Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will there be a 'new' manufacturers race; to 'Fusion'? - Page 3

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 5, 2008 8:46:50 PM

archibael said:
30 out of 100 in a non-optimized player. PowerDVD apparently did not have advanced de-interlacing activated, let alone HW accel enabled.

Other players are apparently not as crippled:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1054632

Still wouldn't buy it for gaming, but the problems are software. Intel needs to get better about making sure the SW players are all on board on release day.

At any rate, HD HQV is near-useless for analyzing Blu-ray playback quality as 90% of Blu-rays are high-quality progressive scanned images and HD HQVs tests are 20% video denoising (which you shouldn't need on images as pristine as Blu-ray) and 80% deinterlacing (which you shouldn't need on progressive images).

And, yes, I work for Intel. And no, I don't speak for them.



Maybe they should just let the GPU maufacturers create GPUs. They have sucked at it so far and it's only been about 10 years since Win98. And since when DIDN'T SW folks support Intel? You guys need to fire your driver team and hire some little kids. They'd do a better job based on the past.
August 5, 2008 8:54:18 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Wow BM. You just keep insulting the people even if they agree with you but think you are being a - dare I say it- jack ass?

BM my whole point is that it is obvious that the Intel system has more apps using more MEMORY and CPU cycles while the AMD system is being setup to LOOK better.

There are no definative specs so we do not know what each system has just that the AMD man in the video is BSing everyone and yet the person recording never asked why the Intel system had Aero running and the sidebar and the AMD system did not.

I agree that Intel IGPs are not good for gaming and anyone who games on any IGP is a idiot to me but if there is proof showing it can play 1080P HD then it can. Now if it can play while gaming is another question.

Either way BM you are being a judging jerk and calling people fanboys yet saying you yourself are not when you have a Phenom logo as your avitar, have been known to spread FUD about Phenom before it came out and are known to post anti-Intel (or Inhell as you like to say). Look in a mirror and stop being a jerk.



And what I'm saying is that if you turn on Aero and ONE widget, you can't efficiently play H.264 video at even mid-range bitrates (how high do you think the Simpsons is?)

The fanboy thing was a joke. You call people that all the time and they are supposed to just admit it and stand in the corner, begging your forgiveness. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I admit that I HATE Intel. They are competing with a non-profit. They actually joined the OLPC consortium and totally ragged on the product (and this was AFTER Negroponte asked them for chips and THEY SAID NO. As soon as AMD jumped aboard they changed their tune as if AMD was building XO). I don't really like AMD anymore either because they should have stopped dropping prices well before a 5000+BE was under $100.

And please stop using the word FUD. You are usng it incorrectly in your haste to be "special." FUD means "spreading FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT about a competitors products." From WikiPedia. What uncertainty did I spread about Phenom?
August 5, 2008 8:57:55 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I give up. I guess some just can't throw away the prejudice, and focus on the improvments.



You mean like how Phenom is 15% faster than X2 or how it has 2X the FP power or that it has better virtualization HW? If the thing is meant to display graphics, it shoudl DISPLAY graphics. Why aren't they just lying to keep market share? You accuse AMD of it.
Related resources
August 5, 2008 9:16:46 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Maybe they should just let the GPU maufacturers create GPUs. They have sucked at it so far and it's only been about 10 years since Win98. And since when DIDN'T SW folks support Intel? You guys need to fire your driver team and hire some little kids. They'd do a better job based on the past.


I'll bring that up in my next meeting with Gelsinger. You may already be privy to this secret, but suggestions from Internet forums is how we make all of our very best strategic decisions.


--
I don't speak for Intel, they don't speak for me.

a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 12:56:43 AM

Hey BM how about the whole "Phenom will be better" BS you pulled before Phenom hit the market. Which after it did was when you stopped coming to the THG forums. Now that the SB750 gives Phenom a chance to finally OC you come back.

Interesting.

OLPC. You can say what YOU THINK about it but Intel stated they felt it was not going to be possible and that it was not going to work. I don't know and I don't care myself.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 5:56:17 AM

^ That's because of AMD's 'good streak' where AMD kept on doing good launches... It was only natural to predict another positive launch

OLPC... XO was an expensive laptop... the idea was good, the cost cutting was not...
August 6, 2008 9:35:45 AM

MarkG said:
No-one in their right mind is going to buy a combined CPU/GPU to play new games, and for systems which don't run new games or other high-end 3D applications, the Intel integrated graphics are fine.


