Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs Intel

Last response: in CPUs
January 31, 2001 6:48:56 AM

I'm amazed at how some people get all hot over this issue.
I don't give a ____ over who kicks whose ass. All I know is that competition keeps performance high and prices low. Intel used to be the champ but the day is won by amd and maybe someday intel can come to their senses and fight back.

More about : amd intel

January 31, 2001 7:19:01 AM

intel ain't doing sh!t. amd's got smarter engineers, sicentist, rd, mathematicians, and more support from independent investors.

If you can't beat 'em kill 'em
athlon "SLOTA" thunderbird 700@1050mhz
January 31, 2001 10:31:36 AM

I disagree. AMD isn't smarter, they are just more cautious. Intel has the funding and they arn't worried about wasting a little money on horrible products. It's like that windows comercial on TV now a days. Says how reliable microsoft windows is. ROFL. I lauged for 15 min when i saw that comercial. And even though MS is a power hungry company, they do set a lot of standards that help us. I say let intel keep messing up, and let MS keep releasing $hitty versions of windows. By the year 2003 we'll all be running AMD on linux at this rate, which is fine by me.

Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 1:41:40 PM

Truth of the matter, is that it took AMD 6 years to come up with a CPU that could match and better the aging P6 based CPUs. And as for Intel, its their own fault for sitting on their fat, lazy arses and allowing AMD to overtake them. Maybe Intel will learn from this. Intel should have released the P4 alot earlier.
January 31, 2001 1:53:43 PM

doesnt intel have a chip that only need 1v.

First person to get a topic banned. ABIT BP6 Lives FOREVER!!!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 1:57:23 PM

It's no small feat the AMD has been able to accomplish what they have. The Athlon was designed at a time when AMD was bleeding red ink. It's no small feat that AMD is competing and winning against a company many, many times it's own size. Also, look at the amount of patents AMD has been awarded the last two years. They've creamed Intel! Which company is working harder I ask?

I guarantee you that the Hammer processors will be even more successful than the Athlon and that is very, very scary!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 2:18:38 PM

"intel ain't doing sh!t. amd's got smarter engineers, sicentist, rd, mathematicians, and more support from independent investors."

1. amd is being outsold by intel
2. amd makes less money per sale than intel
3. intel has influence on the software market which means you can expect software to be coded for the p4 in turn making it blazing fast especially at higher clock speeds.
4. amd's future of the athlon is growing short and the faster they go the hotter they get.
5. celeron kills duron for low end systems market(celeron+i810=less then duron+mobo)
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 2:43:01 PM

They do but it only runs at 300mhz, that's not exactly fast is it.... although it does smart switch to 500 when on mains power....

I would just like to say I agree with the original post ... who gives a s**t who makes the better CPU.... just get the CPU best suited to you and your budget , and screw the big Companies cos you can put money on the fact that they would f**k you over at any time they could....


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 3:42:31 PM

I love AMD. I use a PIII. I hope AMD continues to gain market share. I hope somebody comes out with an AMD chipset that will kick the arse of any intel chipset, just to give me more choices. If I could put an Thunderbird on my CUSL2 I would be running AMD by now. I think Intel uses abusive pricing stratagies and has for some time failed to introduce good new technology. I only run them because of problems I have with VIA.

Suicide is painless...........
January 31, 2001 3:58:43 PM

This is for Amdsuxcock
just to let u know Duron is king in price perfomance Ratio!
I wouldn't trust a celeron in my system as far as I could throw it out he window!
Also As for P3 vs T-bird. I've used both systems I find I get more bang got my buck with a T-bird over a p3
any T-bird will out perform a P3 @ the same clock speed. I think u refuse to see the light, and been taken it from intel up the butt with there outrageous pricing. P3 only shines with SSE optimized appz. And the thermal diode to shut down cpu when hot. But if those are the only two reasons to buy a P3 I say [-peep-] THAT!
As for P4 I won't even touch that one, P3 beats it in most benchmarks, except for the memory benchmarking but that is all rambus, which u have to pay an arm and a leg for!
Also the next Athlon core will be running cooler than the T-bird!
As it is right now Athlon is more than a challenge for p3 and P4, and things will only get better as time goes on.
imagine a Amd Cpu with Rambus Ram it would destroy a P4!
January 31, 2001 4:02:39 PM

