Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anand speaks of the HAMMERS POWER

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 5, 2003 4:46:48 PM

<<Gaming is one area where our tests show Opteron at 2.0GHZ an amazing performer. When you find game benchmarks 10% to 20% higher, you are genuinely impressed. However, in some of the very latest DX9 benchmarks, Athlon64/Opteron was 40% to 50% faster. This will get the attention of the gaming community, which seems to have a genuine affection for anything AMD already. It is the kind of trend-setting performance that Athlon64 needed to get the attention of an influential market segment.>>

can a resident INTEL FAN please flip this statement into a negative?
September 5, 2003 5:22:45 PM

Pope you're losing your mental stability once more. I give you a few weeks before you become raging for no reason.

--
<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 5, 2003 5:31:20 PM

Quote:
can a resident INTEL FAN please flip this statement into a negative?

OK... lets have a go:
Opteron is a <b>server</b> processor. So it must be really LAME if the only thing it's better at is <i>gaming</i>... sounds like clutching at straws....


---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
Related resources
September 5, 2003 6:03:53 PM

Quote:
OK... lets have a go:
Opteron is a server processor. So it must be really LAME if the only thing it's better at is gaming... sounds like clutching at straws....

Just to remind you a little something. The high-end Athlon 64 which will feature dual-channel memory controller and will be called Athlon FX (and will not carry a PR rating) is actually a 1xx Opteron. So that performance you see in any current reviews about Opteron, is the actual performance of the Athlon 64 FX, which will even work on the same chipset as the Opteron (Nforce3) and use the same memory. So again: Opteron = Athlon 64 FX (at least for now, until probably Q1 2004 when the new Athlon 64 FX will be able to take non-ECC memory).
September 5, 2003 11:54:38 PM

Just to remind you: the benchmark is comparing Athlon 64 FX (paper launch in Sept, extremely limited in quantity until Q1) and P4 3.0G (available in April).
September 6, 2003 2:38:04 AM

Um are you sure it's ECC?

As an Athlon 64, the last thing AMD should do with a new CPU launch is have ECC on a home PC!

--
<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 6, 2003 7:04:18 AM

Quote:
Just to remind you: the benchmark is comparing Athlon 64 FX (paper launch in Sept, extremely limited in quantity until Q1) and P4 3.0G (available in April).

You are actually wrong here. The Opteron that Anand used was running at 2GHz, while the Athlon FX-51 will run at 2.2GHz, according to all the info that exist on the web right now. So, just to sum up! The way I see it, there is no doubt that the Athlon FX-51 will beat Pentium 4 3.2c in the majority of bechmarks, especially in games (maybe not in SSE2 optimized apps like media encoding etc). I have no doubts about that. The real issue though is its price and how well Prescott will perform. I think nobody really knows the answer to this question so we'll just have to wait and see.
September 6, 2003 7:11:50 AM

Quote:
Um are you sure it's ECC?

As an Athlon 64, the last thing AMD should do with a new CPU launch is have ECC on a home PC!

You are well aware that things couldn't be more complicated with all the info laying around about Athlon 64s. So I could easily be wrong here. But as far as I know, Athlon 64 will need ECC memory, at least for working in dual-channel mode (that's for the 940-pin version which will be released on 23rd Sept). On the other hand, the 939-pin version which will be released in Q1 2004 will be able to take regular DDR400 memory.

So, on 23rd Sept we will get:
- Athlon 64 2900+ (754pin / 2.0GHz / single-channel memory controler / non-ECC memory)
- Athlon 64 FX-51 (940pin / 2.2GHz / dual-channel memory controller / ECC memory)

Having in mind how the Opteron @ 2GHz performed at Anandtech, I believe that the 2900+ PR the lower-end Athlon 64 will carry will be justified.
September 6, 2003 8:47:33 AM

I just want to say they are comparing a not-yet-released AMD with a 5 month old P4. Can't they use a 3.2G directly instead of letting people extropolate the result and guess who is the real winner?
Besides, I am pretty sure FX51 will face a 3.4G northwood, rather than a prescott.
September 6, 2003 3:40:17 PM

Damn, another AMD vs Intel thread...I'm just glad AMD will have a new high end product (whether it bests Intel or no, I dont really give a rats ass - as long as it's close and keeps intel on its toes). This sort of competition keeps prices down and the technology growing, which benefits ALL of us. AMD vs Intel - what difference does it REALLY make in your life???

my sig left me for an Honorary Guru...
September 6, 2003 6:38:47 PM

With the thermals the 3.2GHZ carries, a 3.4GHZ will likely cause too much trouble and won't be released anymore.

--
<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 6, 2003 8:18:09 PM

wanna a bet?
September 6, 2003 8:42:02 PM

Not really, though I have a big hunch on this one.