You'd be surprised at the amount of low-end machines pushed into jobs they are not fit to do.

a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 10:53:47 AM

... or the amount of high end machines used for simple jobs meant for Celerys
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 11:10:54 AM

jimmysmitty said:

if there is proof showing it can play 1080P HD then it can. Now if it can play while gaming is another question.



hmmmm.........let me clerify this....u say its perfectly ok that intel IGP can barely play HD although it has to work its a$$ off (when amd IGP can do it while sleeping), but its not ok when amd cpu are trailing by merely 10% compared to intel c2q clock for clock.and that it dozn OC like intel(although new chipchet is changing that picture and even with a 3GHz phenom, it gives u enof power to do anything.)........

certain intel fanboys make me laugh.........
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 11:22:11 AM

Depends tho... one might have hooked a dual display with the TV...
August 6, 2008 12:19:29 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
hmmmm.........let me clerify this....u say its perfectly ok that intel IGP can barely play HD although it has to work its a$$ off (when amd IGP can do it while sleeping), but its not ok when amd cpu are trailing by merely 10% compared to intel c2q clock for clock.and that it dozn OC like intel(although new chipchet is changing that picture and even with a 3GHz phenom, it gives u enof power to do anything.)........

certain intel fanboys make me laugh.........


Okay. What is the configuration of both systems? Memory, HD, display resolutions, programs running in the background, etc. Since you say it's not fair that the "Intel fanboys" are crying, you should be able to reproduce the same results if someone gets the same systems and does their own testing right? So, what are the specs for both systems?

You can't tell? Oh, they are both HP systems, yes. One is a dv5t, the other is a dv5z. But what were THOSE systems specs? I can build a test system based on what a review site builds the test system with, based on their component list. Does this IGP comparison test show you anything about the systems being tested? Why not?

Certain people make me laugh, too...
a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 1:25:55 PM

amdfangirl said:
^ That's because of AMD's 'good streak' where AMD kept on doing good launches... It was only natural to predict another positive launch

OLPC... XO was an expensive laptop... the idea was good, the cost cutting was not...


I took Core 2 qith a grain of salt even though Pentium M/Core (which it was based on) was performing very well. I have hope for Nehalem yet I still know it could flop.

sarwar_r87 said:
hmmmm.........let me clerify this....u say its perfectly ok that intel IGP can barely play HD although it has to work its a$$ off (when amd IGP can do it while sleeping), but its not ok when amd cpu are trailing by merely 10% compared to intel c2q clock for clock.and that it dozn OC like intel(although new chipchet is changing that picture and even with a 3GHz phenom, it gives u enof power to do anything.)........

certain intel fanboys make me laugh.........


I love how some people take one thing and use it out of context. The whole point is if they use equivalent CPUs, same amount of RAM, same speed HDDs and same SETTINGs then if it shows it can play HD movies it can. I know that a DISCRETE GPU (love how they think its a IGP when its not) will be able to do that better. The 780G is the chipset but it basically has a 3450 with 256MB of its OWN memory.

And why you brought up the OCKing and so forth IDK. 10% clock per clock compared to a 2 year old arch is not good. If they both came out at the same time then yea that would be normal but comparing it to a 2 year old chip arch that can OC better compared to a chip MADE for OCing (BE) it makes it look like a last choice or choice of a fan.

Of course this will change now since the new mobos with the SB750 does show promise of making that chip more OCable. It just took 9 months.

Either way I don't like the link he posted because the systems were not setup the same (considering the Intel system was running more processes and using more memory) and there are no specs showing to make sure they had the same amount of memory and so forth.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 1:30:11 PM

NMDante said:
Okay. What is the configuration of both systems? Memory, HD, display resolutions, programs running in the background, etc. Since you say it's not fair that the "Intel fanboys" are crying, you should be able to reproduce the same results if someone gets the same systems and does their own testing right? So, what are the specs for both systems?

You can't tell? Oh, they are both HP systems, yes. One is a dv5t, the other is a dv5z. But what were THOSE systems specs? I can build a test system based on what a review site builds the test system with, based on their component list. Does this IGP comparison test show you anything about the systems being tested? Why not?

