Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel vs AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2002 7:17:56 PM

Read Toms New VGA Chart and at the High End the Intel still can't beat AMD. I think the 2700+ kicked the 3.06 HT's butt in every event. Long live AMD.. Bring on the Clawhammer.................

More about : intel amd

December 28, 2002 10:23:30 PM

please use other forums to troll away...
December 28, 2002 10:49:56 PM

Are you an intel troll? I dont see why there is any problem in letting him have his say. And it is in the correct forum anyway. I second the long live AMD.
AREA_51
Related resources
December 29, 2002 7:38:14 AM

Link please, If the P4PE was used then I wouldnt doubt the poor results.

It takes a 3.8Ghz CPU on a P4PE to beat a 3.3Ghz IT7. The despairity in performance is huge compared to other PE boards is significant, like -500Mhz significant.

I have P4PE and IT7Max2 benchmarks posted online, including new granite bay stuff. need links to my projects? I have used the above boards extensivly to know the P4PE loses everything and that includes to a AMD.

Whats a Clawhammer? heh.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 29, 2002 7:49:27 AM

Look at THG and Anandtech benchmark results. P4PE is a very good i845PE mobo. I trust their benchmarks more than your's. You must have some problem with your P4PE

Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Click </A>
December 29, 2002 1:29:16 PM

I was looking at Tom's news benchmarks between cpus, The Iceman Cometh: P4 at 4.1 GHz. From what I saw the p4 3.06 and the xp2800 were very close to each other in most of the benchmarks.
December 29, 2002 10:11:24 PM

Its not my P4PE, its all P4PE's.

I guess I am right that THG used the P4PE to bench against.

I can see how A AMD fanatic would have no problem using the P4PE as that is the only way a AMD can beat P4 at anything.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 29, 2002 11:53:10 PM

Kindly look at these benchmarks.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/20021209/intel_8..." target="_new"> THG Benchmark</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1723&p=21" target="_new"> Anandtech Benchmark</A>

These benchmarks show that ASUS P4PE is one of the best performing i845PE mobo. You are wrong.


Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Click </A>
December 30, 2002 12:24:11 AM

OH GOD. Not another AMD vs Intel thread!!!

For goodness sake!!! We all know the Via Eden chip is the best hands down!!!

<b><font color=purple>[Rik_]</font color=purple> I wonder how many people have made their own phasechange system?
<font color=blue>[LHGPooBaa]</font color=blue> I get phasechange whenever i eat a hot chillie :lol:  </b>
December 30, 2002 1:00:43 AM

yeah, im kinda getting real tired of F*Cking ATI VS NVIDIA and god dam INTEL VS AMD threads..

that's what this whole dam site is about these days

Is THG Slightly Slacking??
December 30, 2002 1:10:42 AM

There you go fugger someone else proved you wrong. Are you going to flame him and toll on him like you are currently trying with me? I suggest you grow up fugger. Stop posting infomation that is clearly wrong. You are way out of your league.
AREA_51
December 30, 2002 1:24:08 AM

AMD all the way baby!!! AMD64!!

one day, intel'ers will see the errors of there ways...
December 30, 2002 2:01:48 AM

Yeah, this very arguement has been going on for how many years??? LOL!!!

It all comes down to this. Intel is a household name. The everyday average people are comfortable buying a household name, even if it is a little more expensive (Thank you Intel marketing department). And generally, these people think of Intel as a QUALITY product. A TRUSTED product.

Statistically, Intel currently has approximately between 80 to 85 percent marketshare of desktop PC CPU's. IF Intel were to put out an "AMD KILLER" then AMD doesn't have enough resources to match it. AMD declares bankruptcy. Intel ends up in an anti-trust suit, for becoming a monopoly(90% marketshare or better). This is not good for Intel, so Intel can not afford for AMD to die. Thus, they let them go...while maintaining their marketshare, and reaping in the cash. Its a matter of running a sensible business. They are just milking the cash cow for every cent that they can.

And even then, the AMD/INTEL controversy keeps them in the spotlight, decreasing the amount of PR that they have to do. It serves their purpose, by reinforcing them as a household name.

In the end, it serves neither Intel nor AMD for Intel to put out a better processor than they already have. And the fact that Intel currently has 6 Billion...yes, with a B...dollars in liquid assets means that they EASILY have the money necessary to make an AMD KILLER.

And on a personal note....If you haven't already noticed, since AMD has become a "threat" to Intel, how many years has AMD actually run the business in the black? Intel knows what they are doing. Have no doubts about that. It's just that they are trying to fool all of the people too....

...and to think, not one arguement or flame in this whole post about who actually has the better CPU.....what a wasted opportunity...LOL

Sources:

<A HREF="http:// http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/i/intc_qb.html " target="_new">http:// http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/i/intc_qb.html </A>

<A HREF="http:// http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/A/amd_qb.html " target="_new">http:// http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/A/amd_qb.html </A>



Okay, I got it apart. Now how do I put it back together again???
December 30, 2002 2:12:34 AM

I don't understand this recent wave of AMD fanboys, it's just disgusting. Perhaps we DO need mods soon...
I say we launch a unanimous request to Fredi, I just don't have time to waste reading crap comments from trolls.
You wit me Master Poobaa?!

--
Help the THGC Photo Album project by promoting this URL to your sig! http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&...
December 30, 2002 6:18:31 AM

Sounds good to me. Im in.