AMD is good. But so is Intel.
I can't see how anyone can claim that AMD's R&D is better than Intel's.
Look at how interesting the P4 architecture is and how much innovation has gone into it. Yes, it seems like a bad thing to make the pipeline that much longer. But when you consider how much better the P4 is at getting a good solution out of it the first time through, longer might actually be better.
The P4 is not only much better at handling the code running through it, but it is also much better at getting data to and from memory.
RIght now at it's lowest speeds and with it's castrated FPU (mostly the latter) it looks like a joke. But a year or even two from now when the P4 has matured into a good solid line, just imagine how useful those chips are going to be.

And the Itanium is using just as much innovation in it's design to set new standards for future Intel chips to use as well.

And meanwhile, what do we see that's innovative from AMD?


Didn't think so.

Think of how long it took them to finally design a chip that could even just out perform a matured P3. How much longer will it be before AMD can provide a chip that can out perform a matured P4? I certainly hope it won't be nearly as long!

The ONLY reason that AMD isn't the laughingstock of the market for speed right now is because of the P4's FPU. How long can AMD really expect that advantage to last?

If AMD's hammers don't show some innovation, AMD will quickly fall back into their old place as a cheap Pentium clone.

Prove me wrong.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 4:05:33 PM

slvr are you bored today or just practicing you essay writing skills?? :-)


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 31, 2001 4:18:05 PM

(They need a sad icon.)

I'm bored. :( 

I'm supposed to be developing software to control a piece of hardware.

Only the software engineers at this company are on the bottom of the totem pole (so to speak) and thus it's rare indeed that I actually have access to the hardware.

Without access to the hardware, I can't test my code.

And without being able to test my code, I don't know what (if anything) I need to fix in it.

So I'm really just bored and waiting for access to the hardware so that I can actually do my job.

And, I have to admit, aspects of my darker nature are enjoying all of this bickering between everyone over AMD and Intel and blah blah blah.

I know I should rise above and be better than all that and just not argue. But it's just too much fun to insite further arguments. :) 

Especially when I'm already annoyed that I can't test my software.

And, I'm learning. You know that AMD/Matrox AGP card problem? I've been having what would appear to be the same thing happen whenever I'm running Win2K and VC++ 6.0. And while I have the Millenium G400 AGP, my CPU is a P3 750 Slot1.

So I'm guessing that something about VC++ 6.0 in combination with Win2K and the G400 manages to corrupt that memory as well even on a P3 system. (Even after updating ALL of the drivers on my system.) Which lends me to believe it's actually a VIA problem, not an AMD problem.

I don't suppose anyone else has run into this problem?

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 4:26:51 PM

this may sound silly but are you running sp3 on your VS installation cos it makes the system more stable....oh and as a software man myself I know how you feel....


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 31, 2001 4:47:26 PM

Yeah, I have service patched my VC++, VB, and VF to death. And really VC++ can go weeks on me without having any problems whatsoever. Then when the alignment of the planets is just right, it crashes on me three or four times in one day. And once it starts crashing I can only fix it by actually unplugging the system and plugging it back in. (Darn power management won't even let me just turn the bugger off, and if I hit the reset button it'll crash again before Win2K has even had a chance to boot up.)

I've installed every driver imagineable as well as every SP that Microsoft has. And it still just goes psycho every full moon. The rest of the time it's peachy though. And I know it's not heat problems or voltage problems because I've monitored all of that as well as run every bit of the hardware through with a fine-toothed comb.

I've seen VC++ crash a lot of times for no good reason. In Win98/95 this only caused the program to crash and on rare occasion a blue screen. But in Win2K I think the 'stability' that MS has added causes the whole system to ignore that crash and let it screw up the memory badly. And that combined with the G400 causes a really funky-looking lockup. I wish I could do a screen capture ... but it's hard to do that when the system has locked up.

