Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

eWeek - weak reporting by biased reporters? intel quad core

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Quad Core
  • World Of Warcraft
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 10, 2007 9:29:02 PM

Wow it amazes me that pro amd reporters still get away with this, below is a quote say intels quad core is "mixed" results. Mixed???? Intel is the only quad core maker how can it be mixed - if they sold 1 quad core that be 1 more then anyone else!

Eweak - says intel lost ground to intel in 2006 - i guess this is the mixed results from quad cores in 2007! What crapy reporting!

I ask you email Eweak ask them why the results are "mixed'! Any intel C2D fans email these guys - you be no doubt getting a q-core for 775 platform when prices fall!

Intel releases the first quad core - intel is to release a 50w quad core and amd has nothing and the results are "mixed"! Scum bag-->Scott Ferguson

I will be email this post to Eweak!



"In the past few months, Intel has pushed its first-to-market advantage. The results, so far, have been mixed.

A Jan. 31 report by Mercury Research showed that Intel has been able to make up some ground in the server market. However, the company lost market share in the x86 space to AMD during 2006, although the price war with Intel has also taken a toll on AMD's bottom line. On March 5, the company warned investors that its first-quarter revenue would fall short of the $1.6 to $1.7 billion it had projected in January. "

ok i gave them my opinion:

http://www.eweek.com/talkback_details/0,1932,s=26006&a=...

More about : eweek weak reporting biased reporters intel quad core

March 10, 2007 9:48:46 PM

Single and dual cores currently make up the vast majority of sales. Intel's quad cores are also quite expensive. It is expected, then, that Intel does not sell that many quad cores even though it is the only one offering them. Thus, the fact that Intel is first out with quad cores does not help their profits that much - and the sales/earnings figures come out so-so, or "mixed."

Until Intel lowers quad core prices, they won't take off very hard, and AMD has little to worry.
March 10, 2007 9:56:05 PM

What exactly makes intels quad cores mixed? Is my point!

first, Intel makes and sells the only quad core chips
second, intel now has low power usage chips and higher power chips

nobody else does!

As far as cosumer product goes - my end - 4x4 is useless technolgy its too hot, too big too, slow. AMD has too many sockets.

Intel q-chips are being sold by dell, Alien, gateway, etc - sure they low numbers sure they $4000 - $7000

But what makes this mixed? AMD's quad core solution is the only "mixed" quadcore I see! I don't see 4x4 machines in ads? or magazines? or tests?

The only place i see 4x4 is for sale on new egg as parts nobody wants or needs!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 10, 2007 11:16:58 PM

Umm... who cares? So the reporters picked the wrong word and should have used "mediocre for the price" instead or something. I don't see why it's worth getting so upset over...
March 10, 2007 11:34:17 PM

Quote:
I don't see any bias in that article. You want an AMD biased article to yell about? Here is one:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/07/HNintelotelli...


i agree thats a bunch of crap! i guess to keep people reading all this stuff they need write fiction and slam slam

still what is mixed about a quad core? lack of software support? they tell me its unreal how fast they can encode - its software thats still catching up


ask die hard video encoder if he thinks his new quad core is mediocre!


Quote:
Umm... who cares? So the reporters picked the wrong word and should have used "mediocre for the price" instead or something. I don't see why it's worth getting so upset over...
March 11, 2007 12:13:19 AM

http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/specs.xml

hey look, Intel wasn't the first vendor with quad.... Quad core offers mixed reuslts due to low performance improvements in general, this is msotly due to low multi-threading in apps. However, I would definitely not argue with the "mixed reuslts" description.
March 11, 2007 12:33:08 AM

Quote:
Wow it amazes me that pro amd reporters still get away with this, below is a quote say intels quad core is "mixed" results. Mixed???? Intel is the only quad core maker how can it be mixed - if they sold 1 quad core that be 1 more then anyone else!

Eweak - says intel lost ground to intel in 2006 - i guess this is the mixed results from quad cores in 2007! What crapy reporting!

I ask you email Eweak ask them why the results are "mixed'! Any intel C2D fans email these guys - you be no doubt getting a q-core for 775 platform when prices fall!

