckers. :) 
August 24, 2006 9:13:02 PM

Quote:
Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.


And I believe intel is regrettign that.
Poor suckers. :) 

Is that why 8,704 1.6 GHz Itaniums kick the crap out of 10,366 2.4 GHz Opterons?

http://www.top500.org/lists/2006/06

pwned. :twisted:
August 24, 2006 9:14:39 PM

Quote:

Anyways I'm rambling now.........Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.


I agree with you. You should spend more time working though. :oops: 
August 24, 2006 9:17:00 PM

Quote:
Some of the best desktops run on Opterons.. come on how many gamers out there have opts.. plenty. Getting the same performance but for less than the FX series.

AMD was the one to pioneer the native dual core product where intel either failed or didnt try.

a few other shining points why i respect AMD more currently

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

AMD is the one developing open sockets for 3rd part developers on motherboards.

AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations everytime making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.

AMD also proved that better performance didnt rely on faster mhz. Even tho Intel tried brainwashing the consumer to believe so.

AMD in general to me has been much more innovative than Intel so far. I am however very impressed with the Core 2 so far. If I was in the market I would definately buy one. I'd even suggest it to others that are upgrading without a doubt. I'm glad they released a solid product with real improvements instead of the hype I've seen in the past. Maybe I'll upgrade this next year to a Core 2 Duo or wait for the next step and see who comes out ahead.


Sounds like an AMD fanboy to me.
August 24, 2006 9:22:08 PM

Point of fact your honour:

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you are STILL retarded.

Honestly, the thread starter is LITERALLY as bad as all the fanboys. You are ALL lamers, and nothing you say counts for diddly squat, AND NEVER WILL. Your pointless[/b] and stupid blatherings aren't worth the electrons they consume.

Why not go boil your head, or other useful activity, instead of wasting your time, and even worse - MY TIME!

I WANT MY 60 SECONDS BACK!
August 24, 2006 9:36:25 PM

Quote:
And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/349692...

I agree with the assessment on who's first vs. who's best, but the Joe Friday in me must set the record straight. Just the facts man.


Shipping is irrelevant, who cares if something is shipping if you can't buy it? The important date is not when a product ships to OEM's and retailers but when it ships to consumers and is available for purchase. You could have still bought an AMD dual-core before an Intel, even if Intel shipped before AMD.

Also, the Opteron went on sale on the 22nd, I have no idea when it started shipping, but it could have easily been before the 12th.
August 24, 2006 9:42:06 PM

Actually if I was a fan boy I wouldnt give Intel any credit now would I? I'm just pointing out the innovations AMD has made i cant really think of anythign that Intel has done until recently. Which I'm quite happy cause I can max out my machine for cheap now.

As far as the Itanium A64. It wasnt a 32/64 bit processor.. it was a 64 bit processor with a limited market because of that factor. It emulate the 32 bit code or extensions not run it natively.

I admit it sounds like a fanboy post. But I'm not running around yelling how Intel is gonna go bankrupt or how they are finished when AMD puts out a better product in the past or future. Instead I sold my pentium and bought an athlon. I'll probably retire my A64 to a gaming rig for my dad when he visits and I'll get a Core 2 Duo for games/work. I have no qualms about jumping ship to the better processor. Which is currently intels Core 2. It only took them 6 years lol and the Intel fanboys prematurely call it the demise of AMD when in fact from what it sounds like they are faster to answer the new competition than Intel has in the past.
August 24, 2006 9:49:00 PM

The point was, I could have purchased a Dell with a Pentium D before I could even get my hands on a dual core Opteron. I think that pretty much sums it up right there on "who had the first dual core cpu for sale".
August 24, 2006 10:00:19 PM

well actually did you have it IN HAND before you could have had an AMD IN HAND. Or was Dell just willing to take your order prior to availability?

Also depends on your supplier as well. You're one person outta how many that may have or may not have purchased an opteron before your Dell (gag) ever arrived.

playing Devils Advocate.
August 24, 2006 10:08:54 PM

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you are STILL retarded.

That is such a great line...and so true. May I quote you? I about fell out of my chair laughing so hard.
August 24, 2006 10:09:46 PM



To everybody in this thread. It got 9-Inch going, w00t. :roll:
Synergy6
August 24, 2006 10:10:53 PM

Quote:
Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.


And I believe intel is regrettign that.
Poor suckers. :) 


Righhhtttttt.......Because there's been such a plethora of 64 bit software out there that Intel owners could'nt use[/sarcasm]
August 24, 2006 10:39:35 PM

That all BS. :evil: 

Everybody know that Elvis is THE king !!! :p 

Even though I am leaning towards Intel for my next upgrade it's great to hear that AMD is not giving up. Maybe my upgrade will be an AMD. Only time will tell.
August 24, 2006 11:23:25 PM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

This article states that "AMD will likely be first" in the release of the dual cores...your such a dumbass, go get a site that actually shows that things have been released.
August 24, 2006 11:37:53 PM

Quote:
Point of fact your honour:

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you are STILL retarded.

