Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 1:49:05 AM

First off it's great to be posting here again. I haven't been on TomsHardware for over 2 years now for reasons I won't disclose as they are unimportant. Recently I had a run-in with some folks over at AMDZone who seemed to live in a twilight zone of sorts. They had these odd (and false) beliefs regarding historical events involving AMD & Intel and were spreading this "FUD" around unhinged

That having been said I tackled their belief structures and refuted their arguments with clear evidence and I was met with... a ban. I remained respectful throughout the exchanges (something I rarely do) but even that was not enough. After I had defeated the best "minds" they had to offer the admin "The_Ghost" decided that I was a threat to their "alternate point of view" and banned me.

Slightly frustrated from the encounter I decided that the lies end here. So open up your textbooks friends we're going to have a look at some inaccurate claims made by AMD fanbois.

1.
Quote:
Hypertransport was an AMD Innovation and QPi is a copy cat


This is quite a misleading statement but I see it parroted all around the web as though it were fact. The truth is a tad more complex and requires some clear and concise historical knowledge regarding a former large player in the CPU business known as DEC.

Digital Equipment Corporation was a pioneering American company in the computer industry. It is often referred to within the computing industry as DEC (this acronym was frequently officially used by Digital itself, but the trademark was always DIGITAL).

In May 1997, DEC sued Intel for allegedly infringing on its Alpha patents in designing the Pentium chips. As part of a settlement, DEC's chip business was sold to Intel. This included DEC's StrongARM implementation of the ARM computer architecture, which Intel sold as the XScale processors commonly used in Pocket PCs. (read more about it here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/10/8024).

Shortly after (in 1998) DEC sold it's Alpha CPU division to Compaq Computers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-207442.html

This is of particular importance as now Compaq began working closely with AMD and had now licensed two bus technologies to AMD. The Alpha EV6 and EV7 buses. The Alpha EV6 bus was the DDR bus employed on the AMD K7 (Athlon/XP) while the EV7 was the building block for a scaled down point to point interconnect to be used on a future AMD project known as K8 (yes talking about HyperTransport here).

Then in 2001 it all changed. Intel bought the Alpha CPU division from Compaq: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2089920,0...

Of course Monopoly laws came into play as Intel would now control far too much Intellectual Property therefore a deal was brokered: Samsung, IBM and AMD would all receive rights to the Alpha Intellectual Property and thus HyperTransport was born.

What is important to note here is that INTEL not AMD owns the true Intellectual Property for the EV7 bus with AMD being a licensee. Therefore QPi did not copy HyperTransport but rather both are based to a large degree on the same IP (EV7 bus).



2.
Quote:
AMD were the first to Integrate the Memory Controller onto the CPU die for an x86 processor


This one is just false. Intel were actually the first to integrate a memory controller onto an x86 architecture based processor. In fact Intel did so on the mobile variant of their 386 and 486 processors as seen here: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/intel/i386sx.htm



3.
Quote:
AMD had the first Native Quad Core and Six Core CPUs


Partially False. To start off, having a "native" anything is not a large accomplishment as it means nothing for performance. That having been said AMD were the first to introduce a "native" quad core part but not the first to introduce a native six core part. That award goes to the Intel Dunnington based processors: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9878131-37.html


Anyways.. that is all for now :)  Next time I'll tackle QPi vs. HyperTransport.

Peace.
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 1, 2009 2:29:00 AM

Interesting post, thanks for sharing.

The Alpha was a tremendously innovative design - unfortunately it was yet another COUNTER example to the old saying: "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door"...
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 2:49:29 AM

Nice work :D  thumbs up from me
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 2:57:25 AM

Nice post. As usual, the truth is more interesting than the fiction most make up. And I, even being an AMD fan/supporter, don't see what problem those AMDzoners had with your post.
November 1, 2009 4:07:17 AM

Weeell ,,you all know the old saw about taking a horse to water,you can't force him to drink,unless,of course you gave him lots of salt first,it truly is amazing to see the number of people who wrap themselves up in their fantasies and will not come out "for hell or high water",, I say "Who's that mowing the lawn, over there?? All I can see is their hat???:) 
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 4:39:53 AM

Are you kidding me? "Native" means it's smoother in the real world! :kaola: 
November 1, 2009 3:58:59 PM

First off, great post. I'm glad there are people out there willing to find out things for themselves rather than just repeating what they hear being said. Just one thing, dunnington was not the first native six core processor because dunnington isn't a native six core. In that article you posted, it said dunnington was a compilation of 3 penryn cores one one die. That conflicts the very definition of being 'native'. Penryn is a native dual core, combining them together doesn't make dunnington a native six core. This is the same argument used as to why core2 quad isn't a native quad core - because its 2 penryn cores on one die. So the award doesn't go to intel, or amd because as far as I know, neither company has made a native six core processor.

edit: note: Technical error - forgot about conroe. c2q can be combinations of penryn or conroe. Conroe core was used in 65nm variations.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 4:31:59 PM

chowmanga said:
Just one thing, dunnington was not the first native six core processor because dunnington isn't a native six core.


