Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intels Best vs. AMDs Best

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 30, 2007 5:13:51 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/31/...

Both top end quads overclocked to the max - with their optimum setups. Not good . . .

More about : intels amds

December 30, 2007 6:29:14 PM

So Intel is almost twice as fast when overclocked...
Related resources
December 30, 2007 7:19:28 PM

AMD will never see the #1 spot again.Who cares if Intels best cost $1000...the fact still is that Intel is #1 and always will be.Even in the Presscott days,Intel still outsold AMD.
December 30, 2007 7:29:42 PM

kellytm3 said:
AMD will never see the #1 spot again.Who cares if Intels best cost $1000...the fact still is that Intel is #1 and always will be.


I guess you have a crystal ball that can tell you the future
December 30, 2007 7:43:35 PM

kellytm3 said:
AMD will never see the #1 spot again.


i certainly hope not.
December 30, 2007 7:59:14 PM

speedbird said:
I guess you have a crystal ball that can tell you the future

you dont need a crystal ball,AMD's mismanagement has sealed their doom.AMD is nothing but cpu's for the less fortunate consumer,if they are not careful VIA will sneak up and best them,then AMD will be last in the cpu maker chain.
December 30, 2007 9:51:26 PM

I am a pretty hopeful guy. On this, not so hopeful.

My only tactic now is to keep this system until I absolutely need a new computer, then HOPE that I could get something decent out of AMD again. If not, well...

My only problem is video video video, EVERYONE encodes/decodes TONS of video these days, so Intel has most people switching from AMD due to much better performance.

I mean, AMD isn't even ballpark anymore.
December 30, 2007 11:30:26 PM

DELETED. AMD had the number 1 spot? sales aren't everything you know. back in the days of the allmighty Athlon 64, they killed any intel offering. The continue to innovate and bring new ideas. Intel have taken the lead and i have no doubt that AMD will reclaim it somewhere down the line. maybe not anytime soon. but they will.

the problem is, if amd goes bust, not only do we lose a competitor, driving chip prices higher, but there goes your good budget graphics cards too because Ati will go with them. What they need to do is focus on grabbing back some ground (aiming for the midrange market is a start) and get back on their feet... if they don't we're all screwed.

the amd fanboys, the intel fanboys and the informed buyers
December 31, 2007 12:42:31 AM

gow87 said:
DELETED. AMD had the number 1 spot? sales aren't everything you know. back in the days of the allmighty Athlon 64, they killed any intel offering. The continue to innovate and bring new ideas. Intel have taken the lead and i have no doubt that AMD will reclaim it somewhere down the line. maybe not anytime soon. but they will.

the problem is, if amd goes bust, not only do we lose a competitor, driving chip prices higher, but there goes your good budget graphics cards too because Ati will go with them. What they need to do is focus on grabbing back some ground (aiming for the midrange market is a start) and get back on their feet... if they don't we're all screwed.

the amd fanboys, the intel fanboys and the informed buyers


Desperately clinging to past glories isn't going to help AMD going forward...

The harsh reality is that the technological gap between Intel and AMD is growing, not shrinking. Intel is going full steam ahead whilst AMD battles for survival by drastically cutting their R&D budget for 2008. Bulldozer, the next generation uarch, has completely vanished from their 2009 roadmap. What would AMD have to battle Nehalem? A 45nm K10? Yeah, good luck with that.
December 31, 2007 1:31:35 AM

To make matters worse, it has been rumored that Nehalem will have twice the FP performance. Now, this is only a rumor, and no additional information has been given. But if this is true, AMD's long held title in FP performance will likely shift again.
December 31, 2007 2:10:21 AM

yomamafor1 said:
To make matters worse, it has been rumored that Nehalem will have twice the FP performance. Now, this is only a rumor, and no additional information has been given. But if this is true, AMD's long held title in FP performance will likely shift again.