Honestly, the thread starter is LITERALLY as bad as all the fanboys. You are ALL lamers, and nothing you say counts for diddly squat, AND NEVER WILL. Your pointless and stupid blatherings aren't worth the electrons they consume.

Why not go boil your head, or other useful activity, instead of wasting your time, and even worse - MY TIME!

I WANT MY 60 SECONDS BACK!
[/b]

Cheers for Mobius! The greatest reply ever! :D  Is it okay? I want to use ur line as my signature as well.
August 24, 2006 11:48:13 PM

Why do most of the threads in the CPU forum end up useless like this one? Fanboys. How many people really care who makes the absolute greatest, fastest, most stupendous CPU? Only a handful of computer geeks who generally have more money than brains, who generally spend insane amounts of money to have the best CPU before anyone else. Look at my benchmarks! Wow! Intel is awesome. Or is it AMD?
August 24, 2006 11:56:52 PM

Quote:
If you want to leghump AMD, that's your prerogative, but this part of your rant is complete BS:AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations every time making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.


What, are you living in 2001 still? Socket A was pretty awesome, but since K8 AMD has be pretty crappy on the socket life. Let's see: first there was socket 940, then socket 754, then socket 939, and now socket AM2. That's 4 incompatible socket types since 2003. Since 2003, Intel has had socket 478, and socket 775. There have been three variations for socket 775, the first supported Prescott P4s and Celeron Ds, and second gained support for Pentium D, and the final is a VRM11 update to support Conroe cpus. So, each company has made 4 changes since 2003. The only difference is, I can take a socket 775 Prescott Pentium 4 that I purchased in 2004, and it still works with a brand new socket 775 board. Try that with a socket 939 cpu and socket AM2 motherboard. :roll:


That's not exactly true. 754 went from 2400+ to 3400+, 939 went from 2800+ to 4800+, 940 went from 240 - 885. AM2 goes from 3600+ - FX64. That's two years worth of upgrades, maybe three.
August 25, 2006 12:09:10 AM

Quote:

What, are you living in 2001 still? Socket A was pretty awesome, but since K8 AMD has be pretty crappy on the socket life. Let's see: first there was socket 940, then socket 754, then socket 939, and now socket AM2. That's 4 incompatible socket types since 2003. Since 2003, Intel has had socket 478, and socket 775. There have been three variations for socket 775, the first supported Prescott P4s and Celeron Ds, and second gained support for Pentium D, and the final is a VRM11 update to support Conroe cpus. So, each company has made 4 changes since 2003. The only difference is, I can take a socket 775 Prescott Pentium 4 that I purchased in 2004, and it still works with a brand new socket 775 board. Try that with a socket 939 cpu and socket AM2 motherboard. :roll:



That's not exactly true. 754 went from 2400+ to 3400+, 939 went from 2800+ to 4800+, 940 went from 240 - 885. AM2 goes from 3600+ - FX64. That's two years worth of upgrades, maybe three.

What you say is true. However, joefriday is still mainly right in what he says.
Synergy6
August 25, 2006 12:26:51 AM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


Isnt the PD 2 seperate cores that comunicate through a bottleneck?
August 25, 2006 12:34:41 AM

Quote:
Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.


And I believe intel is regrettign that.
Poor suckers. :) 

Is that why 8,704 1.6 GHz Itaniums kick the crap out of 10,366 2.4 GHz Opterons?

http://www.top500.org/lists/2006/06

pwned. :twisted:

Why are you worried about what massive servers did when you are running this rig?

AMD k6-2 450 @350, ati rage turbo 8 MB igp, 3.2 gb WD HDD, 128 MB pc100 sdram, Relisys 15" CRT, Gateway2000 case, WINDOWS ME. 3 Dells too.
August 25, 2006 12:37:17 AM

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/349692...

"April 12, 2005
Intel First to Ship Dual Core
"

Hmm :roll: . IMO, two chips in one socket and one package constitues dual-core.

Quote:
Why are you worried about what massive servers did when you are running this rig?

AMD k6-2 450 @350, ati rage turbo 8 MB igp, 3.2 gb WD HDD, 128 MB pc100 sdram, Relisys 15" CRT, Gateway2000 case, WINDOWS ME. 3 Dells too.


What's your point, that people with slow rigs can only comment on slow rigs? By that logic, I would guess such servers are pretty much off-limits to all of us vis a vis discussion.

Synergy6
August 25, 2006 12:40:10 AM

If you read my post more carefully you will see that I actually never said that it wasnt a dual core.
August 25, 2006 12:42:09 AM

Not, but by quoting what you did, and replying with "Isn't...?", you inferred pretty heavily that you considered the PD a non-dual core. If you do accept the PD was a dual core, what was the point of the post?
Synergy6
August 25, 2006 1:27:14 AM

What I meant was whats the point of the dual core if it comunicates through a bottle neck
August 25, 2006 1:36:23 AM

Some people argue there's no point to dualcore period. Meh, I don't mind much either way. But, accepting the PD was a dual-core, and therefore Intel had a dual-core out first, is a step towards logical thinking. Never hurts around here.
Synergy6
August 25, 2006 2:00:33 AM

Quote:
Why are you worried about what massive servers did when you are running this rig?