Intel, right now is at a bottom-of-the-barrel level, they WANT AMD to succeed this time!

--
<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 6, 2003 10:55:56 PM

Quote:
The way I see it, there is no doubt that the Athlon FX-51 will beat Pentium 4 3.2c in the majority of bechmarks, especially in games (maybe not in SSE2 optimized apps like media encoding etc).

I thought A64 had SSE2 extentions.
Get back to me on that.

Quote:
Intel, right now is at a bottom-of-the-barrel level, they WANT AMD to succeed this time!

An interesting theory Eden. I can see the headlines now:
<font color=orange>"Intel, first large corporation in the history of the human race to use anti-monopolistic practices in an attempt to lower their own market share."</font color=orange>
Or
<font color=orange>"Intel CEO's releases huge shares of the market to AMD in an attempt to get their long-time competitor labeled as a monopoly and consequently out of their hair."</font color=orange>

Or did you have a different theory in mind?
If so, please explain because I'm not seeing it.
No insult intended, I just can't see where you're going with this one.


Pain is the realization of your own weakness.
September 6, 2003 11:09:04 PM

Quote:
An interesting theory Eden. I can see the headlines now:
<font color=orange>"Intel, first large corporation in the history of the human race to use anti-monopolistic practices in an attempt to lower their own market share."</font color=orange>
Or
<font color=orange>"Intel CEO's releases huge shares of the market to AMD in an attempt to get their long-time competitor labeled as a monopoly and consequently out of their hair."</font color=orange>

MUHAHAHAHHAHAHAH! :lol: 


My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 7, 2003 7:46:01 AM

Quote:
I thought A64 had SSE2 extentions.
Get back to me on that.

It has, but it seems from all the reviews of the Opteron (which has the same SSE2 extentions as the A64 will carry), that they do not perform as good as Intel's in SSE2 optimized apps.
September 7, 2003 8:58:09 PM

According to imgod2u, who has a point:
Since SSE2 is streaming all the time, that means you have a constant working pipeline. If A64 and P4s use one FP pipe for SSE2, then really, in the end, clock speed is the determining factor. That would explain why AMD needs a damn 2.6GHZ to start catching up in tasks that require pure clock speed as an end-result.

--
<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 7, 2003 8:59:44 PM

It's pretty simple, Intel is near monopolistic now, they are only dominating. If AMD goes, it's court time for them. They cannot afford to lose their number 1 competitor. That is why they are at a time where they simply will WANT and HOPE AMD can beat them this time, so they can continue competing, releasing better CPUs and keep the court off their backs.

--
<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 7, 2003 11:07:14 PM

I dont know where you get this near monopolistic crap.. Not everyone (not most people for that matter) has the top of the line CPU out.. which is the only thign intel really wins at..

AMD vs INTel is nowhere near Microsoft vs (who???) :) 
September 7, 2003 11:26:29 PM

Microsoft vs OS 10, Redhat, Unix, Sun, Sues, and etc. Eden is correct on his point. You really think that ms would make so many os and fixes if they where all by themself. They would not care, everyone would have 98 or me edtions still. Since ms is fighting to keep its share of the market above the other companies they make changes and do a lot of research in their software.

If you look now a days, you have a lot of people who are changing OS. People are learning more about linx, also you have Macs coming and trying to take more of the market.

<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 7, 2003 11:49:52 PM

The who thing is a joke because 99% (and i dont know the exact number, but if you disagree at least show from proof of somethign otherwise) of all computers use some form of windows, some peopel cant even name a competitor. Intel has nowhere near the dominance on the CPU market that microsoft has on the OS market.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by stealthbig on 09/07/03 08:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 8, 2003 1:48:52 AM

The reason why I say that, again, is because if Intel tramples AMD, you have about 10% or less remaining of the CPU market. Intel could squash those easily. Intel vs Apple, not much to say man, Apple depends on Intel while Intel has its own 13 fabs all to itself!

The x86 market is LARGELY comprised of AMD and Intel. AMD goes, you only have Intel available anywhere. That asks for monopoly anyday. If they wanted to then destroy VIA, it'd be pretty easy no? Intel already has a weapon, that's pretty old, the Ultra-Low Voltage Celery. Stronger than the C3, lower power consumption. They release it everywhere, VIA's CPU division goes down.

So what do you have to say now?
Quote:
Not everyone (not most people for that matter) has the top of the line CPU out.. which is the only thign intel really wins at..

No offense but that was really pulled outta your backdoor was it?

--
<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 8, 2003 2:49:59 AM

Sorry, but if you want a nice budget and well performing PC, it's gonna be an AMD.