I thought it had already shifted. SpecFP doesn't count.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2007 3:25:03 AM

kellytm3 said:
you dont need a crystal ball,AMD's mismanagement has sealed their doom.AMD is nothing but cpu's for the less fortunate consumer,if they are not careful VIA will sneak up and best them,then AMD will be last in the cpu maker chain.


Does anyone remember the days of 3Dfx?...
December 31, 2007 3:58:35 AM

kellytm3 said:
you dont need a crystal ball,AMD's mismanagement has sealed their doom.AMD is nothing but cpu's for the less fortunate consumer,if they are not careful VIA will sneak up and best them,then AMD will be last in the cpu maker chain.


Not everyone can afford expensive CPU's, so cheaper components is a good thing. Powerful CPU's from both Intel and AMD can be purchased at reasonable prices because of the competition.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2007 11:05:20 AM

speedbird has a point.

competition makes all of us enthusiasts able to afford something cheap .... and then overclock the hell out of it !!
December 31, 2007 11:34:14 AM

Competition from AMD is why we have good CPU today. Reminder that AMD was the first to readch the 1GHZ barrier. If AMD had never existed, we would be with a P4 today. Intel was forced to increase the speed and paddle like hell to not loose the race. AMD stayed on top with having the best CPU not so long ago. Today's CPU from Intel was probably only scheduled to be released in a few years.

Intel announced that next CPU will be relased later. Why? Because they can and AMD won't have anything to compete with Intel.

This is the same story with NVidia and ATI.

We need competition.

If AMD die, we are doomed! :)  This is both for AMD and ATI.
December 31, 2007 11:57:54 AM

Double wow.

Wow #1 - Intel beats the snot out of AMD's Phantom, I mean, Phenom.

Wow #2 - That was a CRAPPY article. I think a first grader wrote it.
December 31, 2007 12:02:03 PM

speedbird said:
Not everyone can afford expensive CPU's, so cheaper components is a good thing. Powerful CPU's from both Intel and AMD can be purchased at reasonable prices because of the competition.


Yes, but AMD is forced to sell all their chips for <$300 where there is less profit (or in AMD's case, no profit) to be made.

Intel has a wider range of processors for sale that go from the low-end where AMD is to the uber-high end.


I do agree that competition is good, but AMD needs to be neck and neck with Intel for profitability's sake. Remember, if AMD does not profit it will not exist.
December 31, 2007 12:06:01 PM

loneeagle made some very good points that I haven't even remembered.

I had one of those first 1+Ghz AMD chips, too bad I didn't even get to fully enjoy/appreciate it, due to Windows ME and an MSI motherboard that truly sucked.

But at the time, those were some good chips, especially with aftermarket coolers, as they were VERY hot. Even without an OC.

The FUNNIEST thing in Intel's recent history was how they tried to stall the 64 bit generation. I couldn't even imagine getting a new computer today without having 4GB of RAM in the thing. You can stuff a PC with 4GB of RAM dirt cheap to boot, I have seen some Buffalo DDR2 for 19$ a Gig DIMM. So Intel was FULL of BS on that one.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2007 12:07:29 PM

What is still in the AMD ballpark is their GPU's. They bring in some new GPU winners, it will help keep the AMD CPU alive. It's a dual company. Disappointed in the loss of CPU competition, but if the GPU battle is decent, then AMD will keep on ticking. Wish it didn't take so much money to dev new chips, it's killing us.....
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2007 12:07:42 PM

find "$HOME/" -name Horse.txt
kill -9 %Horse
find "$HOME/" -name DeadHorse.txt
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
December 31, 2007 12:18:20 PM

Conumdrum said:
What is still in the AMD ballpark is their GPU's. They bring in some new GPU winners, it will help keep the AMD CPU alive. It's a dual company. Disappointed in the loss of CPU competition, but if the GPU battle is decent, then AMD will keep on ticking. Wish it didn't take so much money to dev new chips, it's killing us.....


I agree. The GPU battle is much better. AMD still suffers there, but to a lesser extent. AMD needs to best nVidia and milk the $600 graphics card. The Radeon HD though is a great card and I will consider them when I do my next upgrade.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2007 12:30:14 PM

Clear evidence of that is why Intel are likely to stall the release of Penryn.


