AMD's Official Response to Intel's HT Technology

[Spitfire_x86]

<A HREF="http://www.amdmb.com/news-display.php?NewsID=6479" target="_new"> Click to read</A>

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[Turk]

Interesting! But is it true, and what exactly is a "industri standard test"? And what about gaming? Everything we se, well atleast most tests, including THG, reports that the Intel CPUs with HT is slightly faster than the AMDs. But then again, most Intel CPUs with HT have a FSB of 800 which AMD is still to catch up with.

Anyhow I find that it is difficult to read something useful from CPU comparison tests, because the different softwares used are generally optimized for either Intel or AMD. Maybe the tests should be done with three (who has the time or the resources?) different versions of the software? One nonoptimized version, and one intel optimized and one AMD optimized. Perhaps its not that difficult to make benchmarking software in three different versions?

But then again, the OS the prg are running on is perhaps more ore less suited for one brand (may it be Intel or AMD). And how well does benchmarking programs reflect the software we actually buy?

Well, my conclusion is, try to figure out which software one is going to use, make a budget, and get the platform that gives you the best ratio/invested$.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the subject.

Turk

 

[endyen]

This is a response to HT and not to the 200 fsb chips. What I find most interesting is the list of benchies at the bottom of the page. They seem to be using a lot of Bapco tests that predate Bapco's dumping progs where intel did not outperform Amd. Kind of fitting dont you think? These are the same tests that showed the willy P4 1800 on par with the palomino xp1800. Just the same, I dont think any of the Athlons quite measure up to the 200 fsb P4 3 gig. at stock clocks.

 

[sargeduck]

Any statements released by an official company, be it Intel, Amd, Nvidia, ATI, whatever, one has to take with a grain of salt. The company will always try to make themselves look better, while downplaying the other companies products (in this case, hyperthreading). Amd says something like their processors are 23% faster or something? Are they making a fair comparison? (xp3200 vs 3.0ghz, compared to xp3200 vs 2.4ghz). Anyways, just my thoughts

 

[endyen]

If you want to comment on an article sarge, I think it's a good idea to read it first. The comparison is stated as being between an xp3000+ and a 3.06 P4. Read the fine print at the bottom and it will tell you what benchies were used. There is no doubt that the tests can be reproduced though there is a question of the benchies being dated.

 

[Turk]

----------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt that the tests can be reproduced though

there is a question of the benchies being dated.
----------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, which brings us (me?) back to my point of more or less optimized software. One could even argue for a test of CPUs in a nonoptimized elementry OS. Then again, this would also be missleading since this wouldn't accurately reflect "actual" conditions.

Anyone seen any CPU benchmarks in Linux lately?

Turk

 

[Mephistopheles]

Here's <i>my</i> response to AMD's Official Response to Intel's HT Technology:

:lol: heheh :lol: heheheh :lol: heheheheh

You weren't expecting a serious response, were you?

 

[eden]

Just watch how in a few months AMD will have a public annoucement with all the joy: We are proud to announce HyperThreading technology is coming into future K8 cores!

That is typical nVidia behavior lately as well.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[simwiz2]

AMD has benchmarks that show not just the 3200+, but also the 3000+ as being significantly faster than the P4 3.0, so definately take this "response" to HT with a grain of salt.

 

[TheMASK]

My Trust on AMD and nVidia is going down day by day. But then, who knows who else is cheating.

<b><font color=red>The statement below is true.</font color=red></b>
<b><font color=blue> The statement above is false.</font color=blue></b>

 

[eden]

AMD is cheating now?

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[Spitfire_x86]

AMD is lying about Barton PR, which is some kind of cheating.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[simwiz2]

Their benchmarks are sort of cheating, because the information presented in them is intentionally misleading. A customer looks at the AMD benchmarks and thinks a 3200+ easily beats a P4 3.0.

 

[imgod2u]

Say it isn't so! A manufacturer artificially inflating and biasing benchmarks to make their products seem more favorable?! No! It can't be! Only the Evil Intel (tm) does that!

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

 

[skligmund]

One thing you must all remeber, this is the end of the line for the SOCKET 462 processors. Hmm, jeez, come to think about it, that socket has been around for how long? How many YEARS? How long did it take Intel to finally reach AMD? Or even pass them? But if we keep argueing the 'AXP vs. P4HT' debate forever, why don't we start arguing about the P2 and the K6-2?

No, where the arguemnets should be taking place is whatever Intel has on the line for the future (what is it?) and the Hammer. Weathewr you think it or not, I firmly believe the Hammer is gonna whoop any current P4 out of the water. But that would be like the old P3's vs. Athlon or something, so we need to look at what Intel has to offer. And to tell you the truth, I don't know, because I forgot to care.