And Eden, you can't honestly believe Intel wants AMD to beat them out, and get a bigger portion of the market. AMD isn't going bankrupt anytime in the near future, and im sure the intel guys aren't wondering how they can give AMD the lead in the CPU market.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by stealthbig on 09/07/03 10:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 8, 2003 3:03:16 AM

Why do you think AMD goes out of CPU business = Intel's court time? Monopoly itself is not illegal. Nobody can sue Intel being the only player just because AMD screws themselves.
September 8, 2003 3:05:25 AM

The only way AMD gets out. Is when IBM buys them out.
September 8, 2003 3:49:35 PM

I am not saying this is a literal situation. I am saying they are TRYING to reduce competition. Do you know that Intel can at anytime rush new products and squash AMD?

Let's face it, at the moment, the highest and strongest CPU they can have is a 2.4GHZ A64 and that is pushing it. Intel can rush their 0.09m, albeit hot, and get the Prescott out. Now I don't think anyone can disagree that Intel CAN at anytime rush out a lot of products and beat AMD. That is what they did in the past year. In the past year the P4 got over 50% more clock speed, AND got a good 20% IPC boost that doesn't come so infrequently btw. The rush from the 2GHZ Wilamette to the 1.6A-3.2GHZ NW C was fast and strong.
The only thing Intel is doing now is SLOWING DOWN. The last CPU before the 3.2GHZ was a 3GHZ, and the one before it, the 3.06GHZ, came out in NOVEMBER LAST YEAR, while the 3.2GHZ came out not so far away from the 3GHZ. Surely you noticed they slowed down?
They had nothing to do lately in fact, until Sept. 23rd. The P4Cs simply arse-screw the AthlonXPs, there is NO competition. Why should Intel continue releasing?

As it is, they ARE slowing down for AMD. If they do too much, their revenues go down on each processor that COULD'VE yeilded more revenue with an extended period of market availability, if they do too much with price drops, they also finish AMD off with even more value. Then AMD has little to offer, Intel dominates. I don't want that to happen.
And therefore they HAVE to slow down and keep a steady pace.

Quote:
Sorry, but if you want a nice budget and well performing PC, it's gonna be an AMD.

That applies to LOW-END. Mid-end now is owned by Intel. A P4 2.4C at 160$ which can outperform even the 3200+ which costs more than twice, and has more value with HT, is a HUGE VALUE over whatever AMD is offering in the mid-to-high-end.
So you don't entirely have a point here.

--
<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 8, 2003 3:51:35 PM

Quote:
Intel being the only player just because AMD screws themselves.

Intel is doing that right now: slowing down and keeping the courts out just because AMD screws themselves.

And yes if they went too far they WOULD have court cases. A monopoly causes too much problems. Think back to the P2 days and the CPU Prices. No one here wants to ever return to that era and since we have become to sensible to CPU prices, we would definitely boycott 1000$ CPU prices. Intel at the moment seems smart and realizes that, so they don't overdo prices. At best, they'll let the inflation rate do the job.

--
<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 9, 2003 2:08:42 AM

Wow some nice logic coming from eden this time.

As far as maximum profitability, without removing the competition which would be disasterous.. Intel is at the peak of its game. I'd have to agree.

Of course a $1K CPU sounds like GREAT profit. But that might last about 6months before they end up in court.

Your theory sounds right. But we really don't know.

If AMD IS holding up as well as they appear (not financially of course), it would be quite the feat and thus far wouldve been a huge accomplishment for AMD.

I lean towards that direction as I don't know if large corporations play such games with companies who at the slightest sign of weakness will attempt to destroy the competition.
Like that other guy said.

Look at ATI, large "VPU" maker who was around long before NV.. probably would highly regret any "playing" they did with NV. Just an example

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 2:17:03 AM

Quote:
I lean towards that direction as I don't know if large corporations play such games with companies who at the slightest sign of weakness will attempt to destroy the competition.
Like that other guy said.

Look at ATI, large "VPU" maker who was around long before NV.. probably would highly regret any "playing" they did with NV. Just an example

I am a bit confused as to what you are trying to say. Could you restate that please?

--
<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 9, 2003 3:29:08 AM

Well, eden.
Like that other guy said, I doubt that intel would purposely do such a thing.. a great example are those headlines he posted.

The rise of Nvidia was in the presense of many old, respectable chipset makers. Though none had the advantage Intel does.
If they wouldve, it would be much to their dismay to let NV or another successful company climb to the top.
The tech business isnt one that you generally play like that.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 3:36:41 AM

Still, I don't see many reasons why Intel slowed down releasing CPUs, other than because they got nothing to get ahead of.

I would believe the physical limit issue, but I think that wouldn't explain the long period before the 3GHZ was out.

--
<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 9, 2003 4:00:49 AM

It costs money to put things out. Like you said, no need to pull out the stops when theres no competition.
Whilst AMD partnered with NV to do whatever it took to gain more performance (400FSB) and of course, the venerable NF2.
Acts of competition, but not enough to take the crown.