December 31, 2007 2:32:17 PM

That is certainly true, if a company has the better product (Intel). They will not rush to release something better because money is still being made out of the old one.
AMD have messed up this time, but if history is anything to go by the performance advantage has shifted between the two companies. AMD can make a success of the Phenom, even though it is inferior by releasing more power efficient Quads(Like they did with the X2's) and releasing higher Clocked Phenoms (without the Bug) at a reasonable price. A strong point of AMD at the moment is their Spider platform, even if it really only is marketing hype.
December 31, 2007 2:49:01 PM

yeah, speedbird, I could swallow an AMD Quad IF they have the proper performance/price ratio at 1:1 with Intel.

I don't think I could stomach a Phenom with the TLB bug, that performs 25% worse on top of it, for the same price as the Q6600. I mean come on.

When those Q6x's start coming out 45nm with alot of OC headroom, I'll skip K10 completely, and maybe just fund AMD (as everyone has pointed out) by buying their chipsets and Videocards. I think they are on the pinnacle of nailing a winner in 2008, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

Just sad, K8 was amazing.
December 31, 2007 2:53:04 PM

Scotteq said:
find "$HOME/" -name Horse.txt
kill -9 %Horse
find "$HOME/" -name DeadHorse.txt
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse
kill -9 %DeadHorse


This is the most useful post in this thread. I totally agree.
Time to go home now and race my dodge dakota against a bugatti veyron.
You know, because that kind of race would totally make sense...

Oh, and after that, I'm going to compete in the special olympics and take the gold. LMAO!
December 31, 2007 3:45:12 PM

Falken699 said:
yeah, speedbird, I could swallow an AMD Quad IF they have the proper performance/price ratio at 1:1 with Intel.

I don't think I could stomach a Phenom with the TLB bug, that performs 25% worse on top of it, for the same price as the Q6600. I mean come on.

When those Q6x's start coming out 45nm with alot of OC headroom, I'll skip K10 completely, and maybe just fund AMD (as everyone has pointed out) by buying their chipsets and Videocards. I think they are on the pinnacle of nailing a winner in 2008, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

Just sad, K8 was amazing.

By all means please explain what AMD's winner will be?The technological gap is growing farther and farther everyday,AMD's new products dont even compete with Intel's old products,and thats a fact.By the time AMD gets their 65nm cpu's right Intel will more than likely be poised to release 32nm,who knows?I dont dislike AMD,nor anyone who uses their products,I've always bought Intel,and in the buisness world brand name is king,and Intel owns the lions share of the consumer and buisness world.Also,if AMD were to make a cpu that is faster than Intel's extreme edition,I'll admit that is the faster product,but its doubtful AMD will.They need to focus on getting their general consumer products working first.
December 31, 2007 4:09:16 PM

kellytm3 said:
By all means please explain what AMD's winner will be?The technological gap is growing farther and farther everyday,AMD's new products dont even compete with Intel's old products,and thats a fact.By the time AMD gets their 65nm cpu's right Intel will more than likely be poised to release 32nm,who knows?I dont dislike AMD,nor anyone who uses their products,I've always bought Intel,and in the buisness world brand name is king,and Intel owns the lions share of the consumer and buisness world.



That is sad that brand name is king because a brand name does not always mean quality. When Intell was making crappy cpu's they continued to do well because most people didn't know better.

Example: People continue to buy inferior products on a daily basis because they don't know any better.

When I purchase a car I go for a Honda, Toyota or a Subaru because they make quality products that are well built and reliable. Most of these car companies were making superior products to Ford and GM way back in the 80's but since GM was so big and had a brand name behind it the less informed continued to buy their crap. Finally almost 30 years from 1980 Toyota is finally starting to out sell GM. Small wonder!