Certain people make me laugh, too...


ok...m sori i offended intel fanboys........but srsly, r we trying to say that intel IGP is ok for game play and HD playback.is that y ppl offer system with 780G for movie purpose PC instead of c2d even though they r faster and better at power consumption and everithing else.

i have no problem with ppl saying intel IGP is ok even though they underperform like anything. but i do laugh wen the same ppl say its not ok that amd cpu are underperforming.THATS ALL IM SAYING.
i dont even care if u say intel IGP can out perform 790GX.......we all no the truth about intel IGP

PS:honestly, intel grafix is a disgrace for a company like intel with such high performing cpu.its a shame that intel has the leading grafix market share and not nvidia or ati.it does not reflect reality.thats my opinion about intel IGP.m entitled to it and to share it with ppl.thats y we have forums, rit?????
a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 1:37:11 PM

^ The main difference is that Phenom was supposed to be better. It has a IMC, more elegant arch and naitive quad. We all have known that most Intels IGPs don't perform well enough to game on and to say the truth Intel targets businesses with their IGPs more than anything hence why they have more sales in the business market than anyone else with IGPs and CPUs.

Its obvious that Intels IGP can play HD. Albiet you can't do much more (although thats yet to be seen really) at the same time but it can do HD playback and probably play mid range games.

But saying it cannot when all we have comparison wise so far is a rigged test thats not even, well that just shows bias.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 1:43:57 PM

^^^i think when phenom goes to 45nm, things might change a lot. i have seen sevarel report (even one by intel) stating k10 archi is a very hard thing to do in 65nm and that itw will underperform. and that that is y intel waitd for 45nm to move to IMC. but amd decided to stand by their words when they openly degrades intels way of making quad(sandwitchin 2 c2d) and went for native quads..so am hoping that will solve phenoms issues and let amd stop the intel making the already exsisting monopoly even worse.

so mayb when it goes 45nm, it mit live up to its previous xpectations. i hope. coz i don want to c monopoly gone wild in cpu market
August 6, 2008 1:48:53 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^ The main difference is that Phenom was supposed to be better. It has a IMC, more elegant arch and naitive quad. We all have known that most Intels IGPs don't perform well enough to game on and to say the truth Intel targets businesses with their IGPs more than anything hence why they have more sales in the business market than anyone else with IGPs and CPUs.

Its obvious that Intels IGP can play HD. Albiet you can't do much more (although thats yet to be seen really) at the same time but it can do HD playback and probably play mid range games.

But saying it cannot when all we have comparison wise so far is a rigged test thats not even, well that just shows bias.


Why hasn't someone brought the point of thermal dissapation, and electrical draw targets that Intel's IGP's meet?

What about the competitors products set up in a similar fashion such as a playback run of a Blueray video on battery power?

Everyone keeps missing the point about the current iteration of the technology and exactly what its targetting. There will be limits on cost, thermal output, electrical draw, system resources, bus speed, memory speed ect ect ect. It's platform dependant not performance dependant, so what if it can't play doom 3, frankly if your playing doom 3 on a notebook and you demand performance your spending too much on a mobile platform.

Word, Playa.
a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 2:03:54 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
^^^i think when phenom goes to 45nm, things might change a lot. i have seen sevarel report (even one by intel) stating k10 archi is a very hard thing to do in 65nm and that itw will underperform. and that that is y intel waitd for 45nm to move to IMC. but amd decided to stand by their words when they openly degrades intels way of making quad(sandwitchin 2 c2d) and went for native quads..so am hoping that will solve phenoms issues and let amd stop the intel making the already exsisting monopoly even worse.

so mayb when it goes 45nm, it mit live up to its previous xpectations. i hope. coz i don want to c monopoly gone wild in cpu market


Funny thing is there have been reports from AMD of making a naitive 6 core then going MCM 12 core like Intel went with C2Q.

As for the monopoly, if you have the better product then you get sales. You get sales then you get market share. You get market share thats not your fault but the fault of the other company for not pushing competition.

I don't know if 45nm will make it what it should have been. I think it will get it on par with Penryn but thats all I see from a die shrink. Then it will have to face Nehalem which by no means thus far seems like a push over, it seems more like a good chip.

I agree spud. It does what it is supposed to do. Thing is that gaming on laptops is rare really and most uses are either school, business or video playback for travel.

But the IGP from Intel probably does meet its requirements in power and such.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 2:06:53 PM


Ok I can see where this is going..

But hang on, anyone in their right mind would run graphic intense programs on a dedicated video card...

I only used on board stuff for businesses who dont need anything more than to boot up windows, run sage and recieve emails..

Any thing else as far as im concerned goes to ATI or Nvidia for a separate video card...