"Native" anything really doesn't mean squat as intel has proven with the C2Q. It still is a processor with x number of cores, which is addressed by software the same way.

At the end of the day, benchmarks and actual usage wins the day rather than observing how your piece of silicon was made.


+1 for ElMoIsEviL


November 1, 2009 4:48:31 PM

amnotanoobie said:
"Native" anything really doesn't mean squat as intel has proven with the C2Q. It still is a processor with x number of cores, which is addressed by software the same way.

At the end of the day, benchmarks and actual usage wins the day rather than observing how your piece of silicon was made.


+1 for ElMoIsEviL


Okay but, he said that dunnington was the first native six core and its not. We're not talking benchmarks or performance here. OP tried to clear out information on technical terms and I just corrected him.

Edit: I wrote quad instead of six above
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 4:59:40 PM

chowmanga said:
First off, great post. I'm glad there are people out there willing to find out things for themselves rather than just repeating what they hear being said. Just one thing, dunnington was not the first native six core processor because dunnington isn't a native six core. In that article you posted, it said dunnington was a compilation of 3 penryn cores one one die. That conflicts the very definition of being 'native'. Penryn is a native dual core, combining them together doesn't make dunnington a native six core. This is the same argument used as to why core2 quad isn't a native quad core - because its 2 penryn cores on one die. So the award doesn't go to intel, or amd because as far as I know, neither company has made a native six core processor.

edit: note: Technical error - forgot about conroe. c2q can be combinations of penryn or conroe. Conroe core was used in 65nm variations.


I think you're confused as to what a "CPU die" is.

This is a shot of a Dunnington CPU die:



This is a shot of a Core 2 Quad CPU die:


As you can see a Core 2 Quad is comprised of two Core 2 Duo CPU dies on a single LGA 775 package whereas Dunnington is a single CPU die on a single mPGA604 package.

Dunnington is a native hexa-core processor as Toms hardware also states here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-coming-2008...

Quote:
However, before the FSB will disappear for good, there will be one more siginificant chip using this structure: Meet Dunnington, Intel's first native multi-core chip. If AMD's definition of "multi-core" is correct, then "multi" indicates a number greater than two (three-core AMD Phenom 8000 series, four-core Phenom 9000, etc). In that case, Intel is set to offer 50% more cores than AMD currently has.


You can see a few Intel slides on Dunnington here: http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/246929-in...

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding :) 
November 1, 2009 5:05:20 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I think you're confused as to what a "CPU die" is.

This is a shot of a Dunnington CPU die:
http://dorgas.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dunnington.jpg

This is a shot of a Core 2 Quad CPU die:
http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/nik/07_jan/intel_quad_chip.jpg

As you can see a Core 2 Quad is comprised of two Core 2 Duo CPU dies on a single LGA 775 package whereas Dunnington is a single CPU die on a single mPGA604 package.

Dunnington is a native hexa-core processor.

You can see a few Intel slides on Dunnington here: http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/246929-in...

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding :) 



Yes, you bet. Guess it shows how unfamiliar I am with server processors. I wasn't sure if istanbul was native either but I couldn't find much information about the architecture online so I made an educated guess.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 5:07:49 PM

chowmanga said:
Yes, you bet. Guess it shows how unfamiliar I am with server processors. I wasn't sure if istanbul was native either but I couldn't find much information about the architecture online so I made an educated guess.


Yessir. Istanbul is also a native Hexa-core processor but it came after Dunnington. What you will often hear is that Istanbul was the first Native Hexa-core (Baron Matrix is notorious for spreading such FUD) and it is just not true.