<b><font color=purple>[Rik_]</font color=purple> I wonder how many people have made their own phasechange system?
<font color=blue>[LHGPooBaa]</font color=blue> I get phasechange whenever i eat a hot chillie :lol:  </b>
December 30, 2002 10:12:00 AM

Climb back in your hole troll, quit being a total loser and grow up some.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 30, 2002 10:34:35 AM

Ok, on the THG benchmarks the hard to overlcock the ram to compete (gets beaten by Intel reference board (big shocker)), otherwise like shown in the 3Dmark it fall way behind. about 500Mhz behind.

It took a <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5182699" target="_new">P4PE @ 3.8Ghz</A> to beat the <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4548787" target="_new">The IT7 @ 3.3Ghz.</A> Both machines have the same amount of ram and same video card.

Im running very demanding tests at 1600x1200 resolution, I turned on FSAA to and the results were the same slightly less margin of a win for P4PE with a 500Mhz advantage and higher FSB.

once again 1600x1200x32 FSAA enabled, even more demanding.

The P4PE @ 3.8Ghz scored<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5182814" target="_new"> 11141</A>
IT7 MAX2 @ 3.37Ghz scored <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4548864" target="_new">11116</A>

I know for a fact that the P4PE is the weakest PE board of the bunch. It shows its problems in many applications, and I kicked it to the curb shortly after getting hyperthreading and finding out the problems.

End of discussion for me, you guys are prob not listening anyway.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 30, 2002 10:39:29 AM

I second that, Ill sign that petition.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 30, 2002 11:13:19 AM

Hah!!! My abacus beat both Intel and AMD hands down!!!!




Heh he he!!! Of course Intel and AMD CPUs don't have hands
so they can never beat me ;-)
December 30, 2002 8:35:05 PM

Quote:
It took a P4PE @ 3.8Ghz to beat the The IT7 @ 3.3Ghz. Both machines have the same amount of ram and same video card.

While you do have facts, I believe it all lies in the bandwidth. When you think about it, your Rambus setup has more bandwidth and can last through higher speeds. The DDR setup, (although I am not sure what RAM frequency and CAS latency did you use) is far below RD RAM's bandwidth, and at high speeds like these, not even latency can save it, especially when your FSB is cranked.
Personally I would test both processors at significantly lower frequencies, such as 2.8GHZ, for both P4PE and IT7.
I doubt it's a problem to you since you get parts almost anytime, so I hope you could check it out for us. I am a bit doubtful of the conclusive performance of that board, solely as you are showing insane overclocks with high FSBs.

--
Help the THGC Photo Album project by promoting this URL to your sig! http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&... ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 12/30/02 05:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 30, 2002 10:58:33 PM

Why don't you crawl back to the hole you came from, and maybe come out in a few years.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
December 30, 2002 11:01:36 PM

Are YOU an AMD troll? You sure as hell sound like one. I would highly recommend that before you post on these forums, you actually say something <b>meaningful</b>. And also, how about backing up your arguments, instead of spouting BS?

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
December 30, 2002 11:08:38 PM

IMHO, lately I don't trust Tom's and I really don't know why you do so much. Especially with all the biased benches and messed up conclusions. I agree, though, that Anandtech does publish some unbiased, and truthful results. To be honest, these days I only trust Anandtech and Ace's hardware for benchmarks. Unfortunately, THG's reviews have slowly (but gradually) degraded in quality an honesty.

Also, Fugger is right to <b>some</b> degree. The P4PE's performance is not <i>that</i> great, and it's also not that bad. Fugger, though is correct to a degree when he says the IT7 is a better performer. IMHO, the IT7 MAX 2 has great performance compared to the P4PE (although only to a certian degree).

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?</font color=green>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 12/30/02 08:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 30, 2002 11:13:27 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with you; there are so much " Intel vs AMD" or "Nvidia vs ATI" threads. Really, though, that's not what angers me. What angers me is the ongoing ingorance and stubborness that alot of forum members have (including a bunch of veteran members). I mean sometimes in those threads you fell as though you're talking to a wall, because those forum members don't even listen to what you're saying. I try my best to speak the truth on these forums, and because of that I'm branded an "intel fanboy".
Several forum members have told me to become "neutral", but being neutral is not about the truth. I try to speak the truth, and as I have said many times before, if you can't handle the truth, that's too bad. I get flamed because people can't handle the truth or simply refuse to. Nowadays, I rarely post on these forums because I have simply given up trying to fight all the stubborness and ignorance that plagues thse forums. If people can't handle the truth, then let them continue living in a bubble, or a dream world, because I'm sick and tired of fighting and arguing with them.
- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?</font color=green>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 12/30/02 08:20 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 30, 2002 11:23:25 PM

Hey budy, you want to know a secret? <b>Get a life!</b>. People like you are not wanted on these forums. And you want to know something else?

<b>"AMD FANBOYS will see the the errors of their ways.."</b>

Fanboys like you...

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?</font color=green>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 12/30/02 08:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 30, 2002 11:31:45 PM

Mods soon? My god, I've been hearing for months now that we were getting mods, and we don't have them? I totally agree, these fanboys are disgusting, and the THG forums are a total mess. And it's not just the newbies, but <b>all</b> the stubborn and ignorant forum members at THG.

This is the reason why I don't post that often anymore (and could be the reason why Fatburger left): Trying to argue with some forum members on THG is like trying to argue with a brick; they just don't get it.

I've said this a "gazillion" times before, and I'll say it again: I try my best to speak the truth on these forums. If you can't handle the truth, or refuse to accept it, I'm sorry, but I can't do anything about it. Hopefully, there will be more forum members who realize the truth, and try and spread the truth to everyone else, like me. I'm here to speak the truth, and to educate people. I'm also here to learn a few things myself. Unfortunately, THG is not living up to any of my expectations.