Now for Baron to clearly rant on what Intels IGP cant do when clearly it can, abiet not as good as some as AMD's offerings is another matter, but then again who cares as Intel is in a lot more machines than AMD will ever be...

It would be interesting to see how many Intel igp, processors and chipsets out sell AMD's and then we will have a winner on our hands.

Ford make good cars but Toyota out sell ford many times over...
a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 2:20:53 PM

^You car analogy is decent but wrong in some ways. The F series from Ford is the best selling car in the US for heck almost 35 years? 33 this year I think.

But I agree. Intel does outsell any other company in terms of sheer volume in graphics, CPUs and I am sure mobos..
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 2:37:15 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^You car analogy is decent but wrong in some ways. The F series from Ford is the best selling car in the US for heck almost 35 years? 33 this year I think.

But I agree. Intel does outsell any other company in terms of sheer volume in graphics, CPUs and I am sure mobos..


I was on about world wide sales.. I would rather have a financial ounce of toyota than a pound of ford..

Toyotas much more a successfull company than ford which also leaked cash like diet coke at mcdonalds

http://blog.toyota.com/2008/05/best-selling-ca.html
a c 123 à CPUs
August 6, 2008 3:54:09 PM

^This is treu yes. Although I have read a few things that make me think the only reason Toyota is where it is today is due to things companies like Honda still do.
August 6, 2008 4:16:17 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
ok...m sori i offended intel fanboys........but srsly, r we trying to say that intel IGP is ok for game play and HD playback.is that y ppl offer system with 780G for movie purpose PC instead of c2d even though they r faster and better at power consumption and everithing else.

i have no problem with ppl saying intel IGP is ok even though they underperform like anything. but i do laugh wen the same ppl say its not ok that amd cpu are underperforming.THATS ALL IM SAYING.
i dont even care if u say intel IGP can out perform 790GX.......we all no the truth about intel IGP

PS:honestly, intel grafix is a disgrace for a company like intel with such high performing cpu.its a shame that intel has the leading grafix market share and not nvidia or ati.it does not reflect reality.thats my opinion about intel IGP.m entitled to it and to share it with ppl.thats y we have forums, rit?????


I'm not offended at all. Also, I wouldn't game with any IGP, be it from Intel, AMD, or nVidia. They just don't work for gaming, no matter how great people want to claim IGPs are getting. For a very budget build, maybe, but I would still toss a dedicated GPU for gaming, if possible.

Let me put it this way - Would people be upset if a review site compared two systems, but did not disclose what GPU or memory were used in either system? Now, would those same people be upset if someone used that review as "evidence" of one system's shortcomings?

If anything, the AMD system should have been running with all the bells and whistles (Aero and sidebar widgets), and been shown running the DVD with no issues, and have the Intel system run with nothing, and stutter through the test. That would be more convincing than what was shown.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 5:09:08 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^This is treu yes. Although I have read a few things that make me think the only reason Toyota is where it is today is due to things companies like Honda still do.



And this is why Intel is where it is today and AMD are where they are today.....

But AMD has leaked cash with out having the assets to support it unlike Ford which had to refinance its biggest American plants...

I cant see why AMD fanbois are so into this Intel are evil stuff when the AMD directors have done far more damage to it self by not working on its core business which was processor manufacture and going off to buy ATI at a major and still continues to be expense....

ATI should of been bought later when they lost more of the war against Nvidia..

Sales wise ATI were always second best...

But the war now had widened because AMD hasnt done much with the ATI brand until of late.

ATI now is the only one now which seems to be doing any good for AMD as it still seems AMD are not comfortable with the Phenom them selves let alone anyone else.. The release is a bit mish mash even now... So we got a 9950 chip - what board does this fit in with out doing 1 hour research before we even think of buying it...We are still tracking down which board 9850 fits in as you know.

I really cant see - unless a miracle happens that AMD can last in its current form for much longer - let alone the market downturn situation.

All you stupid ignorant AMD fans are really taking too much time now on this forum by downing Intel on your own guided misfortune... You made a big gamble and lost - long term may have been good but AMD got it so wrong in the mean time to keep its fans happy... Obviously the current rounds of "fans" are so unhappy the way things have gone of they wouldnt be ranting and voting the way they have over the last few days....

AMDfangirl is a young girl with a good head on her shoulders and the AMD name in her avatar.
She still doesnt rant like a child...

She is more grown up than Thunderman and Baron Matrix thrown to gether and the rest of these imature posters who come on here but nothing to cause trouble and go over the same crap again and again...