Intel releases the first quad core - intel is to release a 50w quad core and amd has nothing and the results are "mixed"! Scum bag-->Scott Ferguson

I will be email this post to Eweak!



"In the past few months, Intel has pushed its first-to-market advantage. The results, so far, have been mixed.

A Jan. 31 report by Mercury Research showed that Intel has been able to make up some ground in the server market. However, the company lost market share in the x86 space to AMD during 2006, although the price war with Intel has also taken a toll on AMD's bottom line. On March 5, the company warned investors that its first-quarter revenue would fall short of the $1.6 to $1.7 billion it had projected in January. "

ok i gave them my opinion:

http://www.eweek.com/talkback_details/0,1932,s=26006&a=...


mixed cause:
1.- Expensive
2.- Doesnt scale as much as expected
3.- Quadcore parts are much lower frecuency speeds than dual core parts
4.- Most mobos are incompatible with quadcore( they need diferent voltage? someone correct me onthis.. )

*edit* but as for the rest, pure love!
( I bet those running supreme commanders iwll be kissing their kentsfields ;)  )
March 11, 2007 12:41:08 AM

Quote:
I don't see why it's worth getting so upset over...


Some people have no life..............
March 11, 2007 3:26:42 AM


Indeed, that sums up Intel’s plans for 2007, and there’s no swaggering spin, distraction, or buzzword bending that can make up for the enormous technology gap between Core 2 and AMD’s reengineered Barcelona quad-core Opteron. It isn’t likely that Intel can play engineering catch-up, given that Otellini has pink-slipped 10,500 workers.


That was the funniest thing I've read all week.

Thanks.
March 11, 2007 3:43:08 AM

Bias.... hhmmm there's a word you hardly ever hear about Intel and AMD. Sure the C2D is a great chip and the pricing structure for processors right now is great for consumers. You can pick up a Dell box with an AMD chip for about $400 and and Intel for a little over $500. Then an okay C2D for about $700. Silly money !!!

Don't expect to see the end of AMD in the near future, these guys were the underdog for years before and then came back with avengence. It all goes in cycles.

But intel may struggle with the bottom line... with so much revenue cut off chip prices, were will the capital come for future R&D? And of couse the heads will role if anyone misses quarterly expectations and the like. Oh and back to Dell.... yes I bet they sell a lot of those cheap AMD machines... a space that used to be filled by Celerons. The balance sheets are made up of a varied product line and poor performance in some areas will definitely be a red mark against the good performers. As for AMD... well they are in a rough patch, but hopefully it will spur development (if they have enough money).

I love a good processor, so I say lets all revel in the burst of quad core fever and let the chip corps worry about their woes.
March 11, 2007 8:16:21 PM

hp core 2 e6300 last i looked was $700 after rebates you have wait for if you get!

amd systems are $400-$500 are semdogs or athlons - you should only buy a dual core it this point - unless you getting a used systems with other good parts cheap.

ya - i guess it was summarized below the best:

Quote:
Meh --- I don't think it was all that horrid, generally speaking, AMD has a more positive press coverage and Intel generally gets more negative press.... but that is how it goes down when one is king of the hill.

For a really horrid line of OPINIONs, this guy takes the cake.... he is a Sharkeraboobabooob with a title.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/07/HNintelotelli...
March 11, 2007 9:16:38 PM

wow, dude, dragonsprayer, u are one fukked up biased dude, and very hypocritical. :( 

wow. :( 


just...w0w 8O
March 11, 2007 10:40:22 PM

maybe??? but not really. that last post was a little poor in choice - i am definitely pro-intel

amti-ites get mad when i make fun of semprons - they are such poor multi-taskers.

athlons are ok and x2 are good


do you have sempron?
March 11, 2007 11:18:18 PM

Still arguing about Sempron's multitasking without any data to compare :?: :!: Why can't you simply realize that Celerons are the crap of the crap?
Here you have the multitasking CPU charts of some semprons compared to all higher end CPUs and someties they manage to kill some P4s. Guess what; no celerons in the charts,... who knows why,... too shameful I'd say :lol: 
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2005.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2005.html?modelx=33&m...
March 11, 2007 11:26:26 PM

take a look at this too:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1842196,00.a...
and don't come back saying that it's a Celeron 345 and in the 346 the 512K cache will make miracles, because it won't eat up the 15-20% of lag, especially if you have no data to contrast these.
March 12, 2007 2:13:10 AM

celerons are crap! poor multitaskers!
March 12, 2007 2:39:30 AM

I find it incredible that it is possible to get a 50watt quad core CPU at 1.86GHz, much less for just $519! and later this year a 3GHz quad model too! WoooHoooo!!!
March 12, 2007 2:42:03 AM

add to that Intel will be shipping 45nm chips this year too...