<i>This is the reason why everyday I feel more and more inclined to leave these forums forever.</i>

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?</font color=green>
December 30, 2002 11:40:37 PM

IT7 MAX2 is DDR as well, I am comparing PE chipset to PE chipset with the exact same DDR stick.

I am also running the most agressive memory timing that both boards offered.

When I backed off resolution to 1024x768x32 for the default test, the P4PE is unable to beat the IT7 MAX2 with well over 500Mhz lead. So my current default benches are with the IT7 MAX2.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 30, 2002 11:57:36 PM

Heh don't give up yet there are still people who are hear to learn and listen to what you guys have to say lol... I will probably be classified as a Troll and AMD fanboy but I am running AMD although if I had the cash I would most likly build a P4/Rambus system as the bandwidth there is just ungodly atleast from what I know but for me AMD is just the cheapest solution as money is tight and hard to come by lately although I do like reading these forums every now and then I agree that most people are are to stuborn to listen and just throw out misinformation which sucks for people like me who are honestly trying to figure out the new hardware out and its pros and cons.

AMD XP 1900+
MSI Ultra ARU (MS-6380E)
Geforce 4 Ti4600
PC2100 512MB
December 31, 2002 3:09:05 PM

I must admit, I'm surprised. You're one of the <b>rare</b> few who are actually looking for the truth, and trying to get the real facts. If only more THG members were like you...

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?</font color=green>
December 31, 2002 6:14:27 PM

My bad then, I could've sworn the IT7 was a Rambus motherboard.
If that's the case, then I suppose the P4PE must have some problems handling high bandwidth or high clock speeds because in normal stock benchmarks, it performs top notch.
Perhaps something with the clock generators, problems getting the bandwidth in?

--
Help the THGC Photo Album project by promoting this URL to your sig! http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&...
December 31, 2002 6:32:07 PM

Dark for Christ's sake get over it! You're preaching like there's no tommorow, in fact you act like a preacher with your "spreading the truth"!

Dude you really are taking it so personally that now I am wondering if I wasn't the worst at this in the world! No seriously man, I have and always been the person that took so much personally off the media or the society, but now you are really driving it to new highs.

First of all, those fanboys are a sudden wave that came this week, this has not been the case last week and before! In the past months we have been at peace as more and more the community got open minded. The fact you come occasionally, and find this without being informed of the past weeks like I am, shows you are dramatizing, and you assume too much.
I can tell you the situation of this forum, its developpment over this year like it was yesterday. Apart from Crashman, I am one of the few who have never been absent from the forum for more than 3 days, I almost LIVE here. So get over it man, because you sound desperate.

Secondly, you say you speak truth, but you SUGAR COAT it, in a way that you look hypocritical by what you state against those who favor AMD here. Of course you are not coming close to those fanboys, but I just told you they came as a sudden wave for no reason, and they are probably gone. (must be someone here who wanted to have some fun teasing the crowd by making a temporary username).
I've said this before to you, you sound like a commercial, you sound like an Intel rep. coming to some class to teach people about Intel. You're just about the only person here who is like this, (apart from perhaps Juin, but then again who can decipher this dude! :evil:  ) and if only you'd read your posts to see just how much it can be sugar coated. Of course you'll be asked to be more neutral. Before you strike and point at me, I suggest you go check out Crashman's bumped topic about how the P4 sucks (back then), you'll see living proof of how I used to be like a fanboy back in February, now go back to now, check my posts of the past months. Chances are you can't tell that was the same Eden of early 2002.

Calm down, take a breath, and for Christ's sake wake your mind a bit.

--
Help the THGC Photo Album project by promoting this URL to your sig! http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&... ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 12/31/02 03:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 31, 2002 6:55:19 PM

I dont believe the memory dividers are incorrect like JC (current #1 P4), It shows a solid number on sandra but in anything that demands the bandwidth will not get it, even at stock speeds.

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
December 31, 2002 7:35:33 PM

What if that's the <b>truth</b>? When something is a rumour, I STATE that it's a <b>RUMOUR</b>. There's a difference between <b>fact</b> and rumour</b>. And let me tell you something, I STILL stand by the fact that Intel has better testing than AMD. Why? Because AMD's Athlons <b>continue</b> to have problems with software (compatibility problems). The most recent problems being stability problems with games, which was a DirectX 8.1 problem, and another stability problem with win2k SP3. Yes, there are patches for these, but my question is:

WHY do these problems <b>continue</b> to appear? According to AMD, if the Athlon really doesn't have any hardware bugs, and if it's tested just as thoroughly as an Intel CPU (according to the myriad of fanboys and enthusiasts who say this on THG), then <b>why</b> do Athlons continue to have these problems? Many people say it's Microsoft's fault, or someone else's fault. It can't <b>always</b> be someone else's fault. Everyone must stop pointing fingers, and maybe actually put the blame on <b>AMD for once</b>. These people must understand that AMD is <b>not</b> a god, and they must understand that <i>maybe</i> and quite probably, their beloved AMD does not test their CPU's <b>that</b> well. As a counter argument to that, many forum members state that AMD's testing is <b>adequate</b>, and that Intel is almostt <i>paranoid</i> about stability and compatiblity. Well, you know what? <b>Paranoia</b> is what got Intel to the top. In the 80's, Craig Barrett's so-called <b>paranoid</b> ideas saved Intel, because those "paranoid" ideas increased Intel's yields significantly, to a point where even <i>Japanese</i> chip makers could not keep up with those kind of yields. And now, Craig Barrett and Andy Grove have several new so-called "paranoid" ideas. For example, in a speech [<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch2002121101..." target="_new">link</A>] recently, Andy Grove talked about how Moore's Law could be dead by 2010. Why? because Intel is becoming extremely worried about leakage. Grove stated that even with all the current and future technologies that Intel has at it's disposal, leakage will still pose a big problem. That means <b>even</b> with SOI, the tri-gate transistor, and the Terahertz transistor, leakage will pose a problem. Alot of people right now are ridiculing Grove for this statement, and saying that he's "paranoid", but you just wait and see, Grove's predictions will come true. Almost all predictions that Intel has made have come true. And also, almost all of Intel's so called "paranoid" ideas have turned out to be great ideas. In general, Intel's predictions and paranoid ideas have a high success rate, and because of these paranoid ideas, that is why Intel is at the top. It's also why Intel continues to stay at the top, the "top" being the <b>world's #1 chip supplier</b>. Intel thinks differently than other companies, and if you read my new sig, as Grove once said, "...in the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid...".