I wind them up, yeah but now its going a bit too far - am I a Intel fan - no I'm a technology fan and what does best for me...

How can I prefer a processor - is it a blonde or brunett. I mean its not like i can take it to bed and sweet talk it is it, altough I believe that some kiss theyre AMD sticker at night that they placed on their case in an accessable, kissable place....All I can say is this..


Pucker up and kiss my Processor sticker badge, then place an ad in the lonely heart magazine because yours might not be comming back..

a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 6:06:19 PM

NMDante said:
I'm not offended at all. Also, I wouldn't game with any IGP, be it from Intel, AMD, or nVidia. They just don't work for gaming, no matter how great people want to claim IGPs are getting. For a very budget build, maybe, but I would still toss a dedicated GPU for gaming, if possible.

Let me put it this way - Would people be upset if a review site compared two systems, but did not disclose what GPU or memory were used in either system? Now, would those same people be upset if someone used that review as "evidence" of one system's shortcomings?

If anything, the AMD system should have been running with all the bells and whistles (Aero and sidebar widgets), and been shown running the DVD with no issues, and have the Intel system run with nothing, and stutter through the test. That would be more convincing than what was shown.


For me, I'd say that IGPs are generally good for viewing movies. If you wanna play serious games, please take the liberty of getting a $40-ish HD 2600 XT or whatever... instead of complaining about an underpowered GPU. Sure you can still play at 1024x768 with detail set to low but don't complain if you can't play most new games or run most games at high quality. This is fine for most people, like me who like to spend about 20 minutes a fortnight gaming. Of course IGPs are underpowered... if they weren't, who would buy the discrete?

Also, we know for a fact that the AMD 780G is a capable platform capable of playing nice HD. Supposedly the Intel X4500HD is also a capable HD system. For the normal usage, the more important thing of the two would be power consumption on the laptop models...

I'm saying supposedly because I haven't read it from a 'trustable' site yet.
August 6, 2008 7:03:25 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Hey BM how about the whole "Phenom will be better" BS you pulled before Phenom hit the market. Which after it did was when you stopped coming to the THG forums. Now that the SB750 gives Phenom a chance to finally OC you come back.

Interesting.

OLPC. You can say what YOU THINK about it but Intel stated they felt it was not going to be possible and that it was not going to work. I don't know and I don't care myself.



I said what? I knew it would take the server tasks, but I don't remember having an opinion about Phenom. Did I say better than Kentsfield? I left because of people like you and I actually have a job.

As far as XO, Intel salespeople approached I believe Brazil who ordered XO and told them it sucked and that they should go with the Classmate ( this after they joined the XO coalition). That's bottom of the barrel low. Now everyone, mind you, said other wise when they tested them. Just the Grid Network makes it worth the price, not to mention the sunlight readable screen. It even runs a slimmed down version of XP now.

OF course, you don't care. I bet Intel could evict orphans and you'd figure a way to forgive them. Can you say,

BAAAAAHHHHH?
August 6, 2008 7:15:47 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Funny thing is there have been reports from AMD of making a naitive 6 core then going MCM 12 core like Intel went with C2Q.

As for the monopoly, if you have the better product then you get sales. You get sales then you get market share. You get market share thats not your fault but the fault of the other company for not pushing competition.

I don't know if 45nm will make it what it should have been. I think it will get it on par with Penryn but thats all I see from a die shrink. Then it will have to face Nehalem which by no means thus far seems like a push over, it seems more like a good chip.

I agree spud. It does what it is supposed to do. Thing is that gaming on laptops is rare really and most uses are either school, business or video playback for travel.

But the IGP from Intel probably does meet its requirements in power and such.



According to your logic, Prescott vs X2 should have got AMD 40% share overall. X2 was up to 100% faster per clock. Penryn is about 30% faster than Phenom per clock. But it's hard to say because I don't like CPU bound tests. They show which CPU is faster at non-playing resolutions but not which is faster at 1680 and above. I'm about to go to 1680 (I have the montior, I just need the GPU). There is an UNNOTICEABLE difference at real world res. Once you get to 60fps, it only matters if the game fluctuates in complexity (cave vs. snow in Oblivion).


AMD was actually right to get the native quad core working now. The D0 rev of Shanghai is supposed to add HighK and E0 rev is supposed to add metal gates. MCMs are actually easier for AMD as they can just slap a cHT link between the two chips on one package. Intel needs a bus arbiter to allow equal time to the FSB.

