Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

it is me or..

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 2, 2003 7:33:02 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11339" target="_new">That thing</A> better be darn fast cause some thing is about to whoop can from both corners (intel/AMD). It's also for those who think AMDZONE is fanboy site concerning some opteron 246 bench's earlier.

---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pirox on 09/02/03 03:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : question

September 2, 2003 8:11:28 PM

Usual Inquirer BS, where are the links to those bechmarks?

Typical Inquirer, choking statements, but no proof, no screenshots, just the BS...



-------------
Pax vobiscum!
September 2, 2003 8:22:03 PM

Quote:
Usual Inquirer BS, where are the links to those bechmarks?

Typical Inquirer, choking statements, but no proof, no screenshots, just the BS...

Honestly, I am getting a LOT of tired about this thing many of you have with the Inquirer. Whatever you see that you don't like you start saying "it's the Inquirer, it's all bullshit ...". You said the same thing when they reported that Prescott had heat issues, everything turned out to be true. You said the same thing when they reported current motherboard incompatibility with Prescott, everything turned out to be true. I am not saying that 100% of what they say is true and always accurate but what's your problem if the A64 does perform like they say in that article? Do you own Intel stocks or something? Anyway, we already knew about Athlon 64 FX's performance from AMDZone. Of course a review from AMDZone or some rumours from the Inquirer can't be taken as a 1000000% fact but I am sure that the A64 will perform very good, at least it won't be a big flop as many have wished in the past here.

Also, I will act as a prophet and guess that many will come here saying, "yeah it beats the 3.2c but wait until Prescott comes and then you will see". Even if you are right this is irrelevant to this topic. The article says clearly "AMD's Athlon FX beats Intel's Pentium 4 3.2 GHz in almost every way". And I believe this will be the case. What would be the point if AMD released a CPU to compete with the next generation P4s, if it won't beat the current P4s?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 2, 2003 10:40:41 PM

yeah but usually when they reference benchmarks u can click to goto the article that actually posts them.
September 2, 2003 11:10:03 PM

I have problem with that review. Those seem to be what the amdzone got when the compared the a64 to the p4 3.0, not the 3.2. I don't believe this review at all. Like someone else said where are the links for this info.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 2, 2003 11:12:56 PM

The other thing that I found missing is the speed at which the fx is rated at. They did not say if it is running at 2.0ghz or not. I would wait until they come out to see what they really can do.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 3, 2003 12:18:53 AM

Read the article!! On second thought you only believe what intel and sysmark tell you to. Dont sweat it, Intel is great All others are sh1t. Have a nice day.
September 3, 2003 5:29:25 AM

they said they were close to a chip but couldnt play it, i assume they watched as it was benched and recorded the rusults, so there was no link to point to. thats what i got from it anyway. if its true, its a pretty decent come back for amd. just hope they can produce the chips and not just release them on paper.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
September 3, 2003 2:36:58 PM

> I am not saying that 100% of what they say is true
> and always accurate

That is the exact problem! If you can't trust a news source then you can't trust it. They may tell the truth 90% of the time but you have to wait for colaborating evidence before you can determine if this is an item related to the 90% that is right or just another of the 10% that isn't. Yes, the inquirer breaks some stories well before other sites... mainly because they don't practice responsible journalism and verify the information they receive adaquetely. For that very reason, don't expect anything you post from that site to be taken seriously unless there are other sites reporting the same thing or benchmarks to back up what they are saying.

Edit: As far as AMDZone goes, I'm not real familar with that site but I'm very sure by the name that they are quite unbiased and non partisan right? I'd trust a site with that kinda name to do an accurate benchie about as far as I'd trust a site with an name like IntelRocks.

Shadus
September 3, 2003 11:14:20 PM

I don't even want to get into a debate about this. It's useless! Whenever most of you here see something good about AMD, you have something bad to say. As I have already said, I am tired of this. It's not like I will bet my life that A64 will kick ass but I can't understand the obsession some have, to see AMD fail.
September 4, 2003 4:53:31 AM

Its funny how Intel chips used to have ,"AMD" stamped on them back in the day. And thus made intel what it is today. No one can deny that AMD are serious CPU specialists, whos getting more performance per mhz.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 4, 2003 1:49:51 PM

Quote:
Its funny how Intel chips used to have ,"AMD" stamped on them back in the day. And thus made intel what it is today.

I don't know about your world, but in <i>my</i> world whenever a company 'lets someone go', there's a pretty good reason for it. In <i>my</i> world there's a reason Intel's chips don't have "AMD" stamped on them anymore.

Quote:
No one can deny that AMD are serious CPU specialists, whos getting more performance per mhz.