Intel does a huge amount of testing, and puts alot of safety measures into their CPU's. Intel's products also have a large margin of error. On top of that, Intel takes initiative, and doesn't rely on anyone or wait for anyone. That's why Intel is the industry leader. AMD usually relies on someone, or waits for Intel to invent a technology, so they can use it.

So many THG members on these forums give AMD more credit than they deserve. What has AMD done which was <b>truly</b> remarkable or innovative? The only thing that I give AMD credit for is that it provided great competition keeping prices down, and it made an efficient (although, hardly innovative) CPU which is the K7. The K7 was not original, but it performed well for a cheap price.

If you right now are looking for a low-end, cheap CPU, then get an Athlon by all means. I'm not saying that the Athlon is horrible. All I'm saying is AMD does not deserve all this credit and recognition.

To further complement my argument, AMD recently adopted an "Intel-style" pricing scheme for their mid and high end Athlons. Because of this, there no longer is much point in buying a mid or high end Athlon, copmared to a P4. The Athlon's <b>biggest</b> strength is now gone, and yet so many THG members continue to brag and "preach" how great the Athlon XP 2XXX+ really is. The only <b>logical</b> reason to buy a mid or high end Athlon right now would be for a specific program that the Athlon does really well in. Otherwise, in the mid and high end ranges, it's better to get a P4. Also, contrary to so-called "popular" belief, I'm not a "preacher". And I don't buy Intel's BEST CPU. Why? Because Intel's top CPU's always carry a hefty price premium, simply because that is the best current CPU. In any case, I highly <b>do not</b> recommend buying a high end, or top-of-the-line CPU of any kind, simply because of the price premium those CPU's carry. I have always bought midrange Intel CPU's. I have always recommended midrange Intel CPU's, because they have a great price/performance ratio.

Ohh, and I haven't even mentioned that P4's OC alot better than current Athlon XP's, and P4's OC great simply using the stock fan.

In the past, I <i>may</i> have "sugar-coated" a few things, when I was unraged. but that was months ago. I DO NOT "sugar coat" anything anymore. I try my best to speak the truth, and if you think that it's not the truth, well then I can't do anything about it.

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"...In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid.."[Andy Grove]</font color=green>
December 31, 2002 11:12:11 PM

Quote:
). The most recent problems being stability problems with games, which was a DirectX 8.1 problem, and another stability problem with win2k SP3

Carry on. I use both DX8.1 and Windows 2000 with SP3. Zero problems so far.
Quote:
These people must understand that AMD is not a god, and they must understand that maybe and quite probably, their beloved AMD does not test their CPU's that well.

At first, you must understand that Intel is not god. Only clueless AMD fanboys think AMD is god. Do you think you are the Intel version of them?

You think that Intel is the god of testing CPUs. So why they produced faulty Pentium, P3 Coppermine 1.13 GHz? AMD is still to make such CPU's. In fact, everybody needs stable CPUs. They should see if the CPU is stable or not. If it's stable, it doesn't matter how much time the manufacturer has spended after it to make it stable.

Everybody except Intel fanboys know that a wrong decision of IBM made Intel today's no.1 CPU manifacturer.

Was it long ago, when Intel got sued by Intergraph for P6 and Itanium?
Quote:
I have always recommended midrange Intel CPU's, because

Because you are an Intel fanboy
Quote:
Ohh, and I haven't even mentioned that P4's OC alot better than current Athlon XP's, and P4's OC great simply using the stock fan.

Ohh, your Intel loves overclocking! Strange thing is that your Intel processor's warranty becomes void when you overlclock.
Quote:
In the past, I may have "sugar-coated" a few things, when I was unraged. but that was months ago. I DO NOT "sugar coat" anything anymore.

You are the same Dark_Archonis, still sugar coat things like you used to do before. Raystonn is an Intel employee, but he is 100 times better than you.


Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Click </A>
December 31, 2002 11:20:37 PM

You're starting to make Intel sound like a god in that post.
December 31, 2002 11:33:46 PM

Why not raise the prices on AMD chips? Let the AMD fanboys spend all the money they want for high-end chips and those who don't want to pay that much buy the 2100 and down chips. What should AMD do, sell the 2700 for $200? This whole "truth" BS isn't going to deeply move anyone.
December 31, 2002 11:38:17 PM

About the whole stability thing, I would also like to add the fact that Intel's testing is well known, and there proven facts, as well as articles about Intel's testing. Intel's testing is somewhat "unique", or you could even say that it's "legendary", but that's a bit exaggerated. Here's a quote from the <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1584&p=9" target="_new">following</A> Anandtech article:

Quote:
<i>Written by Anand Lal Shimpi</i><b>
Intel’s Validation Labs

One of the things Intel is known quite well for are their Validation Labs. Many will argue that the price premium you pay when purchasing an Intel CPU over the competition is all of the time and effort that goes into validation; whether or not its worth it is up to the buyer to decide, but there is good reason that Intel’s corporate penetration has been so great historically.