Thanks for commenting though, it forced me to grab some links and enforces/cements my above comments :) 

Peace.
November 1, 2009 5:27:44 PM

First of all, good to see you Elmo, loooooong time no see.
I always claim that AMD may not have introwed alot of these things, but they did make them popular, and brought them to the forefront of DT, making their chips the fastest at the time.
I agree, because at the time, AMD did have arguably the fastest things out, some AMD fans prefer to live in that past, and also alter it
November 1, 2009 5:32:48 PM

When I first saw the OP of this thread, I had to double check for a necro heheh
Like I said, welcome back
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 5:43:00 PM

very informative for a noob like me

This thread is definitely the next 100 page thread

oops i jinxed it :D 
November 1, 2009 5:51:50 PM

No you didnt.
I even stopped in to monitor this thread :D 
November 1, 2009 6:06:41 PM

umm i thought having a native quad core is better because it reduces latency between the two dual cores "glued" together
November 1, 2009 6:08:13 PM

can we see the thread that got you banned by any chance?
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 6:11:01 PM

^ please?
November 1, 2009 6:15:22 PM

Alot of those old threads were deleted, and some werent picked up on the "new" system.
Personally, Im glad to see some folks back, and let those "old" days die, as well as the reasons why they happened
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 6:22:45 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Personally, Im glad to see some folks back, and let those "old" days die, as well as the reasons why they happened

Hear hear.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 6:25:28 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
First of all, good to see you Elmo, loooooong time no see.
I always claim that AMD may not have introwed alot of these things, but they did make them popular, and brought them to the forefront of DT, making their chips the fastest at the time.
I agree, because at the time, AMD did have arguably the fastest things out, some AMD fans prefer to live in that past, and also alter it


Indeed, I still run 4 AMD based rigs. I still use an AMD AthlonXP 3200+ (typing on it as we speak), AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+, AMD Phenom II X3 720 (unlocked) and AMD Phenom II X4 955BE.

AMD still makes very good machines (especially for the price) but some folks do still live in the past (as you mentioned). In fact I'd even go as far as claim that these folks are delusional to a large extent.



JAYDEEJOHN said:
When I first saw the OP of this thread, I had to double check for a necro heheh
Like I said, welcome back


Yeah, it's been a long time. Randomizer coaxed me into coming back. Not sure how long I'll last this time around :)  Nice to see some familiar faces still around :) 

a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 6:30:24 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
First off it's great to be posting here again. I haven't been on TomsHardware for over 2 years now for reasons I won't disclose as they are unimportant. Recently I had a run-in with some folks over at AMDZone who seemed to live in a twilight zone of sorts. They had these odd (and false) beliefs regarding historical events involving AMD & Intel and were spreading this "FUD" around unhinged

That having been said I tackled their belief structures and refuted their arguments with clear evidence and I was met with... a ban. I remained respectful throughout the exchanges (something I rarely do) but even that was not enough. After I had defeated the best "minds" they had to offer the admin "The_Ghost" decided that I was a threat to their "alternate point of view" and banned me.

Slightly frustrated from the encounter I decided that the lies end here. So open up your textbooks friends we're going to have a look at some inaccurate claims made by AMD fanbois.

1.
Quote:
Hypertransport was an AMD Innovation and QPi is a copy cat


This is quite a misleading statement but I see it parroted all around the web as though it were fact. The truth is a tad more complex and requires some clear and concise historical knowledge regarding a former large player in the CPU business known as DEC.

Digital Equipment Corporation was a pioneering American company in the computer industry. It is often referred to within the computing industry as DEC (this acronym was frequently officially used by Digital itself, but the trademark was always DIGITAL).

In May 1997, DEC sued Intel for allegedly infringing on its Alpha patents in designing the Pentium chips. As part of a settlement, DEC's chip business was sold to Intel. This included DEC's StrongARM implementation of the ARM computer architecture, which Intel sold as the XScale processors commonly used in Pocket PCs. (read more about it here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/10/8024).

Shortly after (in 1998) DEC sold it's Alpha CPU division to Compaq Computers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-207442.html

This is of particular importance as now Compaq began working closely with AMD and had now licensed two bus technologies to AMD. The Alpha EV6 and EV7 buses. The Alpha EV6 bus was the DDR bus employed on the AMD K7 (Athlon/XP) while the EV7 was the building block for a scaled down point to point interconnect to be used on a future AMD project known as K8 (yes talking about HyperTransport here).

Then in 2001 it all changed. Intel bought the Alpha CPU division from Compaq: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2089920,0...

Of course Monopoly laws came into play as Intel would now control far too much Intellectual Property therefore a deal was brokered: Samsung, IBM and AMD would all receive rights to the Alpha Intellectual Property and thus HyperTransport was born.