December 31, 2007 4:39:56 PM

Well i game and when it all comes down to it AMD still offer's a chip that can do everything a normal person need's for very very cheap.
December 31, 2007 4:44:14 PM

Recently every post that has gone up has resulted in the same topic, AMD vs. Intel. Just give it a rest...it's getting annoying.
December 31, 2007 4:58:15 PM

nightscope said:
Recently every post that has gone up has resulted in the same topic, AMD vs. Intel. Just give it a rest...it's getting annoying.

AMEN to that
December 31, 2007 4:58:48 PM

kellytm3 said:
By all means please explain what AMD's winner will be?The technological gap is growing farther and farther everyday,AMD's new products dont even compete with Intel's old products,and thats a fact.By the time AMD gets their 65nm cpu's right Intel will more than likely be poised to release 32nm,who knows?I dont dislike AMD,nor anyone who uses their products,I've always bought Intel,and in the buisness world brand name is king,and Intel owns the lions share of the consumer and buisness world.Also,if AMD were to make a cpu that is faster than Intel's extreme edition,I'll admit that is the faster product,but its doubtful AMD will.They need to focus on getting their general consumer products working first.



As far as technological gaps go in the real world......

Tell me what an intel quadcore processor can do that my dual core AMD processor can't do besides run games at 180 frames per second or get a 15k+ 3dmarkponyshow score?

I can do anything on my machines that a quad core can do in an acceptable framerate, timeframe or whatever else have you.

Seriously.... Is it the purpose of a PC to sit there and run benchmarks all day, while their owners boast their virtual DELETED
prowess on forums, or is it to do things that are real-world like enjoying games and utilizing software for work purposes while keeping it in the back of their head that they have great real-world performance for 129 bucks, as opposed to 1000 bucks for a chip?

These are the questions.....

To sum it up, all 3d mark and all the rest of this internet benchmark crap has done for the industry is create a massive following of marketing misled 1000 dollar quadcore suckers, and people that pay 500 bucks for video cards that aren't even necessary to play most games. So who comes out ahead in that aspect? The guy who was robbed, or the guy who got the best bang for his buck?

And fundamentally, I could care less if AMD ever catches up. As long as I can run the latest programs to my satisfaction level, I would prefer they stay behind so that I don't get screwed everytime some revolutionary overkill, overpriced Intel processor and chipset is introduced to the market, and the herd makes a mass exodus over to the next worthless marketing pitch.

We'll see how intel fares with their overpriced chips as the Global Economy continues to take a dive....and it will really take a dive starting on the first day of the year. Suddenly 3dmark scores of 15,000 will not matter, but what will matter is bang for the buck, euro, peso, or whatever have you. And AMD is already positioned to steal that market share, IMO. Where intel will be sucking wind trying to compete in price.
December 31, 2007 5:34:45 PM

caamsa said:
That is sad that brand name is king because a brand name does not always mean quality. When Intell was making crappy cpu's they continued to do well because most people didn't know better.

Example: People continue to buy inferior products on a daily basis because they don't know any better.

When I purchase a car I go for a Honda, Toyota or a Subaru because they make quality products that are well built and reliable. Most of these car companies were making superior products to Ford and GM way back in the 80's but since GM was so big and had a brand name behind it the less informed continued to buy their crap. Finally almost 30 years from 1980 Toyota is finally starting to out sell GM. Small wonder!


I live in Metro Detroit and you're actually looked down upon if you drive anything other than American. If you want endorsements for local politics, you better drive American. If you want to work for an automotive company you can't drive a honda to work, they won't let it on their lot.

Not really relevant, but perhaps interesting to some...
December 31, 2007 5:58:51 PM

GM is improving...as fast as AMD.
December 31, 2007 6:09:39 PM

righteous said:
As far as technological gaps go in the real world......

Tell me what an intel quadcore processor can do that my dual core AMD processor can't do besides run games at 180 frames per second or get a 15k+ 3dmarkponyshow score?

I can do anything on my machines that a quad core can do in an acceptable framerate, timeframe or whatever else have you.

blah blah blah edited out...