There are two major parts of the validation labs, Intel’s SV and CV Labs which stand for System and Compatibility Validation respectively. The SV labs focus on validating a CPU (or CPUs) for use with platforms. So when Intel says that a CPU is validated for use in dual processor systems they mean that they have performed their extensive testing on the CPU in that configuration.

The CV labs are more end-user oriented as they focus on application compatibility with Intel products.</b>

I recommend that article; it's a good read and explains quite a bit about Intel's testing.

But when it comes to AMD, there is hardly any information about their testing, and it is not well known at all; the reason being it's not <i>as good</i> as Intel's testing. Alot of THG members often cite that AMD has great testing and that it's "very similar" to Intel's testing. If it was, then it would've been well known, since every single AMD fanboy would've been excited at hearing how great AMD's testing is. The truth is, AMD's testing is "average", it's not unique; it's not well known; which means it's not as thorough and rigorous as Intel's testing.

Recently, some very "interesting" news regarding Hammer's validation came out. If you look <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/amd-hammer-family/i..." target="_new">here</A> and scroll down to the first block diagram, right on top of the block diagram you'll use the hammer has been tested on "50 different OSes". Now when I read this, I just laughed. What this AMD enthusiast forgets to mentionis that the so-called "50 OSes" include <i>over 12 different variations of Windows, over 8 different variations of Linux, several variations of DOS, and a host of other variations of unix, and misc OSes</i>. Hardly 50 OSes. What really angers me though is the fact that <b>4 different versions</b> of Red Hat Linux are mentioned, as well as <b>4 different versions</b> Of Novell's Netware. This is just blasphemous. This is hardly 50 OSes. In reality, there are less than 10 OSes here.

[sarcasm] Well, why not tell the people there are 50 OSes? heck, why not include the microsoft "Plus" packs for windows as separate OSes? Hell, lets get <b>every single version</b> of every single OS ever made in history, and lets include those.[/sarcasm]

And the fact is, many sites are putting this headline of "... more than 50 OSes ..." which is complete BS. This is a classic tale of misinformation and is simply an attempt by AMD fanboys to make Hammer "look good". These kinds of acts of misinformation go on practically everyday in forums like THG.
- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 12/31/02 08:39 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 31, 2002 11:41:08 PM

They've made remarkable success during their Thunderbird era. When Intel was struggling to get their higher clock piii's and P4 willys out. AMD was the first to hit the big 1ghz landmark. It was so sad when Intel released their "evolutionary" P4 Willys. They were expensive and were out performed by piii. The Tbird 1400 266 held the speed crown for a while back then.

Intel made a big step when they released their P4 Northwoods. They finally release something worthy to compete with the AMD. The Northwoods overclocked well and had less heat problems.

Both companies made big improvements during their chip races. Right now they are about evenly matched. Yes, Intels overclock far better than tbreds, but you have to consider the fact that a small increase in mhz for a tbred can mean a big jump in performance.
January 1, 2003 12:40:26 AM

Same old Spitfire, you take my arguments, twist them around, and throw them back at me. How clever. You know, you remind me of Matisaro, who used to argue the same way against me, twisting around my arguments, regurgitating them back at me, and feeling proud of it, too. Well, I'm sick and tired of it. I don't even know where to begin to point out all the flaws in your so-called "arguments":

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Carry on. I use both DX8.1 and Windows 2000 with SP3. Zero problems so far.

Umm, and your point is? First off, you never answered my question as to why these sort of compatiblity problems occur <b>in the first place</b>. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you running win2k sp3 and directX 8.1 with both of the patches that I mentioned?

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
You think that Intel is the god of testing CPUs. So why they produced faulty Pentium, P3 Coppermine 1.13 GHz? AMD is still to make such CPU's. In fact, everybody needs stable CPUs. They should see if the CPU is stable or not. If it's stable, it doesn't matter how much time the manufacturer has spended after it to make it stable.

Everybody except Intel fanboys know that a wrong decision of IBM made Intel today's no.1 CPU manifacturer.

Was it long ago, when Intel got sued by Intergraph for P6 and Itanium?

My god, this counter has more flaws than an AMD advertising campaign.

I admit it. The Pentium FP bug was an ACTUAL real testing mishap that Intel had. Intel, though quickly solved it. And yes, the P3 1.13 Ghz Coppoermine was indeed released in a rush, and wasn't fully tested to Intel's standards. BUT, OEM's were the ONLY ones who (at the time) had the 1.13's in their hands. There was reportedly only about a 1000 or so 1.13 chips that Intel released to OEM's before they recalled them. For a consumer to have actually bought a 1.13 Ghz, well that would've been quite a rare occurence, because the 1.13's weren't selling in retail before they got recalled. So really, the 1.13 was a half-assed release, before it was recalled.