If I could go back to Win98 I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the company needs me running Win2K to assure software compatability. :( 

Oh well. Had the company listened to me in the first place my system would be a P3-733 on an i815 mobo instead of a P3-750 on a VIA mobo and none of my problems would exist. Heh heh. At least I'm 99.9% sure that they wouldn't.

But at least everything got a LOT more stable when I did the VIA 4-in-1 patch. :)  And this system is MUCH more stable than the Alpha 700 I used to be using ... even with the x86 emulation it still was crap.

And I do like Win2K's ability to handle the whole "Active Desktop" better than Win98. Because now I can have animated GIFs and Java applets as part of my desktop background without it occasionally freezing up in mid animation or every so often causing the taskbar to crash and reload without the icons on it anymore. Heh heh.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 31, 2001 5:04:01 PM

I guess you can't prove him wrong so I will, hehehe!

Amd left out the thermo diode, thereby increasing the overclockablity of said cpu and therefore made a fast cpu that will give you more "bang" for your bucks.

there. I have proved you wrong!
January 31, 2001 6:01:33 PM

I have to say, reasoning like that might only make sense to me if I'm drunk. He he he.

Personally I'd rather have a thermal cutoff in my CPU if I were overclocking so that if I pushed things a bit too far for my heat sink to handle, my chip won't become another keychain or paperweight.

But hey, that's just me. Maybe there are overclockers who enjoy keeping a collection of all of the chips that they've killed like a modern day version of the macabre scenes created by Prince Vladimere Dracul. (Or was that Prince Vladimere Tepes ... I can't remember now.)

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by slvr_phoenix on 02/01/01 02:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 7:19:10 PM

I personally think that the engineers at Intel went gung-ho on features for the Pentium 4 without enough thought to how much slower it would make other parts run. Then they went back and made compromises for performance in order to assure it would hold up to speed. The newer version of the P4 is supposed to be a much more advanced design-we will see. But the fact remains that the Athlon is more powerfull than the PIII, with the main issue being that it is mated to a poor quality chipset. So, if the Athlon would have worked on a GOOD chipset like the BX or 815E, I would have used it on this sytem. But because it did not, I built a PIII system. I have no affinity for Intel, but nobody but Intel seemed to be able to make a chipset of the quality I needed. VIA is not a choice for me.

Suicide is painless...........
January 31, 2001 7:36:38 PM

That's exactly the consensus that makes sense to me.

Though I think the feature happy P4 isn't slowed down by those features. I think if anything it's sped up. I think what slowed it down was hacking half of the FPU off of it instead of leaving it on and putting an additional two in to boot. :) 

I really can't believe that Intel castrated it's poor P4 just for die size reasons. I mean the chip and socket type are only short-lasting anyway, so who would really have cared if it had been bigger? And it's already so blasted expensive that what would an additional 5% to the system price really have hurt?

Obviously the problems at Intel stem from the managers, not from the engineers.

And if AMD dropped VIA and made their own chipsets and put thermal protection into their CPUs, I'd like them a WHOLE lot more.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 31, 2001 7:48:16 PM

Dont forget that Intel's engineers are over in like Bolivia and stuff so Intel only has to pay them like $1 an hour, what a bunch of [-peep-] greedy bastards.
January 31, 2001 8:21:10 PM

"Dont forget that Intel's engineers are over in like Bolivia and stuff so Intel only has to pay them like $1 an hour, what a bunch of [-peep-] greedy bastards."

I think this quote just about sums up how stupid you really are old griz.
January 31, 2001 8:37:45 PM

I think what you said proves how stupid YOU are. I got that info from a website you dumbass. You would think people are acting stupid if they recited the table of elements by heart.
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 9:14:57 PM

hey griz, that comment was ridiculous. It shows how biased and foolish you are. Please show me the link to the "$1 per hour" article. Thanks
February 1, 2001 6:51:43 AM

First of all your name is very offensive. (Freddy, is there any way to make him change it, my kids read this website.)