Yeah, I come off sounding like an AMD fanboy, but it is pretty darn close. I have never personally been felt like I was screwed by AMD, however I can say I was screwed on more than 1 occasion by Intel, which I will not go into because I don't want to spend another 5 minutes on this post. I stick with who I 'trust.'
I will never like Chevys, I've had 2 of them, nothing but problems and leaks. My father has had 3 Fords in the last 17 years, and not one leak, not one major problem (only normal wear things like U-Joints and Wheel-Bearings). Same goes for MOPAR (Dodge, Chrysler, Plymouth [screw Jeeps]) in my experience. So with that experience, I will say the next truck I get will be a Dodge or a Ford.

I too once had money, then I got into computers...
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6607283" target="_new"> 3DMark </A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24383" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[savantu]

Haha...


They used a 3000+ with A7N8X nforce 2 mobo+ 2X256MB Corsair CAS2,400MHz while the Intel system had a 3,06Ghz P4 + Intel D845GEBV2 the RAM running at 333Mhz.

That shouldtell us everything about the quality of the benchmarks.Add to this the 2-3 years old software they used.

Long live Intel!

From the darkside...you know!

 

[Mephistopheles]

I don't know, because I forgot to care.

I don't want to spend another 5 minutes on this post.

So I guess you'll understand me if I don't spend more than 30 seconds writing a reply.

 

[eden]

It is not cheating or lying if it is possible!

Cheating would be if they used a software that would, say, like in the graphics cards, render a scene with less image quality to raise performance.
I just woke up, my head has little processing power to find a similar analogy.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[eden]

Hammer did not kick any P4 out of the water.
Opteron lost 90% or more of the Workstation benchmarks to Xeon P4s.
Prescott WILL contend the Athlon 64 very well.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[Mephistopheles]

I must agree. I think Prescott is enough to keep A64 at bay. It should run 32-bit code excellently. Come on, it has a full meg of cache, completely redesigned core, extra instructions (SSE3 or something), improved HT functionality, and good chipsets that support it (right NOW). Plus, if it is indeed 90nm tech, then it can easily go up to 4Ghz and beyond. And that's really not something the A64 can compete with. My thoughts here.

You see, Skligmund, this is what you were forgetting to care. Some roadmaps show that, by 2004, we'll be seeing the grantsdale chipset, which tops out at a DC DDR-II 533 and 1066Mhz FSB, depending on availability of DDR-II and competition from AMD. Even when grantsdale isn't around, a ~3.4 or 3.6Ghz Prescott isn't a sloppy contender! And AMD hasn't got this kind of roadmap for 2004 either.

Now picture this: AMD having troubles with wide support for x86-64 code, without which its new A64 is just a "glorified and overpriced XP" (thanks for that quote, slvr_phoenix), and that probably will be the case for the rest of 2003, with 2004 looking a bit better. Intel is then ready to go 1066Mhz and DDR-II 533 by next year, if needed. Plus, Prescott can scale up to 4+ Ghz. And I'm ignoring the possibility that Yamhill (secret 64-bit instructions in Prescott, as a last resort) is actually a true rumor. Are you still so sure that A64 can kick the new Prescott P4's *ss, for the better part of 2003 and 2004? I wouldn't be. What do you guys think?

Maybe I'm downplaying AMD's moves here, but that's just how I see things.

 

[Black_Cat]

That is typical nVidia behavior lately as well.

I'd like to now coin a term.

<b>nvidiate</b>, v.
<b>1.</b> to stretch the truth or make a false claim
<b>2.</b> to make ones' self appear to be better than someone else even though one is not
<b>3.</b> to skew test results in one's favor

I think AMD likes to nvidiate when comparing their processors to Intel's.

Okay, brain. You don't like me, and I don't like you, but let's get through this thing and then I can continue killing you with beer. -- Homer Simpson.

 

[TheMASK]

AMD is cheating now?

not in the exact sense. but its kinda sad to see the latest PR numbers with their dropped performance. I am just a little upset that my fav processor is no longer the best.



<b><font color=red>The statement below is true.</font color=red></b>
<b><font color=blue> The statement above is false.</font color=blue></b>

 

[eden]

Oh my I agree.
But it still isn't cheating really, there is no play of data so that it actually screws something up instead of helping (like the image quality drop for more performance, in graphics cards). Actually I dunno what cheating is, in CPU world! (use of SSE2 when prohibited?)

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[eden]

Very nice new verb, methinks we should use it! (as a sig or promote it!)

However add one more which I initially meant:
<b>4.</b>Demean a current feature then later on appear all joyful promoting it.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[imgod2u]

Well, I would think "cheating" would be secretly using a patch that the consumers will never get their hands on (or most consumers won't get their hands on) that'll boost your performance but never mentioning it. If you went out of your way to point out that you were using a patch and even provided a link, that'd be fine I guess. Any modification of software without mentioning it would pretty much constitute "cheating" and I think both AMD and Intel in their "benchmarks" have done this in some way or another. I wonder if AMD used that patch to enable SSE on the Athlons in that Sysmark benchmark. There's no mention of it in that presentation. How many think they didn't?

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.