Yet again, as always, you say that "AMD has yet to make such a chip". Well, where have you been for the past decade? Does the ORIGINAL K6 ring a bell in any way for you? It sure does for me. For me (and many others), the original K6 stands in history as a CPU that had a host of hardware bugs, stability problems, and compatibility problems. Sure, putting a K6 into an Intel chipset solved some of these problems (yet another testament to the stability of Intel products), but there was no way the CPU-specific hardware problems could be solved. To be fair, lets mention the Athlon XP, and the Northwood "B stepping". Yes, you heard me, the Northwood. After long term testing (several months of long term testing), Intel discovered several <b>very rare</b> bugs or "erratum (as Intel likes to call them) in the NW B stepping. Intel was honest enough to <b>admit the NW had these bugs</b> and also stated that all of these bugs would be fixed in a future "C Stepping" and voila, the NW C stepping is 100% totally free of bugs. Now, the Athlon XP also has several bugs relating to hardware prefetch, but AMD has been very slow to admit them. These bugs have been documented by several websites, and several AMD employees admit that these bugs do exist. Now, AMD's reaction to this has been that these bugs are "very rare", and (quote) "<b>there is no point in fixing this bugs because they are irrelevant</b>". Here's a few articles regarding this:

<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002jan/bch2002012500..." target="_new">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002jan/bch2002012500...;/A>

<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/bch200107250..." target="_new">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/bch200107250...;/A>

Wrong decision by IBM eh? You AMD fanboys sure like to point fingers at everyone <b>except AMD</b>, don't you?

About the whole Intergraph thing, the P6 was desinged by Intel alone, and the Itanium was designed by Intel along with HP. Intel nor HP never stole anything; it just so happened that the P6 and Itanium infringed on the myriad of the <b>extremely broad</b> patents made by Intergraph. The whole patent system is flaws, because any moron can make a patent about anything they like, I mean there are millions of patents in existance, and yet thousands upon thousands of them have never been used, or are really stupid like a patented "walking toaster". Patents MUST be made more specific, and more controlled. The truth is, Intergraph are a bunch of greedy fat cats who simply want money from Intel, because they know that Intel has lots of money. Recently, Intergraph announced that they are considering suing Gateway, Dell, HP, and possibly several other companies, becuase "supposedly", the infringe on Intergraph patents. Now that is just pure BS. Watch, Intergraph will soon go after a company like Sony, or Toshiba, or even Toyota. Hell, they'll go after any big company with lots of money. Here, take a look at this link:

<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/wge2002121801..." target="_new">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/wge2002121801...;/A>

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Because you are an Intel fanboy

My oh my, what "constructive" and "intelligent" arguments you have.

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Ohh, your Intel loves overclocking! Strange thing is that your Intel processor's warranty becomes void when you overlclock.

Umm, SINCE WHEN does a CPU maker ACTUALLY embrace overclocking? Can you name me a CPU manufacturer that will honor a warranty EVEN IF the CPU is overclocked? GO ahead, <b>I dare you</b>.

Spitfire, your arguments are very weak twisted versions of my arguments, and you state the very obvious. If your arguments were any more simpler or obvious, then I wouldn't even bother to argue with you. Spitfire, please wake up, get out of the bubble you're living in, and actually go and find some truth.

Note: to all those who are new to thse forums or who thinks I'm some "crazy Intel fanboy", I'm sorry if I sound "<b>intel</b>lish", but this argument has gone on between me and several forum members for months. Several threads have been made and on various occasions I have defended myself. I am simply stating the truth; if you interpret this as FUD or BS, then good for you, go buy an Athlon; if you think this isn't true; fine, continue to live like some clueless enthusiast.

This is the <b>truth</b>. If you don't like it/accept it/refuse to believe it, I can't do anything about it. Ignorance and stubborness are extremely hard to get rid of. I can't fight ALL of the ignorance in these forums by myself. The would just be plain stupid of me.

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
January 1, 2003 12:47:58 AM

You are just like every other enthusiast or fanboy out there:

<i>"AMD is great; AMD can never do anything wrong; AMD is always right; AMD is god: whatever AMD does is correct; let us celebrate the thunderbird core; man how amazing is the thunderbird core;AMD has the best price/performance ratio right now; the P4 2.53 gets killed by the Athlon XP 2600+ ... "</i> etc.

I could go on for days, maybe weeks with all this useless BS and jibberish. If you think my truth is BS, the fine, keep on thinking that.

Let me ask you something, does this kind of "truth" feel like "truth" to you:

<i>"AMD is great; I am a fanboy; AMD's testing is legendary; AMD has done soo many innovative things; AMD's chips are incredible; hooray for the thunderbird core ..."</i>


- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
January 1, 2003 12:54:30 AM

Ohh wow, AMD hit 1ghz first. Intel hit 2ghz first, and 3ghz. Intel introduced MMX first; Intel introduced SSE first; Intel introduced SSE2 first; ...

Need I go on?

Do you see my point? Yes, initially, the p4's (willies) were pretty crappy, but Intel NEVER made a mistake in releasing this core, because the P7 core is clearly superior to the K7 core; the P7 has soo much flexiblity, improvement room, soo much scalability, soo much performance potential. Intel knew that the P7 was a great core, but Intel unfortunately made a few last minute "cuts" to the willy, because it would have been very expensive. FYI, did you know that originally, the Williamette was supposed to have 3 double-pumped ALU's, a 1MB L3 cache, AND HT enabled? HT was disabled after testing deemed it unfit for use, and all the other features were cut because the chip would have been expensive.

I mean AMD gets credit everyday practically from people liek you for hitting the 1ghz mark, for making the thunderbird core.

It's funny how on these forums you NEVER see Intel getting credit for making a CPU run at 3.06 Ghz, or getting the ALU's in that CPU to run at <b>6.12 Ghz</b>. Or how about the fact that the 3.06 HT enabled P4 outputs more heat than the Athlon XP 2800+, YET manages to have the same average core temperature (with a stock fan) as an Athlon XP 2800+?

Funny, isn't it?

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 12/31/02 09:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 1, 2003 1:18:37 AM

Quote:
My oh my, what "constructive" and "intelligent" arguments you have.

Where is the point of recommending Intel for Midrange/Value CPU buyers?