I have been out of touch a few months or so... but seems AMD is quite overdue for some new blood... Where is their quad competition anyways?
March 12, 2007 4:30:57 AM

Quote:

Indeed, that sums up Intel’s plans for 2007, and there’s no swaggering spin, distraction, or buzzword bending that can make up for the enormous technology gap between Core 2 and AMD’s reengineered Barcelona quad-core Opteron. It isn’t likely that Intel can play engineering catch-up, given that Otellini has pink-slipped 10,500 workers.


That was the funniest thing I've read all week.

Thanks.


Yeah, this guy is out to lunch.... he sports impressive creditials, but man does he spew nonsense....

He really like barcelona, no benchmarks needed
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=...

He is claiming 80% FP improvement core for core... but that is not really what AMD said :)  ...

Quote:
Barcelona adds Level 3 cache, a newcomer to the x86 and a page out of IBM’s POWER playbook.

Yeah right Tom.... x86 CPU for sale with L3 cache right here bud:
ftp://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/7100_p...

Or this:
Quote:
Barcelona blacks out power to individual portions of the chip that are idled, from in-core execution units to on-die bus controllers. This hasn’t made it into PCs before ...


Ummmm Core 2 Duo impmented fine power gated transistors, it is now in PCs dork.

His writings are frought with error just like this....

Jack


I thought it was very funny when the inquirer ripped this guy a new one over this POS article.
March 12, 2007 1:51:06 PM

I can't decide - the inquirer debunking this article is either irony or hypocrisy.... either way, I agree it's funny :-D
March 12, 2007 3:02:24 PM

Actually the prices I mentioned were right... you just have to look for the right deal:

Dell Small Business has the Dimension 9200 Desktop Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz 1GB/80GB Serial ATA, DVD, 7.1 Audio, Geforce 7300LE Video, 1yr warranty, Vista Basic $559

Dell Small Business has new and fast AMD based desktops. Dimension E521 AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ 1GB DDR2/160GB, DVD ROM, No monitor, Geforce 6150 LE, 1yr Onsite warranty, Vista Home Basic $419 shipped free.

Dell Small Business has a business oriented Optiplex 320 Desktop P4 3.2Ghz 256MB/80GB, CD, Dell e207FP 20in LCD, ATI Graphics, XP Home $499. Exp Wed. Tax is charged.

No Celerons or Semprons in those listings !!!
March 13, 2007 12:53:04 AM

findley -- yes yes

its amazing - and its not mixed results - intel continues lead in all directions.


Quote:
I find it incredible that it is possible to get a 50watt quad core CPU at 1.86GHz, much less for just $519! and later this year a 3GHz quad model too! WoooHoooo!!!



i might even due a xeon gamer - "server chips are for servers" but i might make an exception
a c 102 à CPUs
March 13, 2007 1:58:29 AM

Quote:
http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/specs.xml

hey look, Intel wasn't the first vendor with quad.... Quad core offers mixed reuslts due to low performance improvements in general, this is msotly due to low multi-threading in apps. However, I would definitely not argue with the "mixed reuslts" description.


Definitely. Some UltraSPARC T1s are eight-core CPUs and generally get their heads handed to them by a dual Opteron or Xeon setup, even in most multuthreaded applications. More cores are not always better, so there certainly can be a mixed result. Especially when you consider the performance when working on a wide variance of software titles, many of which don't spawn more than a couple of threads at best.
a c 102 à CPUs
March 13, 2007 2:52:36 AM

Quote:
maybe??? but not really. that last post was a little poor in choice - i am definitely pro-intel

amti-ites get mad when i make fun of semprons - they are such poor multi-taskers.