What is important to note here is that INTEL not AMD owns the true Intellectual Property for the EV7 bus with AMD being a licensee. Therefore QPi did not copy HyperTransport but rather both are based to a large degree on the same IP (EV7 bus).



2.
Quote:
AMD were the first to Integrate the Memory Controller onto the CPU die for an x86 processor


This one is just false. Intel were actually the first to integrate a memory controller onto an x86 architecture based processor. In fact Intel did so on the mobile variant of their 386 and 486 processors as seen here: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/intel/i386sx.htm



3.
Quote:
AMD had the first Native Quad Core and Six Core CPUs


Partially False. To start off, having a "native" anything is not a large accomplishment as it means nothing for performance. That having been said AMD were the first to introduce a "native" quad core part but not the first to introduce a native six core part. That award goes to the Intel Dunnington based processors: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9878131-37.html


Anyways.. that is all for now :)  Next time I'll tackle QPi vs. HyperTransport.

Peace.

Bravo! :bounce:  Now, if you post the same thing for Intel fanboys, I will support you to the full.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 6:36:14 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Bravo! :bounce:  Now, if you post the same thing for Intel fanboys, I will support you to the full.


Well I'm not quite familiar with Intel fanbois as I don't know many of them right now (I can't tell them apart from the general public because right now they do support the better processor).

But I do remember Intel fanbois back during the days of the Pentium D (I ran AMD exclusively back then). And they would make outlandish claims but never delusional to the point of creating their own website and kicking anyone out who disagrees (referring to AMDZone).

But by all means, if you have certain allegations Intel fans are making which you think are not true, run them by me. I will objectively do the research and then give you the facts (I won't lie to you that's a promise).

:) 
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 7:35:57 PM

Good post.
Good overclock.
Love you long time.

(and yeah if you find more CPU mythbuster stuff, definately share, irrelevant of who the company is (Intel/AMD/Ati/nVidia etc))
November 1, 2009 8:02:34 PM

Yeah I had one run in with AMDzone, I was having problems overclocking a 9850 and I wanted to make sure that there weren't any tricks that I did not know about. I posted on AMDzone, naturally, since I thought they would know. My thread was deleted because I was, allegedly, an Intel fanboy because I was saying that I could not hit 3.0 GHz on a 9850 with an SB750 motherboard. Never got it to 3.0 Ghz, but 2.9 Ghz was not too bad.

Thankfully, I find that AMD fanboys, like those at AMDzone, are a dying breed and are out of date. nVidia fanboys on the other hand are on the up swing...
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 8:06:40 PM

Now if we can get JJ and ActionMan back. Hell even Madmodmike, lol
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 8:26:31 PM

What you are talking about has nothing to do with AMD vs Intel. It logical people vs complete retards.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 8:34:37 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Yeah I had one run in with AMDzone, I was having problems overclocking a 9850 and I wanted to make sure that there weren't any tricks that I did not know about. I posted on AMDzone, naturally, since I thought they would know. My thread was deleted because I was, allegedly, an Intel fanboy because I was saying that I could not hit 3.0 GHz on a 9850 with an SB750 motherboard. Never got it to 3.0 Ghz, but 2.9 Ghz was not too bad.

Thankfully, I find that AMD fanboys, like those at AMDzone, are a dying breed and are out of date. nVidia fanboys on the other hand are on the up swing...

ROFL!
November 1, 2009 8:55:33 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:

2.
Quote:
AMD were the first to Integrate the Memory Controller onto the CPU die for an x86 processor


This one is just false. Intel were actually the first to integrate a memory controller onto an x86 architecture based processor. In fact Intel did so on the mobile variant of their 386 and 486 processors as seen here: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/intel/i386sx.htm



There were no mobile versions of the 386 and 486 processors. The link you provided only shows a chip with an integrated Memory Management Unit, which all x86 chips have had since the 80286, NOT an integrated memory controller. Big difference.
November 1, 2009 8:57:52 PM

Is Dunnington really a native 6 core CPU....... I mean it is a collection of 3 dual core CPU's (exact copy's of C2D's) that just happen to have been placed on a single due - but does that make it really native?

And Intel's QPI is a copy, but then again so is HT, both a plain rip off from EV7 - but to be honest who cares....