Quote:
Wrong decision by IBM eh? You AMD fanboys sure like to point fingers at everyone except AMD, don't you?

Wasn't Motorola CPUs were better than Intel's 8088 in 1981?

AND I AM NOT AN AMD FANBOY. I hate Intel, but this doesn't make me an AMD fanboy. I think Intel is evil and AMD is businessman. AMD fanboys think Intel is evil and AMD is saint. I sound somewhat AMD biased, because there is no good Intel alternative except AMD. And I am aware of this fact that AMD is not that creative. AMD's most innovations comes from former NexGen.

Quote:
Umm, SINCE WHEN does a CPU maker ACTUALLY embrace overclocking? Can you name me a CPU manufacturer that will honor a warranty EVEN IF the CPU is overclocked? GO ahead, I dare you.

Have I told that AMD likes overclocking? Actually I wanted to say that overclocked performance is nothing to tell about, because a CPU manufaturer doesn't honor the warranty when a CPU is overclocked.

Your "Intel" like stability is the differece between 100 fps and 101 fps in a game. Sure 101 fps is better than 100 fps, but practially they are 100% equal.

Last words, don't leave this forum. There's an AMD version of you (vk2amv). Without you, this forum will become unbalanced.


Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Click </A>
January 1, 2003 2:15:36 AM

Hey man calm down. You said that AMD never made any accomplishments. They obviously made some accomplishments to be recognized by so many people.

The p4 willy was released prematurely. They should have waited. The chip design itself was not flawed, the last minute cuts were. Intel released their seventh generation chip design, shouldn't it be better than their six generation? When the Willy came out, Intel's older Piii outperformed it.

I don't know why you consider everybody that says something good about AMD is a AMD fanboy. There are people out there that like to get the best value for their money. If Intel offers better deals then go with Intel, if AMD offers better deals then go with AMD. Who gives a $h|t which company made the chip. If tomorrow a no-name company releases a super-fast super-stable chip at a good value, I'll go and buy that.
January 1, 2003 3:44:29 PM

Right, now that I've got five minutes in my schehdule I thought I'd follow up my initial(somewhat controversial) statement. I am definately no troll but do have a soft spot for the underdog. I pretty much always buy AMD, you get so much more performance for your money. I have never encountered a problem with software stability or reliability on my AMD systems. And if you cast your mind back at Intel(and its great QA team) then you might be aware of the Intel486 TR4 Bug or the Pentium II and Pentium Pro Floating Point Bug or the Xeon-Erratum No. 37 bug. To name but a few, Intels reaction to these bugs was that the software could be coded to avoid them. So if AMD's processors are actually subject to big brothers failings then I think that's probably OK. We all know that Intel has the bandwidth edge that allows its high end processors to excel but on an equal basis with the highest spec graphics around AMD did pop their heads in front. Not something I was expecting to see. And yes you may troll away yourself about your Intel buddies but the simple fact is that AMD's Athlon design is better than the mighty Intels. If you look at the processing power alone then it does have to be said that AMD kicks ass. That's a major credit to an engineering team(on a much smaller budget) that have defeated the mighty Intel. The upstart that is AMD has been THE major contributor to cheaper faster computer systems. If Intel had been left to their merry ways then we would all still be using PII 450's. ANd we would all still be paying through the nose for them. I say VIVA AMD the Giant Killer.. and NAFF OFF Intel DING DONG DING DANG...........
January 1, 2003 5:30:06 PM

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Where is the point of recommending Intel for Midrange/Value CPU buyers?

If you haven't noticed yet, the prices for midrange P4's right now are great. Check out <A HREF="http://www.pricewatch.com" target="_new">http://www.pricewatch.com&lt;/A> and see for yourself. If someone is going to buy a midrange system right now, then it would be logical to get a P4, since the prices are great right now.

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Wasn't Motorola CPUs were better than Intel's 8088 in 1981?

Indeed, you are correct. Some of Motorola's CPU's were techically, better than Intel's CPU's in the early 80's, but Motorola didn't have a name for itself, and it didn't really have a great reputation. Plus, it was a mistake that Motorola made itself which prevented the chips from selling in high volumes. Motorola didn't put enough effort into the selling the chips.

Also, if you've noticed, I have rarely commented on the business practices of either Intel or AMD. Frankly, I'm not <b>too</b> concerned about their business practices. There are alot of things wrong in this world, and alot of problems with our human civilization. But that's the point; we're human; we have flaws, which means our civilization will definitely have flaws. Both AMD and Intel are run by humans (obviously). So, both companies have flaws, but there isn't much you can do about it. Intel, with regards to engineering, triple checks everything, to minimize human error as much as possible. AMD, does the same thing, but Intel is just more paranoid about it, and has more resources to do it, which is how you get the wonderful stability in Intel's products. I know many people think Intel is evil because of their business practices. The thing is, I DO NOT praise Intel because of their business practices, but rather, I praise Intel for their products and their engineering prowess.

Frankly, AMD's business practices aren't exactly that "perfect", and of course, neither is Intel's.

Lastly, I'm surprised and relieved that you admit most of AMD's innovation comes from NextGen.

Quote:
<i>Written by Spitfire_x86</i>
Have I told that AMD likes overclocking? Actually I wanted to say that overclocked performance is nothing to tell about, because a CPU manufaturer doesn't honor the warranty when a CPU is overclocked.

Your "Intel" like stability is the differece between 100 fps and 101 fps in a game. Sure 101 fps is better than 100 fps, but practially they are 100% equal.

Last words, don't leave this forum. There's an AMD version of you (vk2amv). Without you, this forum will become unbalanced.