1. Of course Intel outsells AMD, Intel has more Fabs and has had better market saturation for many years before the Athlon came out. However, AMD's market share is growing in a slowing PC market.

2. So? From the tone of this point it sounds as if you are trying to say Intel is a better investment because they have a higher Average Selling Price (ASP). Well tell me this: How much is Intel stock these days and how much per share will it earn you each year? Now the same question for AMD. AMD stock is cheaper and more profitable to own.

3. When you are the only A-list developer of x-86 processors for many years this kind of thing happens (also why you pay more than twice the price for equivalently clocked processor from Intel). Also just when software will be coming out optimized for SSE2, AMD Hammer family will be coming out and it will have SSE2. This being a stated fact from AMD, clock for clock the Hammer will squash P4 in EVERY benchmark.

4. AMD will be releasing a new core that runs MUCH cooler, like the demonstrated 1.5Ghz Athlon air-cooled. Try that with Intel.

5. Duron will always out-perform Celeron and now that VIA and SIS have released integrated graphics chipsets for Duron/Athlon, Celeron is on it's way out as the Celeron 800, first Celeron with 100mhz bus, performs on par with a Duron 600 according to both Tom and Anand.

All that being said, I know you won't listen to a word I said as if you did you would probably feel stupid for paying way too much for your processor.

I hope Intel changes there ways soon, I want AMD to have some serious competition.

T-Bird 800Mhz
2X IBM 75GXP 30GB in RAID0 config
Geforce2 32MB
SB Live<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dsutcliffe on 02/01/01 03:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2001 9:53:26 AM

Griz of course intel are greedy, but all companies are , I would employ someone in my company for $1 per hour if I could get away with's bussiness and AMD would (or already do) do the same if they could...


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
February 1, 2001 5:25:06 PM

You have some very good points. But it shows how you seem to concentrate mostly on just AMD. So I'll give you some thoughts from the Intel side as well so that you don't have to worry about any lack of competition coming up.

Yes, the Hammer may be able to squash the current P4 designs on a clock for clock basis. But the current P4 isn't the end of the line for the P4. Don't you think that when Intel switches to .13micron etching they'll be able to fit that FPU back into the P4 specs (and more)? And to boot it'll run cooler as well AND have a great more potential than just a measily 1.5GHz.

While the P4 seems to be a dinky piece of arguable junk right now, anything based on the P4 in the future won't be. The P4 is only so crappy right now because of it's FPU.

AND, the P4 has a lot more room for growth than just by means of clock speed. Think about how little gain there is using DDR SDRAM in an Athlon or P3. Why is that? You would think that twice the bandwidth should mean twice the speed. But it's because the chips just weren't designed for high memory bandwidth and thus gain next to nothing from it.

But look at the P4. It's completely different. Intel did a VERY smart thing there by making it so bandwidth intensive. Look how drastic of a difference there is between a P4 running with PC600 RDRAM and a P4 running with PC800 RDRAM. And now imagine what the very same clock speed P4 will be like if you were to put memory with twice the bandwidth in. Or even more. Yes, not only is RDRAM ramping up their clock speed, but also their bus. That means it has a lot more potential for future speed improvements.

And that means that the P4 will get quite noticable speed improvements JUST FROM MEMORY BANDWIDTH ALONE. Nifty, eh? I wonder how long it'll take AMD to catch on to that kind of hardware development.

My only hope is that when Intel does design some SDRAM chipsets for the P4 that these chipsets work in the same way and will allow for much higher bandwidth SDRAM than what is currently available. If not, I can actually see a point in the future where RDRAM might actually serve a purpose. (Even if the RAMBUS company still is run by jerks.)

So yes, while AMD does have some good products now and does look to have at the least an interesting product with their Hammers, Intel is FAR from defeated.

In fact, the only reason that AMD gained so much on Intel is that Intel had assumed it was the only real PC CPU power in the computer market and it could take as long as it wanted to give us processor improvements AND bleed us dry in the process.