One last thing to remember is the very complicated cross licensing Intel and AMD have (that they both need - hey how do you think Intel managed to copy AMD64, and AMD use SSE xxx) thus this bus copying ho har is all pointless, and each party is well within their rights to just use the any tech the other party has copyright on, and they do.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 9:35:54 PM

BadTrip said:
Now if we can get JJ and ActionMan back. Hell even Madmodmike, lol

Maybe even throw in BaronMatrix on the side and we could really get the party started again. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 9:38:25 PM

and dragonslayer, he would defend AMD even after it was long gone
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 9:46:35 PM

chowmanga said:
First off, great post. I'm glad there are people out there willing to find out things for themselves rather than just repeating what they hear being said. Just one thing, dunnington was not the first native six core processor because dunnington isn't a native six core. In that article you posted, it said dunnington was a compilation of 3 penryn cores one one die. That conflicts the very definition of being 'native'. Penryn is a native dual core, combining them together doesn't make dunnington a native six core. This is the same argument used as to why core2 quad isn't a native quad core - because its 2 penryn cores on one die. So the award doesn't go to intel, or amd because as far as I know, neither company has made a native six core processor.

edit: note: Technical error - forgot about conroe. c2q can be combinations of penryn or conroe. Conroe core was used in 65nm variations.


Dunnington was a "naitive" six core. Just because it actually used 3 dual core Penryn CPUs does not mean it couldn't be. All 6 cores were on one die thus the term naitive. Each set of dual cores ahd independent caches and one large shared cache.

So in a way it was like a C2Q but still naitive in design.

As for the OP, AMDFanzone is what it is. They are the hard core fans who also would use AMD marketing as proof of a superiority and claim that all benchmarks except the ones that they approve of are rigged and paid for by Intel.

They also claim any site that says Intel has a better CPU is a Intel paid site, such as THG and Anand.

Its kinda sad cuz I remember back during the Athlon 64 days and how touted those chips were among THG, Anand tech and most people here.
November 1, 2009 9:54:08 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Dunnington was a "naitive" six core. Just because it actually used 3 dual core Penryn CPUs does not mean it couldn't be. All 6 cores were on one die thus the term naitive. Each set of dual cores ahd independent caches and one large shared cache.

So in a way it was like a C2Q but still naitive in design.



Indeed. The pictures above tell the same story and was all the explanation I needed.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 9:59:35 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Yessir. Istanbul is also a native Hexa-core processor but it came after Dunnington. What you will often hear is that Istanbul was the first Native Hexa-core (Baron Matrix is notorious for spreading such FUD) and it is just not true.

Thanks for commenting though, it forced me to grab some links and enforces/cements my above comments :) 

Peace.


What I find more interesting about Istanbul is that AMD plans to do a MCM of them to make a 12 core. After so much trash thrown at Intel for the MCM C2Qs they themselves are going to utilize its ability.

Now with HTT and a IMC it will be different but still I always love watching one company dog another for something then they themselves do it too.

ElMoIsEviL said:
Well I'm not quite familiar with Intel fanbois as I don't know many of them right now (I can't tell them apart from the general public because right now they do support the better processor).

But I do remember Intel fanbois back during the days of the Pentium D (I ran AMD exclusively back then). And they would make outlandish claims but never delusional to the point of creating their own website and kicking anyone out who disagrees (referring to AMDZone).

But by all means, if you have certain allegations Intel fans are making which you think are not true, run them by me. I will objectively do the research and then give you the facts (I won't lie to you that's a promise).

:) 


I remember the Pentium D days. No real reason to buy one unless you bought it on the verge of Core 2. Or if you had a low budget but could afford decent air cooling the Pentium D 805 was great for its OCing ability for so cheap ($125 at the time).

But at that same time Asus had released a 479 to 478 adaptor for its 478 desktop mobos and THG did a report on it. They took a Pentium M of the best class and OCed it on my mobo in my old machine (Asus P4P800 Deluxe) and found that the Pentium M not only beat the Pentium 4s but also the Athlon 64s. Of course that is where Core 2 came from.

I think I only knew one person with a Pentium D though. He worked for Intel in Chandler after graduating with a 2 year in Electronics from our local community college. They gave him a Pentium D EE for free. A engineering sample too. So we found a nice mobo and other stuff for it because it was a free $1K CPU.

Other than that everyone was getting Athlon X2s. I unfortunately am always building right before a new release. I got my Pentium 4 system before Athlon 64 came out and my C2Q Q6600 I have now a few months before their 45nm lineup was out. Kinda sucks.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:16:49 PM

Pentium G? you mean D right?
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 10:18:05 PM

Upendra09 said:
Pentium G? you mean D right?


Maybe.... maybe not......

Pentium G, the GeForce CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 1, 2009 10:18:11 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:

1.
Quote:
Hypertransport was an AMD Innovation and QPi is a copy cat




You know what, maybe it's not just fanboi's can are misinformed. Suggestive titles may also contribute to misinformation being passed around.