Yes, I know AMD likes overclocking. The only problem is that the Athlon XP's don't overclock as well as the P4's right now. The only reason why Intel does not *support* overclocking is because it decreases stability, and I presume you already know how serious Intel is about stability. BTW, one of Intel's upcoming mobo's (I forgot which one) will have some overclocking features in it. Intel is slowly starting to accept overclocking because it's such a major part of the enthusiast and gaming community. Intel will gradually add overclocking features to several future products, while at the same time trying to retain the stability of their hardware, even when overclocked.

Also, I'm not too sure what you're trying to say with the "100fps vs. 101fps argument". Please elaborate.

vk2amv, I am familiar with him. Indeed, he causes many disturbances in "the force".

Lastly, you should not hate Intel's products because you hate their business practices. Those 2 things are not really related (with regards to Intel).

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
January 1, 2003 5:40:54 PM

Willy was not released prematurely. It was just the last minute cuts that hurt it's performance quite dramatically. BTW, it wasn't the engineers' decision to make the cuts; it was managements'.

Quote:
<i>Written by LancerEvolution7</i>
I don't know why you consider everybody that says something good about AMD is a AMD fanboy. There are people out there that like to get the best value for their money. If Intel offers better deals then go with Intel, if AMD offers better deals then go with AMD. Who gives a $h|t which company made the chip. If tomorrow a no-name company releases a super-fast super-stable chip at a good value, I'll go and buy that.

No. The people who I consider AMD fanboys are the people who <b>praise</b> AMD over and over for some really small achievements. For example, praise AMD hundred's of times for releasing the thunderbird core. I mean, you don't see me (or anyone else on these forums) running around yelling "hooray for the coppermine!". I'm raelly suprised at how many people say things like "if some no-name company comes out with a great chip, I'll buy it". In reality, you probably won't. For you to buy the chip, you would have to know about it first. ALso, how would you know it's a "super stable" chip? The only way to determine that would be through long-term usage, and the company would also need to have a reputation of making stable chips to actually buy them.

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
January 1, 2003 5:54:19 PM

Alirght, let me tell you a little secret: <b>AMD no longer has any price/performance advantage whatsoever with regards to midrange CPU's</b>. AMD has adopted a sort of "Intel style" price-scheme with their mid and high end CPU's. So, no longer does AMD have a complete price/performance advantage over Intel anyone. AMD also does not have the overall performance advantage, and doesn't have the overclocking advatage either. The only advantage AMD has right now is the price of their low-end CPU's.

Ohh, and BTW, did you know that right now, it costs AMD <b>more money than Intel</b> to produce an Athlon XP, compared to a P4? And lets not talk about hammer, which costs <b>alot more to produce</b> than either a P4 or Athlon XP.

And don't get me started about "bugs" that Intel's products have. AMD's products over the years have had WAY more bugs, even though AMD produces A LOT LESS CPU's than Intel.

With regards to the Athlon's architecture, do you really know what you're talking about? Oh wow, yes the Athlon has a better IPC than the P4. Does that make it a "superoir" architecture? <b>Hell no</b>.

Let me ask you something, how do you define a superior architecture? An architecture with a high IPC? an architecture that is named "Athlon"? An architecture that <b>must have</b> three fully-pipelined FPU units?

There are different ways of achieving performance, and having a good architecure. High IPC is one way. High scalability is another. With regards to the P4 and Athlon, it's hard to say which is "superior", if you do not define specifically what "superior" is.

Ohh, and bringing competition is the only thing that I really give credit to AMD for.

- - -
<font color=green>Ignorance is bliss...isn't it (especially if you're a fanboy)?

"... In the semiconductor industry, it's good to be paranoid ..." - [Andy Grove]</font color=green>
January 1, 2003 6:43:46 PM

Hey now don't get your Knickers in a twist, you obviously love Intel and I can appreciate that.

Firstly(Ebuyer.com) Retail box P4 2.4Ghz 146 pounds + VAT, AMD 2400+ Retail Box 134 pounds + Vat 134 pounds + VAT. I would suggest that is a price/performance difference.
Secondly as far as overclocking goes, I believe TOMS most recent article Prometeia: Is this the best CPU cooling system around http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021230/index.html pushed the AMD to approx 4000+ not actually that far off the Intel.
Thirdly, Intel has had the whole playing field to themselves for so long and has made so much profit that it was able to develope the best process and FABS for CPU production. I am sure in time AMD will be able to reduce the cost of production.
Fourth, I never suggested that AMD have had no bugs in their processors over the years but you attempt to make your point in such a way that implies processor bugs are an AMD only affair, which of course is not the case. You sound like the scare mongerers that have helped Intel remain the only recognisable Brand in the PC Market.

Fifth, your point is valid, maybe I am praising AMD for an older processor architecture. But ...

And Finally, AMD brought more than competition, they developed the first CPU that reached 1Ghz(I know that's OLD news but who could have predicted it), the original Athlon design kick started the whole PC industry, Intel were shaking in their boots. They did not have a processor ready to compete but, having the money and being very cunning they forced the price of processors so far down that AMD, despite increasing their market share considerably is losing 100 million per quarter. Intel adopt Microsoft tactics where necessary and use their financial clought to bring down the opposition not technical innovation.

You are the kind of person who probably supports Manchester United, they have the most money and can buy the best players, so invariably they win. But despite their financial dominance they are still not unbeatable and a side with more talent and more desire can upset them from time to time. That's what I like about AMD, you know the next upset is just around the corner.

Complacence is the bliss of ignorance ( especially if you are and DING DONG DING DANG boy!!!!!).
!