Then out of the shadows comes AMD with a massive blow using their Athlon core. And Intel had nothing to fight back with because they'd just been lazy about R&D.

But now that Intel KNOWS it isn't the only one trying to be King Of The Hill, they're kicking their R&D engineers into gear and coming out with some stuff that has great potential. Right now I'm more concerned that Intel will blow AMD away because all AMD thinks that they have to compete against is a P4 chip that's missing half of it's FPU to meet die size requirements. Once Intel fixes that, AMD will be in for a big surprise. Of that, I have no doubts. Especially because by that time RDRAM will be even faster, thus making P4 systems just that much better.

I just hope AMD can cope so that we can continue to see all of these nifty developments between the two companies.

So when you look at both sides of the coin, it really doesn't look like either company is going under any time soon. We'll have at the least another two years of battles.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
February 1, 2001 7:51:01 PM


5. celeron kills duron for low end systems market(celeron+i810=less then duron+mobo)

Are you [-peep-] stupid?? The Duron and a motherboard is half the price of a Celeron and is like 30% faster. Dumbass!!!!!!!!
February 1, 2001 7:57:49 PM

Yes well, if you look at the fact that an i810 motherboard was specified, I think it's pretty clear that the information amdsuxchickens is basing this on is pretty old. (Such as in the days before AMD motherboards had integrated graphics and sound.)

Obviously, someone (amdsuxchickens) doesn't even try to keep up with the times. He he he. I guess it's because he's too busy sucking things...

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
February 1, 2001 8:02:20 PM

February 1, 2001 10:01:35 PM

Well WTF the P6 core is 6 years old. You keep something alive in the pc industry your the best. lets see who long the athlon core lives.

First person to get a topic banned. ABIT BP6 Lives FOREVER!!!
February 1, 2001 10:25:20 PM

yeah i cna see what you mean but everybody knows that the problem the p4 has is the lack of a second fpu so you can't say that amd has no idea aboout,
yeah its going to be nice to see what the p4 can do once its's complet
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2001 1:13:15 AM

"celeron kills duron for low end systems market"

I think this is the most uninformed statement I have ever seen on this discussion forum.
February 2, 2001 2:51:39 AM

And meanwhile, what do we see that's innovative from AMD?


1) first to use the ev6 bus on a x86 processor
2) first to use double pumped fsb
3) advanced 3d now (designed to compete against sse)
4) first to use a level 2 cache at full clock speed (k6-3)

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
February 2, 2001 3:46:43 AM

"celeron kills duron for low end systems market(celeron+i810=less then duron+mobo)"

can you make a half-assed smart remark please?..
and change your stupid name moron... you hate amd so childishly, without any knowledgeble facts, you had to give yourself such a childish name. if you want to discuss your opinion, do it in a mature way like the others.

If you can't beat 'em kill 'em
athlon "SLOTA" thunderbird 700@1050mhz
February 2, 2001 4:22:04 AM

that's it dude? just four?

half belongs to Digital and the other half to Nextgen!

so much for innovations!
February 2, 2001 7:28:20 AM

>>4) first to use a level 2 cache at full clock speed (k6-3)
Actually Intel was the first. (Pentium Pro).

All i can offer you is the truth. Nothing more.
February 2, 2001 7:30:02 AM

I bet you didn't know that ,MeltDOWN!

All i can offer you is the truth. Nothing more.
February 2, 2001 1:15:47 PM

well excuse me! I stand corrected!
February 2, 2001 4:57:59 PM

"I'm amazed at how some people get all hot over this issue."

You may be amazed but you started this thread!

"AMD vs Intel", indeed. You got them ranting again!

February 2, 2001 9:06:03 PM

1) first to use the ev6 bus on a x86 processor
2) first to use double pumped fsb
3) advanced 3d now (designed to compete against sse)
4) first to use a level 2 cache at full clock speed (k6-3)
5) first to hit the 1GHz level
6) first to go past the 1GHz level for under $200

what else?

I hate intel