You have a rather simplistic (not to mention single minded) approach to the CPU market. The world doesn't revolve around your needs, sorry to burst that massive bubble. ;) 

It's funny your hoping AMD remains the bargain bin alternative - did you ever think they are doing this by choice? No, they are forced to being cheap alternatives because they have nothing to compete. This is what has lead to them losing 2 billion in the last year. You are basically wishing bankruptcy on AMD. :ange: 
December 31, 2007 6:27:29 PM

That why I said we need competition. AMD must survive.
December 31, 2007 7:19:22 PM

Well I'm glad that AMD prices are low; $150 for a processor twice as fast as mine is the only thing that is preventing me from trashing my AM2 system and switching to Intel. They may be losing money, but they would lost more if their customers switched to intel rather than upgrade their existing systems.
December 31, 2007 7:28:56 PM

Falken699 said:
loneeagle made some very good points that I haven't even remembered.

I had one of those first 1+Ghz AMD chips, too bad I didn't even get to fully enjoy/appreciate it, due to Windows ME and an MSI motherboard that truly sucked.

But at the time, those were some good chips, especially with aftermarket coolers, as they were VERY hot. Even without an OC.

The FUNNIEST thing in Intel's recent history was how they tried to stall the 64 bit generation. I couldn't even imagine getting a new computer today without having 4GB of RAM in the thing. You can stuff a PC with 4GB of RAM dirt cheap to boot, I have seen some Buffalo DDR2 for 19$ a Gig DIMM. So Intel was FULL of BS on that one.


Falken, you need to get your facts straight. You do not need a 64bit processor to access 4GB of memory. 32bit will do just fine. If you want to load more than 4GB then you will need that 64bit processor.

Also, what does a 64bit processor have to do with dirt cheap 4GB of RAM?

Not sure what you mean by stall the 64bit generation? Intel said they did not see a reason for 64bit processor because the software was not there to use it. This in fact turned out to be true. Most software is still written for 32bit processors and not 64bit ones.
December 31, 2007 7:54:49 PM

Evilonigiri said:
GM is improving...as fast as AMD.


Actually the ignorance in the world continues to amaze me.

GM is actually doing a pretty good job and a lot of their cars are just as good as the Japanese cars. The myth that all American cars sucks is because they made such beaters for so long they go a bad rep.

The US cars are better than most European vehicles and are actually better than some Japanese models like Mitsubishi and some cars made by Ford and GM are at the heels of Toyota and Honda.

So I will take you little comment as a compliment to AMD.
December 31, 2007 8:07:52 PM

epsilon84 said:
You have a rather simplistic (not to mention single minded) approach to the CPU market. The world doesn't revolve around your needs, sorry to burst that massive bubble. ;) 

It's funny your hoping AMD remains the bargain bin alternative - did you ever think they are doing this by choice? No, they are forced to being cheap alternatives because they have nothing to compete. This is what has lead to them losing 2 billion in the last year. You are basically wishing bankruptcy on AMD. :ange: 


Instead of putting words in my mouth, tell me what an intel can do that an AMD can't.
Answer my "rather simplistic" question.
December 31, 2007 8:11:59 PM

My personal opinion ofcourse, but many great car companies are from Europe.

BMW
mercedes benz
Ferrari
Aston Martin
Audi
Lamborghini
Bugatti
Alfa Romeo
VolksWagen
Bentley

Just some of what Europe has to offer. America have some great cars ofcourse, but Europe wins in my view. I'm probably biased though :lol: 
December 31, 2007 8:13:26 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I live in Metro Detroit and you're actually looked down upon if you drive anything other than American. If you want endorsements for local politics, you better drive American. If you want to work for an automotive company you can't drive a honda to work, they won't let it on their lot.

Not really relevant, but perhaps interesting to some...


I agree that there are SOME very good american cars.
The problem is that I am not paying the cost of someone's medical and retirement to buy one.
You get a lot less for your dollar with an american car than you do the typical import made in say japan.
They need to be cost-competitive, and that's the emphasis GM forgets.
To do that, they need to kick union labor. It's not necessary to have a successful company.