Just as no one can deny that AMD's CPUs are running at seriously lower MHz than Intel's. In the end all that matters is the performance, not how you got the performance. And not counting the unreleased A64s and Prescotts, it's obvious who has the x86 performance crown.

rramjet, get a grip on reality. AMD isn't some Greek God of Processors. AMD certainly is not perfect as far as companies go and AXPs are certainly not top-notch performers as far as CPUs go. That aside, they're still great CPUs and AMD is a company with serious technical skill. AMD is only slightly below Intel in the x86 ranks, which is certainly a lofty position for any company to hold. No more, no less.

<font color=blue>If you look <font color=purple>The Devil</font color=purple><font color=red>®</font color=red> straight in the eye and only see yourself then you must be standing in front of a mirror.</font color=blue>
September 4, 2003 2:41:52 PM

I honestly don't care, I use both chips right now. This isn't about amd or intel... just becuase you are an obsessed fanboy for amd doesn't mean I'm an obsessed fanboy for intel because I disagree with you. I'm strictly commenting on the reliability of the news sources you were using. Like I said, I'd as soon trust something directly from the mouth of a site like "intelrocks" as I would "amdzone".

The register is sometimes reliable, but they don't verify their sources... end of story, it's not about amd, it's not about intel.

Shadus
September 4, 2003 3:34:54 PM

1. I din't use any news source. This is not my topic.
2. I am an "obsessed fanboy for AMD"? Oh noooo, now you 've hurt my feelings :(  Give me a quote of what I said that made you jumped to that conclusion.

Anyway, I don't want to continue a discussion with a guy of your low-level, so whatever you write back I won't even bother replying. Reviews of Opteron can be found nowadays all over the web, not only at AMDZone and if you have a little common sense you can guess what the performance would be of the higher-end, 2.2GHz dual channel memory A64. Besides, the 23rd September is not that far away.
September 4, 2003 4:01:37 PM

Quote:
Its funny how Intel chips used to have ,"AMD" stamped on them back in the day. And thus made intel what it is today. No one can deny that AMD are serious CPU specialists, whos getting more performance per mhz.

If they're so damned f*cking good, how come that *right now* they're the underdog and their CPUs are seriously overpowered by P4Cs? (I'm talking right now, because noone has a clue as to what exactly will happen after october...) You have to have a more balanced perception of things...

Like slvr_phoenix... AMD is not that good; nor that bad, for that matter...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 4, 2003 4:09:40 PM

Quote:
I don't know about your world, but in my world whenever a company 'lets someone go', there's a pretty good reason for it. In my world there's a reason Intel's chips don't have "AMD" stamped on them anymore.


From what I read on Jerry Sanders, it was simply because he wanted to make his own projects, so he got away from Intel. I could be wrong.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 4, 2003 6:38:19 PM

1) I full realize that, but you were the one freaking out over why no one believes most of the things that came from the inquirer, and I quote:

> Honestly, I am getting a LOT of tired about this thing
> many of you have with the Inquirer. Whatever you see
> that you don't like you start saying "it's the Inquirer,
> it's all bullshit ...

I think I adaquetely explained why this occurs...

2) This is glaring example of being a fanboy...

> Whenever most of you here see something good
> about AMD, you have something bad to say. As
> I have already said, I am tired of this. It's
> not like I will bet my life that A64 will kick
> ass but I can't understand the obsession some
> have, to see AMD fail.

When you start attributing any naysaying about an item regardless of the source or reason behind it to intangible reasons such as "wanting to see amd fail" you are functioning as a fanboy or troll or both. Functionally is there a difference worth making a note of? No.

To continue along, as to not wanting to continue a discussion with a guy of "your low-level" (whatever that is) is prefectly fine, because I frankly don't expect you to come up with any intelligent form of response and without that there is no reason to debate with a fanboy.

As far as the performance of the opteron/a64... neither of my posts were even related to them... they were related to journalistic integrity and the reliability of a given source, a point you seem to be attempting to skirt around to make this something it's not (yet another great trait of the fanboy, inability to have a meaningful conversation about anything but what they are obsessed with.)

Have a nice day bumpkin!
*lick*

Shadus
September 4, 2003 8:48:08 PM

rramjet...the first cpu that Amd ever developed was the k5...intel or ibm designed every cpu that amd manufactured before then...it is much easier to use another companies technology then it is to fend for yourself...

the reason why AMD was stamped on some intel cpus was because amd was <b>contracted</b> by intel to produce <b>intel designed</b> cpus...using intel's tech...this is why after the 386 (when intel said they would stop sharring cpu designs with amd) amd just kept overclocking the 386...i beleive they got more than or right around 100mhz out of it...although they did coin them 486's...however they used the 386 archetecture


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
Related resources
!