Also, I would be interested to see how Nehalem OCs now that the whole chip has to OC, including QPI, IMC.
August 6, 2008 7:18:14 PM

Hellboy said:
Ok I can see where this is going..

But hang on, anyone in their right mind would run graphic intense programs on a dedicated video card...

I only used on board stuff for businesses who dont need anything more than to boot up windows, run sage and recieve emails..

Any thing else as far as im concerned goes to ATI or Nvidia for a separate video card...

Now for Baron to clearly rant on what Intels IGP cant do when clearly it can, abiet not as good as some as AMD's offerings is another matter, but then again who cares as Intel is in a lot more machines than AMD will ever be...

It would be interesting to see how many Intel igp, processors and chipsets out sell AMD's and then we will have a winner on our hands.

Ford make good cars but Toyota out sell ford many times over...



The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2008 7:30:00 PM

BaronMatrix said:
The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!



MMMM ok the same Smart AMD users that are flogging a dead horse.....

Secondly with Intel and the Larrabee - ahem - what competition..

Intel on the desktop market hasnt had any serious competition for the last 20 months...

Oh and it just goes to show how really mature you are by your final comment..


NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!

Obviously your life long ambition is to sit in a Welsh Valley admiring sheep and kissing the AMD badge on a AMD Turion processed laptop machine in which some manufacturer had the misfortune to integrate as the perfomance was as lacklusture as a flatterned wheelbarrow.

Now you are hoping to get a signal from a local mcdonalds to send photos to family at home..
a c 123 à CPUs
August 7, 2008 12:49:43 AM

BaronMatrix said:
I said what? I knew it would take the server tasks, but I don't remember having an opinion about Phenom. Did I say better than Kentsfield? I left because of people like you and I actually have a job.

As far as XO, Intel salespeople approached I believe Brazil who ordered XO and told them it sucked and that they should go with the Classmate ( this after they joined the XO coalition). That's bottom of the barrel low. Now everyone, mind you, said other wise when they tested them. Just the Grid Network makes it worth the price, not to mention the sunlight readable screen. It even runs a slimmed down version of XP now.

OF course, you don't care. I bet Intel could evict orphans and you'd figure a way to forgive them. Can you say,

BAAAAAHHHHH?


I don't care about the OLPC because its set to benefit children in OTHER countries where as here in the US we have children struggling to learn. Its like how Oprah does so much for Africa and everyone says how good she is yet she does very little for the struggling children here in the US.

THATS why I don't care.

BaronMatrix said:
According to your logic, Prescott vs X2 should have got AMD 40% share overall. X2 was up to 100% faster per clock. Penryn is about 30% faster than Phenom per clock. But it's hard to say because I don't like CPU bound tests. They show which CPU is faster at non-playing resolutions but not which is faster at 1680 and above. I'm about to go to 1680 (I have the montior, I just need the GPU). There is an UNNOTICEABLE difference at real world res. Once you get to 60fps, it only matters if the game fluctuates in complexity (cave vs. snow in Oblivion).


AMD was actually right to get the native quad core working now. The D0 rev of Shanghai is supposed to add HighK and E0 rev is supposed to add metal gates. MCMs are actually easier for AMD as they can just slap a cHT link between the two chips on one package. Intel needs a bus arbiter to allow equal time to the FSB.

Also, I would be interested to see how Nehalem OCs now that the whole chip has to OC, including QPI, IMC.


My point is that AMD was talking trash about Intel going MCM and they plan on it. Its also funny because its obvious AMD is having problems at 65nm native when at 45nm they would have probably not had the same issues or so Deneb is showing pretty promising from recent results.

As for Nehalem OCing, why would you think Nehalem is like the old X2s and has the NB tied to the CPU? You don't think Intel might have set it up to have it like Phenom where the QPI and NB run seperately? I would hope so.

BaronMatrix said:
The question then is "Are Intel users not as smart as AMD users as polls have shown? Intel is Tony Soprano so they will sell more. I mean, isn't a little strange that as soon as Intel brought up Larrabee all chipset licenses were canceled? Obviously, they love the competition, right?

NOT!

BAAAAHHHHH!


That whole poll thing was BS when it hit. The main reasoning is because more people had Intel systems than did have AMD. AMD used to be the enthusiasts/techie chip that was used when it was a better choice than Intel. Now that it is finding its way into more normal peoples homes if they re did the test do you think that Joe blow with a AMD system would be smarter just because its AMD and not Intel? No. He would be the same no matter what.
!