And I also live in Metro Detroit.
December 31, 2007 8:15:53 PM

dmacfour said:
Well I'm glad that AMD prices are low; $150 for a processor twice as fast as mine is the only thing that is preventing me from trashing my AM2 system and switching to Intel. They may be losing money, but they would lost more if their customers switched to intel rather than upgrade their existing systems.


Get rid of that chip you have now and get a 5000+be, clock it to 3.1 ghz and be merry for 129 bucks.
P.S. Everyone is losing money. It's the sign of the times.
December 31, 2007 8:39:10 PM

kellytm3 said:
AMD will never see the #1 spot again.Who cares if Intels best cost $1000...the fact still is that Intel is #1 and always will be.Even in the Presscott days,Intel still outsold AMD.


I'd be ashamed if I were an Intel engineer in the Prescott days. Intel sold because of all the "Dude you got a Dell" hype and because of restrictive agreements questioned in the EU and South Korea. They should have been questioned here in the U.S. too.

If Intel had had AMD's market share and had come out with the Prescott, they'd be toast today. Because AMD doesn't have Intel's market share, but they come out with a quad core that's 17-25% faster per core than their X2's, they get attacked by Intel fanboy's who want it to be all over so they can pay $1000 for a CPU.

Guess what? I want both companies to innovate, but I prefer AMD because of Intel's business practices and past marketing. AMD's suits are screwing up, but AMD's engineers are doing a good job. I can't wait to see Swift in 2009. If AMD remains the budget mainstream CPU manufacturer, then that's okay by me, as I'm a budget gamer.

Right now, the Phenom's aren't that far behind the 6600's and are a bit cheaper. I don't care that Intel has a $1000 CPU that wins the benchmarks. The benchmark winner concept has never affected me when buying midrange parts for my builds. I look at what the products can do at my price range.

At least AMD has less to be ashamed of as the budget and mainstream alternative than Intel had to be ashamed of as the market leader during Netburst.

epsilon84 said:
Bulldozer, the next generation uarch, has completely vanished from their 2009 roadmap. What would AMD have to battle Nehalem? A 45nm K10? Yeah, good luck with that.


They will have Swift in the mainstream market, not to mention the laptop. Sure, it's promised as 2 or 3 45nm K10 general cores with a 3800 class graphics core, but it will do. It could turn out to be a triple hybrid Crossfire that would work for me (ie a Swift fusion CPU on a 780G motherboard with a 3850 add in card).

Once they ramp up 45nm for the budget market, they can work on the next CPU. I hope they get bought by Samsung so that there's budget for R&D. The only reason Intel has a budget is because of the marketing hype that corporate America bought for years. Intel did not deserve to survive the Netburst days solvent. They virtually stole the R&D budget they used for C2D because of the products fobbed off on the clueless buyers of Dell's etc.
December 31, 2007 8:52:17 PM

speedbird said:
My personal opinion ofcourse, but many great car companies are from Europe.

BMW
mercedes benz
Ferrari
Aston Martin
Audi
Lamborghini
Bugatti
Alfa Romeo
VolksWagen
Bentley

Just some of what Europe has to offer. America have some great cars ofcourse, but Europe wins in my view. I'm probably biased though :lol: 



Yes maybe good cars from a performance perspective but most of them pretty much suck in the reliability department. BMW and Audi are probably the best European cars.
December 31, 2007 9:38:51 PM

Falken699 said:
yeah, speedbird, I could swallow an AMD Quad IF they have the proper performance/price ratio at 1:1 with Intel.

I don't think I could stomach a Phenom with the TLB bug, that performs 25% worse on top of it, for the same price as the Q6600. I mean come on.

When those Q6x's start coming out 45nm with alot of OC headroom, I'll skip K10 completely, and maybe just fund AMD (as everyone has pointed out) by buying their chipsets and Videocards. I think they are on the pinnacle of nailing a winner in 2008, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

Just sad, K8 was amazing.