Semprons are simply cut-down Athlons like Celerons are cut-down Pentium-branded chips. And like the Celerons, there are a few different kinds of Semprons, based on different Athlons.

1. The original Semprons were based off the Socket A Athlon XPs. Compared to the Athlon 64s selling at the time, they *did* perform a lot worse to the A64 than their clock speed and cache suggested.

2. The socket 754 Semprons were based off the socket 754 Athlon 64s and performed a little worse than a socket 754 Athlon 64 at a similar clock speed and a little more worse than a socket 939 Athlon 64. Some also lacked 64-bit extensions and SSE3 when the Athlon 64s had them.

3. Socket AM2 Semprons are cache-lowered Orleans single-core Athlon 64s and perform pretty similar to the Athlon 64s. That is why they're priced pretty much the same.

And no matter *what* line the chip is, a single-core CPU will perform worse than a dual-core chip at multithreaded applications, just like the HT Pentium 4s performed worse at multithreaded applications than a Pentium D.

All in all, the Semprons compared better to the Athlon 64s than the Celerons did to the Pentium 4s. A 256K Prescott Celeron on a 533 MHz FSB and no HT will perform *much* worse than a Pentium 4 6x0 HT on an 800 MHz bus than a 265K Manila Sempron versus a San Diego Athlon 64. The small cache and slower bus crippled the Celerons much more than the smaller cache and single-channel memory crippled the Semprons.

Interestingly enough, Intel seems to be putting other names other than "Celeron" on chips with lower bus speeds and cache sizes. Previously, they'd not done that much- the Pentium 4s all had the same bus speed and cache size across the whole line. Well, except the Pentium 4 Prescott A and the 533 MHz FSB. The Pentium Dual Core 2050 and 2060 laptop CPUs with 533 MHz FSBs and 1MB shared L2 are cut-down Core Duos and have all of the hallmarks of becoming Celerons, but instead got that cryptic "Pentium Dual Core" moniker. Ditto with the Core 2 Duo E4000 series, except the Celeron is supposed to be a single-core version of that.

Quote:
athlons are ok and x2 are good


The original Athlon kicked the PIII Coppermine in the ingots and outperformed the PIII Tualatin due to sheer clock speed (although the Tualatin could have and should have been pushed farther by Intel.) The Athlon XP showed the crappy P4 Williamette taillights. The XP dueled pretty closely with the P4A and P4B, despite being a whole lot less expensive. So I'd say they're a little bit better than okay :D 

The X2s are pretty good chips, especially the newer lower-clocked ones. First, Intel really has nothing to compete with them at less than the $150 or so the E4300 runs. They've got the Pentium Ds and single-core NetBurst CPUs, which are really not worth getting. Also, the Brisbanes and Windsor EEs throw off less heat than the Conroes and Allendales do, not that either is excessive by any means (TDPs may be the same number, but they're figured differently and AMD's chips end up throwing off less heat at a similar TDP.) And Intel also really doesn't take a bang-for-dollar lead until the E6700 as AMD is selling its X2s at very aggressive price points. Sure, the E6700, X6800, and both quads provide more power than AMD can muster for the same dollar, but those are all high-end parts. I'd say AMD is doing a commendable job competing with Intel, especially provided that Intel really didn't try to compete with AMD bang-for-buck at all until now.

Quote:
do you have sempron?


Nope, Athlon X2 4200+ Manchester in my desktop and a 2.2 GHz 35W Mobile Pentium 4-M in my laptop. Both were the fastest kinds of CPUs available for their platform at the time. In retrospect, I should have stuck it out several more months and gotten a Pentium M Banias rather than the P4-M due to the heat that my P4-M generates. It is fine in all other respects- performance, power consumption, reliability- but it runs far hotter than about anything else out there, with the possible exception of the original Core Duo MacBooks, which is is in the same league as. The X2 4200+ was a wise choice as I got the computer in early 2006, which was the perfect time for me to do so. Parts haven't gotten that much less expensive due to the tremendous spike in RAM prices that have just now started to return to normal. And my X2 4200+ and 2GB of DDR 400 will still beat the lower-end Core 2 Duo E4300 and run roughly even with the E6300. Not shabby for a CPU that was first introduced almost two years ago.
!