AMD k6-2 450 @350, ati rage turbo 8 MB igp, 3.2 gb WD HDD, 128 MB pc100 sdram, Relisys 15" CRT, Gateway2000 case, WINDOWS ME. 3 Dells too.


LOL. A high end server and my retro rig have one thing in common: they were both built to satisfy a specific need. I use that rig back in my home town when I come back to visit. It makes for a decent jukebox for parties. It's also my retro gaming rig. I can play all the good old games like Doom I and II, Star Wars: Dark Forces, Deer Hunter, Test Drive 4, and bunch of other DOS games that just don't run well on newer machines. It's more than enough for dial-up web browsing, the K6-2 kicks ass in office productivity apps, and it's also fast enough to play the occasional mpeg2 clip. It's perfect for what I use it for, which is why I built it. Plus, I get to use floppies. Nostalgia baby! It was the best bang-for-buck build ever. I built it a little over a year ago, for $5. The "3 Dells too" at the end hints that I may have newer, faster computers. :wink: K6-2 is just too cool not to show off. 8)
August 25, 2006 2:19:35 AM

Quote:
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.


If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechi...

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.


Judging from that Link you provided, it only said "INTEL'S FIRST DUAL-CORE" or "THE COMPANY'S FIRST DUAL CORE", in your sence, the headline should be "WORLD'S FIRST X86 DUAL-CORE PROCESSOR"?? No??

Also "Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) are both close to launching dual-core processors based on the x86 instruction set. AMD is likely to be first, with the launch of its first dual-core Opteron processors expected on April 21. The date marks the two-year anniversary of the introduction of Opteron, which was AMD's first 64-bit chip. "

whats this all about? in the link u posted. am i reading french?

You apparantly didn't get the whole "INTEL IS SHIPPING NOW" and "AMD'S EXPECTED RELEASE DATE" thing, not to mention if you knew ANYTHING about the dual-core movement like a year ago, you'd have known Intel had the Pentium D series out WAYYYYY before AMD did. What are you kids thinking?
August 25, 2006 2:36:23 AM

Yes he's right...I think the PDs came out before summer, and the X2s followed right around summertime. Correct me if I am wrong.


Techie
August 25, 2006 2:40:14 AM

I will say this one more time.

AMD released the first x86 Dual-core processor, the Opteron on the 22nd of April 2005.

Intel released the first dual-core desktop chip an May 26 2005.

AMD released the X2 on May 31.

Intel released their server dual-core in October of 2005.

Intel ANNOUNCED the Pentium D before AMD announced X2\dual-Opteron, but AMD SOLD the Opteron before Intel sold the P4-D.

AMD RELEASED THE FIRST DUAL-CORE x86 PROCESSOR, PERIOD.
Now can we please just accept the facts as presented and move on?
August 25, 2006 2:56:46 AM

Quote:
What I meant was whats the point of the dual core if it comunicates through a bottle neck
True, the method of communication is inferior to that of AMD's dual cores, but the price reflects that. The Pentium D is an inferior processor, but I can buy one for less than $100 now, and that's the really cool thing about Intel's Pentium D. It's so cheap, it's making the majority of single core cpus obsolete, and is the major catalyst in the mass migration to dual core. It's the everyman's CPU, much like AMD used to be in the days before the K8. So, instead of scoffing at them, you should get down on your knees and praise Intel for making such a crappy dual core, for without a crappy, inferior product, Intel would have never sold them for peanuts, and people would not be gobbling up dual cores like they currently are.The road to multithreaded applications will be paved with Pentium Ds. :lol: 
August 25, 2006 3:15:50 AM

Cmon guys dont start flaming without proof (lol) the article you licked to says AMD is expected to ship sooner than intel....and many other resources have AMD dual cores out in april.
August 25, 2006 3:18:21 AM

Quote:
Intel ANNOUNCED the Pentium D before AMD announced X2\dual-Opteron, but AMD SOLD the Opteron before Intel sold the P4-D.

AMD RELEASED THE FIRST DUAL-CORE x86 PROCESSOR, PERIOD.


Regardless of who released the first dual core, my nights are never going to be same again. I just found out egyptians were the first to release pyramids
August 25, 2006 3:23:41 AM

Quote:
Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.


And I believe intel is regrettign that.
Poor suckers. :) 

Is that why 8,704 1.6 GHz Itaniums kick the crap out of 10,366 2.4 GHz Opterons?

http://www.top500.org/lists/2006/06

pwned. :twisted:

Oh yes.. tat explains why everyone is clamouring for Itaniums...

"Which is true, if by "everybody," you don't count three of the four largest server vendors and ignore the fact that no vendor other than HP sold more than 230 Itanium servers in the first quarter, according to Gartner."

AMd Intel's own (ex-CTO and then current server chief was baching Itaniums: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/intel_gelsinger...

I think when your server chief bashes your product its time to regret spending billions on developing it.
!