What is Q6x's?
December 31, 2007 9:41:41 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I live in Metro Detroit and you're actually looked down upon if you drive anything other than American. If you want endorsements for local politics, you better drive American. If you want to work for an automotive company you can't drive a honda to work, they won't let it on their lot.

Not really relevant, but perhaps interesting to some...



Hey TC, so now you're an expert on cars since you live in Detroit?..... :pt1cable: 

:lol: 

I just couldn't resist.

January 1, 2008 2:42:29 AM

righteous said:
Instead of putting words in my mouth, tell me what an intel can do that an AMD can't.
Answer my "rather simplistic" question.

Intel cpu's can do 99% of tasks faster than your AMD cpu,not to mention,Intel doesnt deliberately sell its consumers extremely faulty cpu's,that have performance hindering defects.I could careless about best bang for your buck.The FACT is...Intel has the best,and FASTEST cpu's.Once again I would like to say:I have nothing against AMD,or people who use their products.Honestly,up until Core 2 came out I was on the verge of switching to AMD,but I held out and stayed with Intel.The cpu war/rivalry,is just Like Chevy vs Ford rivalry.You like one,but not the other.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2008 5:40:48 AM

kellytm3 said:
By all means please explain what AMD's winner will be?The technological gap is growing farther and farther everyday,AMD's new products dont even compete with Intel's old products,and thats a fact.By the time AMD gets their 65nm cpu's right Intel will more than likely be poised to release 32nm,who knows?I dont dislike AMD,nor anyone who uses their products,I've always bought Intel,and in the buisness world brand name is king,and Intel owns the lions share of the consumer and buisness world.Also,if AMD were to make a cpu that is faster than Intel's extreme edition,I'll admit that is the faster product,but its doubtful AMD will.They need to focus on getting their general consumer products working first.


Makes me wonder in the A64 days how good the A64 actually was, did it seem so great because the Pentium 4's and D's were just bad? And todays Core 2 Duo - what makes it "great"? How do we define a good cpu - because its faster then an A64 (and Phenon for that matter)? For all we know the Core 2 Duo is bad but better then everything else on the market atm, or the core 2 duo is where Intel should have been if it continued with its P6 based architecture rather then the side street pentium 4 netburst (netbust) designs - the lead and mistakes seen today are the same as in the AMD K5 and K6 days.

"The K5 was AMD's first x86 processor developed entirely in-house, introduced in March 1996.[1]. Its primary competition was Intel's Pentium microprocessor range. Although it was originally scheduled for launch in 1995, due to design issues, it was delayed until 1996.[2] AMD as a company was not as mature as Intel regarding microprocessor design, thus a lot of deadlines were missed and there was a lack of manufacturing expertise in scaling designs. The K5's was an ambitious design, closer to a Pentium Pro than a Pentium regarding technical solutions and internal architecture. However, the final product was regrettably closer to the Pentium regarding performance."
- Wikipedia

"...Although the chip addressed the right design concepts, the actual engineering implementation had its issues. The low clock rates were, in part, due to AMD's limitations as a "cutting edge" manufacturing company at the time, in part due to the design itself (many levels of logic, thus slowing it down). Having a branch prediction unit four times the size of the Pentium, yet reportedly not delivering superior performance is an example of how the actual implementation fell short of the projects goals. Additionally, while the K5's floating point performance was better than that of the Cyrix 6x86, it was weaker than that of the Pentium. Because it was late to market and did not meet performance expectations, the K5 never gained the acceptance among large computer manufacturers..."
- Wikipedia
January 1, 2008 6:37:06 AM

Falken699 said:

The FUNNIEST thing in Intel's recent history was how they tried to stall the 64 bit generation. I couldn't even imagine getting a new computer today without having 4GB of RAM in the thing. You can stuff a PC with 4GB of RAM dirt cheap to boot, I have seen some Buffalo DDR2 for 19$ a Gig DIMM. So Intel was FULL of BS on that one.




Ummmm. . . what? Care to take a guess as to how many people run a 64 bit os as the primary operating system? It's still less than 10%.
!