The yields were probably not only low on 3ghz parts.
You raise an interesting question though.


I am waiting and hoping the day comes when IBM buys out AMD. Then we'll see some REAL competition to Intel.
It already appears as if its a IBM/Nvidia/AMD faction versus Intel/ATI.

Then it would be more even, IBM/NV vs. Intel/ATI... a better matchup for the consumer.
But probably not desirable for Intel.

Then a 3rd party would make life even better!
Maybe VIA/S3.. haha... VIA, I <b>HATE</b> that companys products. Though coming from a AMD user, of course.

Speaking of the VIA/S3 conglomeration, I havent heard much of new S3 chipsets...

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 9:06:01 AM

The only problem with the IBM buying AMD out thing.....is that IBM is NOT in a position to buy AMD out right now, nor will be within the next 5 years.

How do I know this? I own shares of IBM, and I keep track of IBM.

Here's some numbers...

<A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AMD" target="_new"> AMD's Balance Sheet </A>

<A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=IBM" target="_new"> IBM's Balance Sheet </A>

As you will see, it would take massive amounts of money to purchase AMD. This would jeopardize IBM's whole operations, and would extremely decrease IBM's liquidable assets, almost to the point that IBM could end up getting hurt BAD in the world economy if the economy took yet another downturn.

Can IBM afford this, even though they are posting 1 Billion dollar profits? No, they won't risk it. Will they partake in joint AMD-IBM ventures? Yes, and they already are doing a few, which, like a symbiotic relationship, help both companies without hurting either one.

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
September 9, 2003 4:48:39 PM

Quote:
As you will see, it would take massive amounts of money to purchase AMD. This would jeopardize IBM's whole operations, and would extremely decrease IBM's liquidable assets, almost to the point that IBM could end up getting hurt BAD in the world economy if the economy took yet another downturn.

No no no no no.

IBM would not buy out AMD the company.

IBM would buy out AMD's x86 processor intellectual properties. (And maybe their FAB space and engineers.)

Every other department of AMD does just fine. It's only their processor division that's screwing them up. And IBM would have no real use for any other part of AMD anyway. So it'd make far more sense for AMD to just give up the processor business before it drags them down too far than to run themselves into the ground and never do any business ever again.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 9, 2003 5:03:35 PM

And as for Intel purposefully restraining themselves so that AMD has enough time to do things right, and Intel <i>wanting</i> AMD to gain more market share, Eden is spot on.

If Intel gains much more of the x86 processor market then government anti-monopoly regulations would be thrown at them and likely so would many lawsuits. In the long run it would actually cost Intel more money to crush AMD than it would to let AMD gain a little more market share.

Intel slowing down allows them to slow down speed ramps without changing prices much so that they make a lot more money per sale than they would in a highly-competetive market. Furhter, it allows Intel to cut back on R&D costs and again, to make more money per chip which improves their margins. And better margins make their stock portfolio look better, which earns them more money. And of course there is, as I said, the avoidance of being hit by anti-monopoly jurisdiction by the government and anti-competetive lawsuits that would only cost them money.

So in other words from a financial standpoint Intel has every reason to <i>not</i> compete and in fact to even give AMD as much time as they possibly can so that AMD <i>can</i> gain more market share. It might seem crazy, but it's true.

And as Eden pointed out the only reason that VIA even has a processor division still is because Intel want's them to gain market share too. The Ultra-Low Voltage Mobile Celeron just totally kicks the pants off of VIA's 'low power' CPUs in performance, heat output, and low power usage. I suspect that a PentiumM has the potential to rock that world even further being a hybrid between the P3 and the P4 with some sweet little mobile power-saving tricks. If Intel wanted to, they could <i>easily</i> compete against VIA's dinky little CPUs and totally crush them. The simple fact is that they have absolutely nothing to gain and raise their risks of loss considerably if they were to do so.

So truly, Intel has become uncompetetive (not anti-competetive) because with as much market share as Intel has, it just makes good business sense to stop trying to crush the competition. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by fiercely competing.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 9, 2003 5:42:18 PM

Thats interesting. I'd never checked up on IBM before.
Maybe if AMD goes broke they can buy them out. I'd just like to see some large corporation like IBM firing AMDs cannons at intel.

I do a little dabbling in the stock market, nothing serious. Just a little Ameritrade account, I've bought and sold enough in the last 4 years that I've turned $2000 into $4000 though.
Postin' a profit! :smile:

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 10, 2003 2:43:50 AM

Just so I don't sound like the smart businessman, I admit I got both of the things you agree with, from you. So you owe yourself your own credit. :wink:

But yeah, you did raise the right points and I made sure I learned from that.

Actually wait, <b>I</b> came up with the VIA Intel argument, OMG. Heheh. :cool:

--
<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>
!