For instance: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem-cp...

Title is "Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture by AMD?" Anyone just browsing may get the impression that intel had copied something from amd just form the title.

Also, if they chose to click around the article, they may find comments like this...

Quote:
The solution Intel chose—called QuickPath Interconnect (QPI)—was nothing new; an integrated memory controller is an extremely fast point-to-point serial bus. The technology was introduced five years ago in AMD processors...


Anyone choosing to stop reading there will not realize that it continues to say...

Quote:
...but in reality it’s even older than that. These concepts, showing up in AMD and now Intel products, are in fact the result of work done ten years ago by the engineers at DEC during the design of the Alpha 21364 (EV7)


which is what you touched on in your post. After reading that when the article first came out, I realized why there was a question mark in the title. I didn't think twice about it before reading that sentence. Its true that some amd fanboi's are delusional and spread misinformation on purpose, but maybe its not just them. There could be some people who just can't read who spread it as well.

I'm no psychologist, but its just a thought.

edit: 1. cut down quote from op, we've all read it. 2. Direct link to pages specifically quoted: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem-cp...
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 10:20:28 PM

^I think the one thing though that he continues to explain is how in a technical way Intel owns HTT since it owns the IP of Alpha.

So in a way HTT was a innovation of Intel that they let AMD use since they would be a monopoly but they temselves did not use since on the DT a IMC was not yet needed.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:22:13 PM

what is IP and DT?
November 1, 2009 10:25:47 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^I think the one thing though that he continues to explain is how in a technical way Intel owns HTT since it owns the IP of Alpha.

So in a way HTT was a innovation of Intel that they let AMD use since they would be a monopoly but they temselves did not use since on the DT a IMC was not yet needed.


Yes, I understand what he was saying. However, the point of his post was to dispel myths that supposed fanboi's carry. I was raising the level of abstraction to people in general and possibly provide an explanation. That's what I was trying to explain.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:37:01 PM

And people say THG are Intel fanboys, yet that article says quite the opposite :sarcastic: 
November 1, 2009 10:39:16 PM

randomizer said:
Maybe even throw in BaronMatrix on the side and we could really get the party started again. :lol: 



I would have to say no thanks to having all those big egos back. I think it was very distracting and drove the mods crazy.
November 1, 2009 10:39:54 PM

That was interesting. As a normal user, 10 years, I knew obviously there are anti-monopolies. Companies are results of one fantastic standard..by one company..it could even be university , before companies. like the computer and internet humbly at mit...
At a time when silos were in the ground in the cold war secrecy death game...hmmm. who would actually have a public truth anyway...

AMD has been a childish underthunk assmunch since my first AMD, they are lucky to have intels thoughts, as well as ATI...they are getting better.

I read these arguments out loud, in early 2000s, I am one who mysteriously lost a gigantic compaq to bankruptcy, and a big chunk of change...as a complete non-nerd newbie user who had to be taught how to dial out...

the pc is intels. It is as if to pretend it isn't. :whistle: 
I actually do not care, seriously.

a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:45:30 PM

well the PC is really IBM (I still have one from 1982, although their newer workstations since the Pentium era I've found to be poopy)
But x86 is Intel.
Has AMD ever made their own architecture (historically I mean, doing it now would be a bad choice)?
Motorolla did that, with pretty good success too until they ran out of puff.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 1, 2009 10:50:43 PM

Upendra09 said:
what is IP and DT?


IP: Intellectual Property (think patents)

DT: Desktop......

SpidersWeb said:
well the PC is really IBM (I still have one from 1982, although their newer workstations since the Pentium era I've found to be poopy)
But x86 is Intel.
Has AMD ever made their own architecture (historically I mean, doing it now would be a bad choice)?
Motorolla did that, with pretty good success too until they ran out of puff.


Yea technically the PC is IBMs but would not have been possible without Intel and Microsoft too.

ANd historically, no. AMD has never made thier own architecturs. In fact x86-64 is just x86 with 64bit (wa all know) but was designed mainly by IBM who tends to help AMD out a lot.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:51:24 PM

i hate motorolla

they have good headsets other than that they suck
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:55:13 PM

DT= Desktop

of course wow i am stupid
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2009 10:56:08 PM

Ah yep.
I remember when IBM jumped in on the x86 action themselves too. Back in the Pentium era. Cyrix 5x86, 6x86 etc.
    • 1 / 8
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!